Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Disputed

After the spoiler template TFD, this guideline was rewritten before any proposals were made on this page. Editors are free to make any proposals now. --Pixelface (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute - we are accurately describing current practice. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing the page's designation as a guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a single editor disputing the guideline, at this moment, is not enough to warrant a disputed tag in the guideline page. Unless it can be proven that people are against this guideline, there is no need for such tag. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait. --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Akiyama has also disputed this page's designation as a guideline. Do you think there is a need for such tag now ReyBrujo? --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, yes, the guideline was massacred after the TFD, however the spirit of the guideline remains the same. Most of the changes address the disappearance of the Spoilers template, although some sections that may have been useful have vanished in the rush. Editors do make such mistakes from time to time, after all we are human. It is better if you address what you want to challenge instead of just adding a generic tag and hoping to create a whole new guideline. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I challenge the entire guideline. It appears to have been written by one editor. I can provide diffs if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read anything that Radiant wrote? Just curious. Marc Shepherd (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read anything that Radiant! wrote?[1][2]. Such comments don't exactly make me think Radiant! is a neutral party in all of this. --Pixelface (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I did read it and it seems rather contradictory to me. On the one hand, Wikipedia does not have stringent rules, but on the other hand, we're supposed to say when it's appropriate to use a spoiler tag and Radiant! disqualified a valid response — "whenever editors feel like it" — which is the case for many other tags. Seeing as how there was a long dispute over archiving this page, I don't think additional archival was the best move in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that consensus for any practice other than the one advocated by this page exists. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] I can provide more evidence if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All reverted. By that standard, consensus for vandalism exists. I didn't ask for evidence that people added spoiler tags. I asked for evidence of consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked for evidence that any practice other than the one advocated by this page exists. I've provided that. Shall I contact each of those editors so they can discuss the issue here and we can come to an agreement? I believe the history of the spoiler guideline shows that spoiler warnings have been used on Wikipedia for at least 5 years, the events of the past 7 months notwithstanding. I also believe the recent TFD for Template:Spoiler, despite the closure by JzG, showed no consensus for its deletion. I don't think there has ever been a consensus for the deletion of the {{spoiler}} template. --Pixelface (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize - I switched "for" and "that" in my request so that it was unclear. Regardless - no spoiler tags is stable on thousands of articles. Evidence to the contrary is a pre-requisite for any motion on this guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You say no spoiler warnings is "stable" on thousands of articles, but that is because one user runs a bot to look for them and then removes them. I would be interested in knowing how often a spoiler warning is re-added to a page after it is initially removed. On May 2, 2007, when Tony Sidaway requested that TonyBot be approved, he did not mention he would use the bot to remove spoiler warnings. On May 2, 2007, this guideline looked like this. Tony Sidaway said "The aim is to make it easy for users to produce lists of information they need to maintain Wikipedia." Tony Sidaway also said "The bot owner reserves the right, for good reason and with the interests of Wikipedia in mind, to refuse access to any user. The reason for refusal will be stated publicly on the user's talk page and may be subject to revision if you can somehow successfully cajole, persuade or provide reasonable reassurances." Tony Sidaway said "The query mechanism could in principle be used for the purposes of stalking another person's edits, for instance, and if this ever happens the community should be able to detect this and express its opinion on the appropriateness of the queries in the light of the project's aims." The bot was speedily approved on May 4, 2007 at 12:31. At that time, the spoiler guideline looked like this. I have to question the appropriatness of TonyBot's queries for the word spoiler and how they concern this spoiler guideline. The bot's first output list of pages containing the word "spoiler" was created July 22, 2007 at 20:42. At that time, the spoiler guideline looked like this. Before July 22, 2007, Tony Sidaway edited this guideline several times in July 2007[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] and this guideline was subject to frequent edit-warring. On July 22, 2007, this guideline was also edited[52][53] by David Gerard, who exhorted people on the WikiEn-l mailing list on May 15, 2007 to go a URL and "get hacking."[54]. On May 16, 2007, David Gerard wrote an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list and said "Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long."[55] David Gerard also wrote an email and said "Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case?"[56] (where it appears under a "Plot summary" heading). David Gerard also wrote "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?"[57]. On May 19, 2007, David Gerard wrote an email and said "I note that I've been removing inappropriate spoilers as fast as I can and almost all have stayed that way. Whereas those reverting me have tended to be blocked for 3RR a lot, i.e. are hotheads."[58] On May 19, 2007, David Gerard wrote "Where is the evidence our readers even care?"[59]. On May 20, 2007, David Gerard wrote "I did go looking for complaints. Just a quick search on blogsearch.google.com for "Wikipedia spoiler"." Steve Bennett asked "Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the recent spoiler war?" and on May 31, 2007 David Gerard wrote "Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}."[60]. The events surrounding the bot's use to find and list pages that contain the word "spoiler" makes me question whether the community at large approves of such use, or whether Tony Sidaway is using TonyBot in order to push his POV throughout every article on Wikipedia. That POV may be shared by several editors, but it needs to be determined what percentage of Wikipedia readers share that POV. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Random editors, mostly IPs, engaging in clear original research and adding their point of view. Not much evidence there at all. --Farix (Talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add that this no more demonstrates that there is a consensus for spoiler warnings as a similar list of vandalism demonstrates that there is a consensus for vandalism. Consensus on a dispute of this nature can only be be achieved through discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've provided evidence that a practice exists other than the one this guideline describes. Are you suggesting that edits by unregistered users are not valuable? Are you suggesting that those editors were vandalizing Wikipedia? How were those edits original research? Shall we notify all of those editors so they can be present here and take part in this discussion? --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Without re-hashing the endless debate that Radiant so admirably cut-through, your argument is utterly without merit. The "practice" is not representative of the way the vast majority of wikipedia "practice" operates. It's ideological, and the number of participants is too small to fall back upon as representative of some larger, more general consensus. Unless you can come up with a better argument than "It's the way we do it because it's rigidly enforced by a small number of users" as "That's why we do it that way" you're adding nothing to the conversation. Please please come up with a better argument. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No better argument can exist than "the policy accurately describes current practice. No consensus exists for alternative practices." Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You've simply repeated yourself, without adding anything new. The claim has been made, with what appears on even casual investigation to be some merit, that "what's done" is in fact the result of the SPOILER patrol zealously enforcing their own idea of the guideline. While the examination of this claim is probably outside the auspice of this talk page, it clearly calls into question your argument. That is to say, it puts the burden of proof back on you. You need to demonstrate that this policy's particular place in the pantheon is no different from any others, where there aproscriptive nature is the result of large scale collaborative editing. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer, are style guidelines descriptive or proscriptive? --Pixelface (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(addressed mainly to Cygnet Salad: Indulging in this kind of meta-argument has all the usefulness of navel-gazing. Let's please keep to the topic. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The "topic" is quite straightforward really: If there is no reason offered othered than "that's how it's done" than it's logical A) to examine how it's really done, and B) ask for a better reason. If people quit offering non-arguments, I'll quit "navel-gazing." - CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is not for discussing how Wikipedia makes policy. I suggest that you raise this topic on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Tony Sidaway 06:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound as though spoiler tags were deprecated randomly and without reason. Reasons were provided every step of the way, and consensus evolved to the current status quo, as evidenced by the lack of change to that status quo. Demonstrate a consensus for change. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that people want the right to insert spoiler tags where they "really feel" this is necessary - but that is a moot point since, by our editing policy, they already have that right. However, the converse is also true: other people have the right to remove spoiler tags where they "really feel" they shouldn't be used. >Radiant< 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Editors who really feel that spoiler tags shouldn't be used, have also had the right to make spoiler tags invisible, as this guideline stated as of May 15, 2007. I have to question why an editor would remove the tag from every article rather than making it invisible by editing their monobook.css or common.css file. Admins have also had the right to make the spoiler template hidden by default by editing the MediaWiki:Common.css file. Using a bot to find every instance of the word "spoiler" in order to remove spoiler warnings is not my idea of a compromise. --Pixelface (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  - The reason is that editors who wish to improve articles, wish to not improve them merely for themselves, but for the readership as a whole - the vast majority of which are incapable of "opting out" of such a system, since they don't have an account and thus don't have a monobook.css file. >Radiant< 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Pixelface, and would also like to point out that there is obvious asymmetry - no SW may mean either nobody cares or someone didn't like it, while SW may only mean someone liked it; so the barrier for removal should be higher. Samohyl Jan (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  - That is an interesting opinion, however since it restricts what kind of edits people can make (i.e. by disallowing removal of spoiler tags) it runs counter to our general editing policy. Based on the state of events I do not believe there is sufficient consensus for a policy that "certain kinds of tags may not be removed". But you are welcome to propose e.g. a Wikipedia:Tag removal policy. >Radiant< 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When spoiler warnings should be given - answers

Whenever an editor sincerely thinks a certain body of text is a spoiler. That's my answer. "Recently released films" is no help in my opinion. "Recent" can mean today, 10 days ago, 10 weeks ago, 10 years ago, 100 years ago, etc. I added the {{current fiction}} tag to what I thought were recently released films and it was reverted every single time. I said it at the TFD and I'll say it again, if a secondary source uses a spoiler warning, the use of the spoiler template is certainly justified. --Pixelface (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly non-workable as it outright violates the no original research and neutral point of view policies. Also, blanket spoiler warnings used by third party sources are useless to us because we need these parties to declare specific plot details as spoilers. It doesn't address the TTL factor that all spoilers have. Plot details don't remain a spoiler forever. In fact, most are no longer spoilers after the first week to month. --Farix (Talk) 12:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but could you please respond to Radiant!'s question of when you think spoiler warnings should be given. This section is for answers to Radiant!'s question. --Pixelface (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a spoiler warning should be given outside of the {{current fiction}} tag during the first month our so of the release of a work of fiction, but one can argue that {{current fiction}} is ultimately unnecessary. Also, hiding spoiler warnings only hides the problems with no original research and neutral point of view. --Farix (Talk) 12:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"TTL factor?" Are you suggesting that published sources somehow expire, or have a time to live? Are you suggesting that sources older than a certain date should be discarded from Wikipedia? Are you suggesting that everybody on the planet has seen a film within one week or one month of the release date? Are you suggesting that people born tomorrow have already seen every film that was released before they were born? When an editor inserts a tag, how does that violate the no original research and neutral point of view policies? When the tag cites a reliable sources, how does that violate the no original research and neutral point of view policies? Many third-party sources do declare specific plot details as spoilers. --Pixelface (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All modern reviewers are adding blanket spoiler warnings, but that doesn't mean much either since the blanket warnings are useless. Mostly because the reviewer are only discussing a recent films that is about to be released to the theaters or has only been in theaters for a short time. But they almost never give such warnings for works that are no longer in theaters. --Farix (Talk) 13:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an especially accurate summary of what Fadix wrote, but I'll respond to your general point. Some sort of warning (in the form of a {{current fiction}} tag) may be useful when there's a high probability of a reader inadvertently reading information that may spoil a work of fiction. The key word here is "inadvertently", meaning a reasonable person would not have expected such information to appear.

For example, it's reasonable to assume that a plot twist about a movie released today would not be present in the introduction of an artricle about that movie. It would be unreasonable to expect that the plot summary section would not contain this plot twist. It would also be unreasonable to expect that an article about a movie released several years ago will be free of information about the plot. As I mentioned below, I'd agree with having a short window (2-4 weeks or so) where a {{current fiction}} tag would indicate that plot information is present. Chaz ^Beckett 13:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, you mentioned using the {{current fiction}} tag during the first month or so after the release date. Which release date do we go by? On November 15, 2007, I tagged the Viva Piñata article with the {{current fiction}} tag because the Windows version was released on November 6, 2007 — and that edit was reverted. I re-tagged the article and that was reverted again. Do you think the {{current fiction}} tag violates the no original research and neutral point of view policies? Why or why not? --Pixelface (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First release should be more then sufficient. --Farix (Talk) 13:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So the Windows version was not recently released? Speaking of films, the film Rescue Dawn premiered September 9, 2006 at the Toronto Film Festival.[61] Its first wide release was July 27, 2007 in the United States. It won't be released in Russia until February 21, 2008. So which release date does the {{current fiction}} template measure from? --Pixelface (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Viva Piñata, the tag is entirely inappropriate for the article as the wording of the description doesn't apply at all: "It may lack a real-world perspective and may focus primarily on details about the plot and characters. It may also lack critical commentary, especially on the ending or plot twists." Release date would most likely correspond with wide-release, but there's no reason to have hard-and-fast rules. Chaz ^Beckett 13:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That wording in the {{current fiction}} tag was added by Tony Sidaway and added by Phil Sandifer on November 15, 2007. The traditional wording of the {{current fiction}} tag from October 31, 2007 was "This article documents a recently released work of fiction. It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." The phrase "work of fiction" could be replaced by the terms "video game", "book", "film", etc. Do you think release dates in different countries should be taken into account? --Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the game was released for XBox360 over a year ago, releasing for a different platform doesn't make it current again. Chaz ^Beckett 13:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'd say that 2-4 weeks after release seems sufficient to have a {{current fiction}} tag (though a case could be made for a slightly longer or shorter period of time). Spoiler warnings other than the current fiction tag seem unnecessary to me. Chaz ^Beckett 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

27 days after the film Things We Lost in the Fire was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 27 days after the film The Ten Commandments was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 27 days after the film Reservation Road was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 27 days after the film Rendition was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 27 days after the film Sarah Landon and the Paranormal Hour was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 27 days after the film 30 Days of Night was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 21 days after the film Saw IV was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 20 days after the film Dan in Real Life was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 15 days after the videogame Hellgate: London was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 14 days after the videogame Super Mario Galaxy was released in Japan, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 14 days after the film Bee Movie was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 13 days after the film Martian Child was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 13 days after the film American Gangster was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 9 days after the videogame Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 9 days after the videogame Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 2 days after the videogame WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 2 days after the videogame Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 2 days after the videogame Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 2 days after the videogame Crysis was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 2 days after the videogame Contra 4 was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 1 day after the videogame Need for Speed: ProStreet was released, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. 1 day after the videogame Assassin's Creed was released on the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360, I added the {{current fiction}} tag to the article and it was removed. The {{current fiction}} tag does not really appear to have consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Pixelface on this one. {{Current fiction}} was purported to be the substitute for {{spoiler}}, but it is hardly being used, and even when it is placed intelligently, it is reverted (in at least some cases). Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I should probably make it clear that all those additions of the {{current fiction}} tag were reverted by 2 editors. My addition of the {{current fiction}} tag to the The Witcher article appears to have stuck. And my addition of the tag to the Tomb Raider: Anniversary article appears to have stuck. And my addition of the current fiction tag to the Crysis articles appears to have stuck. But yes, it doesn't appear to be used much. As of the time of this post, the {{current fiction}} template appears in 27 articles. --Pixelface (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) I think part of the problem is the current documentatin for {{Current fiction}} which reads:

Notice This template is not meant to be on all fiction-related articles that are currently in production/about to be produced, just on those articles where containing changing and future information is an issue in some way (such as a show that could drastically change suddenly, an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic, articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is an in-progress or future work of fiction, etc).

I know there are articles on currently released works that do not undergo a lot of editing after release (because people have done a good job with sources and info before hand), and so I can understand, by that text alone, why the template is being deleted. If the CF template is to be a combination of "potentially lots of edits" and "this just came out, you many be spoiled", this needs to be changed and well stated that this is meant to be a transient template - if this template exists after 2-4 weeks after first release, it should be removed. --MASEM 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings do not violate NPOV or constitute original research, any more than section headings in a biography that say things like "Early Life" does. If whether something is a spoiler is a 'point of view' that needs to be protected from NPOV, then some form of spoiler warnings should be _enforced_ (probably a multi-tiered system), because currently the guideline demands that the POV that nothing is a spoiler stands throughout all the articles. It's also no more original research than saying that a character in a movie is a baker. The movie never actually outright says he's a baker, but shows him at work, baking. But we know what a baker is and what a baker does, and so it's fair to use the primary source to describe him as a baker... it's not original research, it's plain in the definition and what we see on screen. Similarly, it's perfectly fair, having a workable definition of what a spoiler is, for somebody to use the primary source and say, "this part here is a spoiler". Wandering Ghost (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also if we are considering using this, we need a bot to 1) tag it like it does for other cleanup tags and 2) sweep through and delete the template either 1 month after the date it tags if it knowns that exactly or 2 months from the "MMM YY" date it sticks on the template. --MASEM 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so a question: is it necessary or a good idea to mark every new article about fiction with a template? Of course, on the one hand we get such extremes as Snape-Kills-Dumbledore, which are spread all over the internet; but on the other hand it would seem that there will be very little shocking material in the article on yesterday's new episode of Spongebob. >Radiant< 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, you're the one who mentioned "recently released films." You may not be surprised to read certain information in "the article on yesterday's new episode of Spongebob", but if that's the case, you can simply ignore a spoiler notice (or turn it off) that was added by someone who was surprised to read certain information. --Pixelface (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see it as being a problem as long as it is applied consistent - if the work is undoubtly a new piece of fiction by confirmed released/air dates, no one should dispute the addition of that tag (assuming that here that consensus is determined), and though a bot or diligent editors, as long as the tag is removed in a timely fashion, no one should dispute that either. The key of {{Current fiction}} over {{spoiler}} is that its placement is exactly defined for an article (at the top) and that it has prescriptive timing rules for how long the warning should stay on the page. That's a lot more consistent than trying to intersperse spoiler tags in an article. --MASEM 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

- - I think Radiant raises a good point, what's the threshold for applying a template? Continuing with the "reasonable person" example I started above, it would be reasonable to expect that an article about a television episode will reveal the plot, include plot twists and the ending. In this case I see little use in adding a template, unless there are other problems with the article. I think this is another aspect of the tag that requires some thought and discussion. Chaz ^Beckett 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    - I agree. It would be something different in my opinion if we happen to have an article about for instance the differences between the book and the movie of Harry potter #, where both still need to be released (so this is a hypothetical case), and one of the differences is a big plot-element that might totally give away one or both of the endings. Here I can see myself landing on a page looking for "differences between the 2, yet not expecting to find the ending of both works". These are the rarest of cases if you ask me, but it might be a situation where even I could appreciate a spoiler warning for a limited period of time. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      - Yes, that's an example of where a reasonable person wouldn't expect such information. The key part in this (hypothetical) example is that both the movie and book are unreleased, leading to the expectation that an article in an encyclopedia wouldn't contain detailed information on them. Of course, for such an article to exist there must have been reliable and verifiable sources containing the plot details, but we'll assume that's the case. I agree with TheDJ that this example is very rare and definitely the exception, not the rule. Chaz ^Beckett 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        Just because a reader does not share your expectations, does not make them unreasonable. Many readers expect to see spoiler warnings in articles. --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound negative, but why is Radiant's post being taken so seriously? You could find better insight in a junior high debate class. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

- - - - And that is an example of an article which still has the "recent fiction" tag, so I'm wondering why you find that problematic? I'm afraid that the argumentum ad populum doesn't cut it - many readers also expect to be able to advertise their business in Wikipedia. >Radiant< 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        I was referring to an edit summary by a reader. I don't think it's beneficial to classify readers as "reasonable" or "unreasonable" based on their expectations and how they coincide with one's own personal expectations. You've said many readers expect to be able to advertise their business on Wikipedia. You said yourself Radiant!, "everybody should realize that they speak for themselves." I've provided diffs whenever I've referred to other editors. You've provided no evidence. Nevertheless, advertising on Wikipedia is covered by the list of things Wikipedia is not. I don't see any rule against spoiler warnings in any policies. You can read all of my concerns with the {{current fiction}} tag in the TFD for the spoiler template. I find it odd that the people who argued for the {{current fiction}} tag in the TFD don't seem to be using it. Please explain to me when spoiler warnings should be removed. And try to keep the Atlantic Ocean analogies to a minimum. --Pixelface (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        Here is a source - are you seriously disputing my claim or was that just for the sake of argument? At any rate, this is getting tangential. If you do not like the wording of Template:Current fiction, I suggest that you edit it. If you do not like the deletion of Template:Spoiler, I suggest that you take it to deletion review. It would seem that "spoiler warnings that can be made invisible by people that (1) have an account and (2) have the expertise to do so" is not a compromise likely to be accepted - but it would also seem that it isn't really a compromise, but simply a rehash of the old situation that several people objected to. >Radiant< 11:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        You said "argumentum ad populum doesn't cut it" and then you resorted to it. I don't know why you're comparing a courtesy common on the Internet to advertising on Wikipedia. I have edited the wording of Template:Current fiction. I find it strange that several editors claimed it was the superior template and immediately after the TFD of Template:Spoiler they changed the wording of the template that had been there for at least 2 weeks. Thank you for your advice concerning deletion review. Spoiler warnings can be made invisible by default for every reader of the site. I have already asked about it at the technical village pump. Seeing as how you can't be bothered to read the the talk pages you're blanking, I really don't see why we need to rehash all of our arguments for your personal benefit. --Pixelface (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        Actually the deletion of template:Spoiler was already reviewed and endorsed. --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        The TFD was reviewed by someone who seemed to think that DRV is TFD round 2. I believe I have some additional information that was not presented in the first deletion review. --Pixelface (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for action

Well, we can keep talking here until the cows come home, but that is ultimately going to be ineffective, given the success everybody has had so far at convincing the other party. So, briefly and concisely, here is what the "pro-spoiler" people can effectively do. Note that none of this will be effective unless there is some modicum of consensus supporting that particular viewpoint.

By our editing policy, you can edit any article that you believe contains spoilers, for instance to move perceived spoilers away from the lede, to warn people, or to otherwise change layout. People who disagree with such changes can likewise edit those pages to counter them, or find compromises or other solutions. As with any edit dispute, discussion on any particular article should be held on that article's talk page.
{{Spoiler}} was deleted via our TFD process, a decision which can be appealed at deletion review. This has already been tried once, but it can be tried again if need be - noting that you are unlikely to get a different outcome unless you bring new arguments to the table. Since the ArbCom doesn't deal with content decisions, and deletion review deals only with content decisions, a deletion review has no further appeal other than to Jimbo.
You can create a new template, provided it is fundamentally different from those templates that have been deleted so far, and see if people like it and want to use it. I have not seen any feasible suggestions for such a template so far, but that shouldn't stop people from trying. Templates that are not fundamentally different will be summarily deleted per deletion policy (which can be appealed as above).
You can discuss the particulars of {{Current fiction}} on that particular talk page. For instance, you can edit it to change its wording, or discuss on what manner of articles it should be placed, and for how long, or suggest that certain users be less quick in removing them.

Realistically speaking, that's pretty much it. Since this guideline reflects what people do (rather than the other way around), attempting to change its wording is going to be futile, unless one of the above actions is succesful first. To put it differently, product and process both trump policy, so changing policy is only effective through changing product or process first. Or, of course, people can choose to continue discussing it here for another megabyte or two, but that does not strike me as particularly worthwhile. >Radiant< 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note:Additional discussion between Radiant and Wandering Ghost moved to Radiant's talk page. Chaz ^Beckett 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moot points

After the TfD removing the spoiler template much of the discussion above seems moot; lamenting over spilled milk. We have a new tag which seems adequate when it is clearly written; however, the template seems unstable and thus not always very clear. It seems to me that we should stop bickering over the nuances of the guideline and focus on an agreeable and stable template. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note we may want to take a closer look at the content of so many of these plot summaries, where we seem to have conceded the concept of NPOV and original research in allowing WP to become a forum for amateur reviewers of literature. So many are just poorly composed high school level book reports. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of text in Wikipedia—not just plot summaries—is written at the high school level. That's because we don't require anyone to prove their abilities before they write here. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people bring good information without the polish to meet our standards. It seems that we need a group of editors willing to provide the polish and help to demonstrate. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)