Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 15

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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Proposal: Plot summary => Full plot summary

Instead of the ambiguous situation whereby readers are required to either guess or avoid all plot summaries, why not have a distinction in the subtitle between full plot summaries and incomplete ones (i.e. back of the box material only). This is avoids any aesthetic concerns about templates, adds to the descriptive value and has no real downside.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. The lead sentence of our article on the subject says that this means "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". The term "comprehensively" here implies completeness. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see this helping too much. This proposal simply makes the word "Full" a spoiler warning of sorts. There would be endless arguments over whether a summary was full or incomplete or whether "back of the box" material was actually a spoiler (quite common actually). Chaz ^Beckett 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so far we have semantics and an argument to personal incredulity. Would you agree, Chaz, that 99% of the time, there would be no argument?--Nydas^(Talk) 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I think of it, this does smack of disclaimer-thinking. See WP:NDT. We don't duplicate the site disclaimers in articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that answer was purely semantics. This would be helpful and carries none of the redundancy or disclaimer problems of the spoiler tag. It's simply a better description of what the section contains. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:50, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Many (most?) of the arguments on Wikipedia are over semantics. The word "Full" adds little or nothing to the description, but opens up plenty of new avenues for arguments. Chaz ^Beckett 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually think arguments would be rather common. I'm not going to put a specific percentage on it, but I'd estimate far higher than 1% of the time. For example, editor A considers a summary to be partial since it's only two paragraphs, while editor B considers it to be full since it reveals too much of the plot (in his opinion). It seems quite likely that this would turn into yet another battlefield for the spoiler warning wars. Chaz ^Beckett 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, we should see plentiful arguments over the composition of 'early life' subsections in biography articles, since editor A believes that early life ends at 20, whilst editor B believes that early life ends at 30.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a better analogy would be the eternal argument over when life actually begins. Chaz ^Beckett 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We should rather mark incomplete plot summaries as defective (via templates?) than invite overly long plotcruft by asking for "full plot summaries". Kusma (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That also concerns me: that the term "full plot summary" might seem to invite editors to pad out plot summaries, when many of our summaries are probably in need of a good trimming. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another point for the "cost" side of the cost/benefit analysis. Chaz ^Beckett 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We should rather mark incomplete plot summaries as defective -- this seems like the best solution here. The more we show that, yes WP is supposed to have more than just 'back of the box' descriptions, the better. But also keeping them toned down is needed, so full is potentially bad in that respect. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is going backwards. Plot summaries should only hit the highlights of the plot and not be a blow-by-blow retelling, which is what "Full plot summery" implies. Let me give the example of Maburaho#Plot synopsis. It simply gives an abbreviated version of the entire story as told in the 26 episode anime series. It includes a major plot twist in the middle and just briefly describes the ending of the series and how it differs from the light novels. However, many details leading to the plot twist and the ending have been completely left out for brevity and because it can be better covered by the episode list article. So it would be completely inappropriate to label the section "Full plot summery" or insist that all details be included in that section. --Farix (Talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All good points. I do think the word "full" might have the effect of inviting an unsavory level of meticulousness. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:38, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example of why such a distinction doesn't make sense. Consider a four sentence description of The Empire Strikes Back. The last sentence reveals that Vader is Luke's father. Such a short summary could hardly be called a "Full Summary", yet it reveals one of the biggest plot twists in movie history. If this is labeled as a "Full Summary", it would effectively make it a spoiler warning. If it's not labeled "Full Summary" this defeats the whole purpose of eliminating the need for readers to "...either guess or avoid all plot summaries." Chaz ^Beckett 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got some examples of tagging incomplete plot summaries: [1] [2] [3].

In the first, the plot summary was obviously a "back of the DVD box"-style summary (although it didn't look like a copyright infringement, else I'd have removed it). The second and third had been described as incomplete and I simply replaced this with a uniform tag. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest "Detailed plot summary" instead of "full". If I see a heading called "detailed plot summary", I'm going to assume it has spoilers. "Full", on the other hand, suggests a scene-by-scene description, which in most cases is not something an encyclopedia should need.--Father Goose (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think a four-line description of a film plot is "detailed" when it includes all major spoilers? Kusma (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's no more arbitary than any other subheading.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Detailed summary" is somewhat self-contradictory and doesn't seem like a good heading. Anyway, this discussion seems to be about creating Wikipediaspeak versions of the deprecated headers "==Plot (including spoilers)==" and "==Plot (not including spoilers)==" - it won't be obvious for non-insiders which adjective describes the "spoiler" content. Kusma (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we should adopt a style convention of not including major spoilers in short plot summaries (as opposed to detailed ones). Until that happens, one must learn the hard way to never read any Wikipedia article about a work of fiction one hasn't seen/read yet.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would actually opposes such a convention. While plot summaries should be much shorter then they normally are, they should include all necessary details for the reader to understand the overall plot of the work of fiction. That includes "major spoilers", plot twists, and the ending. There is also the issue of objectively defining when a plot detail as a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's called a 'summary' and not a 'premise' or some such word. The whole story needs to be there, not just 'what it's about'. The major details are important, the nitty gritty isn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Detailed" has the same issues that "Full" does, mainly because the two are treated as synonyms in this instance. I again point to the plot summery of Maburaho. With a mere five paragraphs, there is no way in hell it can give a full or detailed explanation of the plot for a series that is 26 episodes long and with an accompanying 18 volume light novel series. Actually, I like pointing to Maburaho's plot section as an excellent example of brevity, which is often lacking on Wikipedia. There is still plenty of details that some would consider "spoilers", but it doesn't get into the minutia of retelling the entire story. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Full Plot Summary" describes what we are looking for. Spoilers could very well be present in a very brief plot summary that omits many details. Indeed, this is likely, as plot twists are often the most memorable parts of a story. Even a three sentence summary of Romeo and Juliet probably could not sensibly omit the fact that the lovers die at the end, but no one would call it a "Full Plot Summary". I also agree that this label would give the false impression that we are looking for plot summaries with no details of any kind omitted. Lastly, isn't "Full...Summary" an oxymoron? Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this idea for reasons already stated. Using full would encourage padding when we already want to limit plot summary per WP:NOT. Hiding T 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't require every visitor to read the disclaimer

It's a "spoiler" if it detracts from the user's experience and/or enjoyment. Arguments I've seen for the current "no-notice" policy are mostly that spoilers are covered in the disclaimer. Be real. You can't require visitors to read the disclaimer. What's needed is some way to tell the visitor what a piece is about, without revealing how it happens. rowley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if every websurfer was required to read the content disclaimer before accessing Wikipedia, I would agree that spoiler warnings would be unnecessary. But we don't require people to read it. --Pixelface (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for the spoiler policy, and this isn't the main one, or even the best one. The main reason is that encyclopedias are in the business of imparting information, not concealing it. The consensus (as Wikipedia defines that term, but not to everyone's satisfaction) was that helping readers avoid information wasn't our mission, and that the attempt to do so was an unsuccessful distraction.

Personally, I felt that it was extremely difficult to define how much of the story a reader would want to know, before considering it "spoiled". Because of that, there wasn't much rhyme or reason to the way the spoiler warnings were placed, and this inconsistency would have hindered their usefulness—even by those readers who were inclined to find them useful.

Even when the warnings were widespread, a reader had no way of knowing (until it was too late) whether a particular article had employed the warnings the way that reader would have liked. If the warnings were absent, a reader had no way of knowing if the article contained no spoilers, or if the warning was just not there for some reason. The current policy at least has the virtue that you can only be "spoiled" once before realizing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not strive to warn its readers when to stop reading. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show me an encyclopedia that reveals the ending of the The Sixth Sense. --Pixelface (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you like hitting your head against the wall too? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If people are going to keep saying encyclopedias do this and encyclopedias do that, I'm going to keep asking people to show me an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers for fictional works — and not just fictional works that are over 400 years old. --Pixelface (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Encarta, which states in its Empire Strikes Back article: "...the story of Luke’s father, Anakin Skywalker, who will become Vader." That's a huge spoiler for a contemporary film in a prominent encyclopedia. Satisfied? Chaz ^Beckett 14:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My first question to Pixelface would be: Which encyclopedias cover The Sixth Sense at all? If there are none, then the question is moot. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Encarta has an article on The Sixth Sense. I don't see any spoiler warnings. But I don't see any spoilers either. --Pixelface (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Chaz, I spotted that one too. That's the only spoiler I've found in Encarta. So does that mean that websurfers expect to read spoilers in encyclopedias? --Pixelface (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some will, some won't. You asked for spoilers for a (contemporary) fictional work in another encylopedia and I gave you one. From past experience, I have a feeling that even if I were to provide you with a bunch more, you'd still claim that websurfers don't expect to read spoilers in encyclopedias. So I'm not going to waste my time. Chaz ^Beckett 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we could leave a spoiler warning out of the Empire Strikes Back article and remove spoilers from The Sixth Sense article if we were to follow Encarta on this. --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone /expects/ everyone to read the disclaimer, but noone expects only 18+ year olds will look at porn, or that most people will read through the EULA of a program. But it's there, just as a Terms of Service is there when you sign up for something, and it's really not the fault of the provider if the end user doesn't bother to read it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The anti-spoiler people appear to believe that instead of being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a sort of personality detox service. According to their doctrines, spoiler warnings cause insanity, demons, personal irresponsibility, lack of rule-following and other maladies. These can be cured by having fiction spoiled, or in their lingo, being 'burned'.--Nydas^(Talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You get more incivil every time I check this page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Nydas should really keep those kinds of comments to the mailing list or IRC. --Pixelface (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that comment really came out of nowhere. I'm not sure how outlandish rhetoric is going to accomplish anything. Unless you really believe that stuff... Chaz ^Beckett 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Phil and Chaz, big words do not a coherent position make. Civility is appreciated. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only restating what has been repeatedly stated by the anti-spoiler people, here and elsewhere.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it, defend it and please try and be civil. If you don't believe it, please don't say it. Comments like that are not productive. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If my comment was too harsh, I apologise. However, I reiterate it is not Wikipedia's place to improve people.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nydas said, "The anti-spoiler people appear to believe that instead of being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a sort of personality detox service. According to their doctrines, spoiler warnings cause insanity, demons, personal irresponsibility, lack of rule-following and other maladies."

I am not aware of any anti-spoiler [warning] person who has said that, or anything close to that. I therefore have to conclude that this tirade of insults is merely uncivil. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony's demons:

I'm afraid it all boils down to my blank incomprehension of suggestions that we should put redundant warnings into our articles just to mollycoddle people who, knowing of their own personal wishes not to have foreknowledge of the details of fictional works, would stupidly or perversely choose to read articles about those works.

If they want to read about the work, let them read the article. If they don't, let them refrain. It's not Wikipedia's business to tell people what to read, but it isn't Wikipedia's business to put redundant warnings into articles. These people have to wrestle with their own demons, and good luck to them.

That's one. There are others about, some still on this page.

Now, what has been achieved? Wikipedia has presumably been improved, according to the self-contained logic of the anti-spoiler people. As far as I can tell, the fundraising also failed to achieve its goal. There's no point pretending that spoiler warnings are very important in the grand scheme of things, but the removal of them is part of a wider problem of user-bashing.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone besides Tony? If it was him, then point at him, and not everyone. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that particular statement was made 8 months ago. Chaz ^Beckett 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. It is not user-bashing to make a decision that places the onus of deciding what to read and what not to read on the reader himself. But we've been through all the arguments pro- and con- and I see little value in a rerun. It's over. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're saying people are deciding to read spoilers when they start reading an article. The thing is, they don't know Wikipedia contains spoilers when they get here. I honestly don't think the majority of people expect to read spoilers (without warnings) on Wikipedia. Do section headings mollycoddle readers? --Pixelface (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderfully sanctimonious reply from Tony. It is not "molly coddling" to label things appropriately so that users can make an informed decision. As cooler heads have repeatedly said many times, it is NOT obvious that a "plot section" would give away a surprise ending. Not at all. It is very conventional to read reviews that hint at the plot without giving away details. That is why spoiler warnings on our articles remain the best approach to informing our reader. Johntex\^talk 16:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's over, they're gone. Engaging in personal attacks won't bring them back. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The {{spoiler}} template is gone. Spoiler warnings, however, continue to be added to articles by editors. --Pixelface (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Which articles have spoiler warnings? Chaz ^Beckett 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently? Black Christmas (2006 film) --Pixelface (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? where? --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It did when I wrote that.[4] It was removed 33 minutes later by ChazBeckett [5] (although I support that removal because that text was copied directly from IMDB[6]. --Pixelface (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making a personal attack, just commenting on your sanctimonious statement and the obvious factual deficiencies in your argument. Johntex\^talk 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> As cooler heads have repeatedly said many times, it is NOT obvious that a "plot section" would give away a surprise ending. Not at all. It is very conventional to read reviews that hint at the plot without giving away details. We could keep going in circles here, saying the same thing again and again. But still, since when is WP supposed to be a review site? Last time I checked, it wasn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler template?

No bickering at eachother anymore. Want to have a polite conversation, start a new thread. — Save_Us † 11:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the spoiler template deleted? --AW (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see TfD and DRV. Some related discussion is in /Archive 13. Kusma (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see why it's a bad template, it helps people who don't want to have a story or movie ruined. Why not make a spoiler template that has a link to the main disclaimer? --AW (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it violated WP:NDA and its usage was almost entirely redundant. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not precisely accurate of consensus, which was against the specific tag but for using the current fiction tag in its place. Unfortunately, that tag was deleted for unrelated reasons, and no one has gotten around to creating a spoiler-specific tag to replace it. Yet. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Because a bunch of 15 year olds with laptops, the most powerful ones on this site, didn't like it. Twenty six editors voted to keep the tag, while 22 voted to delete it. And then it was deleted. Don't ask me how that makes sense. --YellowTapedR (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we do without the personal attacks and character assassinations? --Farix (Talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, the template was deleted although many of our younger, more fiction-oriented editors voted for it. As far as I can tell, most of the people accused of the "spoiler coup" are well above the age of 15. Perhaps the power comes from the laptops, not the age. Kusma (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Next you're gonna call me ageist. --YellowTapedR (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You affectively called other editors immature by declaring that they were 15 year old, which is a personal attack. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling people 15 year olds and saying they have laptops isn't personal or an attack. I wouldn't mind being 15 years old and having a laptop. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:51, 28 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Alluding to those on the "other side" is immature is a personal attack IMO. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I said the people who control this site are oftentimes of the teenage variety. There's no disputing that. I didn't use the word immature, either, nor did I say "other side."

Moving on, though. The point is that the way it was deleted was illegitimate. I'm not going to contest it and wouldn't know where to begin, but maybe someone else does. --YellowTapedR (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV. It's not too difficult. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:12, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

YellowTapedR prefers to throw insults around instead. --Farix (Talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Said the completely non-polarizing editor known as Farix. {sigh} Your constant accusations remind me of an old Usenet staple: "you telling me I'm off-topic is off-topic." You are free to figure out how that is relevant on your own. I trust that you are both intelligent and mature enough to catch my meaning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks...--YellowTapedR (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And the dust covering the blood from the dead horse is beaten yet again....Chaz ^Beckett 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very clever. I don't really see the use in ridiculing anyone who posts here who you don't agree with, automatically pulling the dead horse card. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my statement. Even the editor starting this thread recognized that the horse has been laid to rest. If you're not going to contest deletion, perhaps it is time to declare the matter dead (at least for the near future). Just a suggestion.Chaz ^Beckett 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I got the same meaning off your statement as YellowTapedR did Garda40 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding spoiler issues by providing encyclopaedic plot summaries

I've just discovered WP:SPOILER, after reading the discussion on Talk:The Mousetrap.

I agree with the policy: for Wikipedia to be comprehensive, it can't avoid revealing plot twists. I accept the arguments against spoiler tags. However, I feel that this shouldn't be taken as justification for ignoring the needs of the Wikipedia user who wants a little background on a story without ruining the ending. (eg. 'Is this the sort of film I might want to watch?').

I don't think this is difficult to achieve. Look at The Sixth Sense - a casual reader has every opportunity to avoid reading the twist, which is buried in a comprehensive plot summary.

It isn't 'encyclopaedic' for an article to just list the spoiler, without giving much information about the narrative. Nor is it helpful to unfairly draws a casual reader's attention to the spoiler - for example, by giving it away in the synopsis.

So, I believe it might help reduce the amount of noise if WP:SPOILER were changed to say something along these lines:

It is acceptable to alter the wording of an article so that it is easier for a casual reader to avoid accidentally reading the spoiler. AndrewBolt (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have two versions of an article, one which makes it easy for a casual reader to avoid reading a spoiler and one which doesn't, we should choose the version that is more encyclopedic in tone and has the more appropriate lead section. In other words, the question of spoilers should not influence our decision. Kusma (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so we should choose the version that doesn't reveal the spoiler, as seen in Encarta [7] --Pixelface (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Add "with equivalent content" to what I said to make my statement slightly more wikilawyering-resistant. Kusma (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You said the one more encyclopedic in tone. Referring to Encarta is wikilawyering now? --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This game is boring. Kusma (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're here to play games, you're on the wrong website. Maybe a mailing list would be more to your liking. --Pixelface (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing with Encarta's article is that it fails WP:NOT completely. So we really can't use it as an example of how Wikipedia's articles should be. However, it is an example that demonstrates how Wikipedia does a much better job with coverage of works of fiction then other encyclopedias. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that we should look at what other encyclopedias do to determine which version Kusma talked about would be more encyclopedic in tone. What encyclopedic purpose does revealing the twist in The Sixth Sense provide? Why would it be "unencyclopedic" to let readers know they are about to read a twist? I personally can't recall ever reading an encyclopedia that revealed the ending of Citizen Kane. If Wikipedia articles reveal more than other encyclopedias, I see no reason why articles cannot also include spoiler warnings. Revealing spoilers appears to be a new feature of encyclopedias (if Wikipedia is any indication), but spoiler warnings have been used on the Internet for very many years. If no article is allowed to have spoiler warnings, the next step is for editors to remove plot details that don't cite reliable third-party sources per WP:RS. That's what this issue has come to. --Pixelface (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Really Andrew, you're pretty much saying what's already supposed to happen in the first place. It's always nice to see someone new coming here and agreeing with the (current) guideline, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What plot details may be spoilers should not be taken into consideration when writing an article, particularly the plot summary. Plot summaries should be as concise as possible while still covering the main plot points of the work of fiction. Also, Wikipedia's articles are not suppose to help the reader determine whether he or she would want to read the work of fiction. That is treating Wikipedia as a review site instead of an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to provide educational content. Someone reading an article to get a general idea of what a film is about does not turn Wikipedia into a review site. Are you suggesting that only people who have read a book should read the Wikipedia article? Why would they need to read a plot summary? Readers can use our content in any way they want to. You're right, this is an encyclopedia — not themoviespoiler.com --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Farix. Wikipedia is for information, not reviews. And who is to decide what goes into a spoiler, and how long it stays up? When you're dealing with the analysis that goes into our articles, who would decide what must be left out? Tyler Durden? Luke Skywalker's dad? Rosebud? Snowfire51 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And who is to decide how the users want to use Wikipedia? If they want to use it as a review site too, why should they be prevented to do so? Samohyl Jan (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of review sites on the Web. Wikipedia isn't one of them; it's an encylopedia. Chaz ^Beckett 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If a reader wants to use Wikipedia in a capacity that it's not for, that's fine, as long as no editors actually go about changing things to reflect that. No matter what anyone 'wants', the fact is simple. WP is an encyclopedia, and any other use people get resulting from its uniqueness is merely extra benefit. But to say that "well they might use it as a review site, so we should follow the conventions of such" is as silly as trying to make it into a phonebook, or a game guide, or a social network, or a map, or any of many other things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

However, if we disclose all the key details of the plot without any other part of the article necessitating it, then we're treating Wikipedia as a digest, not an encyclopedia. We should neither avoid spoilers nor put them in unless we have an encyclopedic reason to do so. It's a pity this common sense has been drowned out by those who have been waging war for and against spoilers. Both sides have got the issue wrong, and the encyclopedia is shit as a result.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Melodia. I don't disagree with any of the above comments, and may be my suggested wording is not ideal. My observation (from a limited sample of articles) is that well-written, encyclopedia-quality plot synopses don't need to warn that they will reveal the spoiler. The pages that produce debate are the ones where the plot summary fails to 'cover the main plot points', and exists mainly to reveal the spoiler. It often seems that people treat WP:SPOILER as justification for the latter, rather than as an incentive to improve the overall quality of the article. I feel that suitable wording of the policy would help shorten these debates, leaving more time for people to contribute new material! AndrewBolt (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers outside of fictional-work articles

The "Humor and cultural references" section of version 183809147 of the article P = NP problem contains a spoiler in the second episode of the TV show NUMB3RS. I deleted it rather than add a spoiler warning directly into the article. This seems like a perfectly good statement being deleted for no good reason. It seems to be in compliance with the current guideline:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. (emphasis added)
— Wikipedia:Spoiler

I haven't seen anything in past discussion about this. Brian Jason Drake 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Especially as the first season of that show is years old now. On the other hand, why stop at deleting it when you could delete the rest of the section too? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant that I haven't seen anything in past discussion about the general issue of spoilers outside of articles on the topic of fictional works.
Why not keep the section, since "it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail." (Wikipedia:Spoiler) Brian Jason Drake 09:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Detail and trivia are two different things. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler tags outside of articles on fictional works were already deprecated as ridiculous. In most cases the information is cruft in the article itself (no-one looking up the P = NP problem is going to give a hoot about NUMB3RS. Really) and should be removed. - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This kind of thing does occasionally show up, still. Today, after waiting four or five days for the search database to update itself, I found that spoiler warnings had been added to an article about the actress Lucy Griffiths, and our article about Bayou La Batre, Alabama‎. A note on Central Intelligence Agency also cautioned about spoilers. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But Why?

I am just a casual reader of Wikipedia, and at some point noticed these spoiler warnings disappeared; checking here I see a heated debate that must have gone on for months. I have an opinion about this, but it seems pointless to divulge it argue about it. What I do think might be useful, though, is that this guideline article be a bit more informative about the argument/discussion. The article just states the policy, and that is fine; but in light of how divided some of the community is, it might be good to add some of the pro/con arguments and the reached consensus (if there is one). Of course it can all be found in the discussions, but it is rather long and tiresome, and at times one might question whether people argue in good faith.

For people who encounter this policy and wonder about it, I think there should be some unbiased extra information in place (clearly separated from the policy itself, maybe in a different article even). (Ant6n 20.04.08)

quick thought

i know there's endless discussion about this but: what if it's my first time in wikipedia through an article containing spoilers? what if i DON'T know i should EXPECT them? it would seriously suck if it were for example the ending of the harry potter series...24.232.74.200 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

It seems there is some expectation that, being an encyclopedia dedicated to completeness, I should therefor expect spoilers. This is ridicules, i expect a concise summary of the plot that is spoiler free so i can use this information to decide if i will like a particular movie/game without having the plot spoiled. I argue this point for several reason:

1. An encyclopedia's primary purpose is to be useful. If you have seen the movie, you already know the plot, thus having it written out in full is of no use. If you haven't seen it, you cant read it because it will spoil the plot for you and thus it is of no use. To some small minority of people that haven't seen the movie, don't want to and don't care if the plot is spoiled but for some reason want to know what the plot is, perhaps there is some use. but these people are definitely a minority since if you don't care about the plot being spoiled, you probably don't care enough to want to know what it is. Therefor it would be far more useful to have a spoiler free summary that people can use to find out about a movie before they go and see it for themselves.

2. An encyclopedia doesn't need to contain the plot in full anyway, there is absolutely no reason for this. Its an encyclopedia not a script, its job is to tell you important information about a subject, not reiterate the entire plot/book/movie/game. I actually think lengthy plot descriptions should be discouraged in general because its really not very encyclopedia-like.

Though Wikipedia is not a script, it is supposed to offer information that either pertains to the medias described or about the media itself. While a script like feel should be disapproved, users should understand the difference between a synopsis and a script. Some stories and movies may necessitate a lengthy plot description, but it is the detail in which that description is written that should be discouraged, leaving crucial points vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapshot24 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Whats wrong with spoiler tags? if an article needs to have a plot description, whats wrong with having a spoiler warning? why does it have to be implied? spoiler tags are good for marking the distinct beginning and end of spoilers, so someone can read everything else without having the plot spoiled. They greatly help to inform the reader that they might wish to skip a section, what harm do they do?

Mloren (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you one simple reason. Were not going to sell articles short of content and quality for the likes of people who want plot details without the ending in it. If you don't want the potential-ending spoiled by reading Wikipedia, don't read it. As for what's wrong with spoiler tags, I suggest you take the argument to Deletion review and see how you do. And as for your comment, "This is ridicules, i expect a concise summary of the plot that is spoiler free so i can use this information to decide if i will like a particular movie/game without having the plot spoiled", isn't what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a review site. — Save_Us † 11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the 15 volumes of archives of this page, you'll find a whole encyclopedia's worth of discussion of those very points. --Stormie (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but was there a DRV for the spoiler templates? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:48, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

After some digging, it appears to have been DRV'ed about a week after it was deleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 14. — Save_Us † 11:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:14, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the fiction articles here don't have encyclopedic plot summaries anyway. They have blow-by-blow accounts of what happens, which isn't particularly useful to anyone. Except maybe people who fall asleep during a movie and want to see what they missed.--YellowTapedR (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So be bold and fix em. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Some worklists for this task can be seen at User:Tony Sidaway/transclusions/plot. I would welcome any help with this. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is one daunting task you've got going. I'll take a shot. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mloren, I agree with point 1. Unfortunately, many people on Wikipedia have some other criteria than usefulness, which makes Wikipedia less useful than it could be (like too strong notability policies or deleting things instead of leaving them to be improved). I believe that Wikipedia could contain almost everything and be used in all possible ways, it's just a matter of organization (which is mostly technical solution). The other side believes that such organization is impossible. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

These have been policy and practice since long before you or I arrived, and User:Uncle G/On notability explains in handy terms why we need to have such guidelines, so perhaps you could dispense with the assumptions of bad faith and evil intent on the part of those who delete articles which do not meet inclusion guidelines. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind if "non-notable" things are in their own article or in some other article. As long as whatever I am looking for is described in Wikipedia, it's fine. That's usefulness. The examples of non-notable things given in the article you refer to all satisfy this. I have problem with deleting content that people are actually looking for (because they read or heard about it somewhere, and want to get more information), and it is deemed non-notable. If users are looking for it, it should be in the encyclopedia. Similar with spoilers. Wikipedia shouldn't limit any user case for its content (that's original freedom zero) - if people want to use it as a review site (without POV or original research, such as ratings, of course), they should be able to do it. That's usefulness too. Samohyl Jan (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They do. The point is, if the sources exist then we have no need of spoiler warnings, if we have need of spoiler warnings then we are probably the first place to publish, which is a no-no. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no need for SWs if there are sources? For many people (including me), Wikipedia is the first stop to learn about something. You are doing the same mistake again - presuming a specific usage. Many people have explicitly supported this as their use case too. Samohyl Jan (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If something is discussed in the sources, then we can safely assume that it's widely known. We do not take special measures to prveent people seeing things that might alarm them (see Muhammad). Guy (Help!) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is false logic. It may be widely known, but it doesn't follow it's widely known among the readers/visitors of said article. As for Muhammad, being an atheist, I don't understand religious people's thinking (if they believe it's a sin to read about something), so I can't really reason about that. But I understand and I am explaining you my thinking - I don't think to learn ending of something is a sin, but still may prefer to learn it from the original work. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

a Please at least try to spell correctly.

b In order to provide complete plot summaries, we need to tell everyone who may not know what happens and wants the end to be a surprise that there may be spoilers.

Luna''keet'' (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point I think it has been well established that no one is trying to remove spoilers. The question is whether or not, in certain instances, to have spoiler warnings. That is a much different issue. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do occasionally run into people who remove material from articles because of concern about spoiling someone's experience. I don't know to what extent this happens, or really how one could go about measuring it. I don't think it's likely to be a widespread problem, though. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt

Ok, before the previous discussion I started about the template got out of hand, this is what I was thinking: a template that reads something like "As is stated in Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, this article may contain spoilers". That way it gets the message across and tells people about the Content Disclaimer. The disclaimer is hardly the most well known thing, I didn't know about it before, and I welcomed seeing the spoiler template on articles where I ditdn't want to be spoiled. I don't see why we can't help people and teach them about the disclaimer at the same time. --AW (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles for why we don't do this. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that, but I still think it's useful. Ignore all rules, right? And it mentions the general disclaimer, the lack of which some people had a problem with apparently. Aren't many templates just repeating Wikipedia guidelines anyway? Don't vandalize, this is a heated topic so keep cool, etc. --AW (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles themselves don't repeat the disclaimers, or the guidelines. Such notices are placed on the talk page. Usually if you see a warning template of any kind actually within the article it's to tell you that there is a problem with article quality in relation to policy. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time such notices are either temporary, or are put on talk pages. People are wanting spoiler warnings permanently, which puts them into an entirely different catagory all together. Think of it this way -- templates are ok in article space to tell people to fix a problem. When the problem is fixed, it'll be removed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Except, as I tried saying before, that's not what consensus was prior to a few deus ex machina events. Consensus here was to severely limit the usage of the spoiler tag (which, I might add, makes all arguments about the tag's number of instances null and void—a logical conclusion not grasped by many of the tag's opponents). Despite such an agreement, {{spoiler}} was deleted in a bitterly fought TfD that largely ignored the conversation here (except for repeating some superficial aspects of it). I have some issues with how that came about, but it did. During the TfD, however, {{current fiction}} was offered as a substitute (both here and on the discussion page) to be placed at the top of articles. There was some opposition to this compromise, but there was consensus on it. Then {{current fiction}} was deleted for unrelated reasons. The fact that it was meant as a substitute for {{spoiler}} was mentioned but ignored in that TfD. It would be contrary to good faith for those less sanguine about the existence of spoiler warnings to suddenly retract their compromises in the wake of what can only be described as a bizarre series of events. As such, I assume that the old consensus is still operative, but without a meaningful means of following through on it. Given that, what we need is a new tag—similar to {{current fiction}}, I suppose, but more specific—that fulfills the role that {{current fiction}} was meant to fulfill. I will make it if I can learn to make templates (it's never been a high priority of mine), but someone else should feel free to create the frame of it and submit it for editing. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can just use an existing template as a frame. However if you tell me what you want the template to say and how you think it should look, I can create one for you. This would be simply as a visual aid for now, regardless of whether it actually gets put into use. I can create it in your userspace for now, to avoid it causing "trouble" in the template space. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:04, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea. There seems to be a misapprehension that there was "consensus" for having spoiler warnings before - I don't believe there was, I think there was mainly apathy. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure apathy doesn't count as consensus. Consensus is a lack of objection, so apathy would qualify. In order for something to exist, you don't need a bunch of people agreeing in a discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:10, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Re: Equazcion - Apathy would count as consensus to a certain degree, and since Guy is stipulating a belief in apathy on the issue, your comment is accurate. We should note, however, that apathy cannot necessarily be inferred from inaction. I, for instance, have not taken action on what I believe consensus to be because I have been trying to get my ducks in a row. I am finishing my essay on the common arguments against spoiler warnings (and their failings) as well as trying to learn how to make templates. I will take you up on your offer of providing me a shell, however, as that would be much more efficient. Just place it here, if you would.

Re: Guy - stonewalling is not a recommended tactic on Wikipedia. You may have your opinion on this issue, and you may not like where consensus has ended up, but it is consensus all the same. Even David Gerard found the {{current fiction}} compromise to be worthwhile, as did Phil Sandifer until it looked like he could have his cake and eat it, too. And it is worth noting that after your abrupt closing of the TfD was reversed, Xoloz specifically mentioned the {{current fiction}} compromise as a reason for re-closing the issue with the same result. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stonewalling? Don't be absurd. I'm merely pointing out that the only discussion here resulted in a pretty clear lack of consensus for spoiler warnings. Quite the opposite, if anything. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you are once again substituting your opinion for consensus. That's why your close was reverted, even if the same decision was later reached by another administrator. I would like to assume good faith, and I am trying desperately to do so, but you make it very difficult. Refusing to admit to what has happened and simply insisting that what you wish happened really did is stonewalling. Those opposed to spoiler warnings did not manage to obtain consensus for their removal, thus the default guideline of including them should have stayed in place. However, consensus was reached to limit their use. They were, after all, completely out of control. And when {{spoiler}} was deleted, a further compromise was reached to use {{current fiction}} as a replacement. Such a compromise couldn't have been reached if there wasn't consensus for some sort of spoiler warning. But as you know, {{current fiction}} was deleted for unrelated reasons, and thus my position as stated above. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not. There was never any debate about addition of spoiler templates, there was extensive and prolonged debate about their removal. There is very clearly not a consensus for the use of spoiler tags in articles. To have something removed is much harder than adding something, on Wikipedia, and it's clearly the case that spoiler templates were removed. Tis required a lot of support from a lot of people for that removal, and support for removal had to be (and was) substantially more than the support for inclusion. This is documented fact, not "stonewalling", and there is no need to personalise it as you did. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Argument by assertion is both a logical fallacy and an instance of stonewalling. But fine, let's just say we disagree. As for "personalizing" things, I'm not sure what you mean by that, except maybe that I mentioned your close. That was a relevant fact and was not meant to be insulting in any way. My apologies if it is a sore spot. But if you need evidence of consensus for the warnings, consider that even those editors who were initially opposed to spoiler warnings in their entirety voiced support for the {{current fiction}} compromise during that templates TfD. They would not have done so if they had not decided that some spoiler warnings were appropriate (as a result of the very long conversation that you mention). As for the {{spoiler}} TfD, an up and down vote is not supposed to be decisive. As we are discussing below, it is arguments that count. And when that is taken into consideration, I find that the support for deletion evaporates. You will be able to read why shortly. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actual use (or lack thereof) of {{current fiction}} showed that consensus was against using it, despite the recommendations to do so here and at the {{spoiler}} TFD. Kusma (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They were referring to spoiler warnings in general, not {{current fiction}}. And, I was on a break when {{current fiction}} was around, but it would be my guess that people were hesitant to use it since it was a replacement for {{spoiler}}, whose use was to be extremely limited at the end. Also, in the time I was on a break, which was maybe a month or two at most, the {{spoiler}} template and the {{current fiction}} templates were deleted, so {{current fiction}} probably didn't get much of a chance before it got deleted for unrelated reasons. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:54, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Kusma, you have missed my point about the invalidity of "lack of use" arguments. The consensus was to limit the usage of spoiler warnings. If this was meant as some sort of Trojan Horse by those opposed to spoiler warnings, then they were not operating in good faith and we are back to square one (that is, the consensus is non-binding due to fraud). If, however, we assume good faith (as I am currently doing), then the fact that the tag wasn't used much cannot be used against it because consensus was to use it, but rarely. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof that there's consensus against spoiler tags, despite what you may be told from some editors, a few acting rather trollish, on this page. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's really no need for namecalling here. As for consensus, if there's already a wikipedia policy in place against spoiler tags, that would seem to indicate it's been discussed at one point and a consensus reached. It doesn't mean the consensus can't be changed, but there's certainly one in place. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about a select few editors on this page who have been bullies to anyone who disagrees with them. They call people who disagree with them trolls and uncivil. They delete comments they disagree with. Yet, one editor here who frequently calls opponents "trolls" -- I won't name names -- has multiple web pages dedicated to cataloging his trollish behavior and has been blocked for incivility.

As for the second point, no there is not consensus in place against tags. When the tag was up for deletion, 26 voted to keep it versus 22 voting to delete it. That's consensus? Come on. That wouldn't have happened if certain editors weren't acting out of line. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus. Voting does not equal consensus, as per WP:PRACTICAL. Consensus was reached through the discussion, which should always trump a pure vote. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So, by that rationale, the minority automatically has the consensus? No. If anything, there was consensus to keep the tags by default since there wasn't an overwhelming majority either way. Perhaps the editors most against spoiler tags are more versed in meaningless wikipedia beurocratic nonsense, so good for them. If you read this talk page's archives, you'll see that countless editors have showed up who are all for keeping spoiler tags on the site, while the editors who want them banished, by and large, are the same throughout. --YellowTapedR (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

XfDs are discussions, not "pure votes". Equazcion •✗/C • 09:21, 2 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Stop beating the hole what was one a dried up bloody spot that use to be a dead horse. If you are not going to take it to DRV, then stop acting like a sore loser and simply let it go. Complaining here is only going to annoy everyone else. But that is ALL that you've been doing.

And just to note, it has already been to DRV once before and the deletion was overwhelmingly endorsed. But if you still want to attempt to restore the template, you can try a second time and see if consensus has changed. --Farix (Talk) 10:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on the wording of this guideline or are you only here to throw insults? --Pixelface (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

YellowTapedR, I will not proclaim that the template had consensus for deletion, as I actually don't think it did. But honestly, you really need to look up just WHAT an AFD/MFD/whatever is. It's not about voting. It's about who has the best arguments. If twenty people say "keep, it deserves to belong on WP" and five say "delete" while giving logical reasons why it shouldn't belong rather than just saying it shouldn't, an competant admin should close it as a delete. As if often said, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT are not valid deletion reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just getting sick of the rherotic on this page saying that there is wiki-wide consensus for this guideline and the absence of tags when that's clearly not the case. (But I'll also acknowledge there isn't wiki-wide consensus the other way, either). Other editors can say there is consensus, but I can't counter that? Of course not. --YellowTapedR (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Melodia, that it is about who has the best arguments. That is why I am writing an essay on the arguments presented to date. And insofar as arguments rule the day, those against spoiler warnings have yet to provide compelling reasons for their position. I say this, remember, as someone who is neutral. I don't care if there are tags or not. I simply have serious reservations about the way in which all of this has occurred. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing an essay on your interpretation of the arguments is probably a waste of time; the arguments were weighed, and the arguments for not having spoiler warnings were more persuasive per long-standing policy, including "no disclaimers". Guy (Help!) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But I won't be writing an essay on "my interpretation of the arguments," but rather on the arguments themselves. It is standard philosophical method to take an argument, break it down into its logical form, and test it. I did it several times on this very talk page, and was routinely ignored. But that doesn't mean I was wrong (indeed, no one ever contradicted me—and either apathy or agreement cuts in my favor here). And if the arguments are not logically valid, as is the case with the arguments employed against the inclusion of spoiler warnings, they are not (as Melodia has agreed) applicable. And if they are not applicable, they (and all of their consequences) are to be ignored. Thus the relevance. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you'll be wasting your time. The debate was had, the community decided, all but a handful have moved on. Spoiler warnings have gone the way of all disclaimers, and hardly anyone cares either way. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that hardly anyone cares either way. You care enough to come out of your Wikibreak for it, and the conversation has gone on in your absence and is going on now. I probably wouldn't bother if I believed no one cared, because I don't particularly care if there are spoiler warnings or not. I do care, however, about bad logic. I am very open to being convinced that spoiler warnings should go, but no one has offered anything tangible. All I get are a pile of false dilemmas, ill-considered quips, and emotional reactions. And since any decisions made upon the basis of bad logic should be null and void, I am currently for reversing the imposition of a minority opinion onto the project—unless, of course, someone can come up with logically compelling arguments against warnings. This isn't to say that the other side does not also hold a minority opinion (there may be a large undecided or apathetic group), or that the other side is correct. I'm just saying I haven't seen anything definitive yet, nor have I seen consensus for anything other than what I've mentioned above. Furthermore, while plenty of people are sick of discussing this topic, we've never had much genuinely honest discussion. And that, I think, is what we need. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. It's on my watchlist and sometimes I pop by out of idle curiosity. The present situation is perfectly satisfactory to me, but I didn't care that much before until people started applying warnings to articles like Three Little Pigs and works of classic literature. If you don't want to know that the boat sinks, go to a film review site where they won't let the cat out of the bag. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course the present situation is satisfactory to you: you got your way. But you don't need a nuclear bomb to kill three rebels in Kansas. Only an appeal to the slippery slope fallacy gets you from removing obviously misplaced spoiler warnings on the Three Little Pigs to deleting {{spoiler}}. So if this is the line of reasoning that convinced you, you'll have to forgive me for remaining unconvinced. Furthermore, on the compromise I proposed, the boat sinking wouldn't count as a spoiler, either. This does not have to be a case of all-or-nothing, yet some editors seem to be misrepresenting the situation in this way. It is possible to come up with a guideline that keeps warnings off of fairy tales while allowing them on certain books or films. Some have pointed to the difficulty of such a task, but it would be a dereliction of our responsibilities as editors to avoid the work on these grounds. If you're looking for something easy, don't try writing or running an encyclopedia in your spare time. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "my way", I had no interest in this before it was brought up in debate while Tony and others were removing the spoilers. I was persuaded by their arguments, and remain so. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)