Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as that process is expressly not designed for discussing changes to guidelines. This move allows for comments already made and any emerging consensus to be preserved as part of an active discussion.
Discussion of spoiler guideline: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler
Spoiler guideline: Wikipedia:Spoiler

Archived MfD and TfD discussions[edit]

These preceded taking the issue here and have been moved their their own subpages for archival purposes and to reduce the load time for those participating in the active discussion (they are also listed in the archive box above):

MfD for Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning
TfD for Template:Spoiler

Straw polls[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think that it is time for a couple of straw polls to see at least where we are in the consensus building process. I'm only going to poll for three issues that I think we can easily come to a consensus on. --Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Poll 1[edit]

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about historical and classical works of fiction?

Use spoiler tags
  1. Yes, in fact put spoilers in another page inentirely with a Big Warning link to reduce crying
    1. Nice one, troll.Kargath64 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, if (i) said work relies for its impact on a surprise (ii) the surprise is not common knowledge (iii) work is still read for pleasure by a significant number of people (example: Sherlock Holmes mysteries). PaddyLeahy 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, if needed. One man's classic in another man's new discovery. Most shakespeare plays remain undiscovered by 97% of Americans. Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes per above, let's not be ethnocentric. It is an international encyclopedia after all. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, imposing a time limit on spoiler tags doesn't make any sense. — The Storm Surfer 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While the intent here is fine, the definition is excessively vague. Is classical Homer? Heliodorus? George Eliot? Edith Wharton? James Branch Cabell? J.R.R.Tolkien? Robert A. Heinlein? I think the intent is the first three but not the last three, but who can tell? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes per arguments above, and per comments by User:Kizor on my talk page. G1ggy! 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes. That definition is entirely too vague, and from what Smartptr and Brisv say, there's no reason to assume that the majority or even a significant part of our readership is aware of the plots of such works. (Incidentally, said comments were not an argument, just a simple correction of a misunderstood term.) --Kizor 00:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes per PaddyLeahy. I also agree with Brisv's argument because it might be common knowledge in the United States that Professor Plum did it in the billiard room with the revolver, it might not be as common for people in other parts of the world to know that. Q0 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, but. I think it should be a judgement call on each article or class of works. What we are talking about is a courtesy to readers.--agr 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, spoiler tags are one of the many things that make Wikipedia better than a printed encyclopedia Possecomitatus 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Quadzilla99 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes. Why the heck not? Abeg92contribs 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, in principle - let editors decide on a case-by-case basis.—greenrd 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, but don't forget the Bible.--Steven X 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes. Can you explain when something IS or ISN'T a classic work of fiction? Opinions are going to vary greatly on the definition of a "classic," so it's safer to err on the side of caution. Not everyone knows how something like "The Caine Mutiny" ends, even if it's a common piece of school cirriculum. --Bishop2 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes. Just because someone looks something up in an encyclopedia doesn't mean they want to know EVERYTHING about it. of course, this is really only important when it comes to spoilers. Also, a line cannot easily be drawn between classics and the common. Finally, not regarding the most famous fiction as fiction is discriminatory against readers less experienced in literature etc. Arguments concerning "insulting readers" are trivial in comparison. Urukagina 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes, but. I think it should be a judgement call. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes, as long as they are used for current works of fiction in the same way. Let's not make assumptions about which works readers will/won't be familiar with, please. Of course, I'm not counting myths and religious texts, but that's because they are presented as history, not fiction, not because I'm assuming that readers will already have read them. RobbieG 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "of course" exception for religious texts violates WP:NPOV. Kusma (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but Xenu is fiction no matter how many people claim it to be a religious text. There are definitely more reasons to put a spoiler tag on Xenu (you're not supposed to know what it's about, after all) than on Romeo and Juliet (where the author gives the ending away in the first couple pages). Kusma (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes I think it helps people, and what does it take to skip one template to continue reading. BeckyAnne(talk) 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes Marcus Taylor 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes if plot and/or ending details follow. I'm glad I never saw spoilers for Bleak House for instance. Jheald 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes - • The Giant Puffin • 10:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes. Spoiler warning shouldn't depend on genre. Samohyl Jan 13:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes, sometimes I come to wikipedia to see if a premise of a book is worth reading. If there is a spoiler about something, wikipedia serves contrary to the purpose. However, the tags shouldn't be used in self sections which would obviously contain spoilers. --Rayc 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes, as I don't see how they would be any different from modern works. If they have a complex plot, spoiler warnings will be needed to warn readers. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes, spoiler tags should be used on all works of ficiton.--Iamcon 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes. Do not discriminate people on the basis of what they have read or not. --Akral 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes. The idea of removing it from such works would make the tacit asumption that such works would be known by everybody and/or of no interest, as a work of fiction in itself, by current people. Perón 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Yes. I don't see how adding spoilers could do any harm to anyone. I can see how not having them, could annoy a lot of people.--Richy 12:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Yes. Being pragmatic here, it increases the enjoyment for some and decreases the knowledge of none. Wasted Time R 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Vote removed as I misread the question --ascorbic 13:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Yes. They don't do harm, and relying on suprise for story enjoyment is not a recent innovation.Kargath64 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes. They are extremely helpful and help the reader know that he or she might not want to read what follows or what is in between the templates. For example, I did not read the sections from the 6th Harry Potter article because thanks to the warnings, I knew I did not want to spoil the story. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know of anyone who has termed any Harry Potter book as a "classic" just yet. So your reasoning on this line is faulty. --Farix (Talk) 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon breaking the news to you, but by Google test { "harry potter" classic } yields 2,810,000 hits. From the WP article: "The six books published to date have collectively sold more than 325 million copies and have been translated into more than 63 languages." Since one can't argue with success, you should at least do Zouavman Le Zouave the courtesy of a strikeout of your second line. Milo 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yes per above. --Ixfd64 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Yes per Smatprt: "One man's classic is another man's new discovery." Per me: Compromise harmlessly: Let local article consensus decide what unknown Plato needs tagging and what known Shakespeare doesn't — and — let the spoiler tags be technically turned off for those who don't want to see them. Milo 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Yes per various reasons above, especially Smatprt and the questions about what constitutes a classic. I also agree with Kevinalewis and others that it should, ultimately, be a judgement call. -Elizabennet | talk 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use spoiler tags
  1. Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Spoilers should be limited to the synopsis section anyway, and it is obvious that that section will reveal the plot. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlong 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Embarrassing and unprofessional. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't really go for the "unprofessional" line of thinking; I just find them redundant, too difficult to adequately use with hard and fast rules because we need a bit of violation of OR and NPOV to use them, and I find it compelling that hardly any other encyclopaedia (online or offline) uses them - indicating that encyclopaedia readers generally do know enough when to avoid reading an article which may have spoilers. Johnleemk | Talk 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. Spoiler tags are an embarrassment to the encyclopedia under any circumstances. Informing about the content of works is what we do. Sandstein 07:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No, the placement of a spoiler tag on Iliad would be ridiculous. Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely not, this is ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 14:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Definitely not. The structured division of the article should be more than enough to indicate where potentially "spoiler"-ific material is located. Coverage of historical works is one aspect where we can approach the quality of a printed encyclopedia, and placing spoiler tags is counter to that idea. We're not in the business of babysitting our readership. --Darkbane talk 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Redundant tag --Breno talk 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not necessary. Jussen 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. It makes no sense for an encyclopedia to forewarn someone that they might find out something they didn't already know. ++ Arx Fortis 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No. People read history articles to know about what happened, not to be shied away be a "spoiler". G1ggy! 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to yes per comments from User:Kizor on my talk page.[reply]
  20. Hooray, Straw polls! Great when you want to ignore everything anyone's said and focus on sheer numbers! --PresN 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Absolutely not. Whatever may be said about contemporary works, this one is a no brainer. Are we an encyclopedia, or are we pulp? Unschool 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No. This is a no-brainer. These works are discussed in traditional encyclopedias, in books and novels, in popular culture... There is simply no justification for putting spoiler tags on them. --Aquillion 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically, anything that could potentially be a spoiler - be it in the plot section or a character list section, should not be marked a spoiler based on the assumption that the reader will be reading said section knowing that it contains spoillers. The plot section you may have a point about, but nothing you've said can show that a character list willl obviously have spoilers in it, and you cannot show that the readers will know which lists do have them and which do not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. A spoiler only prevents a user from reading the article, which is against our goal of a true encyclopedia. We're not a box full of surprises. Sr13 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having people go into a character list not expecting spoilers and running into spoilers is exactly what a box full of surprises is. A spoiler PREVENTS people from gaining unwanted information. So if Wikipedia is not a box full of surprises, then you agree that spoilers should remain, as they assist it in not being a box full of surprises. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point? Again, the tags aren't encyclopedic at all. Usually, the reader would want be presumably "spoiled" anyway if they look up an article on a movie or book. Sr13 06:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Absolutely not. In the standard disclaimer, we warn people that articles may contain spoilers. In most articles about fiction, we use the title "Plot summary", indicating that the section to follow is, amazingly enough, a summary of the plot. Those things are encyclopedic enough, "spoiler warnings" are for film-review sites and the like, not a general purpose encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this remotely relevant? Am I to understand that a character list is obviously going to have spoilers? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No. Completely silly IMO - the purpose of spoilers I feel is more to protect future works than to protect ones that are well known. If someone is reading an article about a Shakespeare work and hasn't yet read the work, they're probably here to be "spoiled" anyway. Orderinchaos 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-23t20:23z
  31. No. Not encyclopedic. - Rjm656s 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Absolutely not. — Deckiller 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No, slightly ridiculous. Axem Titanium 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No. They are profoundly unencyclopedic and frankly embarrassing to the project. Articles should not require a warning that INFORMATION IS CONTAINED WITHIN. Ford MF 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No. Spoilers are unnecessary in an encyclopedia, and too many tags for no good reason make pages unattractive and unprofessional online. -- Newbyguesses 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it really doesn't. They are presented as historical texts. That's how they were always intended to be read - as non-fiction. There are plenty of non-fiction books that are innaccurate or contain mistakes, but that doesn't mean they are "works of fiction". In the same way, even if you don't believe in a religion, you shouldn't classify their texts as "fiction". "Wrong", maybe, but not "fiction". To treat them as fiction not only violates WP:NPOV, but is also, therefore, innaccurate. RobbieG 13:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Not at all. Childish. Marskell 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Don't use spoiler tags. Wikipedia is not censored. There's no reason spoiler templates should not fall under Wikipedia's policy on no disclaimers. ~ UBeR 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No spolier warnings They look childish and are typically redundat, appearing under a section heading like == Plot ==. This is the case with current featured article. —Gaff ταλκ 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No they insult the reader.--345Kai 23:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No, because of what everyone else said. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No, I am reading an encyclopedia. I am coming here for knowledge. --DizFreak talk Contributions 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No. I can only think of one time when I ruined something plot-wise (Myst IV actually, still haven't beaten it), and that was entirely my fault. Spoiler warnings are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and needlessly complicate article building. --Edwin Herdman 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No. Per ... Just NO. Anchoress 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No As encyclopedia entries, wikipedia articles present information, in this case plot summaries and literary analysis. Users know and recognize this; there is no reason to insult them with a "spoiler warning" tag. Such a tag also makes the article look unprofessional. Wikipedia does not offer book or film reviews where such a warning might be necessary. No pages on books, films, poems, short stories, etc. should have this tag. Distinguishing between "historical" or "classical" works and "modern" works is highly dubious - there is no agreement on that kind of categorization. Awadewit Talk 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. No --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. No Cacycle 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. No does anyone expect to read an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction without finding out some plot details that may, in someone's tender little world, "spoil" a surprise? C'mon, we're an encyclopedia not an entertainment guide. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. No per Awadewit et al. –Outriggr § 05:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. No -R. fiend 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. No - why else would someone look the article up? Escape Artist Swyer 18:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. No The point of an article is to impart information, not to hide it. The spoiler boxes are aesthetically ugly and, in my opinion, make the article or section they guard look juvenile. PeteVerdon 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. No If someone is looking at the article, it must be that they have no intention of reading the book or they are confused by something and they should use their own judgement on how far to read. If someone is looking for an article on a classical work, they probably know enough when to stop reading if they see something that they did not read in the work. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  1. Maybe. "Historical" comes closest to the correct distinction, but a better idea is that (as someone suggested in the 'yes' section), a work which is read for pleasure by a good chunk of the readers needs a spoiler warning. This is almost historical, but not *quite* the same; older works like Sherlock Holmes stories may require spoiler warnings when some newer ones don't. It also gets fuzzy when you come to cases like Shakespeare. (Something like Romeo and Juliet, though, should be covered by another rule: you don't need a spoiler warning when most people who read the article can be expected to already know the spoiler.) Ken Arromdee 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the genuine and reasonable limit: if we're not spoiling the plot, we don't have to warn people; the problem is that it's very difficult, in most cases, to make that decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody ever said that writing good Wikipedia articles is easy. But that's not a reason to completely get rid of all spoiler tags for anything more than 2 months old (or a year, or whatever). Ken Arromdee 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am in general against spoiler tags, except in certain instances determined on a case by case basis by consensus. Trying to impose genre criteria is going the wrong way. --mordicai. 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 2[edit]

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about fairy tales?

Use spoiler tags
  1. Can't think of any where they would be needed, but decision should be made case-by-case, not by category. PaddyLeahy 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with PaddyLeahy completely. Stop trying to own every page and let the various page editors decide. NEW fairy tales are written every day.Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, at editor's discretion, per Smatprt. G1ggy! 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes: As long as only a summary of the fairy tale is given, there should be a spoiler warning, but I do think it can be omitted if the whole fairy tale is explained in full detail. Q0 05:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Are those the right way round? PeteVerdon 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes: This is actually a funny question. I take it that fairy tale is a story for children. Why should it be treated differently than stories for adults? And, there are many fairy tales one would read even as an adult, such as Tolkien fairy tales. Samohyl Jan 13:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I agree that as far as spoilers are concerned there's not much difference between fairy stories and other stories. However, this merely means that neither of them should carry tags - my opinion is that spoiler tags have no place on WIkipedia at all, and I'm somewhat surprised at the number of mature and coherent editors with a strong attachment to them. PeteVerdon 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, but only if the tale does have such thing as "spoilers". If the synopsis does not reveal anything that would spoil the tale, then no. Perón 01:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use spoiler tags
  1. Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm assuming we're talking about classic fairy tales? -- Ned Scott 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlong 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree not to use sweeping categories for fairy tales, but if someone is researching a fairy tale there's a higher probability they already know the outcome, so spoiler warnings may not be necessary in all cases. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Even more embarrassing, although unintentionally hilarious. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See my reasoning earlier for the first poll. Johnleemk | Talk 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. See my reasoning under poll 1 above. Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No, expect to find the ending when you look up the article about Snow White Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seems kind of obvious that an article about a fairy tale would contain spoilers about it, so the tag is superfluous and ugly. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Even more pointless than spoilers on historical articles. If reader doesn't want to know the plot/ending, he shouldn't read the plot section. --Darkbane talk 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No. It's very unlikely anyone old enough to read Wikipedia would be reading fairy tales for pleasure and care about not knowing the ending in advance, even assuming that they didn't already know it simply because our culture is already full of references to them. Ken Arromdee 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No. Just no. J'onn J'onzz 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nope. Jussen 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No. --PresN 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No, for criminy's sake. Unschool 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No. Absurd suggestion. Fairy tales aren't about surprise twist endings. --Aquillion 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No. ++ Arx Fortis 16:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No, per my reason above.Sr13 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No spoiler tags. See above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Absolutely not. Laughable. — Deckiller 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. No- not intended to have plot details withheld for effect, too intergral part of culture. Urukagina 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Also quite ridiculous. Axem Titanium 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No way. Ford MF 08:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Absolutely not. ~ UBeR 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No. Encyclopedia say what? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No. Fairy tales, popular ballads (in the folkloristic meaning), and nursery rhymes in general evoke another kind of interest than the "Sherlock Holmes resolution" does. Much is based on recognition and repetition. Why do you think a small child often wants to hear the same fairy tale again and again? JoergenB 19:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. No, not only is this an encyclopedia and I come here seeking knowledge but should we have multiple spoiler tags for the different endings of fairy tales that have changed through the years? --DizFreak talk Contributions 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No, no spoiler tags whatsoever for my reasons given above. --Edwin Herdman 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Obviously Not. Anchoress 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No No spoiler tags should be used at all in wikipedia because they violate the spirit of an encyclopedia and insult the reader (see vote in poll 1). Awadewit Talk 13:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No Cacycle 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No does anyone expect to read an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction without finding out some plot details that may, in someone's tender little world, "spoil" a surprise? And, if you wanted to remain ignorantly bliss about the end of some fairy tale before reading it, quick log off, read the bloody book, then come back. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No. Nor on songs either. -R. fiend 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. No why else read the article if you don't want to know what the story is about? Escape Artist Swyer 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. No The point of an article is to impart information, not to hide it. The spoiler boxes are aesthetically ugly and, in my opinion, make the article or section they guard look juvenile. PeteVerdon 23:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. No In general, I think that fairy tales and urban legends should not have spoiler warnings, but exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis at the editor's discretion. -Elizabennet | talk 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  1. I am in general against spoiler tags, except in certain instances determined on a case by case basis by consensus. Trying to impose genre criteria is going the wrong way. --mordicai. 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 3[edit]

Should spoiler warnings be placed in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summary", "Synopses", or any variation thereof?

Use spoiler tags
  1. Yes. I shall copy my point from the Spoiler talk page:

As I understand it, Wikipedia aims to provide an encyclopediac reference for users looking for information. There are three types of information-searchers Wikipedia needs to cater for: -Those who are looking for a simple "what is it?" about something (and with fictional media NOT necessarily learn the major plot points) -Those who are looking for a particular detail or fact about something -Those who wish to do detailed research on a topic, and gain all the info Wikipedia has about it. Removing spoiler tags and bringing all the important essentially prohibits the first group from using Wikipedia in relation to works of fiction or media. First category users who have not used wikipedia before will come and quickly get burned, and learn not to Wikipedia any more for that sort of search. However, if we DO have spoiler tags, we cater for Category 1 users, whilst still serving the interests of Category 2 and 3 users.

  1. Yes, if relevant. Non-crufty discussion of plots can and often should avoid spoilers, therefore, spoiler warnings should be used if necessary. PaddyLeahy 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, if relevant or likely to ruin the story for anyone (not just experts in the subject, but the rest of us)Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of course, since not all plot summaries necessarily contain the ending. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure, it's only one or two lines after all. — The Storm Surfer 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Depends on the situation; a synopsis that goes into detail on the plot twists is probably plotcruft anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. As I've pointed out, plot sections should contain spoiler tags for a consistent user interface. The fact that everyone already knows that a plot section probably contains spoilers is irrelevant. Please don't just count votes on this when many of the people voting "no" don't even address this point. (Besides, a plot section doesn't *always* contain spoilers in the sense of twists.) Ken Arromdee 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It depends if it goes into detail on endings or deaths or betrayals or the like. Typically, in my opinion, the plot section should only go into the basics of what the work is about.J'onn J'onzz 12:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. My Comment is below... --Armanalp 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, per Ken Arromdee's comments concerning use, and The Storm Surfer's comments. What's the big deal, anyway? G1ggy! 00:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes. Showing that there are spoilers in the plot section is not their only function. If they end afterward, they signify that the rest of the article is spoiler-free (until the next spoiler tag - we don't need to cram all spoilers under one, because we're under no obligation to only use one.) If they extend to other sections, they signify that those too must be avoided. Kizor 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes - People might not think about the fact that a "Plot" section might contain spoilers until after it is too late. Even though it might seem obvious, it is only human nature to make mistakes. A spoiler warning helps to avoid the mistakes. I don't think that simply titling a section "Plot" is automatically going to trigger the reader to immediately conclude that the section might contain spoilers. If sections titled "Plot" or "Synopsis" were going to be renamed "Spoilers" or "Plot spoilers" then I would consider spoiler warnings to be irrelavent. Q0 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, where appropriate. Not everyone will realize that outcomes may be revealed. Particualrly in cases where suprise, a "twist ending" or unexpected developents are important features of the work, spoiler warnigns may well be approerpite. Also, as mentioned above, a spoiler warning allows for an end-spoiler tag. Decisions should be made on an article-by-aricle basis about whether such tags are approperite, by the involved eidtirs, with discussion on the tallk page, if needed. DES (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, This is just a courtesy to readers. --agr 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, but in the case of shows with a teaser, the spoiler warning should preferably go after the line about the teaser. That way one can read that line, see the spoiler warning and say, "I don't remember seeing the episode where Kirk and Spock were merged into one being at the beginning, so I'm not going to read any further" or "I remember that episode, I'll read on." Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, this is a courtesy as Arnold said. Tayquan hollaMy work 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes, when the works are reasonably recent, and the 'spoilable' portions are still likely to be new to a large amount of people. By now, no one should be surprised by a shakespeare or dickens twist, but would be surprised by the events of Deathly Hallows for probably two to three months after it is released. There's a limit, because famous twists pervade culture, but for each work, it's different, and the application should be considered in talk page first. ThuranX 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes--Steven X 10:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes. A recent study showed that 70% of the visits to Wikipedia come directly from search engines. These visitors are not necessarily looking for an encyclopedia article and certainly aren't reading the warning buried on the disclaimer page. The words "Plot", "Plot summary", and "Synopses" do not necessarily tell an average non-Wikipedian that we are about to spill the beans and spoil the movie or book. -- DS1953 talk 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes. I think DS1953 pretty much summed up one of the best reasons for this. --Bishop2 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes. or something similar. Sections on Plot specifically without spoilers need to be distinguished. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. Save reason as first poll, what does it take to skip one little template to continue reading. BeckyAnne(talk) 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes Marcus Taylor 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes per all the reasons above, plus I think having spoiler tags encourages editors to write more complete plot summaries. Jheald 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes People don't want the plot revealed if they are just browsing the article - • The Giant Puffin • 10:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes "Plot" doesn't imply that the end will be revealed. Samohyl Jan 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes spoilers are found in these sections so they should be noted. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I absolutely agree. Templates also grab attetion while reading through an article, and someone might not realise that what he/she is reding is a spoiler. It is also a proven fact that some people are complete morons and can't put 2 and 2 together. Proof: [1]. It's from a popular TV show in Australia. --Iamcon 11:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes Plot can be with or without spoilers. --Akral 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Yes. We should not make asumptions about wich purpose a reader is seeking when reading an article, or whenever something is "obvious" or not for someone else. Perón 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Yes As a practical matter, it's a good thing. Wasted Time R 02:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Yes I know that Wikipedia is supposed to provide information, not to hide it. Yet, the presence of this tag does not hide anything. It merely warned a set of readers who intend not to be spoiled. With this tag, readers can easily identify which part to avoid visually, if they choose to. Others readers who don't care about spoiler can carry on and ignore the tags. This tag also separate what is spoiler and what is not. For example, if someone wants to know when a certain TV show is going to be aired in the future, it would be a non-spoiler. S/he who does not want spoiler may continue reading until hitting the tag. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Yes It enables the automatic hiding of spoilers for the people who are extremely sensitive. (such as folding the spoiler portion of the article so that the user has to click to see it) --Memming 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you really sure you know what you are talking, or voting, about? Because that has never been how Wikipedia has handled spoilers. --Farix (Talk) 18:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes. It's a sensible way of organizing information to me, as there are many times I might want some information about a work of fiction, but not the spoilers, and there are other times I want specifically the major spoilers and it helps me jump straight to that. Wandering Ghost 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yes Per Memming and others. I may want to know how the movie was made or who was in it without having the ending spoiled for me. -Elizabennet | talk 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use spoiler tags
  1. Patently redundant and crufty Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Extraordinarily redundant. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. emphatic 'no' here. It's called plot summary for a reason. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlong 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Besides, it is a real insult to readers to treat them as if they were stupid enough to be surprised by information about the plot in a section titled "Plot". Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Completely redundant. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. See my reasoning earlier. The natural caveat, of course, is that WP:IAR exists so this rule can and should be violated if necessary - on a case-by-case basis. I would prefer an option like "Treat them like fair use images; never use spoiler warnings unless you really really really have to", but I'm a bit lazy to make a new option and this option works just as well for me thanks to IAR. Johnleemk | Talk 06:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See my reasoning under poll 1 above. Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Same reasoning as before, if you go to a article, be prepared to get all the information. Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Redundant and ugly. If you're smart enough to read English, you can figure out that, if you don't want to be spoiled, you might not want to read the section header labeled "Plot summary". --Cyde Weys 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. If a reader does not realize that a section about plot will contain plot details, then we need to ask them to leave the Internet on account of being fucking stupid. I don't think such readers exist in any significant quantity =) --Darkbane talk 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Nope, the only reason that happens now is when Wikipedia: Spoiler_warnings is cited. We'll need to change this on relevant project pages. Jussen 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Simply, no. ++ Arx Fortis 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Plot details? In my plot section? It's more likely than you think! --PresN 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. You know, if we were writing for this project, I might consider it. But to include spoiler tags in Wikipedia is to proclaim every reader of Wikipedia to be a moron. Unschool 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No. Plot sections clearly, by their nature, contain the complete plot of the subject, which should also be summarized by a few sentences in the article's lead section. --Aquillion 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No, per my reason above.Sr13 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Anyone too stupid to figure out that the "Plot summary" section contains (hold your breath here) a summary of the plot probably can't comprehend what they're reading anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-23t20:26z
  28. No, not encyclopedic. -- Rjm656s 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Absolutely not, due to the numerous thoughtful comments made. — Deckiller 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I believe the header is sufficient in denoting spoilers without an intrusive warning. Axem Titanium 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Aside from the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and it should be a given that surprise-compromising information just might be encountered in an article about a book, movie, whatever, "Plot" section should be clear enough to warn off even the slow ones. Ford MF 08:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Should ==Encyclopedia article== be placed at the top of intros? C'mon. Marskell 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Don't use spoiler tags. Wikipedia is not censored. There's no reason spoiler templates should not fall under Wikipedia's policy on no disclaimers. ~ UBeR 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Don't use spoiler tags in summary & plot sections. --mordicai. 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No don't be silly --345Kai 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No. Encyclopedia=encyclopedia. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Not in general. Exceptionally, there may be a reason to mark a specific subsection of a long plot section of a film or a modern novel of fiction. In general, our readers ought to expect that a plot description should be expected to contain some description of the plot, and no warning of this being a fact should be necessary. JoergenB 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No This is an encylopedia and should read like one. I expect to find information on the entire movie when I come here. Spoilers in summary and plot is hand-holding --DizFreak talk Contributions 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No, unless it is reasonable that someone would not expect spoilers in a section, the tag is not needed.--Rayc 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No, no spoiler tags whatsoever for my reasons given above --Edwin Herdman 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Generally speaking, No. Perhaps amend that to never. If people don't want to know whether or not Harry Potter survives book seven, they should avoid net locations likely to contain plot synopses. Anchoress 08:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No Placing spoiler tags in the "plot summary" section is an insult to the reader. A plot summary is going to contain details of the story - it is going to "spoil" it. To add a tag makes wikipedia look unprofessional as well as condescending. No proper analysis of a text can be done without referring to the plot, anyway, so arguing that the tag should be restricted to the "plot summary" section is ridiculous. I'm not sure what kind of pages they are envisioning because I cannot imagine a fully-formed page that did not refer to the plot and the themes throughout. Awadewit Talk 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No spoiler tags not needed. --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No, but it might be a good idea to keep the plot under such standardized headings. Cacycle 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. No does anyone expect to read an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction without finding out some plot details that may, in someone's tender little world, "spoil" a surprise? And, if you wanted to remain ignorantly bliss about these, quick: log off, read the bloody book, then come back. Carlossuarez46 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. No Don't treat the readers like idiots. What would they expect in a section headed "Plot summary"? Escape Artist Swyer 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. No, though certain exceptions maybe be warranted. What we do not need is every fact concerning the plot being considered a de facto spolier, even if it is the sort of thing that would appear on the back of the book/DVD package/etc. This plot=spolier mentality has to go. -R. fiend 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. No The point of an article is to impart information, not to hide it. The spoiler boxes are aesthetically ugly and, in my opinion, make the article or section they guard look juvenile. A large percentage of the plot summaries I come across are also otherwise crufty and/or badly done, but that's another issue. PeteVerdon 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion.[edit]

Spoiler tags violate the Wikipedia policy on disclaimers - and they're redundant. Think about it - if you didn't want to know about a movie (including the plot line) then would you look it up in a paper encyclopedia? No - because a paper encyclopedia would obviously have the ending. Same goes for an online encyclopedia. If they want to know some specific detail, use google, but Wikipedia (and any other encyclopedia) isn't for that. Encyclopedias are for giving out facts about a subject, no disclaimer neccesary.danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, I see no reason to use spoiler tags. True spoilers should only be in the synopsis/plot section, and it would be redundant to have such a tag there in the first place. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Take a "Themes" section. The reader cannot know whether or not such a section has spoilers, and to what extent. A philosophical work about the exploration of space would have this premise on the back cover, and coverage of its themes could be spoilerless. I bought a scifi book on the basis of a rightly non-spoiling theme section this week. For a work about identity that throws in a last-minute twist that turns the entire premise on its head (such as Fight Club), any coverage of themes and subtext, not for "Synopsis", would have to deal with spoilers. Or take "Reception" - if, say, a particularily gory scene is fundamental to the splash caused by a horror movie, it has to be covered under reception, but other works have spoilerless versions of such sections. --Kizor 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, perhaps in certain contexts where there needs to be a spoiler in another section, the warning might be merited. But in general, spoiler warnings are meant, for example, to stop the reader from discovering that a certain wizard has killed another certain wizard in the latest Harry Potter, and that simply should not be stated in any section other than the synopsis section. If you find an example of an article that truly merits a spoiler section outside of the synopsis section (where it is redundant anyway), I would like to see it. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! I was beginning to fear that we would never have an opportunity to discuss this! --87.189.99.112

          • What is the harm in a little redundancy if it helps someone. Can anyone explain why having the occasional spoiler is actually harmful?Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not totally against the idea of spoiler warnings, cutting their usage way back seems like a good idea. In the very least I think it's been shown that we don't need such warnings in classical works, or in clearly marked sections. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exatcly. People can't complain if they read the synopsis; what do they expect, hidden spoilers? David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree that it has "been shown" this. One man's classical work is another man's new discovery.Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I find a number of arguments against spoiler warnings ridiculous (including the idea that it's okay to spoil fairy tales or classical works because "everybody knows the ending"), I think overall spoiler tags do more harm than good. They force us to structure the article around the tags - people are encouraged to put anything spoilerish between {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} regardless of whether the information would be better off in another section - and I think confining spoilers to just a synopsis section would be just as bad an idea for the same reason. When this is happening, we basically give up writing and comprehensiveness for the sake of avoiding spoilers - an excessive concession that hardly any other encyclopaedia makes (which indicates readers of encyclopaedias do have enough smarts to generally avoid spoiler articles). Johnleemk | Talk 06:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not totally against the idea of plot summaries, cutting their useage way back seems like a good idea. Many editors think that spoiler tags are redundant because they think that the main purpose of articles about works of fiction is to recite the plot. They are wrong. They need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and take careful note. To me, plot summaries are the least useful parts of such articles; I'm usually looking (vainly) for comments about critical reaction etc. PaddyLeahy 10:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mischararacterizing here. I'm not aware of any editors who think spoiler tags around Plot sections are redundant "because they think that the main purpose of articles about works of fiction is to recite the plot". Indeed I have seen several users who advocate removing spoiler tags from Plot sections concede that one useful purpose they serve is to draw attention to what is often excessively over-detailed recitation of the plot! Spoiler tags around Plot sections are redundant simply because it is obvious that if the section is labelled "Plot", it will talk about the plot. No more, no less, and certainly no claim that reciting the plot is the primary focus of an article. --Stormie 11:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a mischaracterization, but more of a reminder for us to be mindful of WP:WAF, just in case we weren't, I think. -- Ned Scott 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this section of the discussion. The majority of controversial spoilers seem to be in cases of extensive plot summaries, whic h are against wikipedia policies anyways, (WP isnt' a substitute.) but given that the best articles about works of fiction seem to involve write-ups of the controversies, themes, and reaction, it is inevitable that a truly quality write-up may reveal a major plot twist. Take 6th Sense for example(yes, i'ma give away the seekrit): If the article were to discuss M Night Shyamalan's religious views on the afterlife and how he expresses it through the nature of the twist in the film, it would be quite difficult to do so without mentioning that the main character is himself an unaware ghost. But to eliminate the section to aboid the spoiler would be foolish, and to not include the warning might ruin the surprise for readers who could instead come back after viewing and then read it, reflecting on the themes. A spoiler warning for someone reseraching the film might be a 'flag' to let them consider their approach to their research. Instead of removing the tags, we should instead begin to review them, tough as it may be, and publicize the results to make further discussions on individual pages easier to have. ThuranX 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the polls! By now, hundreds of spoiler tags have been removed from prominent articles. There has been very little opposition and those who have opposed are overwhelmed by those who support. It's done, there is consensus for the current guideline: spoiler tags are to be used only where a strong case can be made that the quality of the article is improved by their presence. That is, hardly ever. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In part because two of the loudest opposers have been off being blocked as a result of the unilateral nonconsentual muttermutter change, and there was no way to infer the presence of this debate from the removal of those spoiler tags... --Kizor 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ken Arromdee
  • plot sections should contain spoiler tags for a consistent user interface.
    Consistent with what?
  • The fact that everyone already knows that a plot section probably contains spoilers is irrelevant.
    So you admit that everyone knows, or should know, that a plot section would contain spoilers. But the fact everyone knows and thus renders a spoiler warning redundant is irrelevant? How is avoiding or reducing redundancy irrelevant? This seems more of an, "the facts inconveniently counters my argument, so I'm going to declare the fact irrelevant," line of reasoning.
  • Please don't just count votes on this when many of the people voting "no" don't even address this point.
    This is a straw poll to see if there is a rough consensus among editors. If not, the discussion will continue. But if the overwhelming majority is taking one side of the issue over the other, then the straw poll indicates that a consensus has been reached.
  • (Besides, a plot section doesn't *always* contain spoilers in the sense of twists.)
    But people still put spoilers warnings even when any aspect of the plot is discussed. --Farix (Talk) 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm simplifying a bit. Most plot sections contain things that some people might call a spoiler. Whether those people are justified, or whether this is close enough to "all" that it should be treated that way, is a separate argument. I don't want to attach a disclaimer to every sentence, so while discussing this I write as if all plot sections contain spoilers even though I know very well that that can be contested.
The argument about the user interface is that it's better for a reader to be able to avoid spoilers by avoiding anything after spoiler tags. If spoiler tags are left out of plot sections, then the user has to avoid spoilers in a more complicated way: by avoiding spoiler tags and plot sections, and anything else whose title indicates that it may contain spoilers. Now, he certainly *can* do this, since he can read the word "plot". But it's bad user interface design to make him do so. Just like the calendar that labels every day of the week even when the user already can deduce the day, we should label every spoiler even when the user can figure out that there's a spoiler there. Ken Arromdee 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is 20-15 consensus? Tayquan hollaMy work 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was asked above how spoilers are harmful. In my opinion there are two major ways:

  • They perpetuate the idea that wikipedia is unprofessional. No professional discussions of literature employ "spoiler warnings" nor do any other reference works.
  • They insult the reader/user. We do not want to alienate users.

Also, I would like to reinforce that spoiler warnings cannot be isolated to the "plot" section of an article. A well-written article reveals elements of the plot in its discussion of the "themes" as well. This is at it should be; a "themes" discussion that does not illustrate where in the plot the themes happen is a poor discussion indeed. Thus, I would expect that the entire article would "spoil" the work for someone who has not read it. If it does not, it is not well-written and not comprehensive. Awadewit Talk 14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Straw polls 2[edit]

There are some arguments that are surfacing repeatedly. We should examine them in detail and see where we now are on the consensus-building process. --Kizor 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Straw poll 4[edit]

Are spoiler warnings condescending or insulting to readers?

Yes
  • The people who hold this view are boycotting this straw poll because truth cannot be determined by vote. Axem Titanium 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye aye, count me in as boycotting it too. --Cyde Weys 03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seroiusly - this better be the last straw poll ... I'm getting sick of voting.danielfolsom 03:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • boycotting too... this has gone on long enough. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; spoiler warnings are insulting to the reader except in certain circumstances. --mordicai. 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.--345Kai 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, a little. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting on a subjective matter seems less apt. I can only answer for my personal feelings. I do feel irritated and interrupted in my reading by spoiler warnings, up to something close to insult. It is a feeling akin to the one I get when I notice patronising adults inserting some "This is not for real, little friends, just fantasy" into fiction for children by Astrid Lindgren. Obviously, there seem to be some other users who do not feel insulted by spoiler warnings, though. So, to the question "Are they insulting to some readers?", I would answer yes, definitively so.JoergenB 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Joergen. This is not something that can be decided in the general case by this kind of poll - I can only answer for myself. But yes, I personally find spoiler tags condescending; insulting isn't quite the right word but their effect is definitely negative. PeteVerdon 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Readers come to an article for information. To then tell them "here follows some of the information you were seeking - beware!" is condescending and rude. Awadewit Talk 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Why else would a reader go to the article if not to find out about the plot in question? Readers are not to be treated like small children. They know what they're doing. Escape Artist Swyer 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes--Salex1093 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No
  1. Kizor 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Q0 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. agr 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DES (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --- RockMFR 04:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ThuranX 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BeckyAnne(talk) 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fanra 00:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. • The Giant Puffin • 10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Samohyl Jan 14:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Rayc 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Akral 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No For the same reason I voted yes on straw poll 3. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No It would be insulting if we wrote "THIS IZ A SPOILER AND GIVES AWAY TEH ENDING LOOOOZER!" but as it is, the spoiler tag is a simple courtesy. Many people who come onto wikipedia looking for answers are *not* editors and are non-technical users looking for a simple answer - we should alert them to spoilers in case they're not familiar with the disclaimer (which they should be if they're using it, but come on, how many people read disclaimers on websites?). I think its just polite. And PS If you were really boycotting this poll then you WOULDN'T VOTE IN IT. Not that I don't value your opinion, but I felt the need to point out the inconsistency of voting and responding that you're boycotting the vote at the same time. -Elizabennet | talk 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No, they're not condescending, they're helpful. I skip spoiler sections all the time because I haven't seen the movie, read the book, etc. Useight 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. nope. I don't think the warnings are needed most of the time, but I wouldn't call them insulting just to back up my view. -- Ned Scott 21:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No, they're helpful and courteous to readers, not all of whom "already know" all the details of famous films and novels. Aelfgifu 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No, of course not. Internet users expect to either not find spoilers or to find spoiler tags; what's so insulting about a convention that's become part of internet culture? It's more insulting to assume they want everything spoiled in the second sentence. Kuronue 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No, they are a courtesy to readers in cases where the revelation of a massive plot twist could seriously harm someones enjoyment of a work of fiction. Tomgreeny 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. no per Tom, Koren, Useight and Elizabennet. JoshuaZ 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No Spoiler warnings are a general good to the public. Those who don't want to be warned, can ignore them, those who do, can't create them if they don't exist. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No, per Bsayusd. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No, per Kuronue and Bsayusd. --AlexChurchill 14:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No, like Bsayusd and Kuronue said. I know I'm not a very established editor or anything, but I honestly fail to see how warning for spoilers is condescending, and frankly... --Ryajinor 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This poll is insulting and condescending to readers
  1. Aquillion 04:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Q0 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Speaking comically, of course. Edwin Herdman 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Most certainly Escape Artist Swyer 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I find this whole thing quite silly. --Ryajinor 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The results of this poll are irrelevant
  1. And why would it matter that some readers would feel insulted about reading a warning about what follows could "spoil" some surprise? Regardless of how they may affect readers, spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic, and why do we have them when we don't have other warnings about things that would likely upset people more: like articles about wars, crime, personal injury, etc. have some facts that people may find disturbing, that some articles have "bad words" that some people may find upsetting, that some articles have NPOVs that may be upsetting to those with a set point of view that bears no tollerance of others', that some pictures show "private parts" that would make the sensitive blush, etc., etc. We're an encyclopedia, not the two-thumbs up folks; we are trying to convey information not hide it while trying to get readers to go see the flick, read the book, see the "film at 11", etc. Carlossuarez46 23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's vote on NPOV!
  1. David Gerard 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) - don't be silly of course not.[reply]
I and some others have mentioned before what you come across as when you consider attempts at serious discussion your frivolous playthings. --Kizor 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Enough with the straw polls. Of course they're condescending. Putting a notice saying "warning, you might learn something you didn't know" in an encyclopedia is condescension. It might be justifiable as many disclaimers are justifiable, but I'm not seeing any justifications here that merit messing our articles up. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people who say that they aren't. Let's sit this one out and see if either of us is surprised, shall we? It's not like it can do harm. --Kizor 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spoilers are different from other information in Wikipedia because spoilers are information that some readers would rather not know. I agree with Kizor that the warnings can't do harm. Although it might seem obvious to some that "plot" sections contain plot details, others might not find it obvious. I suspect that without spoiler warnings, many people will read plot sections without thinking about the fact that they might contain spoilers. They might think to themselves, "I guess I should have known it would have spoilers in it since it is titled 'plot'" but I still think we should be considerate of readers like that and give them a fair warning when it can help them. Also, when people read things, they generally don't have to think about whether or not they would regret continuing to read. Since it is an unusual circumstance for readers to be in a situation where it can be harmful for them to continue to read, I think it is only considerate and fair to give the reader a "heads up" in cases where the reader might rather not know the information that follows. Therefore, I think spoiler warnings should be used. Spoiler warnings are potenially very helpful and I really don't see how they would get in the way of anything. Q0 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what kind of consensus is this straw poll suppose to measure? On what point in the guideline is this straw poll suppose to help settle? As far as I can tell, this straw poll measures nothing and does not attempt to settle anything. So it's worthless. --Farix (Talk) 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is supposed to measure the consensus on the subject of this straw poll. There have been arguments both for and against this, and a consensus on one side or the other will tell what the prevailing opinion is and help settle the subject. --Kizor 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote truth. Axem Titanium 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote to discover the prevailing conception of it. Maybe the phrasing should've been "Should ... be considered". My philosophy courses are urging me to engage you in a massive debate about our ability to know the truth at all. --Kizor 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, users should know that a "plot summary" is going to contain spoilers. I see no reason to dumb down this part of wikipedia. "Plot" is not an esoteric concept. We can fairly expect that users will know what to expect in a plot summary. There is no reason to treat only this subset of wikipedia readers (those reading literature and film articles) as idiots. Awadewit Talk 14:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said this before, and I'm going to say this again. Wikipedia is a "special" encyclopedia in which nobody expects to see spoilers about movies, books, or films, simply because most of the popular encyclopedias that people use simply don't have such articles. My grade school library offered one encyclopedia, and that was World Book. Now the World Book encyclopedias don't go into detail regarding plot summaries, do they? When readers step into the realm of Wikipedia, especially if they're new, they don't expect to find all of this information. Therefore, spoilers are not insulting to readers.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's simply not true. I expect to see spoiler flags precisely because the Wikipedia is special. It is NOT the Encyclopedia Britannica, it's a new form of reference work that is supported by its readership, many of whom are young or do not speak English as their first language. They're not stupid, they just don't necessarily understand that "plot follows" automatically means "everything, including the secret twist that makes the story special, is about to be revealed". I'm an adult native speaker of English and I didn't know that "plot" includes that. As has been said before on this page & elsewhere, you can summarise the story without necessarily giving away all its secrets. Aelfgifu 11:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please see Uncle G's position. There are many more encyclopedias besides Britannica and World Book which cover fictional topics with more depth which don't include spoiler warnings either. Wikipedia is not "special" in that way because other encyclopedias exist which cover such topics. New readers are not stupid or ignorant like you believe they are. They have knowledge of what should appear in an encyclopedia. Why is it so difficult to trust the readers to avoid the "Plot" section without a spoiler warning? Axem Titanium 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think readers are stupid or ignorant but I do think that they are not always fully alert, are not always paying full attention, and make mistakes. The spoiler warning explains the reader that they need to pay attention. Q0 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Word up on that. Do you pay full attention to everything when you casually browse? Further, and in my opinion much more importantly, Axem, you're ignoring the fact that sections other than "plot" can have spoilers, sections that the non-stupid, non-ignorant reader cannot be expected to recognize by section title. --Kizor 09:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: We are not just discussing spoiler warnings in film articles, but also in articles on bible texts, Child ballads, and nursery rhymes, just to mention a few.
I am used to reading long texts, trying to assimilate the ideas and also to follow the build-up of argumentation. I often prefer academic literature to sloppy protagonistic popular accounts of an issue I want to know more about. I prefer a long sentence. Many times more. Compared to illogical, cut up stuff. In short, I am over 50 years old, and a senior staff member at our university.
I personally find it immensely irritating with spoiler warnings. I do not read a "plot" section if I do not want to know the plot (and when it comes to works of fiction I'm planning to read or view I often don't). However, when I do read, I want to be able to read uninterruptedly and in concentration. These immensely stupid (my very own POV) warnings are a hindrance for my enjoyment of my reading.
I've noticed that many younger people have other attitudes. (I sometimes suspect that television adapted to frequent breaks for commersials is one cause of this change. There seems to be an idea that you must come to the point within a minute, or else the audience loses interest. However, this may be a bit prejudiced.) Even Ph. D. students writing theses too often seem to have a tendency to throw together words in a conglomerate in order to convey a meaning. instead of taking the effort to structurate them into coherent and logical arguments. (Now I am exaggerating, but just a little.)
Did you follow my arguments up to this point, or have you lost both the thread and interest? I would like to conjecture, that if you did follow it, you are more likely to be disliking spoiler warnings, than if you didn't.
Conclusion. The reason this issue is so heated and evokes so stong emotions may be that it mirrors a truely generational and cultural split. If so, both points of view are legitime. A true answer might be to develop more flexible software.
Wouldn't it be rather nice, if there was an adjustment possible, by means of which all spoiler warnings either appear, or turn invisible?JoergenB 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting idea. It would allow users to customize their wikipedia experience even further. How difficult would that be? (I might mention that such a suggestion seems more likely to come from someone of today's youthful, selfish generation (as it has recently been characterized by sociologists) rather than from yourself. How do you account for that? A joke.) Awadewit Talk 14:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

I think like many online forums do it would be an idea for wikipedia to introduce some form of hide/show code, so those wishing to view an article, and not prepared to put up with spoilers cont have to scroll through a whole section of spoilers to reach their desired content. I'm aware a clickable jump to secion exists, but some artivles still contain sections which only have spoilers in parts. Just a suggestion — AndyTheSkanker (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Wikipedia does this, among others. I find the concept ridiculous for the same reasons that spoiler tags themselves are ridiculous, in that we are not in the business of coddling our readership or hiding information. --Darkbane talk 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler tags do have a use. Granted it is true that only so much information can be revealed without using spoilers, but what's so wrong with that. Take into account movie articles. Perhaps someone wants to know when a movie was made, or who by, but they still intend to watch the movie, by viewing the plot details their enjoyment would be ruined. You may personally find it ridiculous, but not all wikipedia patrons will, hence why on the opinions of a few we cannot simply take away a feature that can affect everyone's enjoyment of wikipedia. — AndyTheSkanker (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be careful about quantifying it as "a few". From the polls so far, the opinions are split, and more people are against spoiler tags in obvious sections like plot and episode summaries. We haven't reached any solution, but it seems to me that it's not just "a few" who have second thoughts about spoiler tags here. As for the use of spoiler tags, I doubt I can offer any new pro/contra insight that's not been mentioned in the 100,000 words written above.
On the other hand, I am also against the inclusion of very minute plot details in the first place - it's a copyright infringement, it's fancruft, and it's unencyclopedic content. That's only tangential to this argument, however, and is part of the bigger issue with our overly extensive coverage of popular culture. --Darkbane talk 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinion is split isn't that a greater reason to not remove them?— AndyTheSkanker (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ones being removed right now are the ones where opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of removing them, such as a plot section that starts with a spoiler tag. There doesn't seem to be much opposition to this change either, and I've removed a bunch myself without any reverts. --Darkbane talk 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinion is in favour of those being removed currently then it's a good idea to remove them, however, to entirely remove them may not be such a good idea as in some articles spoilers are contained within a section alongside facts or opinions which may not be viewed as spoilers.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there's this page, which has already grown way out of proportion :D On another note, one poster above somewhere noted that the definition of what is and is not a spoiler is by itself original research and thus against our policies. --Darkbane talk 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding content using the methods typically found on forums seems to be an even worse idea than the current system. I don't see how this is a solution to the problem at hand. --- RockMFR 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did state that it wasn't a DIRECT contribution to the argument, but rather a related sidenote/suggestion AndyTheSkanker (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support User:AndyTheSkanker's suggestion; for reasons, vide supra.JoergenB 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although a good proposal, I do not support it as I do not want to have to click to see content. Wikipedia is not censored and specifically I do not agree that we should hide content. --Edwin Herdman 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But TOC's, footnotes and wikipedia project banners are sometimes hidden and you have to click to see the information, so this has already begun. Awadewit Talk 14:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But those things don't contain large swaths of prose. You can't compare them. Axem Titanium 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do spoiler tags. Besides, it is the principle. Awadewit Talk 07:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 5, for readers: Do you USE spoiler warnings?[edit]

All the polls question if editors are comfortable with using spoiler warnings. However, Wikipedia is written for people, so the basic question should be, if people prefer to have spoiler warnings in here. I think if spoiler warnings are used by people, then they should be used, because they don't really hurt anyone. Either way, it would be good to know. So, I am asking:

Do you, as Wikipedia reader, not editor, sometimes use a spoiler warning?

Yes

  1. Yes. Before I go to cinema, I look at the movie I will go to on Wikipedia, but skip the spoilers. If I would intend to read a book (even a classical work), I would look it up on Wikipedia first, and skip spoilers. If I would want a famous puzzle, I would look into Wikipedia, but of course skip the solution, so I could deal with it myself. It's because I really like Wikipedia, and usually go to look up anything on it. Samohyl Jan 14:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, per Samohyl Jan above. If my friends at school talk about this awesome movie that they watched over the weekend (and didn't invite me to the theater with them...), I myself would want to watch it if they return with good feedback. I would go on Wikipedia and look up information about the movie such as: what the movie's about, who's starring in the film, etc. If I see the spoiler warnings, then I skip it, because I don't want to see what actually happens in the movie.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. I may skim an article on a film I haven't seen or a book I haven't read to get an impression if it is worth seeing or reading for me. Movie reviews invariably consist mainly of a (usually pointless) retelling of the storyline and spoil the film for me. I appreciate it if I can see what part to skip until I have seen the film/read the book (or decided it's not worth it).  --LambiamTalk 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. And I a friend tell me recently that if Wikipedia stops using spoiler warnings, he will use it considerably less often. --Masamage ♫ 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, but only occasionally. Q0 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, alot. Cause I dislike things being ruined for me before I see them. - AndyTheSkankerTalk21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, if I want to see if a book or movie is worth reading or seeing I check wikipedia. If there were no spoiler tags and the spoilers were not confined to descriptive heading, wikipedia would work contrary to the purpose in which I'm using it.--Rayc 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, although rarely; but if I am reading an article about a book I have sometimes found the book interesting and decided to read it. When these have included spoiler warnings, I have been glad to turn my eyes away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Constantly. Last week I saw Rogue Moon at a library sale, checked the Wikipedia article on a public access terminal and was delighted to see an analysis of themes below a spoiler-end tag that gave no more information on the actual plot than the back cover. I liked the themes and bought the book. When warnings on plot spoilers were common enough to be a rule, that is, up until two weeks ago, I could look up information on awards, reception, etc. on topics that interested me - such as TV series or books that I was considering watching or reading - without risking ruining or substantially reducing my enjoyment on those works. --Kizor 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, I'll be honest. Not terribly frequently, but I used to find them useful as I was reading certain television show articles. However, I'm also of the opinion that we should not have spoiler warnings anywhere. That really doesn't make sense, I know... --- RockMFR 17:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes. From time to time I look up a work to see if I might want to see/read it. I detest learning the ending of a story, and it only take a blink of an eye to read something I'll wish I hadn't read. The spoiler warnings provide a valuable service in alerting me to be careful in such situations. --agr 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. All the time. I always check on the WP about the film/anime/book I'm going to enjoy and I always watch carefully for spoilers. --Akral 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, for fiction series I'm following. Otherwise not at all — but I want the choice. Due to heavy involvement with reality, there are several series of movies that may take decades for me to finish seeing. I was displeased that an apparently famous Harry Potter spoiler was revealed on the project talk page, because, I'd never heard about it at all, I hadn't seen the movie, but someday convenient, I planned to do so. Do I lose my social privilege to not suffer spoilers because I didn't have $10 when the movie was first run? Or that I didn't rush to the video store when it came out on DVD (did it?). Do I lose my privilege because I plan to watch it 'too late', when it arrives at the public library for free? Milo 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, always - • The Giant Puffin • 07:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I read book/movie/series articles for critical aclaim, and I'd get annoyed not being warned about spoilers. --Armanalp 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes, as I said above, yes. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 10:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Umm... yes? Ken Arromdee 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Honestly, yes. I did so just last week. With days to go before the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie hit theaters, I was going over some of the character pages to verify their info and was surprised to find that someone had already put spoilers for the latest film on there. Luckily, a spoiler warning was in place there, as well as in the plot section of the film's page, which also had early spoilers on it. Thank god for the warnings. --Bishop2 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes Definitely, I like to read about the background of an author or about a film's production process (for example) but am not necessarily looking to see the ending. -Elizabennet | talk 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes even though that obviously makes me "stupid" (according to some on this page) for wanting to know a bit about a story before I commit time & effort on reading or watching it without wanting every twist & turn in the plot revealed beforehand. Aelfgifu 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes - If I've started watching a series, I might be interested in knowing rough details about it (the kind of information I would find on the official website), but want t skip the sections giving away plot details that get slowly developed over many episodes. -Kieran 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes - I use them in both ways... to keep myself from reading a spoiler on something I want to know less about, and to specifically seek out spoilers. It helps to know early on whether an article is going to spoil what I want to know. Wandering Ghost 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. All the time - I tend to look up things I'm reading or watching on wikipedia (and one time put away and never finished a nonfiction book I was reading once I found out it was a hoax), but I tend to not want to spoil the ending. I like to make sure I'm understanding what's going on, and if something is confusing, a summary would clear that up for me. Kuronue 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. yes per Wandering Ghost. JoshuaZ 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes per Kuronue. One 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes — Wikipedia was much more useful to me when spoilers were clearly marked. I did not have to be wary of casual browsing. --Jere7my 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes - especially with films (except historical films), and TV shows currently running, but not aired in other places. This is an encyclopedia, yes, but it is not to give details to spoil a film, or TV series that someone is trying to learn about or decide if they want to watch a film, or TV show. For these, there are spoiler forums/websites all over the place, and people avoid them for that reason. I do not believe most people expect to be spoiled on Wikipedia. - Jeeny Talk 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. No. I don't read articles about things I'm afraid of being spoiled on. I usually read articles on fiction after reading the book/watching the movie. And what I feel like "spoils" a work of fiction is less plot details than interpretative commentary anyway (I like to think about that for myself first). Spoiler warnings don't make much impression on me as a reader. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, if there's ever a movie that I'm thinking about going to see, I usually either A) Avoid the article, B) Only read the first paragraph, since usually that doesn't have spoilers but it can give an introduction, C) Look up commercials on youtube.danielfolsom 15:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely not. — Deckiller 16:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not at all. "Oh noes, Dumbledore is killed by Snape"? That didn't impact my enjoyment of the book. Likewise I'm not horribly scarred by learning the ending to any movie if I find it here- the execution is the thing. Spoilers are just annoying, not least for astetics- the spoiler template tiles across the screen and looks ugly, especially when it overlaps an infobox. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Interestingly enough, one of the reasons I look up film and literary articles on Wikipedia is precisely because it has spoilers. And it most cases, the section titles alone give me enough of a clue as to where to find them. But really, what is the point of this poll? What is it suppose to determine in settling the debate about spoiler warnings? --Farix (Talk) 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The current debate is mostly about editor's perspective (are spoilers professional? do they break flow of article? etc.), but there is also reader's perspective (and my curiosity), and this poll is intended to investigate if and how readers use the spoiler warnings. BTW, I also prefer Wikipedia over IMDB because it also tells you the ending. Samohyl Jan 18:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, it makes no sense, so long as you limit it to Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No, never. If I'm thinking about seeing a movie, I avoid reading anything about it anywhere. If you read a review, what you consider to be a spoiler may not be what the reviewer thinks is a spoiler, and then, voila, the beans are spilled. It happens everywhere, and usually without warning. That's life—and if, like me, it bugs you, you avoid it. Unschool 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No. My feeling is that knowing the plot ahead of time doesn't "spoil" the work. There are a very fixed number of plots in fiction. A truly original one is almost unheard of. I watch movies and read books for storytelling. How it unfolds, the ideas expressed, how the characters are portrayed, the quality of the writing or the acting or directing. Any outside description of a work of art isn't going to diminish my enjoyment of it if it's quality. That's what annoys me most, as a reader, about the spoiler warnings. It's telling me (in a non-NPOV way) that finding out what happens is the point of art which I think is an unsophisticated way to approach a film, book, play, opera, whatever. --dm (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No. --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No. I will not look at the Wikipedia article on something if I don't want to be spoiled. A movie, for instance, the only place I'll look is at the review summaries on rottentomatoes.com. --Stormie 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. If I'm reading an article, I read all of it. If I didn't want it to be spoiled, I wouldn't read the article. Escape Artist Swyer 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No. If I'm looking something up I want to read about it, otherwise why look. A spoler on particularly semsitive points may be useful, but normally they are overused to cover everything. Sandpiper 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No. I'm not afraid of the facts, whether they be a "spoiler" or not. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polls are.....(say it together).....EVIL :

Poll 5. Is this a case of making 'em vote again until they get the right result. This debate is absurd. There are lots of these horrid things to remove - why don't you all go and be useful.--Docg 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to fix that typo before anyone gets the wrong idea... --- RockMFR 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix it for him. But I have to agree with Doc's point. Just like Straw Poll 4, it isn't meant to help us come to a consensus, but just adds another meaningless talking point. Polls should be reserve to see if there is a consensus on a particular solution or set of solutions. So let's avoid further polling until we come up with some potential solutions or compromises. --Farix (Talk) 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fix my posts. Poles are evil - see m:How to deal with Poles.--Docg 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another vote that this leading us off track and wasting time. I do believe that spoiler tags are misguided. --Edwin Herdman 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the starter of Straw Poll 4, thank you for making that insult. That poll was made to establish consensus on the validity of an oft-used argument by finding out the general view among Wikipedia editors and by generating discussion about the subject. --Kizor 07:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are deprecated. Wikipedia talk:Spoiler is where the action is - David Gerard 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Not about you personally, ok? Change your WP-confused phone number.)
Many of us refute any such votes deprecation, and charge encroachment by systemic oligarchy as its basis. Majoritarian legislative voting has well-understood abuse issues, but that's not what poll voting is.
Dare I tell truth to power? "Voting is evil" is a preponderant lie, repeatedly misapplied within the Wikimedia web space.
Poll voting is useful and good as a vox populi balance to the useful aspects of limited oligarchy. Even if one is utterly convinced of the necessity for Wikipedia to be controlled by a presumptively benign oligarchy, and there are rational such reasons proposed, there are also a host of reasons for wise oligarchs to allow poll votes to run their natural course without interference.
I see that the Wikipedia:Voting is evil essay has been nearly expelled from Wikipedia project space. I call for the philosophically even worse Meta:Polls are evil essay to be renamed and re-edited due to that title being outrageous POV, the likes of which are intolerable anywhere else in Wikimedia article space.
A nationalist flag-waver I'm not, but on this USA Memorial Day Weekend, it is appropriate to remind everyone that millions of people in the real world have died inclusively for the right to vote, however flawed the current implementation of that right may be. Milo 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arent there more useful things so be doing?[edit]

Apart from the thousands of film articles that need quality and importance ratings, the huge backlog in hundreds of different categories across Wikipedia, and a large amount of vandalism to revert; there is also over 99% of Wikipedia that needs bringing up to FA status. Surely that is more useful than all of us squabbling about spoiler tags? Spoiler tags dont exactly strike me as one of the great corner-stones of Wikipedia, so why have such a lengthy debate and vote on it? All that is going to happen is the further creation of countless different polls in a desperate and futile attempt to say "Hey! This poll shows Wikipedia loves/hates spoiler tags", when in fact all it is really saying is that only 40 people actually care. Hardly comprehensive representation. This debate will not go anywhere, because concensus will most likely never be reached. Spoiler tags are so insignificant, so unimportant, that you will most likely never change someone's opinion on them to reach a strong enough concensus. Nobody truly has a strong opinion on them. Who actually wakes up and thinks "I hate those spoiler tags"?. Well, if that person is you, there are far more important things to worry about on Wikipedia, not to mention life in general. Just give it up, and go and do something useful. Improve Wikipedia - • The Giant Puffin • 08:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what a terrible waste of people's time this all is. --Citizen Ray 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the fuss? Because people feel very strongly about this issue. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if editors like Tony and David go around remove tags from articles. --Farix (Talk) 10:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument could be made for just about any discussion on Wikipedia, and as such it's a non-argument. If you feel there are more useful things that need doing, do them. -- MisterHand 11:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was anyone required to do, well, anything on this VOLUNTEER encyclopedia? I never understood the argument that ANYTHING done on WP "takes time away from important editing". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right Giant Puffin, that everyone should contribute substantial material or fight vandals rather than debate policy endlessly, but wikipedia's governing structure elicits this kind of debate. If you do not like it, you should suggest a hierarchical governing structure that would prevent such debates from happening. Awadewit Talk 07:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions[edit]

I agree with some users that putting spoiler warnings on plot sections is redundant. Putting them on articles is also redundant, even though I think putting them there is fine as a courtesy to readers. Putting them on plot sections is not only redundant but insulting and condescending too. I can't parallel the eloquence of many users involved in this RFC, but putting spoiler tags on plot sections implies that the reader is too intellectually challenged to understand that the plot section contains information about (guess what?) ta-dah - the PLOT! I realise the syllogism involved may be unintuitive (1. Wikipedia articles contain information. 2. Spoilers are a type of information. 3. Therefore, Wikipedia articles may contain spoilers), but even if readers do not grasp this piece of logic regarding the nature and content of Wikipedia articles, they should at least be capable of the minimal cognitive activity required to understand that section headings are indicative of their sections' content, and therefore that plot sections are about the plot. One would not expect to find information about computers in an article entitled "Elephant". Why? Because the article is called Elephant and is therefore about elephants. Why we underestimate users to such a great degree I don't know.

And I also think that the age of a work should have nothing to do with the presence of spoiler warnings, since it has no bearing on its readership. Plenty of old works have sunk into oblivion over the years, so the majority of readers may not have heard of them, but should we justify removing spoiler tags simply on the basis of age? If not, why should we do that for more famous works? --WPholic (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"putting spoiler warnings on plot sections is redundant" Being so logical, it has taken me several days to see that this assertion is simplistic. The problem is a systemic commercial-publicity distortion of consumer-readers' expectations of the word "plot".
Spoiler warnings are part of a large subculture of commercial entertainment consumption, in which the use of the word "plot" frequently and persistently does not mean 'the entire plot'. Newspaper, magazine, and TV reviewers frequently talk "plot"; e.g., "the plot involves"; "the plot revolves around", etc. But reviewers are indirectly paid by the industry, and encouraged by consumers, to review but not spoil the plot, and so to encourage buying the entertainment. Therefore, it is not redundant to include a spoiler tag at the top of a == Plot == section, because those for whom the spoiler tags are useful, don't necessarily know whether it's a commercial-review-type "plot", a critical analysis "plot", or something in between — like not spoiling in the lead, but spoiling later. Or not doing so. How to tell in advance which kind of "plot"?
No longer to be confused with courtesy, this is information. It doesn't hurt to info-tag the type of "plot" meant, to people who want to know. For everyone else, the info-tags can be off by technical options. Do I correctly understand these technical options are already in use? Milo 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"How to tell in advance which kind of 'plot'?" Well, the thing is that no matter how general the meaning of "plot" becomes, the fact remains that the details of the plot i.e. the whole plot is one type of plot, so given the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus aims to get as much coverage of notable topics as possible the abovementioned whole plot is far more likely to be the type of plot summary in Wikipedia. Even if some readers do not grasp this (how many hypothetical scenarios do we have to imagine?) they should at least understand the risk. --WPholic (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't say how other publications use plot or if their plot sections contain spoilers or not. The fact remains that plot section in Wikipedia are treated as if they contain spoilers. Even under the old system, there was no guarantee that the information that followed a spoiler warning was a real spoiler or just general plot details. We could help clear up some of the ambiguity by using "Plot summery" or "Plot synopsis". --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think using sections titled "Plot summary" or "Plot synopsis" by themselves doesn't help enough to prevent spoiling, without also a warning that by my analysis is non-redundant. First, a "Plot summary", as I understand it, may or may not contain the known spoilers depending on whether a spoiler is also a critical plot element. Second, I'm hearing dark hints that all [excessively detailed] sections marked "Plot [anything] synopsis" could be reduced to plot summaries due to copyvio concerns. Then the unambiguous distinction between "Plot summary" or "Plot synopsis" would be lost. [Farix did not intend to make a distinction between those terms. There is some disagreement among dictionaries and web glossaries as to whether they are synonyms.]
"no guarantee that the information that followed a spoiler warning was a real spoiler" That is a globally unconsensed article issue best left to the local consensus. Milo 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"First, a "Plot summary", as I understand it, may or may not contain the known spoilers depending on whether a spoiler is also a critical plot element." Exactly. It may. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, readers cannot expect it to hide legitimate bits of information. As many users have pointed out, a large proportion of users arrive at Wikipedia via search engines. And what does it say in the search results link when it appears? XXX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. What does it say under the page name on every Wikipedia page? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Even our logo, displayed prominently at the top left corner of the page in Monobook, the skin in which the majority of Wikipedia users, contains the words "The Free Encyclopedia", displayed quite prominently in title case. The word "encyclopedia" is everywhere on Wikipedia. If that's not a blatant enough clue for readers, I don't know what is. --WPholic (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way we can completely prevent spoiling. The only way to completely prevent spoiling is by removing spoilers, which goes against Wikipedia's policy of no censorship.
Also "summery" and "synopsis" are synonyms of each other so there are no unambiguous distinctions between "Plot summery" and "Plot synopsis". If sections titled "Plot synopsis" are having copyright issues because they are too detailed, the same problems exists for sections titled "Plot summery" or even "Plot".
An finally, editors have been placing spoiler tags in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summery", or "Plot synopsis" because the sections have those titles. So do the cspoiler warnings advocates want it both ways? That is state that putting spoiler tags in these sections are not redundant because not all plot sections contains spoilers, but then place spoiler tags in all plot sections because they could contain spoilers. If you don't see the irony in that, perhaps you need to step away from the issue for a while. --Farix (Talk) 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"censorship" "no way we can completely prevent spoiling" Straw man statements? I don't recall anyone advocating censorship, nor claiming the possibility of completely preventing spoiling. I think the minority's negotiating position is about finding the most consensus-acceptable ways to minimize spoiling. There exist compromise ways to do this.
"place spoiler tags in all plot sections because they could contain spoilers" If any section doesn't contain spoilers, I think it shouldn't be spoiler-tagged. However, what particular mention is or isn't a spoiler in a particular context, is a globally undecidable issue. This includes whether to detag well-known Shakespeare versus tagging little-known Shakespeare. You and I aren't necessarily qualified to decide that without spending time immersed in each affected article, so the suggestion on the table is for all such decisions to be handled by local article consensus. Milo 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't Wikipedia's job to completely prevent spoiling. Even if we insist on treating readers like three-year-olds and plaster every Plot section with spoiler warnings even though Plot sections are obviously about the plot, some readers will inevitably take an irresponsible risk and read ahead. Are we going to humour them and put, say, a flashing red neon sign saying "WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!" in front of spoilers or redirect them to a page saying "We're sorry, but the page you tried to access contains spoilers. If you are sure you want to read the page, click Yes. If you don't want to get spoiled, click No." and an "Are you sure?" message box popping up when you click Yes? Of course not, you may say, but the thing is that humouring readers who don't understand the meaning of "plot" by defacing Wikipedia articles with this pointless tag that doesn't even stop users from seeing spoilers anyway given the size of a typical monitor opens the floodgates to a host of ridiculous demands. We shouldn't have spoiler warnings, full stop, or we'll have to make more and more judgment calls that are decidedly POV and that leave more and more people dissatisfied. --WPholic (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would raise the level of discussion to discontinue straw man hypotheses like "Even if we insist on treating readers like three-year-olds". No one has advocated that. (And as previously noted, no one has claimed that it's Wikipedia's job to completely prevent spoiling.) The minority discussion is among fiction-consuming adults who understand that perfection-demands and slippery-slope fears are not bone fide issues. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Milo 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for any misunderstanding, but that's what I think we would be doing if we put spoiler tags on plot sections. (Nobody would write "I think we should treat readers like three-year-olds" in good faith.) Of course, readers make mistakes and may just scroll past a level 2 header saying Plot in large letters and get completely spoiled before they get to watch the movie or read the book, but the spoiler warning wouldn't exactly help here. It doesn't stop readers from seeing spoilers (the typical monitor size is much larger than the spoiler tag), and if readers don't see the word Plot, they probably won't see the (decidedly plain) spoiler tag anyway. The only attention it's likely to attract is from annoyed readers complaining that it disrupted their flow of reading. I believe we should trust readers to avoid reading what they don't want to read. Besides, making the spoiler tag more flashy and attention-grabbing would just make it all the more unprofessional, unencyclopedic and just plain embarrassing, like one of those "Congratulations! You have won $999,999! Click here to claim your prize!" flashing red pseudo-Windows message boxes displayed prominently at the top of whatever webpage you're trying to visit. Spoiler tags help readers who don't understand the fundamental principles of an encyclopedia, but by putting them there we insult the reader by going out of our way to offer help that is unnecessary to many readers.
And why aren't slippery-slope fears bona fide issues? The logic is perfectly sound. You have not offered any rationale as to why they are not legitimate. Once we make concessions and compromise our encyclopedic-ness for the sake of some confused readers, other more confused users will begin to make demands and we'll have no legitimate reason to reject them. Even if we do reject them in the end it'll be after a long painful RFC that just detracts from everyone's energy and time for the encyclopedia. Judgment call after judgment call, the issue will drag on. Eventually people will start complaining that Wikipedia isn't NPOV anymore and we'll get embroiled in another agonising debate...and so on ad infinitum. Which is why we need to have the sense to stop the vicious cycle now. Even if we can stop it later it'll be a lot more time-consuming. --WPholic (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I know this is largely irrelevant to spoiler warnings, but your assumption that everybody here is an adult is ageist. As far as I know, there isn't an age limit for participating in this RFC, and therefore your assertion is totally uncorroborated. --WPholic (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can uderstand why WPholic is against putting the tag under "plot" section that is under a level 2 header. But I just have one question. If it has been answered before, pardon me, as this RFC is very long. Are you against putting this tag in something that is no so obviously plot, say a paragraph in the middle of a section? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this necessitates a judgment call. To some users, it may be obvious that Wikipedia contains spoilers, to others, it may not. Allowing spoiler tags opens the floodgates to a host of judgment calls, which are decidedly un-NPOV and likely to leave more and more people dissatisfied. All the time we would spend sorting out complicated spoiler-related problems would be better spent contributing to the encyclopedia instead of wrangling over minor matters. Oops, I realise I contradicted myself. What I meant to say was that I do not see any major problem with this, especially in articles that are not blatantly about potentially spoilerific subjects. --WPholic (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) and revised 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier anonymous comment made a good point: "I don't buy the argument that 'plot' implies spoilers. The plot of Citizen Kane could be described as 'a rich newspaperman's life is remembered' or 'a rich newspaperman desires Rosebud, his sled.'" One spoils, the other does not. Conflating "plot" and "spoiler," then, is fallacious. Next argument, please. Postmodern Beatnik 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it MIGHT contain spoilers, so the risk inherent should be enough to warn readers of the potentially spoilerific nature of plot sections. I already made this point earlier in this discussion. Quote: "the thing is that no matter how general the meaning of 'plot' becomes, the fact remains that the details of the plot i.e. the whole plot is one type of plot". --WPholic (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any article MIGHT contain spoilers, but even the spoiler warning deletionists are hard-pressed to say that this alone justifies not including warnings on any article.
The point of the argument that plot implies spoilers is that "plot" is redundant with the spoiler warning and that the spoiler warning provides no new information. For that argument to be right, *every* plot section must contain spoilers by its very nature, and that just isn't true. Some plot sections contain spoilers. Some don't. And some contain them only at the end where they can be marked by a warning past the top of the section. Ken Arromdee 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, people still put spoiler tags around plot sections regardless of whether they contain spoilers on the bases that the section is titled "Plot". So either spoilers in plot sections are a give and adding a spoiler warning in those section is be redundant, or we tag all plot sections with spoiler warnings because many contain spoilers and we need to C.O.A., which defeats the purpose of having a spoiler warning in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we do our jobs as editors and put spoiler tags on plot sections with spoilers and remove them from plot sections without them. The "Argument from Laziness" doesn't impress me. If people put tags around plot sections without spoilers then they have made a mistake. If you notice it, you fix it—just like every other mistake you may find in an article. Postmodern Beatnik 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have fundamentally misunderstood the argument. It merely states that the spoiler warning is unnecessary with the "plot" section heading because it is equivalent to saying "Watch out, you might learn something about [the subject of the article]!" For THAT argument to be right, a sizeable portion of plot summaries have to contain spoilers. And they DO because that is the whole point of plot summaries: to provide information about the plot, which often includes spoilers, a fact which should be so blindingly obvious even to the non-Wikipedian unaware of this debate, since the only knowledge needed is a comprehension of the term "plot". --WPholic (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this diuscussion becoming a bit overly centred on plot summaries? General text may discuss an important spoileresque part of the plot as it goes along in the context of whatever. Putting a blanket warning on plot summaries is pretty pointless in my opinion, at the very least because most of that information can not reasonably be considered a spoiler, as argued above. It has to be assumed that someone reading is seeking at least some information. So the issue devolves to under what circumstances a specific important point should be marked as a spoiler wherever it may occur. 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvement[edit]

I believe the tags should be kept. And I'd like to propose this improvement:

There should be 3 levels of spoiler tag

  1. Spoiler of the main subject (an episode, a film) in question
  2. Spoiler of a subsequent episode/sequel that has been aired
  3. Spoiler of a future episode/sequel that has not been aired

This way, readers of different interests can all easily identify what they want to read and not. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see, there are people who do not care about any compromises, they just want spoiler tags removed and finis. :( What is more impotant, they think they are majority who can make decisions, thus, they blatantly remove those tags and there is nothing you can do. --Akral 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse the first four statements, but maybe the fifth statement is excessively hopeless. One has several options, the best of which is organizing.
If one wants to do something, one could organize in an adhocracy, which is a single-purpose organization that goes away when this issue goes away.
Based on the polling I've seen, a hefty 40% minority wants some form of spoiler tags, and there are compromises available which the majority refuses to negotiate. If the clique that started this campaign, and the majority that supported them, hadn't abused process, and had they conducted a scrupulously fair anti-spoiler-tag campaign, I might well have shrugged it all off. But they conducted a coup instead. They claim what they did is ok, I claim it's not.
40% could make a mighty clamor for reform to prevent future coups. Will that happen? I don't know. But I guarantee that if the conditions that allowed this process-abusive coup aren't reformed, there will be more of them in the future. Milo 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we have to do to claim our spoiler tags back? I'm in. :) --Akral 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, by avoiding the need to use a spoiler tag in the first place. This can be done with article organization where the headings provided the warnings and writing from an out-of-universe perspective so that you can provided context clues that a spoiler is about to come. And lastly limit any use of the spoiler tag to actual plot details that are spoilers instead of general plot details.
Generally you can make compelling arguments about recently released or unreleased films, series, and novels. But these kinds of spoiler warnings should be temporal by nature. --Farix (Talk) 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles will have {{future x}} on the front of them, which should drop them a hint about as subtle as a brick that it'll contain information about it that they may not want to know. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of the stupid. 81.104.175.145 14:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Faulty logic, straw man, and insult to support a majoritarian position? Embarrassing.
{{future x}} does not guarantee that spoilers will be present, because too little may be known to spoil.
"Censorship" is a straw man claim. Please check a dictionary and re-read WP:Not#Censored. Censorship is the prior restraint or removal of information. Spoiler tags flag the coming details which do exist.
So no one is stupid, and spoiler tags are not redundant when {{future x}} is present. Milo 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What 81.104.175.145 says has little to do with my proposal. Censorship: nothing is removed so nothing is censored. "Not for the protection of the stupid": If I'm reading an article about episode 1, and have not seen episode 2, how can I possibly know in advance that this article may contain "relative" spoiler? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. The problem is that the article on episode 1 contains substantial information about episode 2. Also, such labelling is censorship. Ask any media professional. 81.104.175.145 09:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you knew in advance that the article "may" contain spoilers because you read the general disclaimer before you started. 81.104.175.145 09:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship says "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.". Now, the tag add words to an article. How is that censorship. Any reader is free to choose to proceed or to avoid. And as I said at the very beginning, there are different levels of spoilers, which can apply to almost any story/film/TV show/comic/novel, etc. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop WP:WL over the meaning of "censorship". Read the first phrase in WP:NOT#CENSORED. You know, the one about Wikipedia containing stuff you may not want to know. 81.104.175.145 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself are wiki-lawyering in this anonymous post, since you have conveniently ignored the fact that the first sentence of WP:NOT#CENSORED refers to objectionable and offensive material, not "stuff you may not want to know." The difference between the two is important for any honest and serious discussion of this matter. And to address your earlier claim, you might want to note that the general disclaimer says absolutely nothing about spoilers. The content disclaimer does, but it links to the page on spoiler warnings, which at present still reflects the current policy of including spoiler warnings when appropriate. So it is not unreasonable to think that (a) Wikipedia contains spoilers but (b) there will be warnings for anything major (since a spoiler being "major" would constitute "a compelling reason" to include it, as per Wikipedia:Spoiler). Postmodern Beatnik 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not wikilawyering. Yet you are. What objectively is the difference between "offensive or objectionable" and "stuff you may want to know"? 81.104.175.145 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to know the ending of Cowboy Bebop before I had seen the entire story, but I would not have been (nor am I currently) offended by the fact that Spike dies at the end. Conservative Christians may find porn objectionable but that doesn't mean they don't want to know the content of pornographic films so as to have something to base their objections on. So, as I said, the terms are not mutually co-extensive. Postmodern Beatnik 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else find IP's last statement rather funny? The difference between "offensive or objectionable" and "stuff you may want to know" is that I want to know things that arn't always offensive, and I don't always want to know things that are objectionable! hehehe. continue your spat. Kuronue 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, don't take a typo out of context. IP clearly meant to say "stuff you may not want to know," and I responded accordingly. Postmodern Beatnik 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has digressed a little. Going back, I still don't find a compelling argument from 81.104.175.145 why adding this tag is censorship. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it isn't censorship. Both WP:NOT and Censorship (the latter of which is referred to by the former) clearly indicate that censorship is about the removal of information. There may be good arguments against spoiler tags, but this is not one of them. Postmodern Beatnik 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you are WP:WL over the precise definition of "censorship". Censorship is not about removal of information. Rather, it's about the reasoning and the process behind it. One can happily remove information from Wikipedia articles all day while not doing anything you would call "censorship". Removal is not a necessary condition for censorship, motivation is. Censorship is the act of hiding or covering up (whether completely or partly) information. With scenes of sex and violence, a broadcaster may remove them, or alternatively they may hide it behind a content warning. A spoiler warning is exactly the same - you are hiding information on a fictional work from those who may not wish to see it. Technical definitions are not important - overall meaning is. We don't specifically warn people about content that may be illegal in their jurisdiction, things they may find offensive, or images that may make them physically sick. A spoiler warning is nothing more and nothing less than content labelling, which the community has already rejected. 81.104.175.145 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is labelling a section 'plot summary' content labelling? Is it censorship? Spoiler warnings _are_ information. Unlike most of the offensive content warnings, they can be used in two ways. They can be used to allow you to avoid information you don't want to read, or you can use it to seek out information you particularly want to read. I myself have done both, on different occasions. Since the community has (rightly) rejected the idea of having "spoiler" sections in the table of contents, with other sections being spoiler free, the spoiler tag is the best way to preserve this level of information. Wandering Ghost 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're using a strange definition of hide, IP. Hiding a penis behind a black bar, that's censorship because the penis is no longer available to be viewed. Placing a NC-17 rating on the box of the movie advising people that there are penises inside is not censorship, because anyone can still watch the movie to see the penises, this is not being taken away from them. (Arguably, the laws stopping minors from buying the NC-17 material is censorship as it takes away the ability of the minors to obtain the movie in the first place, but assuming someone bought it for them, nothing about the label itself censors the content). Nobody is stopping anyone from reading the spoiler content; it's not hidden, just labelled. I mean, you might as well say that the penis article is censored because there's no information about penises on the front page of wikipedia, it's hidden inside the article; spoiler tags are like titles of articles, indicating what you are reading is a spoiler, just like the penis article indicates what you are reading is an article about penises and nothing else. Kuronue 08:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Spoilers[edit]

Even if it is somehow implicit in a "plot summary" section that there will be spoilers, it's not implicit that the name of the article itself (for instance, "Tia Dalma" redirecting to "Calypso") or in the second sentence (The Usual Suspects has been exampled to death, but it's still the best I have). Clicking on "Pirates of the Caribbean" brings me to a page containing a template contianing a spoiler (or it did until I reverted it)! There's been talk of trying to be like other encyclopedias; that's nonsense, since while they don't contain spoiler tags, they also don't have articles on movies where there are massive spoilers such as this to be had, nor do they cover fiction that isn't so famous it's hard to spoil anyway. Wiki is going where no encyclopedia has gone before, and honestly, there needs to be SOME sort of policy so that people don't stop using Wiki because it's impossible to look things up without spoilers. Sometimes when I'm watching anime, I've forgotten things like who a character is, so I look them up; it'd be nice to be able to do so without having a spoiler for an episode I havn't seen yet, but at the least I know I can avoid anything in spoiler tags, or at the very least, the article title and lead should be safe! A few sentences is usually all I'll need to recall who they are anyway. Kuronue 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading some other sections of the archived discussion.. has anyone considered just not writing spoilers outside of a detailed plot summary? Just don't put them. Leave them in the plot section, because if you're reading all the way to the end of the plot section, you expect to find the end of the movie/book/whatever discussed. Leave character spoilers in the plot section under where they are revealed, rather than in the lead. If we're going to be like physical encyclopedias, we shouldn't even have this issue because we shouldn't be discussing spoilers. Kuronue 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't twist article structure around for the sake of avoiding spoilers. Articles come first, spoilers second. If a spoiler in question would be best somewhere else, it should not be extracted and placed in the plot section just because it's a spoiler. --WPholic (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twist structure around? I'm talking about instead of "XXX is a book in which YYY spoiler happened" in the lead, or other random acts of spoilorship, it'd be in good form to keep plot discussion to a plot section and character backgound information to a character background section and not litter it all over in random places. Kuronue 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant opposition[edit]

From Wikipedia talk:Spoiler:

Nydas: You still haven't explained how you managed to watch tens of thousands of pages to determine whether there was 'significant resistance'.

Tony Sidaway: That is a very odd statement. The normal Wikipedia site tools, available to all editors simply by clicking the usual links, can tell me this in an instant. A significant amount of resistance might be, for instance, hundreds of editors restoring tags. We did, after all, remove tags from 45,000 articles, so if there had been more than a handful we would have noticed.
The normal Wikipedia site tools do not tell you this in an instant (or if they do, you choose not to explain how). Inspecting the contribution histories in detail will show that hundreds of editors have been restoring tags. I have bolded this for your benefit, but I do not expect a response. This is a fact that any concerned editor can confirm for themselves.
For example, looking at Kusma's contribution history[2], between 10th June 18:55 and 11th June 13:00, there are 50 edits. Out of these, 46 are spoiler warning removals. Of these, 27 are removals where the spoiler tags had previously been removed and then restored later. Some of these were restored by Kizor, but the vast majority were restored by others. If just one low-ranking member of the anti-spoiler brigade can overrule around twenty people in just eighteen hours, then imagine what has been happening over the last three weeks.
When Tony Sidaway or another member of the anti-spoiler group says there was 'no significant opposition', this has no relationship whatsoever with the truth. Perhaps they didn't know - it's not obvious to someone making machine gun edits if they've hit the same article more than once. Perhaps they chose not to know.
From the botched discussion, to the mass edits, to the threats, to the idiosyncratic 'policy' of WP:NOSIGNIFICANTOPPOSITION, it is clear that this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Today it was spoiler warnings, tomorrow it could be British spellings or Wiktionary templates.--Nydas(Talk) 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to work using boldness to overcome inertia. Kusma (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline also says 'don't be reckless'.--Nydas(Talk) 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Hundreds of editors restoring tags" neither makes those editors right nor makes those removing them wrong. Content labelling on Wikipedia has been rejected, and I don't see that changing soon. 81.104.175.145 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing from the provided link from K's contributions that none of the first twenty or so contributions I looked at have had their spoiler tags re-added... and at least half of those were redundancies (plot, etc) that were agreed didn't need a tag... David Fuchs 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I went through wikipedia and removed every single instance of any other tag, I'd be banned for vandalism. Why are a few allowed to strong-arm consensus under the claims of being bold by forcibly removing every last spoiler tag, and then allowed to contest that "45,000 spoiler tags have been removed, thus there MUST be consensus"? Circular argument. Kuronue 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is no more a circular argument than "lots of people are restoring them, therefore MUST be consensus for keeping them". Put it this way - if you went and inserted 45,000 warning tags saying "Warning: this page contains [strong language|sexual content|images of violence|grotesque pictures]", you'd probably be banned for vandalism or disruption. 81.104.175.145 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Both arguments are retarded and we need to move on. There's clearly not a consensus because there's bitter fighting across several pages about spoilers; that to me does not equate to a consensus. I'm sure you're all way too smart to be playing these childish games. Kuronue 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This whole battle by kabals who want to reshape Wikipedia into their own image (removing spoiler tags is the silliest thing I've heard -- and thanks to their being no spoiler tag I just had the ending of Season 3 of Doctor Who spoiled for me in an article that included said information for the sake of completeness... in an article where one would not have expected such information. This is why I've stopped contributing as an admin and don't even both to sign in anymore. For the record, I'm one of the hundreds who was restoring tags but I stopped because I was told policy now forbade them so I assumed to continue doing so would have been considered vandalism. 68.146.8.46 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an administrator, and someone told you that "policy now forbids spoiler tags"? And you believed him? Forgive my skepticism. What was your username, and who told you this? --Tony Sidaway 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

45,000 removals[edit]

Can someone point me to the alleged 45,000 removals, so I can review them? —Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...[edit]

Are we still using these tags or not? A consensus does not appear to have been reached. Can we agree on a case-by-case "sometimes spoiler tags are appropriate but only use them rarely because wiki readers aren't morons" policy? I think the current incarnation of the spoiler template looks good/appropriate (as of now, it reads "Note: Significant plot details follow"), as it specifies significant plot details, and is relatively unobtrusive (without being invisible). Can we agree to disagree (while still avoiding edit wars)? If someone disagrees specifically with the application of a template to a specific page, then a discussion can take place on that page. -Elizabennet | talk 15:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case-by-case would be nice (i.e. the new Harry Potter book), but the anti-spoiler admins have made it clear that they won't accept spoiler tags anywhere in Wikipedia. The mailing list archives make it clear this has been their intention from the start. At the moment, the 'compelling reason' bit means that they can veto any spoiler tag, even if there's a local consensus for it.--Nydas(Talk) 15:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an "anti-spoiler admin", whatever that might be, could stop a local consensus from placing a spoiler tag. If he kept removing it and different people kept replacing it then he'd be editing against consensus, which is kinda disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with this so long as there's a "no spoiler patrolling" stipulation, or at the very least a 'discussions must be made _before_ removal' one. Discussions and decisions should be made by local editors. Because it's easy to get a list of articles with spoiler warnings, but impossible (to my knowledge) to get a list of articles with a removed spoiler warnings, it's possible for a few people opposed to spoiler warnings to get together and overrule hundreds of individual people on individual pages. David Gerard and Tony Sidaway (among others) can _easily_ jump into every spoiler debate, and add two votes 'against'. There's no corrosponding ability for the other side. So it's an uneven playing field. Wandering Ghost 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there's always their recent edits page ;) Kuronue 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nydas is incorrect. There aren't, as yet, many instances of spoiler tags on Wikipedia, but they're being handled on a case-by-case basis, which I think is sensible. The article about the recently released Silver Surfer film has a spoiler tag on it at present, as does WALL-E, a film yet to be released. Many of the tags being added at present, however, seem to be when people are edit warring over whether to have an article or a redirect. The page must have been in redirect state when the spoiler tags were removed. Others are being added by occasional editors who haven't yet caught up with the new guideline. They'll adjust to it in time and will use their discretion more.
There is no veto, but I wouldn't oppose changing the wording to say "persuasive" rather than "compelling". If there is a general feeling in a discussion on a talk page that a spoiler tag would help the potential readers without hurting article quality, then one person who insisted on restoring it would be reverting against consensus, which if kept up can be disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG/Guy has removed your spoiler tags on List of fictional occurrences of broadcast signal intrusion, saying it was 'redundant and nonsensical in context'. Your compelling/persuasive reason must not be compelling/persuasive enough. The guideline remains a waste of time, dependent as it is on the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade.
I ask you again, why can the guideline not say 'spoilers are OK for newly released films'?--Nydas(Talk) 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why anyone would object to that. I'm sorry if I missed the first time you asked that.
On List of fictional occurrences of broadcast signal intrusion, I told you I had no veto. These decisions are made by consensus. That's Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since two users think it appropriate and one finds it 'nonsensical' the consensus is obviously to keep it. The veto is exercised by any of the half dozen or so anti-spoiler admins, not just you. As for recent film articles, are you saying that you will support a statement that spoiler warnings are OK for them?--Nydas(Talk) 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acceptable compromise I don;t like spoiler warnings, and I would delete them all. WP isn't a movie guide but an encyclopedia. But there seems to be no real consensus either to keep them all or to remove them all, and perhaps we should go on to other matters, such as editing. The practical thing to do in this sort of situation is to compromise, as specified above for current movies, though i might add current Broadway plays. This probably is not a leave-the-WP issue for anyone, on either side. There's no need to go by votes, or by oligarchy, if we can find some common position.DGG
    I think the current version of Wikipedia:Spoiler represents a decent compromise. Articles on fictional subjects get spoiler tags where there's consensus that a compelling reason exists. In practice this appears to be hardly ever, because I've seen tags removed from pretty big recent released movies without any complaints on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Compelling reason' is entirely meaningless in practice, essentially devolving down to 'I don't like it' for any member of anti-spoiler patrol. There's nothing in the guideline to require consistency or fairness, so spoiler tags on franchises they don't like (like Bionicle) have basically no chance.--Nydas(Talk) 08:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of complaints is more likely either a) oversight, b) bowing to perceived authority, or c) wisdom of people not wanting to stick their noses into this pissing contest. --Jere7my 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the matter, or rather the current wrangling about it, has been enough of an issue to drive a couple of users to the breaking point and away from the project. But that's a side point. --Kizor 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself, Nydas. The current WP:SPOILER version removed the 'compelling reason' crap, and says that you have to obtain consensus for removing/adding a spoiler. What more do you want? But of course, punishment for the "rogue admins of the evil nneo nazi wikipedia sect"... I've had enough of it.
And to Jeremy: no one on Wikipedia "bows down" to admins. We're subject to the same rules as you, and no one with half a brain says "oh, an admin said not to, therefore I won't". Admins have greater power, but no greater authority than any other user. David Fuchs 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but while that might be true in theory, in practice Wikipedia is edited by a vast array of people, many of whom are intimidated by administrators, or don't know enough to know what you just said. Those people don't have < half a brain; they're just not as experienced as you. --Jere7my 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you... I thought you meant the users who were involved here, not the general community. However, I would also note that admins are essentially transparent; the only way someone would know you're an admin would be if they saw it on your user page, etc. or some resource like that, or if you came out and said it. I don't think many admins, particularly the ones here being acused of being part of a "kabal", would say "I took out this spoiler warning... 'cause I'm an admin and I know these things". David Fuchs

Content vs. conceptual redundancy, aka 1 + 1 = 2[edit]

Many users have stated that putting spoiler tags on plot sections isn't inherently redundant because plot sections don't invariably contain spoilers. They are thinking of content redundancy. From this perspective, the perspective of what is really redundant on a case-by-case basis, it is indeed not inherently redundant. But from another perspective, the perspective of conceptual redundancy, which holds that plot sections in theory or conceptually should discuss the plot and by extension should include relevant spoilers despite their spoilerific nature, it is inherently redundant because readers of Wikipedia should read the word "Plot" and understand that if they don't want to get spoiled they shouldn't read ahead. That idea is intrinsic in the very concept of the "plot", which is not particularly difficult to grasp. What, after all, are plot sections for?

While content redundancy can be a good consideration from the perspective of improving individual articles, it tends to underestimate Wikipedia readers in that it assumes they do not understand the meaning of the word "plot", which is an unjustified assumption and thus makes spoiler tags condescending. It's a drastic underestimation that effectively reduces Wikipedia readers to three-year-olds who don't understand the concept of "plot" and eagerly blurt out the ending while the whole family is trying to enjoy a show. This condescension is like putting "Wearing this garment does not enable you to fly!" on Superman costumes—it may help confused individuals who don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy but it just patronises the rest of us, which are actually the vast majority of us. The leisure-related nature of things like Superman costumes persuades us to let it pass, but on a serious encyclopedia such condescension is completely undesirable. Putting spoiler tags on plot sections is like putting "1 + 1 = 2" on the top of every mathematics article—in fact making the whole page have a watermark saying "1 + 1 = 2" repeatedly in tiny print. Well, why not? Some users might not know, mightn't they? Some users might forget what they just read a minute ago, mightn't they? Spoiler tagging follows a similar logic: some users might not understand the word "plot", mightn't they? It's ridiculous condescension that should not be allowed if Wikipedia's encyclopedic-ness is to be preserved. --WPholic (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I am not a 3-years old nor stupid, in fact I have a degree in mathematics. But for a foreigner like me, I would say it's not obvious what is the exact meaning of the word "plot". If you look at IMDB for example, they have "plot summary" for each film, and they don't give away the ending. So I would say it's perhaps not so obvious even to the native speakers. Also, there is an user interface side of things. Spoiler warning is a reminder that you may read about something you don't want to, and the fact that it is a template that looks always the same is very helpful (so you don't have to think - or even remember that you have to think - at each section - ahh, will it contain spoilers or not?). Samohyl Jan 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons with non-encyclopedias, especially entertainment sites, are irrelevant as non-encyclopedias simply have fundamentally different goals and policies from encyclopedias. To use your example, IMDB is an entertainment site, so in keeping with the customs of the entertainment industry it has to avoid spoiling the ending. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus has to be encyclopedic, and spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic. We should compare apples and apples. --WPholic (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, you can claim that revealing spoilers in recent media is unencyclopediac, since only very specialized fan-clyclopedias even bother about spoiler-worthy material anyway Kuronue 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my argument. I was not comparing IMDB and Wikipedia, I was comparing usage of word "plot" on IMDB and there, in order to explain that it's not obvious that plot will contain the spoilers. Anyway, I don't like this whole "Wikipedia is encyclopedia" argument. First, Wikipedia is very different from any other encyclopedia, so there are no bounding rules of how it should look like. Second, I think it makes more sense to cater for large audience that actually likes Wikipedia (fiction fans that use and want spoiler warnings), rather than for much smaller audience which is more or less indifferent to Wikipedia (university professors of literature and such, which may be offended by spoiler warnings). For some people, Wikipedia will never look professional (even if they would use it daily, though never admit it), because in order to look professional, it must look polished, and to look polished, it must look finished (and finishing it contradicts to its goals, IMHO). Samohyl Jan 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing spoiler warnings is condescending. It basically assumes that normal people will subscribe the anti-spoiler brigade's a priori 'truth' that spoilers = unencyclopedic.--Nydas(Talk) 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not wikt:condescending in any way. It is, OTOH, to be adding them. "You are in the article about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. This may contain information on the plot of the book." No, really? I'd never have guessed. I don't see why this should be different to explicit images (breast and penis contain images of nudity), graphic pictures (don't be looking at gangrene, now) or coarse language (our article on fuck uses the word fuck rather than f**k, but not in a fucking gratuitous Gordon fucking Ramsay sort of way). We don't even provide a specific warning on articles that may be illegal to view in some jurisdictions. Why? We don't need any disclaimers of any kind in the articles, ever. We've already got them, and should work on the basis that people have read them. If they haven't, it should not be our problem, and I see no reason for it to be so. 81.104.175.145 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring decapitation, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh and all the others where there is censorship, the difference is that once a fictional work is spoiled, it can't be undone, and a lot of the creative impact is lost. If a picture of a penis magically caused a vasectomy in any man looking at it, we'd definitely have a warning.--Nydas(Talk) 07:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a sin in your religion to see a certain picture, that is something that can't be undone and is far less trivial than losing some suspense on one work of fiction (there will always be many other works of fiction). Similarly, young viewers may be grossly disturbed by viewing pictures or reading descriptions of violence or uncommon sexual practices; this can't be undone either. We don't put shock images where they don't belong, though, and we don't put spoilers about the end of Harry Potter in articles where they don't belong, either. If you don't want to see a Prince Albert piercing, don't look up Prince Albert piercing. If you don't want to know whether Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are related, don't read articles about Star Wars. It is that easy. Kusma (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What religions are there where it's a sin to see a certain picture? Islam and Bahá'í discourage it, it's not a sin. If there were a religion where one's salvation hinged on not seeing certain things, would spoiler tags be OK? Or would it be a case of (quite literally) 'go to hell'.
There will always be other works of fiction, but the anti-spoiler brigade insists upon removing all spoiler tags. People have no business researching new fiction on Wikipedia, and anyone that does deserves to be 'burned' and needs re-education. It's a fansite mentality, and it has no place here.--Nydas(Talk) 14:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing the "anti-spoiler brigade" insists upon is encyclopaedic standards. We don't need spoiler tags because they are unnecessary, and serve no purpose other than to say "you might not like what you see beyond this point", which is a redundant statement - you might not like what you see beyond the words "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". 81.104.175.145 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nydas, honestly, what the fuck. "People have no business researching new fiction on Wikipedia, and anyone that does deserves to be 'burned' and needs re-education. It's a fansite mentality, and it has no place here." Where does Wikipeda state "if you're researching new fiction- go elsewhere"? Likewise, "fan site"? How is wanting to know the ending to something, or simply looking up the plot a "fan site" activity? David Fuchs 14:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Archive 3#Why I just don't think these things are acceptable, by Tony Sidaway:
Certainly I can acknowledge that some people may wish to only have a highly selective subset of information about fictional work. This is their problem, not Wikipedia's. If they come to Wikipedia, they'll get the works. They know this and if they still insist on coming to Wikipedia then that is their problem and not ours.
From the the mailing list, by Phil Sandifer:
Bold proposal: Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies. People may well get burnt on one or two articles they read before they will come to a simple and obvious realization - encyclopedia articles on a topic reveal information about that topic. If you have a desire to not know things about a topic, you probably shouldn't go look it up in an encyclopedia.
It seems pretty clear from these comments that people who wish to research new fiction without risking the plot being spoiled are expected to go elsewhere. My comment about a fansite mentality refers to the desire to exclude 'outsiders' who 'don't understand'.--Nydas(Talk) 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not designed to be a fan site, thus the position that spoiler warnings are unencylopediac (which they are, you can't argue the flip side o' that.) Wikipedia is different from a paper encyclopedia, this is certainly true; however that does not make the position that spoiler warnings have no place in articles which are supposed to inform about the work, not about the plot of the work, any less valid. From my experience, fansites are the places that black out spoilers or put them in white on white backgrounds. David Fuchs 18:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings are encyclopedic. They help people find the the information they want. Fansites don't use spoiler warnings; generalist sites do. What fansites do is exclude those 'who don't belong'. It's been suggested by the anti-spoiler brigade, apparently seriously, that 'everyone' knows the ending to Harry Potter 6, Ender's Game, or even the Asimov novels. Or any fiction that's been out for a week. God forbid if you pick up the DVD of a film instead of going to the cinema. As far as they're concerned, you don't exist.
The anti-spoiler brigade's a priori conception of spoiler tags as unencyclopedic is a personal belief, rather a universal truth. What they actually mean is that they don't like them. That's all.--Nydas(Talk) 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you left your common buzzwords and phrases such as "a priori yada yada" and "anti-spoiler brigade" out of the discussion. They serve no point, color the arguments presented, and assume that there is in fact an anti-spoiler brigade, no serious evidence of which has been brought up and regardless is not important to spoilers anyhow. David Fuchs 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95% or more of spoiler tag removals were made by around half a dozen editors. That's a faction, or team, or group, or brigade or whatever you want to call it. There's an article describing a priori and a posteriori (philosophy), it's not a buzzword.--Nydas(Talk) 18:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a number of flawed assumptions here:
  1. that there is more than one editor disagreeing with you indicates the existence of a cabal;
  2. that said cabal is out to get you;
  3. that article disclaimers pointing out spoilers are somehow different from (in particular, more important than) article disclaimers for graphic sex, language, violence or other;
  4. that spoilers are not in any way shape or form an act of self-censorship;
  5. that anyone actually cares about the presence or otherwise of spoilers in our articles.
As has been pointed out before, an encyclopaedia article on a topic by necessity reveals information on that topic. If you don't want to know that information, don't look it up. Don't harp on about "incidental spoilers" - they are often an indication that the information is outside the scope of the article. 81.104.175.145 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said anything about a cabal. If you believe there is no anti-spoiler group, that is your right. I did provide evidence as David Fuchs asked; if that evidence is not enough for you, then so be it. Our articles on sex, violence, etc are pretty tame; the pictures are no worse than anything you'd find in an art gallery or sex education booklet. Is using wood cuttings and old paintings to illustrate things like rape and cannibalism censorship? It's certainly more so that spoiler tags, which don't even hide anything.--Nydas(Talk) 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That entire paragraph is WP:BALLS, and exactly opposite to reality. It doesn't deserve a proper answer, but you're getting one anyway. The very purpose of a spoiler tag is to hide the information from initial viewing. How on earth can including illustrative images of rape and cannibalism be censorship? I'd say it's a fairly valiant effort, given that rapists and cannibals tend not to have people with them taking photographs while engaged in the act. Anyway, I imagine a photograph of an actual rape in progress would likely be illegal under Florida or US federal law, so we couldn't show it if we tried. 81.104.175.145 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your assessment that spoiler tags hide information. Instead of proclaiming my views 'the exact opposite of reality', you could explain in detail how spoiler tags prevent people from reading plain text in front of them. I suspect your belief hinges on the odd phrase 'initial viewing'. In that case, I do not agree that spoiler tags hide information from this 'initial viewing', whatever it may be.
The point about the use of paintings and woodcuts is that they are used in place of graphic photographs. The photos don't have to be genuine as long as they're illustrative. I doubt it would be difficult to find a graphic portrayal of a rape that was free and legal. It'd be impossible to get it to stick on the article, though, because too many people would object.--Nydas(Talk) 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your point about graphic portrayal of rape, photographs are useless for what should be obvious reasons, but since your sense of reality is so hideously impaired, I'll elaborate:
  • To be useful, any image would have to depict sexual activity and convey the non-consensual nature of the image. Without the former it's useless, and without the latter it's gratuitous. Conveying the non-consensual nature is difficult, you can't just ask people to play it rough - that's not depicting rape, just rough sex. So that's out.
  • US federal law requires that anyone publishing adult material must have written evidence that all the participants are over 18 and consented. So any actual images are out. Quality might also be a problem, what with the whole not-wanting-to-give-oneself-away thing.
  • Some of the artistic images on the page do convey the rape idea, and are likely not accurate depictions of real people in real situations. They also go well with an article discussion rape and perceptions thereof throughout the ages. Everyone wins.
There. The images we have depict rape as well if not better than a photograph would, and we have no legal issues. 81.104.175.145 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The hurdles you are describing are not insurmountable. If paintings can convey rape, then so can photos.--Nydas(Talk) 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are. Prove otherwise or shut up already. 81.104.175.145 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nydas, you are totally missing the point. Of course photos can convey rape. But the question here is not whether they can, it's whether the implementation of such representations would be problematic and/or impracticable. And since you say the hurdles are not insurmountable, where is your proof? How are we going to get around US federal law? How are we going to convey both sexual activity and non-consensus? Reducing all the arguments put forth under this section regarding the artistic vs. photographic representation of rape to "if paintings can convey rape, then so can photos" - a completely irrelevant statement - does not help to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of this RFC and in fact only serves to lower it. So what if they can? How is this relevant in any way to the discussion? --WPholic (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rape is probably too controversial for this example (there are probably specialised laws about it), but we don't use photos in virtually any article about sex. I'm assuming that we could 'get around' US Federal Law the same way the porn industry and manufacturers of sex education books can. My point is that we censor sex articles (and others), which is why we don't have other kinds of disclaimer templates. If we included photos instead of mosaic and pottery depictions in sex articles, you can bet that there'd be a strong campaign for disclaimer templates.--Nydas(Talk) 10:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reasons we don't use photos are the problems we would encounter in attempting to use photos in such a manner, so that is contradictory. Anyway, forgive me if I misunderstood your argument, but that analogy is flawed. Including photos in sex-related articles would open us up to tons of problems we are not prepared to have to face at this moment. Including spoilers, however, is good insofar as they contribute to the content of the article in a meaningful way. --WPholic (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia argument[edit]

Many users have rebutted the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" argument, saying that it is so different from other encyclopedias there's no reason it has to follow the same rules. This is why, they say, we should have spoiler warnings since other encyclopedias do not even have spoilers anyway. Well, they have neglected the deep flaws in their argument.

Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias because it is editable, it has a much larger base of editors, and it exists on a much larger scale. Hence, it can contain spoilers and much more content Britannica and other encyclopedias cannot.

However, just because it can include much more information does not mean it should be unencyclopedic and warn readers about this information. Readers should come to a page expecting to find information. Spoilers are a type of information. Warning that certain types of information might be found in an, ahem, REPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE is just condescending and patronising. --WPholic (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree. Just because Wikipedia is viewed by a larger userbase doesn't mean that warnings should be necessary. If a reader enters a page on a certain topic unknowing, they should be prepared for the possible consequences, such as having the plot be spoiled. The readers of a page should be able to use enough common sense that they can avoid a page if they feel it may spoil a plot, just as they would skip a page in a paper encyclopedia. JelloExperience (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning&oldid=1185182961"