Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

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.

1. 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.
2. {{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.
3. 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).
4. 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)

Proposed changes to this guideline, 2007-12-08

I think this part of the current guideline:

Wikipedia contains revealing plot details of fictional works; this is expected. Concerns about spoilers must not interfere with article quality.

..should be changed to:

Articles often contain spoilers. Editors are free to add spoiler warnings to articles. Editors should be prepared to explain why they consider the information a spoiler if the spoiler warning is challenged. This should be discussed on an article's talk page.

I think this part of the current guideline:

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists.

..should be changed to:

A spoiler is a piece of information that may spoil a surprise. Someone telling you that other people are planning a surprise birthday party for you is one example of a spoiler. Spoilers typically refer to events in fictional works, although other kinds of information are often called spoilers. Information commonly referred to as spoilers are plot twists, the endings of films, results of sporting events, methods to perform magic tricks, secrets, surprises, etc. Readers should avoid reading the articles for films they have not seen yet if they wish to be surprised when watching the film. Spoiler warnings may not appear before every spoiler on Wikipedia, so readers should keep that in mind.

Spoiler warnings are not disclaimers. A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally-recognized relationship.

I think this part of the current guideline:

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning.[1] In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer.

..should be changed to:

Spoilers on the Internet are often preceded by a spoiler warning. On the Internet, spoilers are sometimes made invisible by making text the same color as the background — this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. On Usenet, spoilers are often encrypted with ROT13 encryption — this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. On the Internet, spoilers are often preceded by multiple blank lines called "spoiler space" — this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Many Internet users expect to see spoiler warnings before they read spoilers. Editors are free to put spoiler warnings before any material they consider to be a spoiler.

Editors should not remove spoiler warnings if another editor considers it a courtesy — this would be like editing a user's talk page and removing all instances of "please", "thank you", and "your welcome." If an editor is bothered by spoiler warnings, they are advised to realize that other readers consider them a courtesy and removing them may be construed as incivil. Removing a spoiler warning can create a atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. If a reader thinks spoiler warnings are unnecessary, they are advised to realize that they are not the only person who reads Wikipedia. If an article about a book contains a spoiler warning, it accommodates readers who don't want the book spoiled for them, and it accommodates readers who want to know everything that happened in the book. Spoiler warnings do not censor information.

Disputes over whether certain information is a spoiler can be supported by references to external sources. When a reliable source (such as a newspaper or magazine) uses a spoiler warning in a review of a fictional work (such as a film, book, video game, comic book, etc), editors can mention who gave the spoiler warning and cite the review and place it at the beginning of a plot summary.

I think this part of the current guideline:

As an exception, some recently released work of fiction may carry a {{current fiction}} tag, which is usually removed a certain period of time after the work has been published — typically between a week and a month or two, though this is a matter for editorial judgement. You should consult the relevant WikiProject for a given subject for more details. See similar templates in Category:Temporal templates.

..should be changed to:

Articles for recently released works of fiction (such as films, television episodes, video games, etc) may carry a {{current fiction}} tag. If an editor considers a fictional work to be no longer recent, removal of the tag should be discussed on an article's talk page.

I think this part of 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. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, WP:LEAD).

..should be changed to:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Spoiler warnings should be used instead. If information in a plot summary does not have an inline citation, it is acceptable to ask for inline citations with the {{missing citations}} tag in order to give other editors time to provide them. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research." If material is left unsourced for a long period of time, it is acceptable to remove it per the policy on verifiability.

Those are my proposals. Any comments or criticisms are welcome. --Pixelface (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors are not free to add spoiler warnings to articles. If they were, we wouldn't have deleted the spoiler template. Editors are, in fact, discouraged from doing so. The definition of disclaimer does not make sense - disclaimer enjoys a more casual meaning as well. And, furthermore, the general site disclaimer warns about spoilers, so it seems clear that we consider spoiler warnings a disclaimer. Your suggestion of not removing spoiler warnings is both silly (as it would have led to an inability to remove the stupidest of stupid spoiler warnings) and unsupported by current consensus and practice. The analogy to removing "please" and "thank you" on a talk page makes no sense. No consensus exists for your proposed version of how plot summaries should be written. Those are my problems. In short, your proposal is flawed in fundamental regards, and deeply unsuited to being enshrined as a policy or guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you suggest some alternative wording than the wording I proposed? --Pixelface (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The current wording of the guideline seems adequate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you unwilling to come to a compromise? --Pixelface (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Far from it. But I still think the current wording of the guideline works, is backed by practical consensus, and is good. If you want to change it, the onus is on you to come up with a proposal to do so. The one you floated here was not a good proposal. If you want to come up with another one, I will be eager to look at it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made multiple proposals. Could you please address each one? --Pixelface (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I did above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this proposal is too flawed for serious consideration, mainly for the reasons already enumerated by Phil. I'd suggest that any future proposal focus more on being descriptive and concise rather than proscriptive and wordy. Chaz ^Beckett 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made multiple proposals. Could you please address each one? --Pixelface (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll address them. Individually, each of your proposed changes contradicts an element of current practice. Together, your proposals represent the replacement of the written guideline with one that is unrecognisable as any reasonable description of how we handle spoilers on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 09:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please describe current practice? Could you describe how you personally handle spoiler warnings on Wikipedia? --Pixelface (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on PixelFace, you know the current practice. The guideline should read something to the effect of "Any good faith attempt to add spoiler warnings to wikipedia will be ruthlessly suppressed by a few people who monitor all attempts to add them, who have redefined consensus to be 'whatever we can enforce, by means fair or foul'". Because that's the only descriptive guideline we can have at this point. If the anti-warning people were truly interested in descriptive policy over prescriptive policy, they wouldn't have changed it from what it was 6 months ago, because that policy was descriptive of what went on. But don't expect them to put it in, they don't usually like to admit it in public. Wandering Ghost (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface's proposal is full of problems. But the main problem is that it's 'aspirational'. It describes, not how the encyclopedia is, but how Pixelface would like it to be. We don't write guidelines that are 180 degrees opposite to current practice. The proposal is worse than the May 2007 version because now there is no template for consistency. It encourages editors to add spoiler warnings, without telling them how. It only tells them how not to do it (ROT13, "spoiler space").

The proposal trots out a few ideas that have already been "shopped" on numerous talk pages, without success. This includes the idea of putting "critic-sourced" spoiler warnings at the front of a plot summary. It also includes Pixelface's recently-minted insistence on citations within a plot summary, which isn't even germane to the spoiler guideline.

Radiant! has admirably summarized the current options

• If you have an issue with a particular article, you can boldly edit that article, or raise the issue on its talk page.
• If you have an issue with the {{current fiction}} template, you can boldly edit that template, or raise the issue on its talk page.
• If you think that the {{spoiler}} template was wrongly deleted, you can take it to deletion review or attempt to recreate the template. Neither has high odds of success. Deletion review was already tried, and prompt re-creation of a deleted page is subject to speedy re-deletion.
• If you think that the deletion of the template was achieved by nefarious means, you can take it to ArbCom or any other dispute-resolution forum you can find.
• If you think that it is unacceptable for editors to use search tools to find spoiler warnings, and delete them wherever they appear, you can also take that accusation to ArbCom or any other dispute-resolution forum you can find.
• You can continue to try to reach consensus on this page, but unless you have new ideas, you're probably going to continue to face opposition.

I think the time has come to aggressively delete accusations of misconduct whenever they appear on this page. Allegations of editor/admin misconduct poison the discussion. The time has come to either prove them (if you can) or drop the subject. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Marc. This is clearly red herring which distracts from productivity. It appears that a few editors are vindictive over the loss of a TfD and are in their presentations losing credibility. I see some merit in warning about a plot spoilage, but the proponents are poisoning the audience against themselves. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been accused of making personal attacks on this page. No evidence has been presented to me, but I will be voluntarily disengaging from this talk page and this issue for 2 weeks during the time this guideline is protected. Radiant! requested this guideline be protected. Apparently this guideline was protected because there was an edit war that has previously occurred on this guideline, and it was mentioned on Lamest edit wars by Random832. I will be back here when the 2 week protection time expires. --Pixelface (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to oppose these changes because it encourages and sanctions editors to engage in original research and place their point of view on an article. Declaring a plot detail is something that would "spoil" the viewer's/reader's enjoyment is an analytic, interpretive, and evaluative claim. There should also be absolutely no prohibition or restrictions on other editors removing the spoiler warnings.

Ultimately, this guideline should discourage the use of spoiler warnings; not to encourage or sanction their use. If you look at the previous RfC on the subject of spoiler warning placement, you can see that three brightline conditions were brought up. None of those conditions achieved a consensus in support of spoiler warnings. In fact, the majority of editors opposed the use of spoiler warnings in those three cases with one, fairy tales, achieving a clear consensus against the use of spoiler warnings. Under the proposed guideline, this consensus would be completely ignored. --Farix (Talk) 12:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of wrongdoing

Moved to WP:AN/I#Allegations of wrongdoing. This is dragging the discussion off topic and AN/I or one of the dispute resolution channels is the proper place to hold this discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I am very interested in the prospect of this page being under discussion. My assumption is that discussion differs from the previous state, and will not be marked by accusations of malfeasance, the throwing around of terms like "spoiler police," and the misrepresentation of editors and their bots' actions. My assumption is that it will result in a way forward - a proposal that can be shopped to wider policy forums like the mailing list and the village pump for community approval, given that the community has, at this point, endorsed the deletion of the spoiler template via a pretty uncontestable DRV (as "overturn" failed to achieve a majority, which is the basic numerical standard for undeletion).

In the hopes that it will help this discussion, here is what I would like to see out of a replacement for the previous spoiler system:

1. Evidence for broad and stable consensus. This is not impossible - to my knowledge nobody arguing against spoiler tags has not been confronted with some articles they have supported spoiler warnings on, at least temporarily.
2. Compliance with larger policy. That is, a new spoiler policy cannot be a policy that overrides more important policies - WP:WAF and WP:NPOV are both ones that were being egregiously damaged by spoiler tags in the past, and WP:NOR was occasionally a problem when things that were rather tenuously considerable as spoilers were tagged.
3. Compliance in spirit with WP:NDT. Previously spoilers existed as an exception to this policy for reasons that seemed to amount to "well that's the way we've always done it." That thinking has been, at this point, unsettled, and with good reason - the page contains no logic as to why spoiler tags would be an exception, and by all appearances spoiler tags suffer from the same six problems as other disclaimer templates (listed in NDT). If a new version of spoiler warnings is to be implemented, these warnings should either not be redundant with the general disclaimer on the site, or should have a clear consensus for a non-pragmatic change to NDT that allows some class of disclaimer templates.

I invite people to propose additional goals for a new spoiler policy, or to begin thinking about how these goals could be met, as opposed to engaging in personal attacks and other sniping. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1) is just a restatement of the anti-spoiler faction's veto power. Can you imagine a situation in which a spoiler tag could be kept regardless of your opposition? At best, it would allow a return to the 'no more than ten' attitude, in which spoiler tags are added to admin-favourite fiction for a couple of days, and then removed.

2) WP:NPOV has already been decisively trashed, given the vocal opposition to a worldwide view from you and others.

3) There's no problem with exceptions to policies. It can encourage more exceptions, which is not a problem as long as they are adequately discussed.

What I would like to see is a commitment to a worldwide view and a retreat from the user-blaming which often characterises open-source projects.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "current fiction" is better suited to a worldwide view. Though, notably, we seem to be consistent in our narrow view - tags are removed about as quickly from British shows as from American ones, and so it's not like we're using an American view as such. We're not even firmly on an English-speaking view - our anime and manga articles are untagged as well. So our view does seem worldwide, if routinely unsympathetic to spoiler concerns. I do resent the "admin-favourite fiction" attack, however - I sincerely do not see, looking at articles where I have vocally supported and vocally opposed spoiler tags, any bias towards spoiler tags in articles on texts I like. As for exceptions to policies, indeed - I have no problems with exceptions. What I object to is unprincipled exceptions. Why, of all the things that could offend or upset somebody that we cover in the general disclaimer, should we separately disclaim spoilers? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not take a 'out in the UK = out in the world' viewpoint any more than the US version. Two kinds of parochial don't add up to a worldwide view. In the early stages of this debate, Doctor Who (a big admin favourite) was taken as typical fiction, and spoiler warnings on it were given much more serious thought than on Bionicle or Le Carre novels. The exception is justified by the accessibility gain and the minimal nature of spoiler warnings.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it is not two kinds of parochial - we favor initial market of release in all cases regardless of market. We are consistent in this regard. That is not a parochial view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the very definition of parochial, consistent though it is. Given the difficulty even featured articles have with including worldwide reception info, whether it will be really be applied consistently is dubious.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that {{current fiction}} is being woefully mis-used and under-used. I would favor a fairly lengthy retention—a year or more—and not tied to the time of release in any particular market. This would address Nydas's concern about Wikipedia's parochial US/UK-centric view. Obviously it wouldn't address the concern of people who want spoiler warnings to be perpetual, but I think it would solve a good deal of the problem. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The current fiction template is excessively bureaucratic, so it's never going to be heavily used. Scrap the parameters and reduce the size of it and it might get easier to use.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A template is an inanimate object, and is not capable of being bureaucratic. The parameters are seldom used anyway, so I doubt they are an obstacle to adoption. I could hardly imagine its size getting any smaller. Assuming one wants it used at all, the obstacles are as follows:

• It tends to get quickly removed, so there is little incentive to use it.
• It doesn't have critical mass.
• It is poorly worded, and doesn't really convey any useful information.

At this point, {{current fiction}} needs to be overhauled or deleted. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am a bit surprised that {{current fiction}} didn't take off. I thought it could serve as a generic spoiler warning for recent works, answering to the demand for spoiler warnings that is strongest in the case of new releases. It was widely used on Harry Potter-related articles after the Harry Potter 7 book came out, but it was worded as a spoiler warning at that time, not a "poor writing may lie ahead" maybe-cleanup tag. I agree that it is completely useless in its current form: if it is a cleanup tag, it should describe problems the article has, not might have, and if it is a spoiler warning, it should not address potential problems of article quality at all. Kusma (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move this comment to Template talk:Current fiction if you believe it to be offtopic. Kusma (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's a spoiler warning then I think there's a questionable consensus for its existence. My understanding of what it is is that it's the equivalent of the current events tag for fiction articles - documenting things where we're kind of jumping the gun on inclusion and don't have all of the information that makes an encyclopedia article yet. Its essential meaning is "It's a bit too soon for this to be an article yet, but here's what we've got." Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I do think the discussion of {{current fiction}} is appropriate here, since the spoiler guideline refers to it.

The existence of a suitable substitute was one of the reasons given—though not the only reason—for deleting the former spoiler template. Yet, as soon as the spoiler template met its demise, the {{current fiction}} template was revised, crucially changing its emphasis.

It's true that most new articles about works of fiction lack critical commentary and real-world perspective. But those attributes often take years to develop. There are some Wikipedia articles on extremely old works for which critical commentary is lacking. If we need a template to flag articles that lack real-world commentary, it shouldn't be a template that is usually removed within a few weeks after the work's release.

I also think that the hair-trigger criteria for removing {{current fiction}} have worked to its disadvantage. Why bother adding it if it is going to be so quickly deleted? Also, editors tend to work by analogy: they see something in one article, and they apply it in other articles. If it were allowed to last a bit longer, it would start to get a toe-hold.

And finally, I think there should be customized versions for the major genres, e.g., {{current film}}, {{current video game}}, and so forth. Editors don't naturally think of video games as "works of fiction" (though they technically are). A template that automatically puts the right wording at the top of the page will gain wider acceptance. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

When I created the current fiction tag, my goal was to find a spoiler warning tag that could be the focus of a compromise on spoiler warnings. Its purpose was intended to be a spoiler warning, phrased neutrally, and not interfering with article structure or quality. I thought that the recent changes degraded that function. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, that was never my sense of what the tag was or should be - essentially an article-top spoiler warning that is mildly discrete and avoids the word "spoiler." I think the issue is not so much the lack of critical commentary in the article, but the lack of existent critical perspective - an article that, by necessity, is only about plot information. Which is distinct from Template:Cleanup fiction-as-fact - the version of the tag for works where a real-world perspective is readily available. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have to say that after a brief read of the linked discussion I'm not sure how much support there was to use the template as a pseudo-spoiler warning. I guess I agree the most with Phil, in thinking that the template is similar to the current events tag, informing the reader that the article is still in its infant stage and may have a few issues. Chaz ^Beckett 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there was little support initially. Some editors wanted spoiler tags on all spoilers (which is no longer possible) and others wanted no spoiler warnings at all (which the current fiction tag fails, but it was intended as a compromise). There was more support at the deletion discussion for the spoiler template, where people cited current fiction as a possible alternative. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Phil nor Chaz has addressed my main concern. If you're worried about articles that lack critical perspective, then {{current fiction}} isn't getting the job done, and won't get the job done, because that type of perspective usually takes years to develop. For example, in the article on Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, the plot synopsis is the longest section, and the section on "Themes and Motifs" is just two skimpy paragraphs with just one footnote. In the article on Timon of Athens, the "Critical Response" section has an original research tag, and it has been there for more than six months. Both plays are about 400 years old.

So if you're concerned about articles lacking real-world perspective, your time frame generally needs to be far, far longer than the typical longevity of the {{current fiction}} tag. That tag, on the other hand, has often been cited as a suitable substitute for in-line spoiler tags, and this guideline mentions it in that context. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference is that current fiction describes a lack of possible real-world information, whereas other tags describe a failure to put the information into the article. In the first case, real-world information is not merely omitted buy not readily available. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Work with Internet Movie Database

I just came up with an idea.

Internet Movie Database now has a feature called "Synopsis", which is designed to contain detailed information, including spoilers, about that particular movie. Synopses can be added and edited by anybody who is a registered and verified member of the Internet Movie Database. It is located under the movie's entry in the subentry "/synopsis". For example, I myself have written a synopsis there for the movie SpaceCamp.

For movies and television at least, why couldn't Wikipedia entries contain a summary of the work, then a template with a link to that movie's synopsis page on IMDb for more detailed plot information? --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we could do that (most plot summaries are too detailed), but any important plot information also has to be in the Wikipedia article. Encyclopedic coverage of The Empire Strikes Back necessarily has to include that the film's big surprise was that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Wikipedia's articles should stand on their own as much as possible (think printed versions or DVD editions etc.), and so we can't substitute IMDB's plot summaries for our own. Kusma (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If for no other reason than licensing -- IMDB is a commercial enterprise and is not licensed on the same terms as Wikipedia. So any sort of "incorporation by reference" is inappropriate (although referral to IMDB is as legitimate as any other referral). --Lquilter (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot information vs Production information

I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I've come to realize that more important than tagging spoilers is distinguishing between plot and production information. The way I see it, articles on fiction contain two types of information: information about the story, and information about the production.

Take this (very likely untrue) information about The Empire Strikes Back.

• ... where Vader announces he is Luke's father.

This would likely go into a plot section. Plot sections contain spoilers, that's fine.

• ... the Cloud City sets were built in a soundstage in England.

When placed in a section about the movie's production, this is fine.

• ... the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father used the largest green screen ever made.

This is a mix of production and plot information (a p/pmix), and that's where all the problems seem to lie. It's out of place in the plot section, but it contains information about the plot that is inappropriate in the production section.

Users may view an article about a work of fiction when looking for information about the plot, the production, or both. The encyclopedia is more useful if a user can find information about the production without being exposed to information about the plot.

I'll define plot information as information that is revealed over the course of a work. So the existence of Cloud City isn't really a p/pmix ... it existed at the start of the work, and there isn't any sense of revelation to its introduction. Vader telling Luke he is his father, on the other hand, is a p/pmix.

There are several ways to deal with this. The most important one, I think, is that we should state somewhere that it is generally a good idea to keep production information and plot information separate, as much as is reasonably possible. Trying for this separation, as a matter of style, makes articles more encyclopedic, not less. Even without spoiler tags, it makes sense to keep plot information is clearly-marked sections.

That being said, there are cases where a p/pmix is unavoidable. I think the (made up) green screen example is one. So the question is what do we do?

Nothing. This is the current, post {{spoiler}} deletion approach to things. While this is a workable approach, it doesn't allow us to indicate a p/pmix, making the encyclopedia less useful, at least in my opinion. Perhaps you don't believe production/plot mixes to be a problem... why not? (As opposed to a problem for which there is no good solution.)

Tag. This is basically the immediate, pre-deletion spoiler policy, but improved. I think that the definitions of "plot information" and "mix of production and plot information" give the basis for an objective tagging policy. We also replace the word "spoiler" with something else, which hopefully would help editors put aside their preconceived notions of spoilerishness in favor of policy-based tagging.

I'd suggest that if p/pmix tagging will be used, it should be made subtle. I think one of the major objections to the spoiler tag was that it was a huge three-line monstrosity, made to stand out. I have a suggestion on how to do this, but I'll save that for later.

Something else. Is there another solution to the p/pmix problem? I can't think of one, but I'm just one guy.

Anyway, thanks for reading this. Hopefully, by changing how we all frame the problem, we can have a more productive discussion. Oh, and if you would, please don't even talk about the spoiler tag deletion debate... that won't help us move forward much. — PyTom (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best solution is to drop the assumption that some information in an article on a fictional subject is toxic and must be flagged, tagged, or marked in some manner that will enable readers to not read it. If they don't want to know about a fictional subject, they can avoid reading encyclopedia articles on the subject. This gives complete control over to the reader. How about that? --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True, and outside of the plot summary section, it's possible to use wording that doesn't reveal as much of the plot. For instance, instead of "the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father...", how about "the scene where Luke battles Vader...". Readers will still know what scene is being referred to, but the major plot twist isn't revealed. I'm sure there are situations where re-wording isn't practical, but it's still a useful strategy, IMO. Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I think that the proposed distinction is so subtle that there is very little hope of seeing it widely understood and adopted in a website edited by thousands of people. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• And there are times when plot & production are intrinsically interwoven, as when production demands drive rewrites and script changes, or edits affect the apparent backstory or plot, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it's not that the information is toxic. It's just that a failing to include a distinction between plot and production information makes wikipedia less useful to readers, who may be interested in one or the other. Sure one thing we can do is to tell the user to not read our article on the subject... but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to?

Chaz, I think rewording can often be a good strategy, especially when the added specificity does nothing to clarify the point being made.

Marc, I'm not sure the distinction is that hard to understand. There are other concepts that are more hard to understand (like distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one), that we ask editors to abide by in every article.

Lquilter, I think you're right... and the open question is what is the best way of dealing with that case. — PyTom (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Having now re-read the discussion, I think we're dealing with a non-existent problem. Most Wikipedia articles already discuss the plot in a clearly marked section. If plot details are mentioned in any other section, there are two cases to consider:

1. It is relevant and well organized
2. It is irrelevant and/or poorly organized

In the first case, the article is doing its job. In the second case, the offending material should be re-written or re-organized, not specifically because plot and production information are mixed, but because that's what we would do about any poorly structured article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Current fiction

Template:Current fiction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. The log page is here. --Pixelface (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Inside the info box?

Just a suggestion, but what if a spoiler note could be put inside the info box for films. Would that be less intrusive? I'm talking tiny. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not about intrusiveness but about avoiding violating core policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. There is also issues with redundancy that the pro-spoiler side completely ignores and why this in-article disclaimer should be given an exception when we don't permit other in-article disclaimers. --Farix (Talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are disclaimers all over this site. The current events and recently deceased tags are just two examples. The policies you just cited have nothing to do it. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But perhaps those templates should be taken to TfD if they are truely disclaimers. --Farix (Talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The current events tag is a notice to readers that information on the subject is changing so rapidly that the article may be inaccurate or outdated. For example, during a natural disaster or election the corresponding article may experience multiple edits per minute. The recently deceased tag is a little less useful (IMO), but it's essentially a subset of current events, where information regarding a person's death is changing rapidly. It's not widely used, which is probably appropriate, since few people's deaths are notable enough at any given time to require such a tag.

In contrast to current events, information on fictional works changes at a slow rate, with details emerging over days, months or even years. Occasionally there will be fictional works that will rise to the level of a current event (Harry Potter 7 release, blockbuster movie), in which case the current event tag may apply. As opposed to the dynamic nature of a current event, fictional works are quite static, especially once released. This makes a current fiction tag more a disclaimer and less of a helpful notice to readers. Chaz ^Beckett 13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If Current Fiction is deleted

If CF is deleted it will leave us with no templates to mark spoilers. At that point, is it worth it to maintain this page separate from WP:NDT considering that the effective text of this page will be "Wikipedia does not warn about spoilers beyond the general site disclaimer?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SPOIL is useful even if technically redundant, and serves better than a redirect to one line in a long page would - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot information vs Production information

I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I've come to realize that more important than tagging spoilers is distinguishing between plot and production information. The way I see it, articles on fiction contain two types of information: information about the story, and information about the production.

Take this (very likely untrue) information about The Empire Strikes Back.

• ... where Vader announces he is Luke's father.

This would likely go into a plot section. Plot sections contain spoilers, that's fine.

• ... the Cloud City sets were built in a soundstage in England.

When placed in a section about the movie's production, this is fine.

• ... the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father used the largest green screen ever made.

This is a mix of production and plot information (a p/pmix), and that's where all the problems seem to lie. It's out of place in the plot section, but it contains information about the plot that is inappropriate in the production section.

Users may view an article about a work of fiction when looking for information about the plot, the production, or both. The encyclopedia is more useful if a user can find information about the production without being exposed to information about the plot.

I'll define plot information as information that is revealed over the course of a work. So the existence of Cloud City isn't really a p/pmix ... it existed at the start of the work, and there isn't any sense of revelation to its introduction. Vader telling Luke he is his father, on the other hand, is a p/pmix.

There are several ways to deal with this. The most important one, I think, is that we should state somewhere that it is generally a good idea to keep production information and plot information separate, as much as is reasonably possible. Trying for this separation, as a matter of style, makes articles more encyclopedic, not less. Even without spoiler tags, it makes sense to keep plot information is clearly-marked sections.

That being said, there are cases where a p/pmix is unavoidable. I think the (made up) green screen example is one. So the question is what do we do?

Nothing. This is the current, post {{spoiler}} deletion approach to things. While this is a workable approach, it doesn't allow us to indicate a p/pmix, making the encyclopedia less useful, at least in my opinion. Perhaps you don't believe production/plot mixes to be a problem... why not? (As opposed to a problem for which there is no good solution.)

Tag. This is basically the immediate, pre-deletion spoiler policy, but improved. I think that the definitions of "plot information" and "mix of production and plot information" give the basis for an objective tagging policy. We also replace the word "spoiler" with something else, which hopefully would help editors put aside their preconceived notions of spoilerishness in favor of policy-based tagging.

I'd suggest that if p/pmix tagging will be used, it should be made subtle. I think one of the major objections to the spoiler tag was that it was a huge three-line monstrosity, made to stand out. I have a suggestion on how to do this, but I'll save that for later.

Something else. Is there another solution to the p/pmix problem? I can't think of one, but I'm just one guy.

Anyway, thanks for reading this. Hopefully, by changing how we all frame the problem, we can have a more productive discussion. Oh, and if you would, please don't even talk about the spoiler tag deletion debate... that won't help us move forward much. — PyTom (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best solution is to drop the assumption that some information in an article on a fictional subject is toxic and must be flagged, tagged, or marked in some manner that will enable readers to not read it. If they don't want to know about a fictional subject, they can avoid reading encyclopedia articles on the subject. This gives complete control over to the reader. How about that? --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True, and outside of the plot summary section, it's possible to use wording that doesn't reveal as much of the plot. For instance, instead of "the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father...", how about "the scene where Luke battles Vader...". Readers will still know what scene is being referred to, but the major plot twist isn't revealed. I'm sure there are situations where re-wording isn't practical, but it's still a useful strategy, IMO. Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I think that the proposed distinction is so subtle that there is very little hope of seeing it widely understood and adopted in a website edited by thousands of people. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• And there are times when plot & production are intrinsically interwoven, as when production demands drive rewrites and script changes, or edits affect the apparent backstory or plot, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it's not that the information is toxic. It's just that a failing to include a distinction between plot and production information makes wikipedia less useful to readers, who may be interested in one or the other. Sure one thing we can do is to tell the user to not read our article on the subject... but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to?

Chaz, I think rewording can often be a good strategy, especially when the added specificity does nothing to clarify the point being made.

Marc, I'm not sure the distinction is that hard to understand. There are other concepts that are more hard to understand (like distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one), that we ask editors to abide by in every article.

Lquilter, I think you're right... and the open question is what is the best way of dealing with that case. — PyTom (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Having now re-read the discussion, I think we're dealing with a non-existent problem. Most Wikipedia articles already discuss the plot in a clearly marked section. If plot details are mentioned in any other section, there are two cases to consider:

1. It is relevant and well organized
2. It is irrelevant and/or poorly organized

In the first case, the article is doing its job. In the second case, the offending material should be re-written or re-organized, not specifically because plot and production information are mixed, but because that's what we would do about any poorly structured article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing: I'm anti-spoilers on wikipedia in any way, shape or form as an official guideline. I feel like the responsibility of WP is to be a source of information, and anyone searching on WP should have access to all available information at their own risk. I don't think there's any way to draft an official policy regarding the differences between plot and production summaries and have it work, with as many editors as we have. That being said, I'd support the tweaking of certain phrases (as with the example above) in some parts of articles, as long as it's not an official spoiler. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this page findable?

Is it worth noting that this page is pretty much hidden from anyone looking for it? Try doing a search for it; there's no link anywhere. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the first hit in a search for the word "spoiler" or "spoilers", so it's really not hidden at all. --Farix (Talk) 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Actually try doing a search instead of trying to make me look stupid. There is no link on the page that comes up and there is no link on spoiler (media). --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Enter "spoiler" and then hit "search". But it isn't my fault that you can't properly search for something. --Farix (Talk) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be a dick. That's exactly what I did and there is no link to it. Try it yourself. I looked back on the disambiguation page and it appears that Tony Sidaway removed the link. Interesting. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do remember to remain civil, and I did do a search just before posting. Or do I need to take a screen shoot before you will believe me? --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reminding you to be civil, actually. You're either mistaken or your screwing with me. Ten seconds ago, I searched for "spoiler" and here's what comes up:

Spoiler could refer to

Spoiler (aeronautics), a device to reduce lift in aeronautics Spoiler (automotive), a device to modify air flow in order to increase fuel efficiency or improve handling in automobiles Spoiler (sports), a team that has been eliminated from the playoffs, and beats a team that required that win to advance Spoiler (media), a comment which discloses plot details of a book, play, video game, or film or is intended to distract attention from a rival Spoiler (comics), a secondary character in the DC comic book Robin SPOILER (film), a comedy film project in New York City Spoiler effect, an individual unable to win an election or game for him- or herself, but with the power to determine which player among two or more others will win Spoiler (politician), a candidate for election, who, while having little chance of winning, draws votes from another candidate with similar positions on major issues, thus allowing the election of someone with contrary positions Mighty Spoiler, a popular calypso singer Don Jardine, a professional wrestler also known as the Spoiler.

--YellowTapedR (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are one who is being uncivil by first accusing me of making you look bad, then calling me a dick when I restated that you weren't using the search function properly, and now claiming that I must be screwing with you. But here is the screen shot: Image:Spoiler screenshot.png --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a difference in which namespaces are selected in user preferences (Search tab). I'm guessing that TheFarix has the Wikipedia namespace selected and YellowTapedR doesn't. I think the default setting is that only mainspace is searched, but editors often add other namespaces. Chaz ^Beckett 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. So, I'll revise my statement: The guideline is hidden from anyone who has their search preferences set to the default. Should that be the case? What's the point of having a guideline if most editors can't find it? --YellowTapedR (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, what happened was YellowTapedR made the mistake of using /go/ instead of /search/. The later is what brings up this page first. I do believe you can change those preferences, true, but hidden? Not in the least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'm the moron here. Moving on. But for morons, like myself, who hit enter instead of clicking on //search//, all that comes up is the disambiguation page. Why isn't it there?--YellowTapedR (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Because unless you specifically try to by entering the "Wikipedia:" prefix, all attempts to go to a page assume that you are looking for an article, not a policy page. There are a handful of exceptions - some of our three-letter-acronyms do work without the WP prefix, and a handful of things like No Personal Attacks will take you to the policy page, but even Neutral Point of View when searched for straight-on takes you to an article on journalistic objectivity. This is not a bug - unless you are clearly looking for a policy page, Wikipedia does not take you to one. This is true for all policy pages, not just this one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just typed in a few examples --Civil, Personal attack, Original research, Neutral point of view -- and all of them had a link to the policies at the top of the articles. The article for spoiler (media) used to, too, as did the disambiguation page, but one of the editors here removed it. I'm just wondering if there have been attempts to make this page harder to find. I don't know. You would think that you'd want the page found easily, so people don't add makeshift warnings and so they can chime in, right? --YellowTapedR (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There's no reason for it not to be there. Tony Sideway removed it, probably because it was in lumped together with the rest. I put it on top like most of the others. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it specifically because links to policies and the like do not belong on Wikipedia. If somebody wants to know about our policies they should look in the correct namespace. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone knows how to do that. Beginners have the same rights as long-time users, you know, including the right to learn how to become better Wikipedia editors. I think Melodia's solution is best. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that new editors have the right to learn. That isn't an argument for placing what amounts to unencyclopedic data into the encyclopedia body. An introduction to Wikipedia, including its policies, is linked from the Main Page. I will accept what Melodia has done but I don't think it's at all necessary. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a link on a disambiguation page. Surely it is understandable that new users (and even some veteran users) will find there to be some ambiguity between Spoiler and WP:SPOILER, yes? A single link on the Main Page isn't necessarily enough (just as a discrete disclaimer on a page no one would normally visit is not necessarily enough). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably already been mentioned, but...

A Wikipedia article is usually one of the first Google hits for a movie title. A lot of people Google for more information about the overall plot of a movie, but don't want to read critical plot details. The "Disclaimers" link is at the bottom of the page; there's no way a typical user is going to see that before reading the unwanted information. I submit that out of courtesy to readers, it would be good to have spoiler warnings in Wikipedia articles about movies, TV shows, and books.

Proposal for when/where to use a spoiler warning

• when unexpected plot elements (not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material) are revealed
• have one template to use if the entire section contains spoilers, and another to use if only the latter part of a section contains them ("The remaining part of this section contains spoilers...")

It's not possible to remove all subjectiveness out of the decision to include a spoiler warning, but that is the case with most Wikipedia guidelines, many of which deal with much more important or divisive content disputes. Thanks for your consideration. Eseymour (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this has been mentioned and rejected. Kusma (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kusma doesn't tell the whole story. People are divided on the issue. Historically, there have been probably more spoiler warning proponents than opponents, but the proponents have less political power and came in several generations, so the opponents win. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether there are "more spoiler warning proponents than opponents" is questionable. There is anecdotal evidence both supporting and refuting that statement. It depends whose anecdotes you believe. In either case, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is _unfortunately_ not a democracy, thus a minority can enforce power over a majority, even in the case of subjective issues, such as spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I honestly don't understand what the big drawback is to having some kind of minimally-intrusive spoiler warning, but as with so many topics on Wikipedia, it appears that a very motivated minority is able to enforce its will over a majority which has other things they'd rather do. Sigh. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to the substance of the proposal, just for the heck of it. "Unexpected plot elements" is subjective. "Not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material" appears arbitrary. Moreover, specifying "trailers [and] promotional material" is about as artificial as anything I've seen, subjecting any critical inquiry to the whims of what a promotional media department has decided to try to generate buzz about. ... Finally, as has been pointed out before, if people do not want to learn about a subject they shouldn't go to an encyclopedia on that subject. If all they want is what they could see in promotional materials then they should go to the promotional material itself. And while Google links are too arbitrary and bizarre for us to use as a criteria for anything here in Wikipedia, the statement that WP is the first link is not always true: for popular films with a large "promotional" budget, at least, a film website is more often than not the first google link. And they will include all the promotional buzz and plot mystification that any anti-spoiler person could wish. --Lquilter (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's subjective, but so is just about every other Wikipedia guideline. FWIW, I didn't mean that everything not in promotional materials would be a spoiler, only things that significantly affect the plot and aren't revealed by the studio. Oh well. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with this. First determining what "significantly affects the plot" is highly analytical and subjective and would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR without clear secondary sourcing. There is also the problem with how do you determine what information is not reveled by the studio or publisher. If I really want to get cranky, I could state that once the work has been released or published, then its plot details has been "reviled" by the studio or publisher and are no longer spoilers. And you can't make a distinction between what is released through promotional materials and the release of the work itself as is completely arbitrary and a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Not an ideal position if you are a supporter of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So you say, but I've never seen a good argument that this is actually the case. To me a spoiler warning violates NPOV or NOR in the same way almost any organizational element does... what counts as "Early Life", in a biography article, to use the classic example.

For that matter, determining whether information is important enough to be included in an article or is meaningless trivia is often in the same category. Once you have a working definition of what you're going to count as a warning-merited spoiler, you'd probably have 90% agreement on where the spoilers are in any given article, any more than, once you have a working definition of a baker, you probably have 90% agreement about whether any particular character in a tv series or movie is a baker, or is involved in a love triangle, regardless as to whether the words were actually used in the fiction. It doesn't count as something requiring a secondary source, The primary source itself is sufficient. Or you'd have 90% agreement on whether a particular event counts as being in somebody's early history. Wandering Ghost (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be broad to consider spoilers everything not in promotional materials. I think warnings should only be used if they are in unexpected places, especially the lead. For example, the intro for I Know Who Killed Me:

'I Know Who Killed Me' is a 2007 erotic thriller film starring Lindsay Lohan, Julia Ormond, and Neal McDonough. The film was directed by Chris Sivertson. Based on the Screenplay by Jeff Hammon. Filming began on December 16, 2006 and finished in late February 2007. It was released on July 27, 2007. This is Lohan's second film starring as both twins, the first being The Parent Trap.

Granted, it's a sucky movie, but the bit about the twins is revealed at the end and is the whole mystery. Readers probably expect to see that kind of thing in the plot summary, but not in the intro. --YellowTapedR (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, that detail is just trivia and doesn't belong in the intro. Chaz ^Beckett 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think cases like that could be handled editorially. The triva about Lohan playing twins should follow the mention of that information in the plot summary section. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

future template

I noticed today that some articles were using the {{future}} template as a standing for the {{spoiler}} template. That strikes me as very strange - {{future}} is for real-world future events, not things in a fictional storyline. It only has an appearance of acceptability in these articles because of their in-universe prose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is strange, but is it possible that whoever did it meant to use the {{futurefiction}} template?--YellowTapedR (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be the action of one Bionicle editor who still thinks that article information should be made "safe" for those who don't want to be "spoiled". He is calling it a compromise of some sort. But my impression of the Bionicle articles is that they almost all violate WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is strange then. I think we could probably do without all those LEGO and Bionical (Is there a difference? I don't know) character articles, but that's another debate. I think it's hard to spoil fans of that sort of thing, since most of them are probably too young to read anyway. --YellowTapedR (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Very suprised

I just same to be aware of how wikipedia has been robbed of the spoiler template by a silly maneuver by some senior admins. The story of how it was done is such a sad indictment of the way wikipeida has lost its way. Anally retentive misanthropy is now the order of the day. Shame and humbug to all of you who were involved! Lobojo (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment here was deleted. I cant really undersatnd why. If you dont like you can ignore it. Wikipedia is not censored, certainly not talk paegs. I have no wish to fruitlessly oppose this action, I simply would like to express by disapointment. This is a reasonable thing to do by all acounts. Lobojo (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Was this comment in danger of overloading the server?! Lobojo (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They like to silence people who express unpopular opinions. In all fairness though, you give them an excuse when you word your protest in an angry and inflammatory way. Tone it down a little so they have less reason to call it an "attack".

Equazcion •✗/C • 05:29, 12/24/2007

I am especially hurt that Tony Sideway deleted my comment, as he is a user I have admired for years and still do, for what it is worth. Lobojo (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And what a bizzare comment from User:Melodia. [62] "Remove unhelpful comment"? Blimey! Unhelpful? Can I do that in general pn tall pages, when someone annoys me by pointing out things i dont like? Lobojo (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you repeat a hotly disputed accusation as if it were fact. The fact of the matter is that the spoiler template was deleted after long discussion, followed by a normal listing for deletion, which was confirmed at deletion review. Throughout the long discussions, however, numerous damaging allegations were made, and repeated. Frankly, we decided we'd had enough because you can't hold a policy discussion when some parties feel free to accuse those whom they disagree with of doing all kinds of nasty things. On Wikipedia, we have a Dispute resolution process, and this should be followed because simply repeating the same accusations will not resolve the dispute, whilst dispute resolution will. --Tony Sidaway 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact of the matter is that the {{spoiler}} template was deleted before it had been listed for deletion for more than seven days. The nominator's timestamp was 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) and the closing admin's timestamp was 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC). And templates that are part of the functioning of a policy or guideline cannot be listed on TFD separately. --Pixelface (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please say that to begin with then, rather than removing someone's comment. I really don't think that's too much to ask. We're not in the midst of one of those "long discussions" anymore. This was just one disgruntled person and it wouldn't have been disruptive at all to just leave it here and respond appropriately.

Equazcion •✗/C • 05:44, 12/24/2007

Thank you for your responce Tony Sideway. I merely point out that whatever it might have been the process was in no way squeaky clean. People say mean things and admins need a thick skin methinks. Lobojo (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It truly is inappropriate to remove comments unless there's a really good reason. The user above wasn't making any personal attacks, wasn't threatening legal action, wasn't revealing personal information, wasn't being nonsensical or anything else that would justify deletion. What makes it worse is that Tony Sidaway has been heavily involved in the spoiler debate. For someone with such a clear bias to attempt to police the conversation is wrong.

You can say that the above comments have been stated before, but not by that particular user. The anti-spoiler editors have rehashed their arguments over and over, but their comments never get deleted. You have not been appointed moderator of this talk page. --YellowTapedR (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See here, a comment written by a third party whom I asked to look at the ongoing abuse. Just because damaging accusations have been repeated enough times that newcomers at first take them for fact, does not make their repetition without recourse to Dispute resolution a legitimate use of this policy discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 08:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a long, nasty topic, and editors are encouraged at the top of the page to both remain civil and to check out the archives. The comment that was deleted seemed to indicate its author did neither. It wasn't even a call for review, it was simply an accusatory statement to bring "shame" down on editors who had gone though proper channels to achieve consensus. Perhaps next time a polite comment would work better. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tony, but if I deleted one of your comments where you call some editors who contribute to this page "trolls," I bet you wouldn't appreciate it. I agree that bringing up the past stuff isn't useful, but it's not up to you or me to dictate what editors should say. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's up to all editors to try and make things run smoothly. Talk pages are for discussion, and what was deleted was more accusatory chit-chat than legitimate discussion. The comments on this topic since then have been informative, and have remained on the page. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we're all bound by the No personal attacks policy. I must admit I did get a little weary of the endless bickering, and refer to some particularly unhelpful contributions as trolling. I certainly wouldn't object to someone removing such a comment. --Tony Sidaway 08:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't a personal attack. This was a show of discontentment with the way a certain case was handled. No one was specifically named. I agree that the wording was somewhat uncivil but not to the degree that removal of the comment was justified -- especially by someone with a possible conflict of interest.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:34, 12/24/2007

We all have an interest in keeping this discussion on topic and free of personal accusations. In that, there can be no conflict. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please.... That doesn't even mean anything. Again, there was no personal accusation. Stop with the righteous outrage. You know what a conflict of interest is? It's when you can't expect people to assume you're being objective. You should have damn well known that this was one of those cases and left the decision for appropriate action up to someone else who wasn't so closely involved with the situation.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:21, 12/24/2007

And now we're back to uncivil dialog again. This is a talk page to discuss Spoilers, not to take shots at other editors. An uncivil remark was deleted and returned. It's not the end of the world. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is also a page to discuss what happens on this page. I'm sorry if we're bothering you but this is important. Removing someone else's comment from a talk page is serious.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:39, 12/24/2007

I'm sorry if I appear at all outraged to you, Equazcion. That's far from an accurare portrayal of my mood. There was a personal accusation: "robbed...by a silly maneuver by some senior admins." I regard this issue as dead (see discussion on the admin noticeboard here) and I apologise for feeding the flames by my failure simply to ignore tha unwarranted fuss.

Merry Christmas everybody. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but removing an uncivil comment is not that important, especially if it was returned. What is there to be gained from continuing this discussion? If you're upset about the role of spoilers in Wikipedia, don't complain about the consensus. That's how things work around here. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So what are you complaining about now? The incivility or my disagreement about spoiler tags? 'Cause I certainly won't stop talking about the spoiler tags here. Thank you for your response, Tony, I consider this matter quite dead as well.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:51, 12/24/2007

Spoiler Tags to all, and to all a good night. Merry Christmas, everybody. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The main issue, Equazcion, is that the accusations keep flying over and over about 'abuse of process', 'abusive admins', 'a cabal', etc etc. Many editors who had never appeared in the active debates voted to kill the template, and took it down when it still existed. I still don't know if there really was true consensus, but the fact of the matter is, SO many avenues have been tried, and all of them have failed. ALL of them have been public too, no matter what anyone likes to believe otherwise. Accusing people who acted in good faith throughout the whole thing of "Anal retentive misanthropy" (whatever that means), and saying that ALL involved should be ashamed IS an uncivil comment, directed at certain people, even if it's not directed any specific name. A was pointed out, Radiant! made the statement that such comments should be removed, so I removed it. It was reverted, but I did my duty in trying to keep the same old crap from flying again. Debating can be fine, but when you start of flinging mud before the other side has a chance to load the catapult, it's pointless to even try. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe he said the incivility has to stop, not that further uncivil comments are to be removed. And even if he did, Radiant's instructions are not gospel. I wasn't here for the whole debate so I'm looking at this as an outsider. What I saw was someone remove someone else's comment because he didn't like it. Again there's a conflict of interest here. If you disagree with a person's viewpoint especially in a prominent debate, you are not equipped to judge whether or not the comment should be deleted. Next time leave it up to someone else.

Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 12/24/2007

It's not a viewpoint. A viewpoint is what you wrote in the section before this one. What Lobojo wrote wasn't helpful, boiling down to "this sucks, shame on you!". People are actually 'supposed' to remove a lot more than they do from talk pages -- whenever it's used to not help the topic in question. That was what I was doing. It's not about disagreeing, it's about allowing pointless drivel to be pushed over and over ad nausum. No conflict on interest here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The only part of this statement that defends your objectivity is "No conflict on interest here." That tells me nothing. It has everything to do with disagreeing, because when you disagree, you can not judge what is and isn't "pointless drivel". Your emotional involvement blocks your objectivity. Again: Next time, let someone else handle it. There are no emergencies on Wikipedia. If a potentially unhelpful comment is allowed to stay for a little while in the interest of making sure an objective decision is made, then that is not a bad thing.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:20, 12/24/2007

I'm really trying to understand here, but I'm very confused about where the "conflict of interest" comes in. Are you saying that Tony Sidaway had a CoI with this post because it attacked him, and thus he shouldn't have been the one to remove it? If that's the case, then would it have been better if someone else had removed it? For the record, if I had seen it first I probably would have removed it also, because it a) didn't discuss any relevant issues, and b) seemed to be a big overdramatic FU to everyone who took their time to reach consensus on the matter in the time-honored wiki-way. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying both of you have a coi. Your posts show your level of emotional involvement. Oh, the poor editors who put their time to reach consensus in the time-honored wiki-way... how very righteous of you, yet equally as dramatic. You're involved, you've been involved heavily, and you disagree with the viewpoint being expressed. You therefore should not be the one to remove the comment. Neither should Tom and neither should Mel. I've yet to see anyone comment here who sounded the least bit objective.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:54, 12/24/2007

I think all parties will agree this is cluttering up the page, and no longer relevant to the actual discussion of spoilers. I'll reply to your talk page to clean things up, and I invite everyone else to do the same. Again, Merry Christmas to all. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Souveniring

Just as an aside, do we have an article on souveniring? That was a major issue back in the days when I was a projectionist, one film came out nearly seven minutes short due to the number of souvenir frames that had been taken from it (and maybe the occasional bad repair, not everyone was as scrupulous as us about repairing tears when they happened, we always suspected the local Odious of just cutting dozens of frames out rather than repairing them). Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you're asking here, but it's not the correct place. I don't think there is an article on that topic, though it might be interesting. --YellowTapedR (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know it's not, I just wondered. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I would propose that we add something along the lines of:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

Seems to me that a decent amount fo the content tagged as spoilers in the past was sourced direct from the work of fiction, adhering to content policies and using only that which is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources might actually remove the supposed problem. If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal, and I have mentioned this many times before. However, films apparently don't need independent secondary sources for plot details. Apparently the film is the only source that's needed for verifiability, even though the policy on verifiability refers to reliable sources and the guideline on reliable sources refers to third-party sources. --Pixelface (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a really interesting idea. The only problem is that the works themselves are primary sources, which are usually considered valid. In order to make this work, the rules for use of primary sources would have to be changed to include an exception for plot synopsis.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:31, 12/24/2007

I think that content sourced directly from the works, other than the most minor factual matters such as copyright and publishing dates, is almost always a terrible idea. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of book and movei reviews, it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia, a distillation of what expert sources say about a subject. By conducting original research form primary sources, as we undoubtedly do in many articles (the Bionicle series spring to mind) we are, I think, stepping over that dangerous line of placing ourselves in the role of the experts, sifting the primary data and deciding what is significant and relevant. There is no way we allow edits to Christianity based on individuals' readings of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon to cite one recent example, and we should be no more willing to include lengthy discourse on any other subject drawn directly from primary sources by editors who have no evident authority in the subjects. I recently found xkcd; this is sourced almost entirely to the comic itself. I think that is very bad, because it means we're the ones judging what is significant and what's not, and clearly the only people who'll feel qualified to judge are the fans - who are probably the most likely to overestimate the significance of any event in that comic's history. If I read an article about a movie that is sourced to Roger Ebert and Halliwell and Barry Norman or even bloody Jonathan Ross, I know that it's the work of someone who has some recognised authority on the subject, who has analysed it in the context of other films of the genre and has at least some kind of fact checking process behind them. Readers coming along to add factoids directly form books or movies, that is simply not a good idea, in my view, especially when they cause friction. So a return to policy - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT - that has the potential to remove a goodly chunk of the problem. Or so it seems to me, anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think content directly sourced from the works is usually a bad idea too. But several people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines endorse it. There's a thread about it here. Apparently if a reader can go rent a DVD through Netflix, it means the Plot section is verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an issue that really should be held at WP:WAF, WP:RS, and WP:V instead of here. It has very little to do with spoilers and the application of any spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the real issue is whether spoilers are encyclopedic. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense. Britannica does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense. Spoilers are not encyclopedic. If editors don't have to cite secondary sources to include spoilers in an article and are free to implicitly cite a film, I see no problem with putting notices in articles to inform readers they are about to read material they would not expect to read in an encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I think you have a really good point, and I think I agree with it. Still, I don't think this an issue that can be solved here, if it can be solved at all. This would call for a change to other policies regarding the use of primary sources, and those are policies that, I think, have been around for quite some time, and that editors would not be readily open to changing. If you take this effort further please let me know though as I'll definitely be interested in supporting it, wherever you decide to brig it up next. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:31, 12/25/2007

It has relevance to spoilers in as much as, properly applied, the existing sourcing guidelines and policies would seem to em to rule out the kind of content which leads to the most zealous advocacy for spoiler warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still not a topic directly about spoilers. It's about plot summaries in general, which should be discussed at one of the links I gave above. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if the existing policies support ruling out spoiler material, that is definitely something to be discussed here. We need to figure out how to apply the policies here so that this guideline agrees with them. Other guidelines and policies may require the same attention, which can be taken care of separately at their talk pages; but the way policy should affect this guideline does need to be discussed here and the relevant changes made. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

section break 1

The proposed addition is:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

The first sentence and the independent clause of the second sentence don't appear to have anything to do with spoilers. They just duplicate requirements of other policies, but say them less well. The statement that "content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler" is already in the guideline.

The reason given is:

Seems to me that a decent amount of the content tagged as spoilers in the past was sourced direct from the work of fiction, adhering to content policies and using only that which is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources might actually remove the supposed problem. If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler.

Although this would indeed remove the supposed problem, it would also throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is normal for the article about a fictional work to contain a plot summary sourced from the work itself. There are probably thousands of articles, and not just about films, that have been written this way. We should be cautious about advancing new guidelines that would invalidate large amounts of existing material, especially in articles that have long endured without significant objection. I don't think this is a "problem" that WP:V and WP:RS were ever intended to solve. (It would be most odd for such a widespread practice to have for so long been tolerated without loud choruses of complaint, if it violated the intent of core policies.)

This interpretation would force us to write some highly peculiar articles. For instance, months after the seventh Harry Potter book came out, the article still would not have been permitted to state that Lord Voldemort was dead. For though there were millions of people who knew this, and it was trivially verifiable, there was probably no reliable source for this fact other than the book itself. (Reviewers typically didn't give away the ending, fansites are normally considered unreliable, and the work was too new for other reliable sources to have been written yet.)

So, I don't think this addition to the guideline is a good idea. Marc Shepherd (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The goal with this addition is to only include plot points that other secondary sources reveal, which is all that an encyclopedia should be doing, and all they ever do. The articles would only be forced to be as withholding as any other encyclopedia's articles on the same topics. If you consider that peculiar, then you consider encyclopedias peculiar. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:51, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia has never interpreted its own mission to preclude editors from referring to a work when writing an encyclopedia article about that work. Do you think that the writer of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Hamlet is forbidden to consult the text of Hamlet?

The analogy to print encyclopedias is often used to support whatever pet point someone wants to make. If the next issue of Britannica includes an article on Harry Potter, I'm sure the writer of that article will be permitted to consult the actual novels she is writing an article about. Of course, citations generally are required only for facts likely to be challenged, and the statement that Lord Voldemort dies is not such a fact. Marc Shepherd (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but how do you think the Britannica article on Harry Potter gets handled? When it comes to deciding which plot points to reveal, the writers of these articles don't just look through the fictional work themselves and summarize everything. They use secondary sources to determine what should be revealed due to their being common knowledge. If the ending of Hamlet weren't so well-known and revealed in such a wide range of public material, it wouldn't be in any encyclopedia article, except ours. We don't currently make any determination of public knowledge and write articles on works of fiction by using secondary sources, we just read the original work and write an original summary. This is a rather non-encyclopedic way of writing articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:23, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty sizable difference between a static encyclopdia and Wikipedia, both in terms of access and frequency of updates. The standard WP way is to include a summary of movies (and novels, etc.) without requiring secondary sources. If we're going to change that it should be an official WP policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well of course. That's the proposal: to change policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:48, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I was reading the wrong summary on the page, sorry. Anyway, I oppose changing the way WP handles spoilers. I think having WP as an unfettered source of information is not only best for the readers, but also the easiest way to coordinate thousands of editors all working on the same projects. At this point, the responsibility is on the reader to not look up articles they don't want to be informed about, I think that's the safest way to go. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well no one ever looks up information on things they don't want to be informed about. Why would they? Just because people want to be informed, though, doesn't mean they want a story spoiled for them. Millions of people look up movie reviews and databases to find things out about them -- but do you think they all want to hear the endings to those movies? What percentage of people who look up a movie do you think are actually looking for the complete synopsis, spoilers included? IMDb is smart enough to know that the percentage is low enough to warrant complete synopses being kept in their own section along with a warning, and reviews that reveal spoilers hidden from view unless the reader decides to unhide them. Under what presumption are we basing the policy to reveal all spoilers? 'Cause it sure isn't based on the question of what people generally expect or want, and we've established that it isn't based on what encyclopedias do in general. So what is it, then? Equazcion •✗/C • 10:07, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to be informed about something, but only a little bit? If you want to know a cast list, you'll go to imdb, that's what they're there for. If you'd like more information, including a synopsis, major cast list, box office performance, and so on, you'd come to WP.

As for "presumptions," that's WP policy reached through consensus. I would assume it's based on compiling as much information as possible about a certain subject, and making it the personal responsibility of people to not search for what they don't want to know. It seems to be working smashingly so far, without a ton of complaints. The previous time this came up for vote, it didn't have much opposition. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why you would want to be informed about something only a little bit is not a question we need to answer, but... Call it human nature, but we know it to be true -- people look up information about movies, even plot descriptions, without expecting or wanting to hear the entire thing, because major outcomes are the essence of why fiction is interesting.

Yes I realize the decision was reached via consensus, but consensus can change, and I'm suggesting that the original reasoning may not have been entirely sound. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:30, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

The two core arguments are a self-invented definition of encyclopedia and exhortations to blame and punish the outgroup. They're both nonsense, but the structure of Wikipedia is unfortunately lenient on semantics and user-blaming.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You don;t mention which side's arguments you're referring to, but the definition in the counter-argument is also self-invented, and the latter claim was never an argument by either side and is an unfounded assumption. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:16, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

It's the anti-spoiler side's views. You are incorrect about the need for a 'counter definition'. If someone insists 'real men don't eat salad!', you need only point to the lack of authoritative backing for this statement, you don't need to find someone saying 'real men do eat salad!' Punishing the outgroup (that is, our users) has been a key component of the anti-spoiler group's aims since day one, when Phil Sandifer said that some people would get 'burned' by the change. Above, we have Snowfire51 demanding 'personal responsibility' from our users.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean anti-spoiler as in anti-spoiler tags, which is what I think you mean, then I suppose I can agree with that; At least the outgroup part. But your language isn't all that straightforward. To clarify, yes, there is a certain contempt for the user apparent in the argument to include spoiler material without warning. It assumes the right to say what users should expect, as opposed to catering to what they do expect, because "we know better" -- and if they disagree then "who cares", and "they deserve what they get (having the plot spoiled when they look something up) because they should've know better". Let me know if I'm getting this right. As for the definition of encyclopedia, though, I think that no matter which side of the argument you're on, you're working off of a presumed idea of what an encyclopedia should be. Everyone has their own take on that. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:02, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

section break 2

If the proposal is that spoilers ought to be tagged—so that those who don't want the ending "spoiled" can easily avoid the material that offends them—then I would suggest starting a new section, because that's not what this section is about.

This section is about Guy's proposal that a fictional work should not be used as a source of information about the work itself, which, if it belongs anywhere, would be a change to WP:V and/or WP:RS. The proposal was offered here on the theory that it would "solve" the spoiler problem. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly would solve the spoiler problem, and it's not just a "theory". This is as good a place as any to discuss a possible policy change that would solve the spoiler issue. We also don't need to start a new section. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the ad hominem part of the above.... I used the word "theory" in the sense that it hasn't been put into practice. Would the word "postulated" or "hypothesis" suit you better?

Anyhow, the usual definition of spoiler is a narrative surprise that, if known in advance, would "spoil" a work of fiction for some readers or viewers. Guy's rationale was: "If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler." That would be true, only if the typical reader or viewer researches independent sources before reading the novel, seeing the play, or viewing the film in question.

But this is surely not the case. The fact that Rosebud is Kane's old sled, is a spoiler, whether secondary sources have said so or not. It is sophistry to suggest that everyone is aware of the ending of Citizen Kane because secondary sources have written about it. To give a more recent example, I am sure the next generation of children will want to read the Harry Potter novels with the same sense of discovery and suspense that the current generation did. The many narrative surprises in that series are spoilers, regardless of how much they have been written about. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're making a very nitpicky and strawman argument. To say that we can't possibly know if everyone is aware of the spoilers we are proposing to allow, and therefore, we should just reveal all of them, is just not sound reasoning. You're saying that since the solution isn't absolute, then an attempt shouldn't even be made.

We're not claiming to know which points people know about, and we're certainly not claiming that all people read secondary sources before enjoying a work of fiction. That's just ludicrous, and purely a strawman argument. We're saying that sticking to secondary sources for plot information gives a reasonable enough chance that we won't be spoiling things for people. If a plot point is common enough knowledge, chances are it'll be in a secondary source. If it isn't common knowledge, chances are it won't be.

Just because the solution isn't total doesn't mean it isn't better than the current practice. You've basically given absolutely no reason why this change shouldn't be made, or why it wouldn't be better. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:49, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It looks to me as if we are being asked to fix two problems here: first, material that is a "spoiler" because it's not widely known (i.e. usually fails RS); and material that is a "spoiler" despite being widely known (in which case the problem is probably not us anyway). Somewhere in the margins there may be a tiny number of cases that are not well known but supported by reliable sources and identified by independent authorities as a spoiler. None on my watchlist, though. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I did give a reason. In fact, I gave several. The first is that a very large number of existing articles would be invalidated. The number is probably in the tens of thousands, since there are a ton of articles on fictional subjects, most of those articles contain a plot summary, and that plot summary is usually sourced from the work itself.

The second is that it would make encyclopedic articles about most fictional works difficult to write until a very long time after the work is published. As I noted, it would be very peculiar if the article about the seventh Harry Potter book were not permitted to state that the book ends with Harry's survival and Lord Voldemort's death. That information was added to the article literally within moments of the book's release. Though now known by millions of people, I am not sure that, even today, there is yet a reliable third-party published source with this information. Clearly there will be eventually, given the popularity of that series, but it seems odd to impose an artificial barrier to the inclusion of clearly relevant, obviously factual information that is disputed by no one.

Lastly, we ought to be awfully hesitant to change policy in a way that invalidates a large amount of content, unless there is pretty good evidence that that content is problematic. But no such evidence has been offered. The purported reason is that it "solves" the spoiler problem. Even if it did, is that the purpose of Wikipedia—to avoid disclosing certain types of information? Is that why we're here?

Now, if your real agenda is that plot summaries sourced from the works themselves do not belong in an encyclopedia, then feel free to propose a policy change at WP:PSTS. But that proposal doesn't belong here, because if it were adopted it would apply to all factual statements derived from primary sources, not just spoilers.

But if your agenda is to get as many spoilers as possible out of Wikipedia, then you should say so directly, not via the "back door" of an unrelated policy change. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Harry Potter example and how "obviously relevant" it is, and how "peculiar" the article would look without it, that's just a matter of opinion. Again, if it looks peculiar to you to leave that out, and no reliable third-party source included it, then you must therefore find all third-party sources peculiar. You may not be used to that way of writing a sourced article, but there's a reason all those reliable sources do it that way. I frankly trust them more than you -- and that's not meant to be uncivil. I trust them more than I trust anyone here, if they were to tell me, "Well, that would make our articles look peculiar to me."

Regarding evidence of a problem, I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want. I'm presenting an argument. That's what people do on Wikipedia. Aside from bringing everyone who's ever removed a spoiler from an article or agreed during a conversation about spoilers, there's not much I can offer you in the way of evidence. As far as the "purpose" of Wikipedia, you're offering yet another strawman argument. The purpose of Wikipedia can't be to avoid disclosing information. I'm not even going to answer that. Except to say, those "reliable third-party sources" saw fit to refrain from such disclosure regarding Harry Potter, and yet, I don't think they consider their purpose to be the evasion of disclosure either.

My agenda is: I agree with the proposal that plot synopses should be limited to secondary sources. You may reword that however you like. I realize that it would be a major change and that many articles would need revision. It would be a slow change, but in the end a beneficial one, I think. I don't even think the change need apply to old articles; perhaps only new plot synopses should be required to conform. I don't claim to have the details worked out.

Finally, if applied, it would not apply to all facts obtained from primary sources. The proposal is, currently, only for plot synopses of fictional works. No one has proposed the banning of primary sources altogether. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:09, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "relevance" in the Harry Potter context, I am not asking you to trust me, and indeed you shouldn't. The evidence is simply that this is an extremely frequently edited article, maintained by a large number of editors. The information was added practically the instant it was published, and no editor ever challenged its relevance. You can check all of that for yourself. Either that large slew of editors has very poor judgment as to relevance, or you do.

Yes, I know you are presenting an argument, and that's what people on Wikipedia do. But when you propose a fairly substantial policy change, the burden is on you to show that: A) We have a problem here; and that B) Your solution solves it; that C) It's a good solution; and that D) It doesn't introduce other problems that are as bad or worse. I don't have to prove anything.

If your solution does not apply to all facts obtained from primary sources, but only to plot synopses, I would have to ask: Why should there be a different rule for one kind of fact, as opposed to all other kinds? Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things people add to articles that are removed because they go against policy. People adding something to an article doesn't necessarily mean that the article is best served with that addition, or that the editor is aware of policy. Also, at the time the Harry Potter event occurred, policy agreed with the revelation being there, so there would've been no reason for anyone to have refrained from doing so.

The burden is on me to show that the change would be an improvement, which is what I'm doing. It's not my job to prove it, though, because such a thing can't be proved. It's fine if you disagree that the outcome would be as I suggest. I know many people will disagree with me as this is a controversial subject.

As for your last question: Because doing it that way would solve one problem without creating other problems. If disallowing primary sources helps us in one particular identifiable area, but not in others, then why not just apply the rule in the area where it's helpful? Equazcion •✗/C • 17:55, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

section break 3

←There are lots of things people add to articles that are removed because they go against policy. True, but if your change were implemented, it would have the effect of disallowing a considerable amount of content that editors and readers have historically found useful, and that current policy permits. That is the problem that your proposed change introduces.

So what you need to demonstrate—I agree that prove is too strong a word—is that, notwithstanding the widespread presence of this content, which current policy permits, which is present in large quantities, and which most people seem to find beneficial, Wikipedia is actually worse off for it being here.

About the only reason you've given is that Wikipedia would contain fewer spoilers. That is certainly true. But spoilers are information, and Wikipedia's mission is to provide information, not to supress it. So you need to demonstrate that this site would be improved by including less information. Good luck. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"...disallowing...content that...policy currently permits..." Yes, we've been through that already, I just answered you, just because people add it and policy permits it doesn't mean it best suits the article. Again it's fine if you disagree but just say so and don't circle back around to your original question.

How it would be better can't exactly be demonstrated either. The only difference would be that there there would be no more spoilers. There would hoever be another fringe benefit of tighter standards for reliability and for professionalism. If plot synopses were limited to only secondary-sourced material, they couldn't be written any longer by fans who happen to have DVDs and decide to write an original summary. These synopses would then have to actually be researched and be less original. With the problems Wikipedia has in public image with reliability and quality, I think this would be a step in the right direction.

Not including spoilers would mean that works of fiction wouldn't be spoiled for those who look them up. People don't like having stories spoiled for them, even when they look up information about that work. Again you've asked this before and I've already answered it. You aren't going to get any more of a "demonstration" than that because such a thing isn't possible. This is a suggestion for what readers would like better, more readily expect from an encyclopedia, and in the end, find more useful, reliable, and professional. There's nothing more I can tell you. You either agree of you don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:39, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

people would leave

<outdent> If this were to actually happen, that all plot sections were to be stripped of anything that wasn't actually talked about in secondary sources, so many editors would likely leave it'd ruin the encyclopedia. If you think there's a lot of backlash now, you ain't see nothing...just my opinion at least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that happening. I think this will be an argument used by people who don't want the change to occur, but I don't believe it to be true, and I don't think they do either. Anyway this is very much crystal balling. I don't think we should be making decisions based on some unfounded prediction of the future. All we can and should be doing is discussing how this will affect the quality of the encyclopedia -- not making future predictions about how the community will react. Besides, even if you're right and the reaction is that bad, it can always be changed back. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:31, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Melodia's concern is very valid. We're having a hard enough time dealing with the actions of editors like TTN and the backlash to "anti-fiction deletionists" on WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, potentially challenging WP:NOTE and WP:PLOT. (This is not the place to challenge those issues). Adding the requirement that plot details must come from secondary sources effectively makes (my estimate) 95% of all fictional articles that otherwise satisfy notability or other policy/guidelines a problem because the plot is not described in secondary sources, at least in significant detail, leaving the context to describe the real-world aspects at a loss. Adopting this solution to allow for "sourced" spoiler warnings will remove the need to even provide spoiler warnings for the bulk of the material. It's a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" solution.

I'll also note that even if we go by secondary sources to state what is a spoiler is, there will always be people that have a higher standard, and if spoiler warnings were implemented in this way, they will still complain when they spoiled by material outside of such tags. What a spoiler is very much a personal view, a secondary source stating that something is a spoiler is simply one authoritian's view on what a spoiler constitutes, and may be less or more broad than the next person. --MASEM 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly one person's view on what constitutes a spoiler, which is why I think this solution has more merit than any other that came before it. This solution would remove that decision from the hands of editors. What constitutes a spoiler would be left up to what secondary sources consider to be a spoiler. Furthermore the proposal isn't exactly for sourced spoiler warnings but rather for the complete omission of spoilers, for the simple reason that other sources omit the very same things. There wouldn't be any question of standards for what constitutes a spoiler -- that's the whole point of this solution and the reason it makes so much sense.

I don't challenge notability and I'm not proposing we do so. Notability always needed to be established via secondary sources anyway, so nothing would change there. The only change would be where primary sources are valid, and yes that probably does challenge WP:PLOT and FICT. However being that this is an idea to solve a problem regarding spoilers, this seems to be a good place to develop that idea. If it's determined in the end that the idea is a good one and that the final formulated proposal would need to challenge a policy, then the discussion will need to be taken elsewhere, I agree. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

But again, even if multitude of secondary sources omit spoilerish details and thus we write the plot to that, a reader can still find what is left to be a spoiler; some may find even any details of the plot to be too much. Why they come to Wikipedia to learn about that work and not expect to be spoiled, well, I don't know, but that points back to basically that the current approach of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" approach that at most a person will be spoiled once about a work on Wikipedia and should realize that Wikipedia's pages do contain spoilers. Basically, what constitutes a spoiler is a part of the reader's expectations - not of the editors or the sources they use, even if well sourced by numerous secondary authorities. Handling spoilers should be done at the reader's level - whether this is a tag or template, CSS tricks, or a general disclaimer statement. --MASEM 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Melodia, we have policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which mean that writing about anything that is not covered in reliable secondary sources is simply not allowed. It is probably true that a few people would leave if, for example, we removed everything from the various Bionicle articles that is not discussed in secondary sources; whether that would be good or bad for the project is open to debate. This is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, not a venue for people to write reviews of fiction based on their own view of what is significant. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are necessary to establish the notability of a topic - however, they do not limit the use of information gained from primary sources as part of the topic's coverage; a summarized plot summary cited only from primary sources is acceptable as part of a topic dealing with a fictional work, as long as the article also discusses the real-world aspects from secondary sources along with it. (That's the whole gist of WP:PLOT and subsequently WP:FICT --MASEM 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing about anything that is not covered in reliable secondary sources is simply not allowed. That is simply not true. According to WP:PSTS (a sub-section of WP:NOR), primary sources can be used, as long as certain conditions are met. To date, it has been widely accepted that a plot summary does meet those conditions, as long as the plot is being described, not interpreted or analyzed. It would be pretty surprising if our articles on fictional works were violating WP:NOR all along, and it was only now that we've discovered it, as veteran editors are pretty vigilant about removing original research. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are valid sources per WP:NOR, however, Guy, you've misread the part on WP:V. We can't have articles based entirely, or have large portions, based on primary sources. However WP:V does not exclude primary sources when they are used descriptively. --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thank you. And while theoretically that rule could be changed, my thoughts above are why I think it'd be a bad idea. Many people NOW bitch about people removing 'good info that people worked hard on', I can just imagine what would happen if such a rule were enforced. True that's crystal balling, I agree, but it seems silly to think otherwise. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be what you thought, but it's wrong. Things that can only be documented from primary sources should not e on Wikipedia because we can't ensure WP:NPOV. I commend to all concerned User:Uncle G/On sources and content, which I think says it better than I can. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. A topic cannot be presented using only primary sources in its own article, that we all agree to (as I read it); however, if I'm talking about a movie or book or the like that has development and critical reception info from secondary sources (thus satisfying notability), a plot section that is written strictly from the primary source that meets V/NOR/NPOV within the context of the rest of the article is perfectly acceptable, even by that essay listed above. There's a difference between a topic which receives its own article and a section of an article. --MASEM 11:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh* This clearly isn't a discussion for WP:SPOILER as it really isn't about spoilers but about plot summaries; and there does appear to be a conflict between WP:V and WP:NOR. Guy and others state that WP:V only permits the use of secondary sources on Wikipedia, however WP:NOR does allow primary sources to be used when making descriptive statements. Because of this apparent conflict, I have started the topic at WT:V since this really needs to taken to a larger venue, (WT:V#Primary sources) --Farix (Talk) 13:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 1

←To Masem: You're presenting a reason that readers should eventually expect what they get and be responsible. This is the so-called "outgroup" argument from further up. That still is no reason that we can't cater to what they expect right from the start. You're also saying what's "better", but you're not presenting any reason. I'm proposing not to take it upon ourselves to decide what's better for our readers, but rather to take our cues from what all the other sources already do, and not do any more or less than them. Can you give me a good reason why you're so sure that the way they're doing it is actually worse than the way we're doing it? If no one reliable does what we're currently doing, how can you say that we're reliable? How do you justify this? If the revelation of spoilers really isn't a big deal, how do you explain why everyone else isn't also doing it? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:42, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We can say we're "reliable" because we have millions of editors working 24/7 on our articles doing quality control. I don't think the point of WP is to compare us to other sites. WP has one policy, other places have another. Readers are well aware of what they'll get when they view each site. I haven't seen any outcry from people demanding WP institute spoilers, or angry because they learned something they didn't want to know. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we have millions of editors working constantly says nothing about our reliability. Lots of people working can still be working to uphold policies that don't produce the most reliable material, not to mention more doesn't equal better. You haven't heard an outcry because people aren't infants who would complain about things like that. Even if everything on Wikipedia sucked horribly you wouldn't hear an "outcry". All you'd hear would be arguments coming from the people who care about Wikipedia and about making it better, which is what you're hearing now. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:07, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten what little fun it is to discuss wikipedia policy with you. Okay, I'm done here. I'll sum up, I oppose changing wikipedia's policy on spoilers. I don't think changing it adds anything to WP, other than making it far more difficult to contribute and properly edit. I see no problems from the current setup, and WP has grown considerably under current policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has grown enough. I think attracting new users shouldn't be our focus anymore. We've already got an overabundance of manpower. I think we should now shift over to focus on our readers, rather than what's the most fun and easy thing for us to do, as contributors. Nevertheless I understand and respect your opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:44, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You go shift focus. Knock yourself out. The majority of editors will continue to do what's 'fun'. After all, noone's getting paid, noone has ANY obligation. People will only work on what they find rewarding, even if it goes against what you personally see as important. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If fun and lack of payment were the only motivations here then we wouldn't need policy. But the output of a useful and quality source of information are priorities, which is why we have policies. Proposing that those priorities would be better served with a change shouldn't garner the kind of response you just gave. If you have respect for policy then you're here for the same reason I am. We're all working towards the same goal, and if we occasionally disagree on the best way to get there, that's okay. Let's discuss it civilly. If you disagree to the point that the discussion actually bothers you, then you're welcome to leave it up to others. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:10, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

If you're concerned that reliance on primary sources is making Wikipedia less reliable, I hardly think the spoiler guideline is the place to be "fixing" that problem. If you have that concern, then why limit the "fix" only to plot summaries? Why not ban all use of primary sources entirely? And why not make that proposal on the talk page of the policy that currently permits it in the first place?

In any case, can you give a specific example where the reliance on primary sources has compromised reliability? For instance, as I noted above, the article on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows stated the fact that Voldemort died in the book within moments after the book was published. The only source was the book itself. In what sense was that information unreliable?

Lastly: I'm proposing not to take it upon ourselves to decide what's better for our readers, but rather to take our cues from what all the other sources already do. What other sources are you seeking to emulate? Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a tertiary source, drawn form reliable independent secondary sources. This is the only way we can work, since we have no way of vetting the credentials of our editors, and we have no desire to restrict editing to subject experts. As Uncle G correctly states in his essay, Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish anything. The existence of articles drawn in their entirety from the primary source itself is a problem. Who is the source deciding what is significant and what is not? In virtually every such case, we are deciding the significance ourselves rather than referencing the significance as identified by authorities; this is a bad thing. Always. I can't think of a single instance where use of primary sources is an appropriate fallback for something not being covered at all in secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Primary sources are absolutely permitted in Wikipedia (but should be used with caution per NOR). This is especially true when writing descriptive plot summaries of works of fiction. As long as the summary is purely discriptive, and does not include analysis or interpretation of the plot, the work itself is in fact the best source for verification. Wikipedia is filled with articles on TV shows, books, movies and other works of fiction and almost all of them cite to the work itself (either directly or tacitly) for verification of the plot summary. That said, I can understand why the issue is a concern. The typical "plot summary" section does not actually summarize the plot at all... far too often it is simply a re-telling of the entire plot. Too many of our articles on fictional works include plot summaries that are overly detailed... to the point where they go into minutia about the plot. A good summary gives a broad view of the work's plot and not a chapter by chapter account of the plot. However, this is a problem with writing, and not a problem with sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 2

I agree with Blueboar. On top of that, Guy's comment really wasn't responsive. When a Wikipedia editor writes a plot summary of a novel, Wikipedia isn't the first place to publish that plot: the novel is. Obviously, the editor is exercising judgment in three ways. First, she is choosing her own words. Second, she is deciding which information is significant. Third, she is deciding how to organize that information. But these things would be true regardless of the source. Even in an article derived entirely from secondary sources, we don't copy the source exactly, and we don't include everything that the source did. There's no getting around it: regardless of the source, editors are writing original words and applying their own judgment as to which information should be presented, and how it should be organized. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither was Blueboar's response. Guy is arguing reasoning and Blueboar responded with policy. We're discussing (possibly) a proposed change to policy though, so answering by saying policy disagrees is rather obvious and pointless. Additionally, Blueboar, the problem you describe as being "a problem with writing" would be solved if only secondary sources were used, because then minutia and other problems couldn't exist in plot summaries. Marc, you're right that the editor's judgment is applied no matter what the source, but the less of that judgment we need to rely on, the better. Again, as Guy points out, we don't investigate the credentials of our editors, so we should be relying as little as possible on their judgment. Allowing original sources for plot summaries means we rely on those judgments more than if original sources were disallowed, for those instances. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:23, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What you and Guy are suggestion are changes in the interpretations of WP:V, WP:RS, and a direct change to WP:NOR. Such discussion on changes should be done at those policy/guideline pages and not here. This page is a guideline on how Wikipedia deals with spoilers and is not related to the changes in the interpretations of WP:V or WP:RS. --Farix (Talk) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You think this discussion is occurring on the wrong page, yes, we all heard you the first two times. Thank you. The location where the discussion take place is not all that important that we need to spend time arguing about it. The discussion began here and there's no reason to fragment it now. Please contribute if you like, but as for where this takes place, kindly let it go. It's just not that important. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:37, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Don't Agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is twofold. First, the proposal requires a policy change, which will not and cannot occur without a discussion on the talk page for the policy itself. (Or, you can just WP:BOLDly change it, and see how far you get.) Second, if the change is made, it clearly will have a much broader ambit than just spoilers. It will affect all plot material that comes from primary sources, whether spoiler or not. Therefore, it needs to be aired before a broader audience than just those editors who are particularly interested in the handling of spoilers. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

← It's funny how it's the people who are against the proposal who want to waste time with this. Hey, if you feel that much of a need, you may each carry on at the location of your choice. It is, after all, a free Wikipedia. But don't move other peoples' comments. Thanks Equazcion •✗/C • 17:48, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Moving the discussion here [to WP:V] is wrong; it is based on a misrepresentation of the original point I was making, which was that we should not be the only place on the internet where a supposed spoiler exists, therefore a supposed spoiler is either an example of inappropriate primary sourcing, or a problem that is not Wikipedia's to solve. It is really pretty straightforward: per existing policy, interpreted in the way I would normally interpret it, there should be no instance where an important item of plot should be available in so few places that its inclusion in Wikipedia represents a pressing problem. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also wrong to assume the right to make a move like that when people are arguing against it. You can't just declare yourself to be right and take action. Kindly stop moving other people's comments. It's against policy -- WP:TALK Equazcion •✗/C • 17:56, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

This very much is a policy discussion, particularly its about a change in how a policy is interpreted and very much belong on WT:V. I don't know why are so insist that this take place here when it absolutely doesn't belong here. Are you really afraid that the proposal will be reject as an incorrect interpretation of WP:V that you want to avoid it's talk page? --Farix (Talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of your opinion and I disagree, as does the person who started this discussion. Again, if you'd like to argue someplace else, please feel free, but don't take it upon yourself to move other people's comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:16, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Re. "we should not be the only place on the internet where a supposed spoiler exists, [...]" - not sure what you're trying to express, but seems like you're drawing conclusions from your own original research.

Re. "[...] a supposed spoiler is either an example of inappropriate primary sourcing, or a problem that is not Wikipedia's to solve." - really, I've lost you, but without doubt not an inevitable consequence of your first half sentence above.

Re. "It is really pretty straightforward: per existing policy, interpreted in the way I would normally interpret it, there should be no instance where an important item of plot should be available in so few places that its inclusion in Wikipedia represents a pressing problem." - No, this doesn't follow from policy.

Regarding your original proposed addition to the spoiler template:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

1. I don't see very well how that connects to what you say to be "the original point [you were] making"
2. There are too many shortcuts in the reasoning presented in this proposed addition to WP:SPOILER to make it at all useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 3

This subject does seem to go to the heart of the Verifiability policy, so I think we're making a mistake by holding the policy debate here. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got the time or the will to read the whole debate above, but I oppose any such addition because it contradicts WP:NOR and is at odds with writing an encyclopedia. Hiding T 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias are bound by a similar restriction. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:31, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Which encyclopedias are you thinking of? The facts, I think, are precisely the opposite. I am sure that the writers of the Encyclopedia Britannica articles on Shakespeare are permitted to refer to the texts of Shakespeare as primary sources. Feel free to try to disprove that. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I said similar. But no, we could probably say exactly, even with this point about Shakespeare. With all the reliable secondhand material available on Shakespearean plays, I doubt any encyclopedia editor would've needed to read an actual play. It all could've come from secondary sources, and probably did. Feel free to disprove that. Hiding said that this would be "at odds with writing an encyclopedia". Well, encyclopedias don't usually contain spoilers, so evidently, it's our present rules that seem to be at odds with writing an encyclopedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:37, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

As the person who is proposing to change long-standing Wikipedia practice, you're the one who needs to provide the evidence; not me. Again, which encyclopedias are you referring to? Which articles in those encyclopedias support your point? I am quite sure your statements are false, but if you will kindly supply references, we can all check for ourselves.

To clarify: I am quite sure that, to the extent traditional encyclopedias cover works of fiction, they do not shy away from plot points that would be considered spoilers. Of course, because traditional encyclopedias are printed on paper, they cover fewer works, and many of the works they do cover have much shorter articles than Wikipedia. But where a work is deemed worthy of a substantial article, I am sure you will find that there is no modesty about disclosing plot-spoiling details.

Your comments reveal a fundamental ignorance about how traditional encyclopedias are written. Unlike Wikipedia, traditional encyclopedias are generally written by specialists. It is inconceivable that the Encyclopedia Britannica articles on Shakespeare are written by someone who has not read Shakespeare. To the extent it is relevant to refer to plot details or to quote from the text, anyone competent would rely on the text itself, not a second-hand report of it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can point to two electronic encyclopedias. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense.[63] Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't even have an article on The Sixth Sense. Encarta doesn't have an article on Fight Club. Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on Fight Club. Encarta does not reveal the ending of Thelma & Louise.[64] Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on Thelma & Louise. Encarta doesn't have an article on Million Dollar Baby. Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on Million Dollar Baby. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Usual Suspects.[65] Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on The Usual Suspects. Spoilers are not encyclopedic. Can you provide evidence they are? --Pixelface (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditional encyclopedias are not necessarily written by specialists ([66], read the part that starts with "many encyclopedias...are largely written by graduate students or freelance writers without special knowledge.") Nevertheless this still is not the point. The statement I was answering was Hiding's, which said that this proposal would be "at odds with writing an encyclopedia". The point is this proposal would make Wikipedia more like an actual encyclopedia, and not less, as he seems to be claiming. The actual question is how much like a traditional encyclopedia do we really want to be? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:01, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that the more reputable the encyclopedia, the more likely it is that the articles are written by someone with specialist knowledge — and I would count graduate students in that category. The most relevant point is that in any serious encyclopedia, no one would write about a work without referring to the work itself. Even freelancers without specialist knowledge, if asked to write an article about a fictional work, will most likely begin with the work itself. You haven't refuted that.

people would leave, break 3.2

← I believe Hiding's point is that no encyclopedia would omit information because it is a spoiler. They might omit the information because they don't have space for it, or because it is not relevant to the kind of reference work they are compiling. But they would not omit it because it spoils the plot. Encyclopedias supply information; they don't suppress it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing information that doesn't appear in secondary sources is not suppressing information. Information has to come from reliable sources. Anonymous people on the Internet (Wikipedia editors) are not reliable sources. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense.[67] Does that mean they are suppressing information? Encyclopedias don't supply spoilers. There are other websites for that kind of thing. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just supplied you with something that directly contradicted your claim -- if you remember, the one where you claimed I was the one with the "fundamental ignorance". Here's what I think: I think you're at least as fundamentally ignorant on this subject as I am. So let's not misrepresent ourselves. If you "think I will find" something, that really makes no difference. I respect your "thoughts" but as far as the statement of fact is concerned, they appear to be lacking, as I've chosen to trust the link I posted more than your opinion.

You are right in that the reason encyclopedias omit information might not be that it spoils the plot, but just the same, it might be because such information doesn't occur in secondary sources. We don't really know what the reason is that they are the way they are, but we do know how they are.

Which brings us to the real point: It doesn't matter whether or not encyclopedias have some rule that says no primary sources may be used. What matters is that the resulting encyclopedia doesn't contain anything that wouldn't be in secondary sources. How it got that way is anyone's guess -- but they do end up that way. Perhaps there is some informal practice at work in the encyclopedia community. Perhaps encyclopedia publishers tell their authors they can use primary sources but that they can't include anything that secondary sources wouldn't include. Whatever the case, they end up a certain way, which is rather different from the way Wikipedia articles end up.

The only choice we have for achieving the same result would be through a policy, since we don't know what the encyclopedias are doing, and if they do work through an informal practice, that wouldn't be viable here. Of course, this hinges on the assumption that you agree that traditional encyclopedias do indeed end up differently than our articles, specifically in that they would lack certain things such as complete synopsis details of popular cultural works -- but if you disagree there then there's something more fundamental that needs to be addressed, and I'm not going to address it, because I think others will agree with me on at least that basic point. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:14, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We already have the policy you desire. I mentioned it above, but will relink to it; WP:NOR. As to whether other encyclopedia include spoilers, I would advise anyone who does not know the ending of Romeo and Juliet to avoid Britannica. And it would make it harder to write an encyclopedia if we are not allowed recourse to primary source. And most major plot points are discussed in numerous places. See your newspapers for discussion of soap operas, films and the like. I don't get what the point of the proposed addition is, and since it contradicts our purpose and our policies I oppose. Hiding T 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We covered the Shakespeare example extensively above. You're not saying anything new. Of course it would make it harder. That is not in dispute. Newspapers discuss films but not spoilers, as was also mentioned above. If you don't get it, and you also don't want to read the debate that's occurred up until now, then I advise you to not try to participate in the discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:46, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if it is accepted that other encyclopedias use spoilers, why did you assert different in your response to me? If it would make it harder to write the encyclopedia, why did you also state different? Since our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, I reject the addition because it would contradict that purpose. Also, newspapers do include spoilers, I have many times in the past provided examples, the Observer review of the recent Superman movie was one such. Also, read WP:CONSENSUS before telling me my comments are not welcome. Hiding T 09:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not accepted that other encyclopedias use spoilers. Other encyclopedias only print commonly-known plot details that appear in secondary sources. It would make writing plot synopses harder, but would make the end result more resemble a traditional encyclopedia. I never said your comments weren't welcome. I was only offering advice. If you'd like to participate, it would be best to read the rest of the debate. That having been said, you are welcome to comment as much as you want. If there is a reliable newspaper that has published a spoiler, then that would be fair game for inclusion in that film's synopsis. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:47, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Since regular encyclopedia do print information which spoils the plot of a work, why is that being disputed? And where is it decided we are trying to mirror a print encyclopedia? That's never been the stated goal of Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. I suggest you may find one of the many other collaborative online encyclopedia more to your tastes. I think Citzenopedia or whatever is going for a more print based mirrored approach. Also, it's your opinion that if a reliable newspaper that has published a spoiler, then that would be fair game for inclusion in that film's synopsis. That's not policy or guidance and I oppose any attempt to make it so. What you seem to want to do is limit the scope of Wikipedia. For that, you need to discuss it at WP:NOT. Hiding T 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite an encyclopedia that reveals the endings of films by M. Night Shyamalan. --Pixelface (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And we plucked that one out of the air because? I can point you to an Empire magazine which reveals the ending of the Sixth Sense in rather big letters, including handy hints on how to tell, which would invalidate Guy's proposal, if that is any help. Hiding T 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Films by M. Night Shyamalan usually have big plot twists. Encarta does not reveal the twist in The Sixth Sense[68], if you're wondering what other encyclopedias do. I don't mind if The Sixth Sense article on Wikipedia reveals the ending of the film and cites Empire. If a reliable secondary source is cited, that's fine with me. However, if a reliable secondary source uses a spoiler warning or does not reveal the twist, I think they can also be cited. Roger Ebert said "I have to admit I was blind-sided by the ending. The solution to many of the film's puzzlements is right there in plain view, and the movie hasn't cheated, but the very boldness of the storytelling carried me right past the crucial hints and right through to the end of the film, where everything takes on an intriguing new dimension."[69] That's a reliable source that the film contains a surprise. Spoiler warnings are meant to precede a surprise so an article does not spoil a surprise for readers. I see no problem with spoiler warnings that cite reliable sources. I see no problem with putting interpretations from reliable sources in Plot sections before plot details are revealed. --Pixelface (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

←Paper encyclopedia vs. Wikipedia is addressed below, reliable newspaper spoiler being fair game is only in the event that this proposal is accepted, and what i want is not to limit scope per se but to limit original interpretation of primary source material by editors. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:08, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Then please accept that WP:NOR already does that and move one. Hiding T 23:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh... No. Please accept that NOR alone does not address my concerns, and move on. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:52, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 3.5

Encarta also has a much shorter article on "The Sixth Sense," consisting of almost no relevant information other than a plot summary that could have come from a press release and a cast list. Wikipedia is a much more complete source. So, we win. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Win what? The title of who can claim to be an encyclopedia yet contain the most unencyclopedic material? --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's plot summaries are actually quite encyclopedic by their nature. Their content is checked and rechecked many times over, and I'd wager they're checked more often than other, more "encyclopedic material."

Let's draw a comparison between a subject, say Physics, and an awful, yet enjoyable movie like Road House. To contribute to the physics page, an editor must have a good deal of knowledge about the science and have proper references that will be fact-checked by other knowledgable editors. Quality control is assured by a system of checks and balances.

To contribute to the Road House article's plot summary, you have to have primary knowledge of the subject. Movies are seen by millions of people, so it's safe to say there are more than a few editors out there who will be proofing these articles. Quality control is also taken care of by a much larger number of editors who can compare their first-hand knowledge of the movie.

There may not be a primary source for a plot summary, but it's seen and proofread by quite a few editors, so it's safe to say it's been checked and checked again for content. If I see a physics page with an error, I probably won't catch it. If I see something written on the Road House page that wasn't in the movie, I'd spot it in a heartbeat.

Finally, I don't understand the assertation that information internet sources would informally request a "spoiler" warning for is unencyclopedic. That would seem to be something you'd need to source, otherwise saying spoilers are unencyclopedic would be WP:OR.

Again, good luck with all that. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's plot summaries are not "encyclopedic by their nature." Encarta's plot summaries are typically under 100 words and reveal no spoilers. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have many plot summaries for films as far as I can tell. You're wrong when you say "To contribute to the Road House article's plot summary, you have to have primary knowledge of the subject." You don't have to have seen the film, you just have to cite what's been written about the film in reliable sources. Editors cannot cite themselves. The policy on neutral point of view says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." It doesn't say "If enough editors agree on how to describe something, it's true." Editors are not reliable sources. That is why editors must cite reliable sources. Saying spoilers are unencylopedic is not original research. I can cite other encyclopedias and I have. You'll have to cite an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers to say spoilers are encyclopedic. --Pixelface (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Saying spoilers are unencylopedic is not original research. I can cite other encyclopedias and I have." This is completely untrue. You've pointed out several encyclopedias that do not reveal certain details about their films, but expanding that to say that no encyclopedia reveals spoilers is completely original research. You're examining encyclopedia entries based on one characteristic, and using their entries to try and validate your point. That's WP:OR.

By the source definitions, to prove encyclopedia have any stance whatsoever on spoilers, you'll have to show in proper reference where it is official policy, not just what you see as the evidence of such. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've provided evidence that other encyclopedias don't reveal spoilers for films. I really don't know what the policies of Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica are. Can you cite an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers for any films? When little Jimmy Wales opened his first World Book in 1969[70], do you think it told him the ending of Citizen Kane? Wikipedia reveals spoilers. Do people expect to read spoilers in Wikipedia? I don't think they do — because other encyclopedias typically don't reveal spoilers. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You've provided examples, from which you've made WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's no official policy on spoilers in encyclopedias, as far as I can tell. If you have a source, please provide it. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page. The policy on no original research doesn't apply here. If you can cite an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers, please do so — otherwise I will continue to claim spoilers are unencyclopedic. If anything is original research or synthesis, it's this statement in the guideline: "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify and say there is more leniency about original research on talk pages. WP:TALK says "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." Can you provide a reference to support the statement "spoilers are encyclopedic"? --Pixelface (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but by definition an encyclopedia is a collection of comprehensive knowledge. I doubt there's any official policy on spoilers, which only came into usage recently.

And that's why I prefer Wikipedia to other references, it's dynamic, it's comprehensive, and its uncensored. The amount of information available on WP usually exceeds that on other encyclopedias.

Finally, I'm more than a bit confused about the topics on this page. Are we still talking about spoilers, or about using primary sources to summarize plots? Those seem to be crossed over at times. For future reference, I'm against the first, and in favor of the second. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, 3.7

← This is such a moot point to me. The fact that spoilers don't appear in other encyclopedias is a given as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think that's the main point we need to be discussing. This is an issue of reliability versus WP:NOT#PAPER. Eliminating primary sourced material would make Wikipedia more like a paper encyclopedia. Of that, I'm certain, and I'm not even sure if we're in disagreement there (I have a feeling there's a bit of confusion involved). The question is, how much more like a paper encyclopedia are we willing to become? Transcribing primary sources like DVDs and books is one of the major things ordinary users can do easily without performing a lot of research. While eliminating it would produce more reliable articles, it would also alienate the less-serious editors. Is that a benefit? Do we want to enrich our population or grow it? That's the real issue here, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:53, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias don't need spoiler warnings because other encyclopedias don't reveal spoilers. It's as simple as that. However, Wikipedia does reveal spoilers. So either Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia or it's moved beyond what other encyclopedias do. Saying spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic is the moot point. I agree that eliminating primary sourced material would make Wikipedia more like a paper encyclopedia (or electronic encyclopedia). And yes, it's easy for new users to watch a film and write a plot summary. Letting new users write plot summaries themselves encourages people to contribute. Saying they can no longer do that would alienate many editors. The spoiler template was the compromise. Editors could watch a film and write a plot summary and write everything that happened. Instead of removing spoilers that did not cite secondary sources, the spoiler template was used to mark them off. In the past I have advocated sourced spoilers (that cite reliable sources, not just the film) and sourced spoiler warnings. But editors at Talk:Million Dollar Baby and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines have said the film is the only source that's needed for plot summaries. Removing all plot summaries that don't cite reliable third-party sources would eliminate most spoilers from Wikipedia I think. That would be extreme, but supported by the guideline on reliable sources. People who didn't like the spoiler template could ignore it or make it invisible in their monobook.css file (and it could even be made invisible by default in MediaWiki:Common.css). Since July 22, 2007, editors have added spoiler warnings to over 2,000 articles. The spoiler template was deleted but editors still add spoiler warnings to articles. And one editor removes them. That is not consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias don't need spoiler warnings because other encyclopedias don't reveal spoilers. Which encyclopedias, and which articles in those encyclopedias, did you refer to before reaching that conclusion?

Here is the article on Hamlet in the online Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Shakespeare. It is full of revealing plot details (e.g., which characters die, and much more) that one would consider "spoilers".

Now, because Britannica has a much narrower scope than Wikipedia, there are some Wikipedia articles that have no Britannica equivalent, and never will. And because Wikipedia has a far more immediate time scale, there are Wikipedia articles that Britannica may eventually cover, but has not yet done so. But when Britannica does cover a fictional work, it does not shy away from details that would "spoil" the plot. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica. See my comment I made earlier where I mentioned Thelma & Louise. Okay, you found an encyclopedia article about Hamlet full of revealing plot details. Hamlet was written about 400 years ago. Now cite an encyclopedia that reveals the endings of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village, Fight Club, and The Usual Suspects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that basically what I was saying in the first place, that started this whole long thread? And yet, you seemed to be the major agragator against it, but now are saying that, yes, it WOULD alienate a lot of editors. I sometimes find it hard to figure out if Wikipedia wants to be a place for those who believe in the free side, or a place for those who believe in the "big hunk of knowledge" side, because those two are often at odds...this being a similar case. Most likely the real answer is somewhere in between, but I think a large problem is that many things WERE allowed for a years rather than getting nipped right away -- if images had ALWAYS been tagged right away, if refs had ALWAYS been pushed for, if shorter plot summaries had ALWAYS been needed, then I imagine a lot less people would have been slighted, including many who have left and/or bashed the project over such issues. It's one thing to have a rule that you have to fit into, it's quite another for a major change to be forced on you even if the rule was 'actually' there all along. Just something to think about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See I'd go the other way with it: It's one thing to demand strict regulation of contributions in the beginning -- people wouldn't want to even bother trying. But to impose a new regulation on existing users, people who already know Wikipedia, with all its benefits, they're more likely to accept added strictness and keep editing. Our reputation is also know at this point, so even with the change we'll still get plenty of new users willing to give it a shot. And with the sheer enormity of the community at this point, I'm not sure how significant a hit we'd even have to take.

However, the main point is not "would people leave and how many". My point was how the encyclopedia itself would change. Do we want to be more traditional or do we want to be more... crufty? That's the question. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:54, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

In one sense I agree with you. I don't particularly care if some people leave, as long as we're making the encyclopedia better. That's the real issue.

One purported benefit is the removal of spoilers from Wikipedia. But the community consensus (as Wikipedia defines it) has consistently been that this encyclopedia should not suppress information that is otherwise useful, relevant, and reliable, just because it will "spoil" the story for somebody.

If your belief is that the information actually isn't all that useful, relevant, or reliable, then it would be helpful to know upon what evidence that belief is founded. Then we can evaluate that evidence, and reach consensus on whether there is any basis for it.

The one sure thing is that the practice you are proposing to change is widespread. I am not suggesting that widespread practices cannot be changed if they are bad. But I am suggesting that more caution is required in such a case. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're asking for evidence again. I'm not even going to respond to that this time. However I'm glad you've found something to agree with me on. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just pointing out the lack of it, for the benefit of anyone who may drop in. I already know it's not forthcoming, as otherwise you'd have produced it by now. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:53, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 4

The simple answer is yes: I do disagree that traditional encyclopedias are created the way you say they are. However, as noted above, I am not obligated to prove or demonstrate anything, because I am not trying to change the way Wikipedia presently operates. I asked you which encyclopedias and articles were the source of your claim, and you haven't listed any.

Since you don't appear to have done any fact-checking for yourself, I am telling you what "I think you will find." If you believe I am wrong, please feel free to tell us which encyclopedias you are referring to. Otherwise, I have to assume you are just guessing. The link you supplied (a blog reproducing unsourced gossip) would hardly be the foundation for setting Wikipedia policy. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I am not making any claims about the way they are created, at least as far as rules for use of primary sources. The link was only to answer your claim that encyclopedias are written by specialists; it has little to do with the actual proposal. The link is furthermore not "unsourced gossip", it is the blog of the CEO of a publishing company that publishes reference books.

I specifically said that I make no claims about how they are created. Only how they end up. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:43, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

At last we are making some progress. Apparently you don't dispute my claim that a competent person editing an encyclopedia article about a fictional work would normally use the work itself as a primary source. It might be that any facts sourced from the work could indeed be found in other sources. But that's not the process the writer/editor follows. The writer/editor gets the information from the most reliable and obvious source: the work itself.

You are proposing that Wikipedia editors would follow a different process. Rather than permitting them to use the primary source — which is not only more reliable, but is the source that any competent editor would be most naturally inclined to use, and which Wikipedia policy currently permits — you are suggesting that the editor must go elsewhere.

Why are you suggesting this? You have never suggested that it would make Wikipedia more informative or more reliable. Your only argument, and the reason you are discussing it on this page, is that it would result in fewer spoilers being present on Wikipedia. But no encyclopedia has, as its objective, the suppression of otherwise relevant and useful information, merely because it might spoil someone's reading or viewing experience.

If you are going to cite "what other encyclopedias do" as motivation, you cannot selectively point out what they do where it happens to suit your agenda, and ignore it otherwise. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, no, I'm not agreeing with that at all. I'm just saying it doesn't matter, and has nothing to do with my point.

You're making an assumption by saying primary sources are more reliable. They're not, at least not in practice. In fact, the least reliable information in articles has come from primary sources, because it is being filtered only through the mind of the editor, who has more of a chance of slanting or skewing it than a professional who wrote secondary material. Yes, I am suggesting it would make Wikipedia more reliable, and yes I most certainly have suggested that before. It would also take care of the spoiler situation, killing two birds with one stone. Or at least, killing one, and seriously injuring the other.

Again, other encyclopedias' objectives are irrelevant. How they get written is irrelevant. All we need to know is how they turn out in the end. Bringing Wikipedia's reliability closer to that of a traditional encyclopedia is absolutely one of the things I cite as motivation. I do not cite their objectives. Their objectives are unknown and irrelevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:23, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. If you indeed believe that this change would make Wikipedia more reliable, there is a perfect place to make that argument. It's called Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you are right (and, for the record, I do not believe you are), your rule would cover all primary sources, not just fictional works; and it would cover all plot information, not just spoilers. So your argument deserves a far broader hearing than it can receive on this page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS already says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Editors who view a film and write a plot summary are not reliable sources. --Pixelface (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because I believe this change would have another effect other than the original intent doesn't mean the discussion needs to be brought elsewhere. The proposal would not necessarily cover all use of primary sources, as we've been through many times before, but you're correct that it would cover all plot information. It isn't even clear at this point whether the proposal would warrant a change to policy or just an addition here -- Guy believes policy can already be interpreted this way and only proposes a change to the spoiler guideline.

PS, please, only discuss if you actually have something productive to contribute. The attitude that "either this proposal is wrong or it needs to be moved someplace else" is annoying and won't get anywhere. If you have nothing more to contribute to the discussion then simply don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:52, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Apropos almost nothing, I guess, I thought I'd just point out that the past four days, and about 60kb of text, has comprised basically a discussion between two editors. Perhaps the discussion just isn't very interesting to the rest of us. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:35, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

And at the risk of sounding like a parrot, this discussion seems to me to be about much deeper policy issues than whether we do or do not warn people when we disclose potentially surprising plot details. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler tag wording

I can't believe the spoiler tags were deleted. I wish I'd been here for that discussion and I think they should be brought back.

If I ask my friend to tell me the plot of a movie, I'm not necessarily asking for a rundown of the entire story from beginning to end. Take this example a step further towards online uses of the word -- movie reviews that claim to describe the plot will of course not reveal spoilers, and people searching for information about a movie will similarly usually not be looking for spoilers.

When people used to complain about the use of spoiler tags, they were often complaining about something that's the result of the tag's wording. The tag used the words "the following reveals significant plot details" (not an exact quote), which when placed in a section entitled "Plot", seemed redundant -- so the tags were usually deleted, and eventually became unused. The problem is, the tag was named SPOILER and not PLOT DETAILS for a freakin' reason! "Plot" does not necessarily mean "Synopsis", and certainly not necessarily "ending" or "surprises". The wording of the tag should never have been "...plot details...". It should have been "...spoliers...". OBVIOUSLY the Plot section will contain Plot details -- but it is anything but obvious that a Plot section of an article will contain spoilers -- unless of course you're familiar with this debate on Wikipedia, which many readers of course are not.

So, change the wording of the tag to what it was meant to say, and problem solved.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:14, 12/24/2007

Actually, the template was called redundant long before the text was changed. The text was changed in early June as part of an attempted compromise because many editors felt that the term "spoiler" wasn't academic. However, that compromise didn't work. You can see the discussion here. --Farix (Talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the discussion regarding the change but I see nothing saying that the wording was redundant. I see that some people thought the tags were being overused, but no one said redundant.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:45, 12/24/2007

Reflections on the end of the spoiler wars

The following email was posted by Phil Sandifer to the WikiEN-l mailing list on November 14, 2007:
--Pixelface (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere around six months ago, I made the relatively obvious point that spoiler warnings were unencyclopedic and silly, and furthermore were being used to screw up article leads and violate NPOV. This led to a series of events that, over the course of about two weeks, had spoiler tags nearly completely deprecated from Wikipedia and the spoiler policy heavily rewritten to no longer encourage their use.

Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14 (with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.

What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this. I've been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well over a year, for instance, and yet those fights still continue despite, seemingly, a substantial shift in opinion away from the former hardline positions (things that included overbroad statements about blogs "never" being reliable sources). [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] has been in need of a dynamite enema since, well, 2004, and has been the subject of an arbcom case, but so far nobody has quite managed to kill the blasted thing and its legion of OR sub-articles.

What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me, at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy articles are abominations. Everybody sane who looked at the situations recognized that. But unfortunately, everybody sane also demonstrated a general lack of willingness to participate in the same debates for months on end. And so the actual discussions have been deadlocks as a handful of tenacious proponents of the losing side continue stamping their feet.

This is a major tarpit, and is one of the ways in which dreadfully stupid things are allowed to profligate. It makes policy formation and the engagement of remotely tricky and nuanced situations a horrid timesink that is unsuitable for sane conduct. So what can we do? How can we streamline our policy formation problems to drive away the policy equivalents of lunatic POV pushers? Again, noting that the usual problems - consensus can change, so forcibly closing debates doesn't work, often contributors who are totally insane on one point are wonderful on every other article they edit, etc. So what can we do?

-Phil[71]

You can read the rest of the discussion at this subpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Mailing_list_November_2007 --Pixelface (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer Phil's question, maybe "being honest about one's intentions" is the best way to deal with those people? Sarcasm aside, this makes me sad, because saying things like these are precisely the reason why people believe in WP:CABAL. Also, I would like to note, there are not the same pro-SW people over and over - there have been more than a handful of people that came here and said they were unaware of spoiler warning removal, and were negatively surprised. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

However, there is only a small handful of people (on both sides of the issue) who actually cared enough about it to continue a prolonged debate. That has always suggested to me that most Wikipedians either agree with how things have turned out, are neutral about the way they turned out, or that they consider the issue not sufficiently important to argue about. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does every editor who has added a spoiler warning to an article know about this guideline? Shall I notify all of them so they can come here and discuss it? Editors can't argue about a guideline if they don't know it exists. Much of the discussion about the spoiler template has occurred on the WikiEN-l mailing list. I consider the mailing list archives part of this discussion and that's why I have linked to them here. If an editor is not a mailing list subscriber, they are unaware of what's being discussed there. If the spoiler template appeared in 45,000 articles in May and was listed for deletion when it appeared in 45,000 articles and was tagged with a {{tfd-inline}} template so people could see it was up for deletion, I would agree with you about the "small handful of people" and the prolonged debate. Perhaps some people don't think it's sufficiently important to argue about[72], but I think it's more likely that many editors are simply unaware of the whole issue — as Lobojo[73] and Equazcion[74] demonstrated. --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And the point is? That majority doesn't care isn't an argument in favor nor against spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing he might consider doing is not calling his opposition "lunatic POV pushers". The worst mistake a person can make in a debate is to regard his opponent as opinionated and stupid while seeing himself as neutral and enlightened. "He who realizes he knows nothing has found the path to enlightenment." Progress won't commence until the majority side recognizes that they are not right or neutral simply because they are the majority. Everyone has an opinion on what policy should be, and they are all POVs. We all need to start realizing that. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:07, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think what Phil really wants is a Committee of Experts who would decide major policy questions, without the burdensome need for a consensus process that tends to bog things down. Personally, I agree with him (and no, I would not be interested in being one of the so-called "experts"; I would happily defer to whatever they decide). But I can't see that happening. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good solution to a lot of WP's problems, but I imagine it's the antithasis of what the foundation and Jimbo want the project to be. Plus, I can just see people getting annoyed that /their/ issue wasn't addressed, which is why as it even stands now, very little is taken care of "at the top". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because dictatorship, not democracy, is the way that successful countries are run. Thanks but no, my country was run by committees of experts for 40 years. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And they'd declare their opponents insane too. It's a lot easier than making a logical argument.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm surprised that they were removed (which is the first problem, I think: I don't know when I noticed that I hadn't seen one in a while, but I don't recall ever seeing any notice that any such plan was in the works). Without using the same language as Phil, I don't think there was anything silly about them, nor do I find them particularly unencyclopedic. I think it's sclerotic thinking to say that we can't apply the advantages of the medium in ways that transform our notions of an encyclopedia. This is not your grandma's Britannica: people can stumble on a Wikipedia page from anywhere on the Internet, and to warn them in this way is just a simple courtesy (and one *I* certainly appreciated, as I'm a voracious reader). I'm not on the mailing list either, and had no idea this was happening and knew of no venue where I could voice my concerns. Anyway: I think it's a mistake, and it's news to me. --Rhombus (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actual data on spoiler warning uses by the public

There was a thread with this subject line on the WikiEN-l mailing list in December 2007. You can see the emails on this subpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Mailing_list_December_2007 --Pixelface (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• So? Which encyclopaedias can you name that include spoiler warnings? And do you honestly think that the xkcd forum is a representative sample of anything other than geekdom? And I thought you had decided to drop this crusade? Guy (Help!) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I thought he was on your side... Equazcion •✗/C • 12:31, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Pixelface wants spoiler warnings back. I don't. But if something is not covered in the secondary sources, I don't think we should have it anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I want the spoiler template back because there was no consensus to delete it. No consensus defaults to keep. Citations to reliable sources that use spoiler warnings can even be provided for many fictional works. If the spoiler template appeared in 45,000 articles in May and was listed for deletion for seven days and there was a consensus to delete it and the discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin, I wouldn't be here. If multiple editors didn't edit war on the Eastern Promises article and if this guideline didn't say in October that spoiler warnings were allowed in certain cases[75], I wouldn't be here. Spoiler warnings are still here. Editors keep adding spoiler warnings to articles every day. I also think if something is not covered in secondary sources we shouldn't have it, but that viewpoint has been shot down when it's been brought up at Talk:Million Dollar Baby and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines and WT:NOR. Whenever I create a new article about a film, I don't watch it myself and write down what I see. I cite what's been published in reliable sources. Part of what I added to this guideline before you protected it for stupid edit warring was "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot, but it is acceptable to delete information if it is unsourced (per the policy on verifiability)."[76] --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which encyclopedias can you name that reveal spoilers? That's the real question. I thought you said this was a dead horse, so what are you doing here? --Pixelface (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Spoiler is not an encyclopaedic concept. Which encyclopaedias can you name that cover items of fiction with disclaimers before the critical plot elements? Does Britannica have an article on Lord of the Rings, for example, and if so does it contain spoiler warnings? Guy (Help!) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Encyclopedias don't reveal critical plot elements, so they would never need disclaimers. Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on J.R.R. Tolkien, but no article on Lord of the Rings. Britannica does not reveal the critical plot elements of Lord of the Rings. --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In that thread, on December 16, 2007 David Gerard posted an email to the WikiEN-l mailing list and said:
--Pixelface (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider spoiler warnings in plot summaries ridiculous. In addition, determining what's a spoiler is basically original research.

In addition, {{spoiler}} is dead as a dead thing. We have {{currentfiction}}, which does a slightly better job of the same thing.

I suspect someone going through to put 45,000 fresh spoiler warnings, in whatever form, on articles is not going to fly.

That is: there's not a credible position to "compromise" with, despite much repetition.

- d.[77]

• And he's right. So move on. For example, address the proposal above for excluding supposed spoiler content not covered in reliable secondary sources. As far as I'm concerned, anything not sourceable to a reliable secondary source should be out. Sure, it might in some cases be more convenient to cite the primary source, particularly for trivial matters of fact, but that does not mean we should write whole articles, or big chunks of them, direct from the primary source; that seems to me to be a flagrant violation of WP:NOR. See also User:Uncle G/On sources and content, an excellent essay. We should never be the first place to publish anything. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've already proposed that. I agree with excluding spoilers not covered in reliable secondary sources. See the TFD for the {{spoiler}} template and Talk:Million Dollar Baby and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines. I agree that we should never be the first place to publish anything, but other editors keep telling me that watching a film and writing a plot summary is not "original research", it's "source-based research". Citing secondary sources that provide analysis of a fictional work is also apparently not allowed in Plot sections. Apparently every Plot section is supposed to be written by people who just watched a film/read a book/played a videogame and citations to reliable secondary sources don't belong there. --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We should never be the first place to publish anything. But when it is already published, we can summarise it. And like it or not, a book is published. Uncle G's essay is fine, but is limited in the extent to which it can apply. An article must take in some secondary sourcing, I pushed for that very point at WP:V, to the point of writing WP:IS and getting WP:V amended. I also proposed that WP:PLOT be adopted as policy. So I think that the taking together of WP:V and WP:PLOT and WP:NOR is enough to limit what gets added to Wikipedia. However, I don't think we should be stopping people being able to summarise primary source if that summary is not made in a secondary source. For one it goes too far. And for two, you must read the tabloids, you must be aware that the soap operas, the TV shows and so on have their plot discussed in such detail this proposal would not limit anything. Before you know it we'd be having wiki-lawyering over whether a plot summary in a newspaper is secondary or primary source, whether newspaper reports of who is leaving Eastenders and how is okay, it would just become unmanageable and divisive. Let's not forget that we're supposed to reach consensus through editing, and that most everything should be sourced and when sourced from primary source it should be descriptive. Rather than look at making a new proposal to limit this stuff, use the policies we already have. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for setting rules. It's meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia. Hiding T 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. Wikipedia should not (and according to my reading is not) in the business of being a publisher of original book reviews or synopses. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair play, I haven't said it should be, and I think WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:PLOT limits that. But I think where we have an article which discusses a work, and is grounded in secondary sourcing, if some plot points have not been discussed in secondary sources that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them. How much of the featured articles at Superman, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Starship Troopers to pick three at random do you want to lose? Hiding T 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The should not part of your comment is reasonable debatable. But there is no doubt that:

1. Wikipedia currently does include synopses derived from primary sources;
2. This practice is exceedingly widespread and long-standing;
3. Current policy expressly allows it (WP:PSTS)
4. As far as I can tell, hardly anyone has ever objected to this
5. If current policy were changed, vast amounts of content would be instantly invalidated, including far more than just spoilers

No one yet has offered a thoughtful analysis of the many categories of articles that would be affected, how editors would be expected to behave after the change, or why this is even a good idea. Guy keeps saying should not as if this were self-evident. It is not. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. And it should not. Why should fiction be the one area where we allow original research -0 that is, writing directly form our own observations? And it is original research, every bit as much as conducting an experiment and reporting the results. We are positioning ourselves as a publisher of original fiction reviews and plot summaries, and I don't think we should do that. As to nobody objecting, I think you'll find plenty of objections at AfDs for fictional subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am disinclined to think that a plot summary is sufficiently novel an interpretation of a primary text to meaningfully violate NOR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And anyway, NOR was always supposed to be our guard against crank theories, not a tool for self-evisceration. If we disallow editors writing their own plot summaries of novels, how can we allow them to use printed biographies as sources on people (many of them are hundreds of pages long, and require to be summarised by the editor using his own judgment, using more or less the same amount of "original research" as in the fiction case). By the way, this conversation is offtopic here, as it also applies to non-spoiling plot elements that haven't been discussed in reliable sources. Please try to discuss it in more relevant places, as even if consensus is reached here, the proposed changes in core policies won't fly unless they are discussed on the talk pages of those policies. Debating changes to WP:RS here is just a waste of time. Kusma (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's debating changes to WP:RS here. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If plot summaries that are not based on reliable, third-party, published sources are removed (per WP:RS), many spoilers would be removed along with them. --Pixelface (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V that are being debated at the moment are independent of the question of whether the content removed does or does not constitute a spoiler. While we are offtopic, I am more interested in whether I am allowed to summarise secondary sources such as printed biographies --- it seems to me that some people want to stop me from doing this "original research". Kusma (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, WP:NOR specifically says that primary sources are acceptable, as long as we:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

A plot summary meets this requirement, and has always been regarded as doing so.

There are a few people here who are confusing original research and just plain research. There is nothing original about summarizing a source. All Wikipedia articles are summaries entailing editorial judgment about which facts to include, and how to organize and emphasize those facts.

Writing a plot summary is not just like "conducting an experiment and reporting the results." The latter cannot be verified without specialist knowledge, and both the equipment and conditions to reproduce the experiment. The former can be verified simply by consulting the same source the editor did. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• How do you know which source the editor consulted if there's no citation? The only way to demonstrate you are not performing original research is to cite reliable sources that directly support the information presented. --Pixelface (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, so go look at some of the Bionicle series articles and tell me what other sources have that level of detail. Is it undue weight? I don't know, because there are no secondary sources to guide me. See what I mean? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bionicle series has many problems — just look at all of the maintenance tags on the articles. I am not sure those articles belong in Wikipedia at all, or if a few dedicated enthusiasts have just built a fansite masquerading as an encyclopedia. There are practicaly no secondary sources, and I am not sure there will ever be. Twenty years from now, it's possible that Bionicle will have sunk without a trace.

In contrast, there are plenty sources and real-world context for Romeo and Juliet. There are 112 footnotes in the article, though none in the plot section. I suspect the editors who wrote the plot summary referred to the play itself. Would Romeo and Juliet become a better article if we forced those editors to go back and rewrite the synopsis, referring only to what third parties had said about the plot? It could be done, clearly. I just don't see that we get a better article by doing so.

Articles on fictional subjects don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are secondary sources providing real-world context. We would all agree with that. But if the subject belongs here at all, the work itself becomes a valid primary source, so long as it is only being consulted for descriptive, rather than analytical purposes (i.e., what WP:NOR says). Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bionicle doesn't differ much from the Babylon 5 articles, except that level of fancruft for Babylon 5 is even greater.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Marc, surely you can verify whatever is in the Bionicle article simply by consulting the same source the editor did. That's what you said, right? --Pixelface (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I could. The difference is that I am not sure the secondary sources exist, which would establish the subject's real-world context. You will note that Wikipedia policy does not prohibit the use of primary sources. But it does prohibit articles where no secondary sources exist at all. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: move sourcing debate to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or somewhere else suitable

We presently have a massive 99kb slab of text [78] on this page related to a proposal y JzG to add the following words to the guideline:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

I think it's clear that this goes beyond the scope of spoiler tagging. I propose that we move this entire discussion to a more appropriate venue: probably Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. The discussion is nearly 60% of this already groaningly huge page, but seems to have little chance of achieving a change in this guideline unless other policies are changed or clarified. --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Seems", according to you. I disagree. And, no matter how many colorful adjectives you use to describe the size of the discussion, it is of absolutely no consequence. If we move it then we make some other page "groaningly huge". A move is not a "fix" for the "size problem", if it can indeed be considered a problem. Archive some old discussions if the page size bothers you that much. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:56, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I Oppose moving the page. In its current form, no positive change will ever come of this discussion. It's already far too long and fractured to effect change on the spoilers issue, so I say let it stay here where it can't affect (and infect) other pages. If editors want to start a new topic at WP:V that's probably best, starting fresh would seem to be the best way to keep things on topic. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think anyone over at WP:V would appreciate us suddenly plopping 100k onto that talk page (most of which no one is ever going to bother reading anyway). Better to just start something new there and refer back to this discussion, if you feel the need. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:09, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We should just move the discussion to an /Offtopic subpage and interested editors can debate the issues at the appropriate pages. Most comments actually seem to be offtopic these days; are people no longer interested in Wikipedia's spoiler guideline? Kusma (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's there to be interested in? There is no guideline. It just says they're allowed. That's like complaining that theres no interest in the Wikipedia:Pronouns are allowed guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:25, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

An alternative to moving it elsewhere would be to manually archive it. As I've said it's enormous, occupying the majority of the talk page, but stands absolutely no chance of changing policy while it's on this obscure guideline page. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No chance, according to you. Of course, this comes as no surprise, as that's what the discussion is about. However we don't archive active discussions just because someone doesn't think they "have a chance". Discussions are archived when they get old and no one is contributing to them anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:16, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the reason for archiving, it's because the proposal is beyond the scope of this guideline (because it conflicts with official policies) and suggestions that it be moved to a more appropriate venue have been rejected. So what we're left with is a lump of unproductive dialog that the disputants refuse to carry on in the appropriate venue. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I've got this right. So just to sum this up, your first suggestion is that it be moved. Failing that, it should be archived due to its enormity. You "clarify" enormity by saying it's "beyond the scope of this guideline". I can't wait to hear what's next. If nothing else, your creative persistence is entertaining. Well sir, in answer to this latest shot in the dark, whether or not it's within the scope if this guideline is a matter of opinion and not your decision. Furthermore that would still be no reason to archive a discussion. This is a good-faith discussion that is not breaking any policy, so it will not be archived until such time as any other discussion would normally get archived. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:34, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You've misread my argument. Starting from my first comment:

I think it's clear that this goes beyond the scope of spoiler tagging. I propose that we move this entire discussion to a more appropriate venue.

Note that the reasoning expressed here is no different from that expressed in my last edit, to wit: the proposal is beyond the scope of this guideline (because it conflicts with official policies)

Of course the size of this unproductive and misplaced discourse is also relevant, because it makes an already very large discussion page more than twice the size it would otherwise be. If it was just a dozen or so lines it wouldn't be such an issue. --Tony Sidaway 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, except you were just arguing for archival now, not moving to another venue. Are we back to that now? It's hard to keep track of all the different excuses you're coming up with in which to somehow get this discussion off this page, which for some strange reason appears to be a life-threatening emergency to you. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:37, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of arbitrary "excuses" is a result of not following the logic, for whatever reason. Let me try once more to restate it in a way that you'll understand: the discussion on this page cannot possibly change policies decided elsewhere, so if it can't be moved it makes sense to archive it either to the main archive or (as Kusma suggests) to a page for offtopic discussion. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a life-threatening emergency here, but the current signal-to-noise ratio of this page is horrible. Less than 20% seems to be actually ontopic. Kusma (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: redirect this page to Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

I made a proposal similar to this a month or so ago, and I think in the past month or so the case has become clearer. We no longer have spoiler templates on Wikipedia articles, and this is explained adequately at WP:NDT. It would make sense, therefore, to put this separate guideline page, which used to be an exception. into abeyance and redirect to the more general guideline. --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to the point of simple fact that the redirect itself would make the whole point a lot more clear. We WOULD need to make sure to keep this talk page's archives there, as well, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Talk page too? Hiding T 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. I also agree that keeping the archives of this talk page is important. Chaz ^Beckett 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The spoiler issue is highly controversial and deserves its own guideline, both to be a prominent and easy-to-find place where users can find out Wikipedia's stance on the issue, and to hold discussion on it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we're not discussing deletion of archives or even, necessarily, redirection of this talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous proposal. With how heated the spoiler debate is and how many people care about it, the issue is hardly over and done with, so it's wrong to get rid of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of assuming bad faith, Tony has lobbied incessantly to get the major discussion on this page removed, and I believe that failing that, he's now resorted to trying to get rid of the guideline altogether. I think this is childish and needs to stop. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:50, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, though, that the policy on spoilers -- no longer an exception of WP:NDT, is now redundant. AT THE MOMENT, it falls there, and placing a redirect to there will show that yes, don't use them because we don't put that TYPE of warning on WP. Of course, many disagree that they are the same, but as I don't, I support moving it there until a point comes (if it comes) that WP uses some sort of spoiler notice again. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were no longer an exception and the issue seemed dead, I would have no problem with a merge. However the issue is still debated. Removing this guideline in the midst of that is, again, a ridiculous proposal. Furthermore, consensus should be served, and the decision to close this guideline should, of course, not be left up to just those people who were always on the side of getting rid of spoiler warnings. Such a decision could be seen as a conflict of interest -- a way of permanently quelling the spoiler debate, so that their particular views are in less danger of being opposed. Therefore, if you are serious about this proposal, I suggest posting a merge template both here and at WP:NDT, and posting a formal merge proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, so that consensus can be properly assessed. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, granted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The page here does two things: it says, "do not warn about spoilers" (redundant to WP:NDA) and "do not remove content because it is a spoiler" (not covered in WP:NDA). I don't think WP:NDA is the right page for the second part of the guideline. Kusma (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to say the latter? I've very seldom seen removals of material on the grounds that it's a spoiler, and I don't think it occurred to me to appeal to this guideline when I restored it. We just don't remove significant material from an encyclopedia because, well, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There was some trouble at the Pro Wrestling project, with people asking for a spoiler embargo. See e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 35#Spoilers again! Kusma (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I commented in a forthright fashion on that proposal [79] [80] [81] but I certainly didn't rely on this guideline. Really it's a matter of whether something is significant, reliably sourced and expressed in neutral and balanced manner in the context of the article. Spoilers are no more special in the context of policy than any other fact. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Whether content is a spoiler or not is irrelevant; content policies operate independent of spoiler issues. I don't know whether an extra page to express that is really warranted or not, I just wanted to point out removal of verifiable "spoiling" content has been a contentious issue. Kusma (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a natural tendency, for users who aren't familiar with how Wikipedia works, to see removal of spoiler content as improving articles. It's important to explicitly state what the policy is. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:07, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The proposed merger is a bad idea, since it hides the discussion under even more layers of flab. Presumably this is the idea, given the determined efforts at censorship throughout this debate. I wouldn't put it past the anti-spoiler admins to quietly get the redirect deleted as well; it would be consistent with their past behavour.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now now, let's not assume bad faith. I wouldn't go accusing admins of things they haven't even done yet. But I agree with the motivation for this proposal, as I stated as much above. This proposal is a sham, an attempt to quell those on the other side of the debate. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith; they honestly believe what they're doing is the right thing. It's like a village which has a law which states that one cannot wear a hat on a Tuesday. The village elders would not doubt vigorously defend such a law, perhaps stating that 'all the other villages have the same law' or 'we're a village, not a hatshop'.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The spoiler template was already deleted, and every attempt to resurrect it or recreate it or anything resembling it has been deleted. All avenues of appeal have, for the time being, been exhausted. "The other side of the debate" can certainly state its opinion, but we have to work with reality here. What has actually happened is that spoiler tags have left the building through a process of open debate over several months in which all sides stated their opinions. This is just a proposal (not universally supported by all who were opposed to spoiler tags--see Kusma's comments above) to merge this guideline into the guideline for which it was for a long time the one anomalous exception. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the original opposers universally support this doesn't say anything about whether or not a select few have chosen to act inappropriately. The avenue of appeal is discussion, and that is still ongoing. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:47, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

No, we went through this before. If someone has acted inappropriately, use the Dispute resolution process. Don't clutter up policy discussions with endless accusations of wrongdoing. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because some have acted inappropriately doesn't mean I feel there's any dispute that needs resolving. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:12, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like a censorship to me. How can people who manage dispute resolution see if there is a dispute, if people are not allowed to discuss a dispute or voice their opinion? Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is a red flag word, almost always indicating POV-pushing. Please pick something which is less loaded. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect works for me. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, unless it will be clear what will happen with the talk page and it's archives and with the history of this page. The history of this page is referred from the discussion, so it would be bad if it would be lost. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A redirect is made by editing the page so that the new top version contains a redirection directive to the new page. The talk page may either be redirected or left as it is. The history is not lost. --Tony Sidaway 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it, and disagree with the move. The people may want to discuss SWs in the future, so it's better if the pages are separate. Samohyl Jan (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this redirect proposal because spoiler warnings are not disclaimers. The first sentence in the disclaimer article reads "A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally-recognized relationship." You can see more definitions of "disclaimer" at m-w.com and dictionary.com. You can see the definition of "disclaim" at dictionary.com. And Doc really shouldn't have edited this guideline while it was protected. If we're going to refer to other guidelines, plot details should cite reliable, third-party sources per WP:RS. If an editor thinks something is a spoiler, and it doesn't cite a reliable, third-party source, they can remove it per WP:RS. That removes any reason an editor would put a spoiler warning in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc just added the invitation to discuss this issue on talk to the guideline page after a request here. Would you prefer to hide the existence of this merge proposal? Kusma (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that I missed that request for the template above. I know that Tony Sidaway has boldly turned this guideline into a redirect in the past. And I am wary of people using {{merge}} tags to turn articles into redirects. The {{merge}} tag is not a {{proposed redirect}} tag. The {{merge}} tag is for proposing merges, not redirects. I oppose a redirect, and I oppose merging the current wording of this guideline into WP:NDA. --Pixelface (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention that editors still add spoiler warnings to articles even though the spoiler template was deleted. Tony is responsible for removing most of them, so I find this proposal frankly ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)