Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Increase visibility of general Disclaimer warning

OK, I must say I've started to change my opinion towards the 'no disclaimer' side. One thing though -- I've heard too many times the argument of "we already have a disclaimer page" -- yet before entering this discussion I have never seen the disclaimer link -- it's particularly small and badly placed (especially for a website with so much text on every page).

What would you guys think of moving that link to the left-hand side menu, above or below donate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though perhaps putting it right under the 'About Wikipedia' makes a bit more sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not something I'm against either. However, given that this would be a (albeit slight) interface change, I'd recommend we open an RfC for it. Since I don't remember exactly how to do that, I'll leave it to someone else. elektrikSHOOS 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a matter of skin design. I happen to have used the Cologne Blue skin almost since my first days in 2004, and the Disclaimers link on that skin is displayed on the top right of every single page right next to the links to the privacy policy and the printable version, but underneath the interwiki links for the page. I've no idea what the other skins do with that information, but obviously it's something for skin designers to handle. --TS 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I, too, would have no problem with making the disclaimer more visible/accessible. In the Vector skin, at least, it's in tiny type at the very, very bottom of everything, outside the "box" of the skin that most people probably don't scroll past the end of. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I posted something here (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Increase_visibility_of_.22Disclaimer.22_link_in_default_skin). Hopefully that was the right place, and something will happen. Gabiteodoru (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This seems to have died without a conclusive decision. --TS 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended. 03:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Wikipedia does not tag spoilers in articles, and instead the content disclaimer for the site warns that Wikipedia may contain spoilers for works of fiction. In the default skin the link to the disclaimers is not very prominent. Should its prominence be increased, and if so in what way and by how much? --TS 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Increase prominence. I note that WP:SPOILER's main message is, "do not delete material solely because it is a spoiler." As background information, it also says, "Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." The WP:Content disclaimer does its job as a disclaimer but like much such "small print" risks going unseen by general users or casual readers of the encyclopedia. Suggest we display a brief, standard spoiler warning at the top of articles of the relevant types. This could be accomplished via the associated infobox templates for those types of article. PL290 (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support increase in prominence. It doesn't have to be moved front and center, but I think that moving it anywhere into the sidebar would be an improvement, given that most readers see the sidebar and (I tend to think) most don't make it all the way to the very bottom of the page to see it in its current place. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support including it on the left sidebar. Regarding including the disclaimer at the top of the articles: There are pages that have "objectionable" content right at the top of the article, so you would see those at the same time as seeing the disclaimer (Vagina or Muhammad cartoon controversy).
A related issue is that the English Wikipedia Main page has random articles posted, which may have content considered objectionable by some readers. Do you think that a link to the disclaimer needs to be visible BEFORE any objectionable can be accessed? If not, what would be the point of including in the disclaimer the phrase "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."? If yes, we would either need to have a disclaimer before any content appears (to follow NPOV), or disregard NPOV for the Main Page. Gabiteodoru (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I have reservations about the practicalities and the motivation. How big and how prominent should the link to the disclaimers be? How likely is it that people who now complain that they were not warned that Wikipedia contains spoilers would have clicked on the link if it were displayed at the top right of the article page? Wikipedia regularly displays anatomical diagrams and photographs, links to offensive websites, descriptions of gruesome and repellent events, items that can trigger medical emergencies in susceptible individuals, information that can be used harmfully, and many, many pieces of undetected false information that could cause harm if relied on. And yet, we're seriously discussing altering the position of the site disclaimer because of this most trivial matter. It all seems very odd. --TS 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I should say that Tony Sidaway's concerns are quite similar to ones I have, and I doubt that moving the disclaimer will really resolve much of anything in the spoiler debate, but the fact is that it's badly placed currently, and it could only help, if only in the most miniscule way, to move it somewhere slightly more prominent. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The content disclaimer seems to be mainly for legal reasons, not so much spoiler warnings, and I find it to be in the proper place next to the privacy policy and about page. I also doubt that it would actually help. I'm afraid this is leading to (as already suggested) adding actual content disclaimers on wikipedia, which is pretty much the exact opposite of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, and soon wikipedia will have splash page were you have to click an "accept" button. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Here, for anybody who uses the default skin, is an example of a Wikipedia article (Hamlet, his uncle did it) in Cologne Blue skin, which happens to have the Disclaimers link at top right, but not particularly noticeable.
The positioning in the other skins is as follows:
Obviously the esthetics of these skins will not be to everybody's taste (people unused to Cologne blue have told me it makes them want to stab their eyes out with a red hot knife) but they give examples of what the disclaimer link looks like in a variety of settings. --TS 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
All arguments against putting spoiler warnings in article are based on two things: "In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of this page and every page on Wikipedia." and NPOV. Well, if we're going to use ONE disclaimer, we might as well make it very visible. I'm not supporting disclaimers within every article text due to NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Having looked more closely at the default skin, vector (Hamlet example), I think I begin to see what is being suggested by some editors. If we placed the Disclaimers link in the sidebar above the Main Page link I think it would be as prominent as one could ask for. People who go on to register an account and choose a different skin, one presumes, have had all the opportunity they might need to read the disclaimers. --TS 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support increase in prominence. People are less likely to feel "tricked" or punked or whatever by Wikipedia if they have a greater opportunity to see a disclaimer before they see the kinds of things they might get upset about.--greenrd (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Likewise support this proposal. -- ۩ Mask 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I reluctantly support this proposal. While I can completely understand concerns of a slippery slope towards violating WP:NOTCENSORED, and rightfully so, we do have a general disclaimer for a reason, and it's too out-of-the-way right now to catch the attention of casual readers. While experienced editors may understand what Wikipedia is and is not, the rest of our readers may not, and it's important that they too have a clear understanding of what we are. elektrikSHOOS 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: The navigation or interaction boxes in the sidebar are acceptable, but that's as far as it goes. Putting it in the infobox or anywhere else in the content area is absolutely not acceptable. Anomie⚔ 04:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any significant resistance to this idea. I suggest the next step is to consult the bot group and the people who design the skins. In principle the bot people won't mind (they use the API, not the html) but they should have notice because there may be some people who still scrape the html and they would need to change their code.

The skin people obviously would need to be consulted because that's what this is about. We're proposing to change the English Wikipedia version of a standard Mediawiki skin. --TS 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your earlier point Tony, move it into a sidebar in vector. This is somewhat beyond just about spoilers though, and we're not talking about (at least im not talking about) putting disclaimers above articles. Just a link in the sidebar so we're not hiding our General Disclaimer. -- ۩ Mask 02:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm personally NOT in favor of putting disclaimers above articles. I'm in favor of a link to the general disclaimer in the sidebar below "About Wikipedia," nothing more. Anything else risks violating WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NDA. elektrikSHOOS 05:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I notified the Bot Approvals Group (WT:BAG) a couple of days ago; this notification was moved to the correct place, the Bot owners' noticeboard (WP:BON) by another editor, and the general feeling there is that a change like this to a skin is unlikely to break anything but they're very pleased to have advance notice. It also emerged that perhaps scripters, whose software manipulates the appearance of a skin to add extra tools, should also be notified. So I put a notice at WikiProject User scripts (WT:US) and Wikipedia talk:Gadget (WT:Gadget) --TS 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... it hasn't happened yet... does anyone know if I should contact anyone next? Is it something I can do myself? Gabiteodoru (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It will only happen if somebody who wants to do it goes and does it. It isn't difficult. As far as I can tell you just need to test a bit of javascript to add the link in the right place in the vector skin, and then when you're satisfied it works take it to wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and get it checked out, and then get agreement to put it into the vector.js for this site. A link back to here from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would help, too, just so we're sure it's okay with everybody who cares. The bot people are cool with it and as far as I can tell the script people don't care. --TS 01:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Where's the file I would need to change located? Moving that link doesn't sound that hard... Gabiteodoru (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the one you want to have changed site-wide is MediaWiki:Vector.js, though of course you'd have to test it at User:Gabiteodoru/vector.js before you even thought of asking for it to be included there. --TS 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
If you are wanting it added into the sidebar (which seems to have the most support above), doesn't someone just have to edit MediaWiki:Sidebar? Anomie⚔ 02:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
There you go. Give that Wikipedian a fluffy bunny. --TS 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I posted a request for page change here as I'm not an administrator. MediaWiki:Vector.js gives me a page with only one commented line of code anyway. Fluffy bunny to Anomie! Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be a bit premature. Perhaps discussion at the Village Pump would be merited first. This change would be site-wide so it's better to discuss as widely as possible. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added links to this discussion to Template:Centralized discussion and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --TS 19:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Section break retroactively inserted by User:Patar knight.
  • Question Does anyone have a mockup available? The proposal seems to lack specifics at present; what would "more prominent" exactly look like? I like the general idea, but cannot Support without an answer. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Consensus seems to be to place the link in the sidebar above the Main Page link. I don't think it matters if it also appears in other skins, it's just that initially we were thinking of it in terms of adding code to vector.js which is the skin used by all who are not registered editors, and the programmability of sidebar content via the wiki hadn't been made known (at least, I didn't even suspect it existed, it's been a while).
  • So if you look at MediaWiki:sidebar as it stands now (permalink) the text that needs to be added before the line referring to the main page is: "Disclaimerpage|Disclaimers" Disclaimerpage resolves to Wikipedia:General disclaimer on this site. "Disclaimers" would be interpreted as a bare word to be used as a link text in the sidebar. Since we're getting a bit technical here I'll post a notice pointing here from the relevant page of the Village pump. --TS 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    I posted a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --TS 00:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As long as it is put in a good spot (perhaps under "Interaction", because although it's not really interaction, it's by the "Contact Wikipedia" link), this seems reasonable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose total bull, anyone who thinks people are to take quicker notice and actually READ the disclaimers, by moving it to the sidebar, is dreaming in my opinion. People don't read until they have to, it has always been that way. You don't see Youtube moving their disclaimers in a link next to every video either do you ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is pandering to people who don't bother to learn how Wikipedia works before using it, and then never learn. How many times will an intelligent person see a spoiler by accident? I submit that the answer is once, at a maximum. The cleverest will realise that telling the WHOLE story is Wikipedia's duty. The next level will experience one spoiler. Having discovered what the policy is on spoilers, to see a second one will be their own choice, or mistake. We don't need disclaimers for human error. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Re the opposes on the grounds of the link being useless, should we then remove Main page as being redundant to the logo, and 77% of the other links in "nagivation" and "interaction" as being generally useless? I don't think the point here is to actually get people to read the disclaimers before reading the article, it's just to help cut down the whining by people who like to whine about spoilers. Anomie⚔ 02:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think that this proposal is unessecary. So a few fans find that their enjoyment of some work of fiction diminished because they saw spoilers in an article... So what? In terms of relative "harm", spoilers are completely harmless compared to inaccurate content or BLP issues. I think that this proposal will encourage a culture that will eventually lead to the encyclopedia having banners, having popups, etc. all screaming, "WARNING! If you are a member of the following subcultures, etc., etc., Wikipedia might contain something that offends/scares/etc. you!!11" Additionally, what website has a link to a disclaimer in such a prominent location, let alone an encyclopedia? Did the late online Encarta have it? Does Britannica have it? Navigational links are valuable elements on a web page. They are more effective when there are less of them. A link to disclaimers that very few people will use is utterly useless in the grand scheme of things. Rilak (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    But while this is on the talk page for WP:SPOILER, the general disclaimer contains information on more than just the inclusion of spoilers in Wikipedia. It also contains stuff that every reader should learn like "OMGZ NOT EVERYTHING ON THE WIKI IS TEH TRUETH." I see no reason why a subtle inclusion of a link to the general disclaimer on the sidebar would do anything other than educate more casual readers about the nature of Wikipedia. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know that the disclaimer covers more than just "SPOILERZ!!11 IT HAZ SPOILERZ!!11", but generally a website should not force, or make prominent disclaimers. Look at corporate wensites. These guys have well-staffed legal departments full of lawyers who spend all day long looking for stuff that their employer might be liable for. And when it comes down to big bucks, the most unreasonable nonsense is sufficient grounds for ten extra pages of legalese in the disclaimers. So why is it that the general practice is to have all disclaimers, privacy policy, and non-encyclopedia legal formalities at the bottom of the page, if prominence is of such major concern? Because it is not of concern. We already have an About Wikipedia link. I am not a web designer, but common sense tells me that if a new user comes along, and doesn't know what Wikipedia is, he or she will more likely click on that than the disclaimers link. Rilak (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We're not forcing or making anything super prominent. Having an additional link in the sidebar isn't going to have the same level of saturation as a flashing web banner. But we dont' want a flashing web banner. But it is a helluva better for anyone who wants to find the disclaimers than the very bottom of the page.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    Who wants to find the link for the disclaimers? Additionally, given that its standard practice to have one's copyrights, disclaimers and legal stuff at the bottom of the page, that is exactly where average people will look. How much of this "if we put the boring disclaimers link next to the hot links, people will click on it and be informed of our noble intent and values" is based on empirical evidence that people will do what this proposal says they will do? Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    Probably people who are interested in the reliability of Wikipedia, as those who want a smaller version of the "About Wikipedia" link would be interested in this. Journalists trying to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia would also be interested. What would probably end up happening though, is that a link to the disclaimers is added in the sidebar, but the old link in the bottom of the page would still be there. I haven't done any studies (I will comment on your post below), but if links in both locations are kept, that would be a good compromise between both sides, no? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    And these people are numerous? And they haven't got the ability to search for disclaimers, use the about us link, or notice it at the bottom of the page like most websites? If I were a journalist, and you thought that I was incapable of finding the disclaimers, and therefore require the link to be shoved in my face (what this proposal does in effect) I would be offended. Rilak (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support increased visibility somewhere in the sidebar. Having a (normal-sized) link in the sidebar for increased visibility is a good idea, but I don't think it should go above the "main page" link, since that's well the main page. Anywhere at the bottom of a relevant category at the side is fine with me. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The disclaimer has important info beyond just the spoiler warning and making it more prominent will help readers understand the limitations and proper uses of Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, support unobtrusively but not until other links make it there first. Wikipedia's not about hiding legalelse in footers. The Disclaimer is really informative and plainly written; more readers should come across it. Support in one of the sidebar menus. Speaking of which, would a Policy link kill? Ok, another time... Quiddity raised the fair point below that there are more important links we could add, namely WP:5P, and WP:FAQ. I agree. Maybe we should talk about them first. Ocaasi (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) updated 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unlike most websites, our disclaimers are actually relevant to the general reader, so we shouldn't follow the general trend of making them as hard-to-notice as possible. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose partially based on lack of clarity in proposal.
  1. Which disclaimer: the WP:General disclaimer or the WP:Content disclaimer? The "General disclaimer" is the primary one, but it does not mention "spoilers" at all.
  2. Where is the draft mockup that everyone is "supporting"? I.e. Where within the stack of links, does everyone imagine this new link will appear? How will it be worded?
There are a multitude of links that could be added to the sidebar, that would be more valuable than this: WP:5P, WP:INTRO, WP:FAQ, WP:CHEAT, WP:QUESTIONS, WP:SANDBOX, etc. The reasons they're not added, is we're trying to not clutter up the sidebar, which would overwhelm more readers.
I hesitantly agree that the idea is worth discussing further, but I don't believe that this current RfC is in any way conclusive. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right on there, but maybe to take your point and run with hit. We should put an faq/5p link in there. What website doesn't describe itself, it's core mission, and give a list of common queries in it's main menubar? Only this one, pretty much. If those were include, I'd gladly drop the disclaimer idea. Ocaasi (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Proposal's author -- allow me to describe my rationale for it: Wikipedia's mission is to make all of human knowledge accessible to anyone. But should it also try to offer the reader a pleasant experience when this does not conflict with its main purpose? If the answer is no, then I see no need for having Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and we should scrap it. If the answer is yes, and we do care that readers are unhappy because of video-recordings of ejaculations / cartoons of Muhammad / almost-child-porn album covers / plot endings, then we should warn them about it. Most people assume those things don't usually belong in an encyclopedia, and so if we care about their experience we should warn them. There is a large consensus that the Disclaimer link isn't visible enough to satisfy that function, and I believe increasing its visibility would be a step in the right direction. The exact proposal is to move the Disclaimer link from the bottom of the page to the first (or second) entry in the Interaction box (keeping the link to the same place, the general disclaimer). This, of course, only if we do agree that users' enjoyment matters -- if not, then I see no reason not to delete the content disclaimer. Please include in your opinion also what you think of removing the content disclaimer if you disagree with increasing the visibility of the disclaimer link. Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of a disclaimer is to protect an organization from litigation, not to make a reader's experience more pleasant. Thus, even if editors disagree that Wikipedia's purpose is to send milk and cookies through teh tubez for your reading pleasure, the disclaimers still need to be kept for legal reasons. Additionally, this discussion concerns the proposal to make the disclaimer more prominent, not removing outright. No editor who has objected to your proposal has said anything about the deletion of the disclaimer, and i fail to see how you have reached that conclusion. Rilak (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
How is the sentence "Wikipedia contains spoilers." protecting Wikipedia from litigation? Gabiteodoru (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You were the person who said that the disclaimers are needed to make reader's experience more pleasant. My reply said that the purpose of disclaimers is not to make reader's expearience more pleasant, but to protect WP from litigation. I thought that I made my position very clear in my first reply to you, specifically, in the first sentence, which I shall now quote: "The purpose of a disclaimer is to protect an organization from litigation, not to make a reader's experience more pleasant." This was in response to your rationale, which stated in the second and third sentences: "But should[n't] it also try to offer the reader a pleasant experience when this does not conflict with its main purpose? If the answer is no, then I see no need for having Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and we should scrap it." (Emphasis is mine). Should my response to your allegations that I am leading this discussion astray, I am more than willing to provide links to diffs to my reply and your comment. Rilak (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Making a reader's experience more pleasant and protecting Wikipedia don't have to be mutually exclusive. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
So just because one no natural laws prevent the use a disclaimer to warn readers of the traumatic experience of encountering spoilers, one should? I find such arguments weak. Why would the average person click on a link called disclaimers? What is so attractive about the word "disclaimers"? It's about as attractive as a pig wearing lipstick. For those who may not be able to visualize what a pig wearing lipstick looks like, it's not something you are going to day dream about. So, if this proposal is going to add an element to the sidebar that is likely to do next to nothing, then why do it? Many editors who support this proposal, have said it does no harm, so what is the harm in trying? The harm is that if it isn't used, then it's clutter, and clutter needs to kept to a minimum for good usability. Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Section break retroactively inserted by User:Patar knight.
  • I support making the general disclaimer enormously more visible, although my support has nothing to do with spoilers. Wikipedia has a problem with credibility, which is that there are casual internet users who believe Wikipedia rather more than they should. We need to tell casual browsers much more clearly that Wikipedia is an enormous collection of user-submitted content, which means (a) the Wikimedia Foundation is no more responsible for what Wikipedians say than a messageboard administrator is responsible for posts in their forum; and (b) Wikipedia articles aren't completely trustworthy. I've been saying for quite some time that I think the general disclaimer needs to be prominently linked, using a link in large, bold font, on every page in the encyclopaedia. If I had my way it'd be flashing red...—S Marshall T/C 12:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Then I guess that you would support a proposal that will, under no conditions, let a person access to WP content without having copied, by typing (not copy 'n paste) our disclaimer (to make sure they've read it, memorized it, and can recite it). After they've submitted it, a cookie will indicate that to WMF servers that they don't need to submit to this absurd process again, until the cookie is deleted or expires after 30 days. Additionally, a web cam should be required to browse WP to prevent users who haven't seen our disclaimers from browsing WP at a computer where another person has completed learning our disclaimers. The previous is absurd isn't it? Equally absurd is the percieved need to having the disclaimers link in a prominent location, and if need be, in a large, bold font, colored red and flashing at 60 Hz. As I am about to post this comment, I also wonder if I have just given some people ideas... Rilak (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe that your comment is breaking the WP:BEANS guideline :P Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
One good thing that would bring would be a sudden drop in the number of journalists' articles which would present an anonymous IP editor as a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation. Hmm... It's worth looking into </sarcasm> --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
If a journalist thinks that anonymous IP editors are official spokespersons for the WMF, then he or she shouldn't be a journalist. Or maybe those journalists actually know that, but they want to diminish the WMF's reputation? Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It happened. [1] Read all about it. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
So it happened once for reasons that we can only speculate on. That doesn;t strike me as being much of a catalyst for this proposal. Rilak (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong support here, but not based on Spoilers (although it's another good reason): The current disclaimer placement and size is ridiculous. Every time I've seen a "Read the disclaimer" post when somebody advocates for censorship, I really sort of emphatise with the advocate, even though I'm anti-censorship. It's ridiculous.--occono (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I would like to make an interesting observation. In October 2010, Wikipedia:General disclaimer (the page that the disclaimers link at the bottom of every page goes to) had 98,481 views and was the 3,761st most viewed page on Wikipedia. Now, in my opinion, that's pretty good for such a boring, unexciting link. To put into context just how good this link peforms, the Pokemon article (the one with the thing above the "e") had 212,813 views in the same month and was the 651st most viewed page on Wikipedia. Now, the proponents of this proposal are saying that the disclaimers page is harder to find than Atlantis. I ask, how can that page recieve 98,481 views if it is indeed that difficult to find? Considering that the proponents have not offered one bit of evidence to support their position, or even an argument that isn't:
  • "I don't like spoilers, therefore this proposal is good."
  • "I don't care about the spoilers, but anything that might inform new users about WP in theory is therefore good."
  • "I can't see that it will do any harm, therefore it is good."

...I must comment that this all resembles, in my opinon, wishful thinking. Rilak (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As an early !voter in this, I don't recall saying that the disclaimer was "harder to find than Atlantis." Nor do I recall recommending large fonts, loud colors, or the blink tag, and I disagree with those who do (though I suspect they may have been utilizing a bit of artful hyperbole). What I recall saying is that the disclaimer is oddly placed, outside of the vector skin and way down at the bottom, to a point where many users may not even scroll as far as it in their article viewing, and that I suspected moving it somewhere more visible would make it, you know, more visible. And though I admit freely to having done no studies on the topic, I suspect that a) the disclaimer gets its pageviews in spite of its placement, not because it's easy to find and b) moving it somewhere more visible would make it get more pageviews, which would mean more informed readers. I could be totally misinterpreting, here, but my feeling is that you are so powerfully worried about starting down a slippery slope to "ZOMGSPOILERS" censorship that you may be overlooking the small fact that though this proposal ended up on WT:SPOILER, it doesn't actually say anything about spoilers in its current incarnation. The sole proposal here is the shifting of the location of a link - not the changing of the link's content, or our guidelines that deal with the link's use, or anything like that.
Or to tl;dr, what part of "anything that might inform new users about WP in theory is therefore good" are you disagreeing with, exactly? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The Atlantis comment and other similar comments were all hyperbole, and believe that everyone in this discussion knows that. You asked what part of the second argument I object to. Firstly, I would like to say that monumental overreactions and failures start with one little "it can't hurt, so let's do it" moment. I am reminded of one case where large sums of money was spent to increase the prominence of a social issue, the logic being that if more people knew about it, the issue will somehow cease being an issue. Well, the end result of this adventure was good money wasted. I'm not saying that this proposal involves money, but surely you all must see the relevant parts. Some well-meaning person suggests we do this, without any evidence to support its effectiveness, and in the process, wastes resources, and achieves nothing — the problem is as bad as it always was. And before proponents of this proposal use the previous sentence to further their argument, I am not saying that spoilers is a problem, my position is that spoilers aren't a problem at all).
So specifically, the problems with "anything that might inform new users about WP in theory is therefore good" are: "might", not will; "in theory", not in practice; and "anything... is therefore good" suggests that the position on the matter was reached not by examining need, cause, and solution, but by enthusiasm for WP (eg. "WP is the best encyclopedia in THE WORLD, and its goals are SO NOBLE, so let's do EVERTHING to promote WP, etc." The problem with enthusiasm is that things will be ignored, things will hastily thought through, etc. Right now, there are still outstanding questions that I have raised that haven't answered to my (and any possible lurkers' who share the same opinion on this proposal) satisfaction. Instead, I'm met with the same generic arguments I noted previously. Your statements regarding how "it's just moving a link, it's not like we're changing anything or stuff like that" comment, is the exact sort of comment that I'm concerned about (no offense intended).
In regards to this proposal not saying anything about spoilers, the discussion under the previous heading was created to duscuss spoilers was it not? This discussion was the precursor to this RfC, is it not? So I ask, how can you say that this proposal isn't about spoilers? Doesn't the proposal by TS clearly state "spoilers" not once, but twice? (My hyperbole engine just failed here.)
I would like to respond to your claims that the disclaimer link is "oddly placed" with: the disclaimers being placed at the bottom is exactly what most people do!!! (I'm sure that some proponents will groan upon reading this for the millionth time). Finally, I'm not opposing this because I am concerned about censorship in articles about fiction, but, along with previous concerns, because of the sort of backwards-bending, limb-extending-and-rotating-at-weird-angles accomodations that the "spoilers ruined my prime time TV watching" crowd want to force upon those not interested in fiction (the greater Wikipedia). Rilak (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
@Rilak: Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I mean to ask is: Does Wikipedia have any reason to believe that it would lose a lawsuit based on spoilers? Reasons to believe would be (IMHO) either past lawsuits focusing on this issue, or the existence of legislation in any jurisdiction that would suggest Wikipedia has such liability. I do not believe that any such reasons exist, and furthermore believe that, when the spoiler line was written in the disclaimer, the author's only reason to write it was to enhance the enjoyment of the reader. I think that if we decide that we are keeping that line purely for legal purposes, we should have some references to back up the need for it.
On another note, I do agree with you on the issue of clutter, and agree that we should keep that in mind as the downside. And on yet another point, about the statistics, I dare to suggest that number of visits to the disclaimer page are irrelevant until put in the context of number of visits if the link would be in the information box (although even with in this context it's not the most ideal statistic). But I also want to ask you to take into account Chaoticfluffy's observation that although the proposal was made in the context of discussing spoilers, the current proposal does not touch them at all, although this decision may have further implications that may touch spoiler policy.
To wrap up -- if the consensus is that disclaimers should only satisfy a legal purpose, and not an enjoyment purpose, then we should have in the disclaimer only sentences for which we have a somewhat good reason to believe we actually need it. If no such evidence is presented, then I think we should remove those sentences, and believe that the Spoiler warning in the disclaimer would need to go as well. Note that one of the main arguments that help in establishing the consensus on the spoiler warning policy is the presence of a spoiler warning on the content disclaimer page (this fact would be in itself an indicator that the content disclaimer page doesn't carry a legal-only role, as all spoiler discussions have never invoked legal liability yet made plentiful references to a page that you suggest has only legal-related content). If we do agree that the disclaimers have only legal value, and that the spoiler warning in the disclaimer does not have legal value and should therefore be removed, then I see it as the natural continuation of these actions to reopen the debate about spoiler warnings, with the anti- side being deprived of one of their main arguments. (P.S. I use the word 'believe' so much because I am a Bayesian.) Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
A better question to ask is: Does Wikipedia have any reason to believe that it might be be served a lawsuit because of spoilers? Given that there are many lawsuits that are initiated on unreasonable grounds, I say that if there are hoardes of angry fans (keyword: fans), then yes, it might be possible, however absurd the possibility of such legal action occuring. Disclaimers, AFAIK, try to prevent lawsuits from being started in the first place, although I suppose that they can be used in proceedings as evidence. Now, if there is is cruft in the disclaimers, eg. stuff not needed for legal purposes, then by all means get rid of it. Wrongly included content in a page with a legitimate purpose does not invalidate the whole page, which, if I am not mistaken, is what you seem to imply with your all-or-nothing position with disclaimers.
Regarding the statistics, I don't believe that I have used them to support a position that they can't support. And your argument that there will be an increased disclaimers page audience is flawed because it assumes that people are interested in the disclaimers in the first place. I've raised this point before, and have seen not one bit of evidence in support of larger audiences from proponents. All I see are people eager to point out that Wikipedia has disclaimers saying that because of their private interests with disclaimers, everybody needs to see them. Playing Manos: The Hands of Fate in the same cinema as The Free Encyclopedia* isn't going to automatically cause the former to become a blockbuster, is it?. And once again, I believe this argument has been raised before (or to this effect), only to be repeated again and again by this proposal's proponents, while they fail to present evidence for demand.
In response to the potention removal of the mention of spoilers in the disclaimers and similair content, that is fine by me. The removal of such content gives no support to proponents or opponents to this discussion as the increased prominence of disclaimers is not a problem. Really. If one reads your proposal, detailed at the beginning of this section, nothing is said about the need. If we were to look at the discussion that started this RfC, you just decided, one day, that the disclaimers link needs to be more prominent. Removal of spoiler-related cruft from the disclaimer also doesn't lead to discussion of reinstating the vile spoiler warning tags. If it isn't obvious to some people that Wikipedia that it is an encyclopedia, not a movie blog or fansite, then I fail to see the need for warnings in the first place. People demanding an encyclopedia to be whatever it is they wish it to be is not demand. Refer them to the appropriate venue if such demands are made.
* Note: I am well aware that WP is not a social network, and I don't need to be "informed" that it isn't. Rilak (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify some misunderstandings first:
  • I am not trying to imply that the presence of the spoiler disclaimer invalidates the whole page; rather I am saying that if consensus exists that disclaimers are there for legal purposes only (which from this discussion doesn't really seem to be the case, BUT we still have a small number of people discussing), then it shouldn't be there; and also that the fact that the disclaimer has beenreferenced in a non-legal discussion is good evidence that the current consensus isn't that the disclaimers are non-legal alone.
  • Regarding statistics: I never said that increasing visibility would increase hits; I didn't even say that number of hits after increasing visibility is a relevant statistic; all I said was that having this statistic would help the statistic you suggested more relevant. But as neither of us is really using this as an argument, we can drop it.
  • If the removal of the spoiler line from the disclaimer is agreed upon, that does give support to proponents of spoiler warnings, as the existence of that sentence in the disclaimer is a relevant argument -- I say relevant here because it was used multiple times in the discussion and in achieving consensus (see above). I'm not sure why you mention increased prominence here (your 3rd paragraph).
And also a few comments:
  • Asking either question (prevent or lose a lawsuit) is fine from my point of view.
  • Every time there is a decision, someone makes it one day. I fail to see your point. I believe my proposal came out of previous discussion on this page and was well received by consensus in the discussion in which it appeared.
  • "If it isn't obvious to some people that Wikipedia that it is an encyclopedia ..." -- this is a question of how nice you want to be to the audience (Respect for the public is a key Wikimedia value). I disagree with you here, but I do understand that this issue is more of a personal opinion than something that can be debated.
I'm glad that we are able to agree on the fact that once the disclaimers page is accepted by consensus as legal-only, then the spoiler warning in the disclaimers would most likely be removed (I am rephrasing your words here, do correct me if I am wrong). This is an important idea I wanted to bring out. And given that you believe in the legal-only view, and I believe in the legal-and-more view, I don't think we will be able to find a common opinion, and propose to agree to disagree. Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to restate the questions we're discussing in light of what has been discussed so far (if you feel this is not accurate in any way, please correct me):

  • Question 1: Are the disclaimers for legal purposes only, or do they also have a secondary role (being nice to the readers, etc.) ?
  • Question 2: If you believe that disclaimers have a secondary role, then I dare suggest that they are failing in fully achieving their role, and propose to increase the visibility of the link. Do you agree with this (moving it to the top of the information box)?
  • Not-really-a-question 3: If you believe the disclaimers do not have a secondary role, then it seems to me you shouldn't have anything against removing the spoiler warning, and it would most likely end up being removed -- there appears to be a minimal consensus on this one. I take this as a given, but please voice opposition if there is any.Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding question one, in my view, based on present knowledge, the sole purpose of a disclaimer is for legal protection from litigation. The purpose of a disclaimer is not to inform the audience about what Wikipedia contains, eg. that Wikipedia is not censored and may contain material that some people consider to be offensive. This appears to be what the disclaimers are used for, and I believe that this is not appropriate. More inappropriate is this proposal, which is furthering thr misuse of the disclaimers.
Regarding question two, since I do not think that disclaimers have a secondary role, this question is not applicable as a result.
Regarding question three, I have no issue with spoiler warnings being removed from the disclaimers. Rilak (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't care, because I don't think it will have even the smallest practical effect on users. People go directly to the page they want, and they are not going to stop to read the disclaimer unless you make it a click-through page (i.e., you can't read any articles until you click "I agree"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose original proposal, support alt. proposal. Adding more links to the sidebar dilutes the prominence of the existing links and there are already quite a few. Alt proposal sounds like a better idea. Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose both / all changes. This is a solution in search of a problem. meshach (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not really sure what we gain from this. The only other idea I can think of is to make the yellow lines thicker, so that the section doesn't blend in with the rest of the page as much. But I doubt this too would make an iota of difference. In my opinion, the current placement is logical, and consistent with just about every other site that features such links. The people who want or need to see it will know where to find it. This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. And there doesn't really seem to be a significant number of complaints about spoilers to warrant any change. --Dorsal Axe 18:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A possible alternative to this proposal?

It seems to me that editing the pre-existing Wikipedia:About page, which already has a link in the sidebar, can achieve what this proposal hopes to achieve. Would anyone be willing to consider delaying concensus on this proposal to discuss the merits of editing Wikipedia:About? Rilak (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Also note that the About page already contains some of the links mentioned above, such as Five Pillars. Also note, that the About page already has a relevant section, Wikipedia:About#Disclaimers, which can easily be refined, or moved within the page. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also be fine with this. My concern is not so much what the title of the page that has the information is; I would just like for the information to be in place where readers are more likely to hit on it. Wikipedia:About seems like as good a place as the disclaimer page, and if it's already in the sidebar, so much the better. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I also like this proposal. Great idea, Rilak! How about one of those 'in your face' colored boxes at the top of the about page telling you that it is highly recommended that you read the disclaimers before browsing + the link to the disclaimer page ... ? Gabiteodoru (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive responses. The question now is does this constitute as a concensus on looking at alternative means to deliver the information contained in the disclaimers, and if so, should there be a new discussion or RfC somewhere, at Wikipedia talk:About perhaps?
Since we have a discussion here already, I think that I should elaborated a bit more about what edits that I think WP:About needs. Firstly, I think it needs to be simplified. It shouldn't consist of paragraphs and paragraphs of prose. People who want to find out Wikipedia will be better served if the sentences were short and succint. For example, we don't need to state that Wikipedia is a combination of the Hawaiian word "Wiki" and "pedia" in the first paragraph. That should be stated later on. Secondly, navigating WP:About needs to be made easier. I assume that a significant portion of people visiting that page want a question answered. I think they will be better served if each section was a subpage of WP:About, linked to with a menu consisting of icon with a short description pairs. For some sections, it may be worth considering replacing prose with points so that answers are easier to find. Are these good ideas? Rilak (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting a complete overhaul of the WP:About page. That would need ample discussion at the relevant talkpage, first.
Your description also sounds a lot like you want to turn WP:About into WP:FAQ, to me. WP:About and FAQ are certainly addressing many of the same points, but they do so in different ways.
I'd suggest that an update of WP:FAQ might be more helpful. Particularly, any sections that explain&link to the general/content disclaimers. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that WP had a FAQ! If I did, I would not have suggested the above. Regarding updating the FAQ, I don't think that it will achieve what supporters of the proposal want — increasing the visability of the disclaimers. Why? Well, how is a new user supposed to find the FAQ? Its not on the sidebar, and its linked to near the bottom of the page at WP:About. WP:About in my view, is far too detailed to serve as an About page for any website. It's the longest that I have ever seen and it looks it it was written with "let's make it as long as we can" in mind. It doesn't have to be that long, and being that long makes it less functional.
I know that this RfC isn't the best place to discuss these issues, so I'm asking can we close this RfC as no concensus or similar so discussion can continue elsewhere? Rilak (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I would support an overhaul of Wikipedia:About nonetheless. There seems to be a bit of unnecessary crossover between the lead sections of that page, and the dedicated Wikipedia article. Could use a bit of restructuring too I suppose, and definitely a bit of trimming and refining. FAQs be damned, it's a still overwhelming to a casual reader or new user. --Dorsal Axe 17:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings on Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy articles

According to some people, those articles should have spoiler warnings. What do you think about that? 207.69.137.6 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If such warnings are added, remove them. They simply don't belong on those article regardless of whether such warnings are allowed in general. In fact, it was this kind of silliness that got the warnings purged from Wikipedia to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spoilers for TV episodes that have not been broadcast

Surely this should not be allowed? Can this be mentioned? AnemoneProjectors 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's allowed provided the information is reliable (such as when there is a preview that discloses some elements of the plot, or a writer or a member of the production company or broadcasting company authoritatively describes such a plot element in an interview). An example of this might be the Doctor Who Christmas Special 2010 which actor Matt Smith (The Doctor) has described as "loosely based on a 'Christmas Carol' with a time travelling twist." The BBC Press Office has also released a brief synopsis which is in our article. If more detail were authoritatively available, we would include that too. This information was known and in the article prior to the screening of a preview on November 19th. The show will be broadcast on Christmas Day. --TS 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It's generally accepted to use official press releases, summaries, trailers, promos etc. for upcoming episodes, spoiler websites are generally not accepted as reliable sources so shouldn't be used anyway. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Another example: The Amazing Race 18 is currently being filmed right now, so there's a number of forum sources (unreliable) that have identified where and who's still in the show, but the only information in our article are from local papers (reliable) that simply identify that the show came through their city. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason I asked is because there's a big storyline coming up in Coronation Street where a number of characters will die. Apparently the information has leaked and now Wikipedia has spoiled the surprise for me, even though it was referenced. I didn't check the type of source it was because I didn't want to read too deeply into it, in the hope I could quickly forget what I had just read. There's a discussion on Talk:Coronation Street#WP:SPOILERS. AnemoneProjectors 20:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Information about new characters, characters dying, returning, etc. should not be a problem in the production/casting/writing section. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
If the information can be verified through a reliable source, then it is fair game. It is actually inappropriate to remove the information on the bases that it is a "spoiler". (Who says it is a spoiler? How do you verify that it as a spoiler?) However, unverified information should be removed per WP:V. —Farix (t | c) 21:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with information about characters arriving, leaving or being developed. I add that kind of "out-of universe" information all the time. It's the "in-universe" information I'm not happy being forced to read tonight. AnemoneProjectors 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
That's life. —Farix (t | c) 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the time spoilers I see added to Wikipedia are unreferenced so I remove them. In this case I think the source is unreliable as the episode is followed by a live episode where the real victims are revealed. Anyway, I understand the rules. AnemoneProjectors 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're doing the right thing when you remove unsourced spoilers from fiction that isn't yet published. But let's get this straight: nobody is ever "forced to read" any part of Wikipedia. --TS 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't have to check my watchlist but if I didn't then some vandalism might not get removed or some hoaxes might not get deleted or some sockpuppets might not get blocked. So I check every edit :) AnemoneProjectors 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm very, very grateful that you do so. Thank you. --TS 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Yes, Wikipedia would be a complete mess without me :D AnemoneProjectors 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Related, there has been some back and forth on the Source Code (film) page concerning a spoiler for the movie's twist ending, and I've now removed the spoiler again on the grounds that no verifiable source could be cited for the ending of a movie that isn't due out for several months anywhere. This appears to be an acceptable way to keep a spoiler off a page, would it not? Once the movie is out in even a single territory, that argument goes away, and I'd no longer be averse to the spoiler being there. Jschuur (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the source for the spoiler is unreliable, then yes,this makes complete sense. If, say, USA Today revealed the ending, that's different, but I've rarely seen a case where that happens. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a question. If the film hasn't been released, just where did the plot summary come from? Because until the film is released, the summary obviously can't be verified against the film. —Farix (t | c) 19:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
My point there exactly. Thanks for chiming in on the film page. So far, the spoiler hasn't reappeared, and I hope I've been able to make a credible case to keep things this way, at least until a reliable source can be cited, or the movie is out. If it's reverted back without proper sourcing, I'm not sure what the next step is. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschuur (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the entire plot summary until it can be cited to a reliable source. You can't remove just part of it under WP:V if you can't even verify what's left. —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What about spoilers for later episodes?

Someone thought it was a good idea to spoil the identity of "Mysterion" in a South Park episode I just watched, despite the fact his identity wasn't revealed until several episodes later.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Coon

Since I just watched this episode, I am understandably furious. Shouldn't such practice be frowned upon?

I think the individual responsible should be permanently banned from editing wikipedia article. But shouldn't he/she receive a warning at least?

I've read summaries for episodes of many different shows and don't ever recall having future events spoiled this way. This is ridiculous.(174.116.212.78 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

No, it is completely reasonable that if the work has aired, any and all future information that may pertain to the past episode could be mentioned. (There's more issues with writing to the fiction instead of writing around the fiction, but that's not a spoiler problem). --MASEM (t) 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
With spoiler warnings. Or you are an self centered--IceHunter (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) ass.

Spoilers warnings must be put back

I don't know what idiots deiced to remove that, but it is totally stupid in the extreme. Otherwise you send the signal to people there are possibly millions of articles THEY SHOULD NOT READ unless they are 100% conversant with the subject. I was just spoiled on something where I didn't want to be spoiled, but where I wanted to learn some more background information. And all because some asshole though "screw them, we don't give a shit about what they have read or not, we'll just not write a spoiler warning here". Oh, and Harry Potter dies. --IceHunter (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read this page's archives to know who removed spoiler warnings. And why. (We actually had spoiler warnings in The Very Hungry Caterpillar at some point). Yours, idiot Kusma. 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
First, very few plot details are actual spoilers. But determining which plot details are spoilers will use an editor's individual opinion and analyst. This means that tagging plot details as spoilers will be a violation of neutral point of view and no original research. And because of that, such labellings is never verifiable against reliable third-party sources. And by the time a reliable source does state that a plot detail was a spoiler, that detail is probably is no longer a spoiler. On top of that, we don't give in article disclaimers for content that may offend certain readers or disclaimers on medical and legal articles (which are far more important and deserving of disclaimers). And finally, watch your language. Wikipedia as a policies that editors must remain civil and not engage in personal attacks. Calling other editors "jackass" violates both policies. —Farix (t | c) 13:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to be a source of knowledge, not a preview. People should assume that if they are reading something on a topic that they are not as versed in as others then they may learn something they don't know. Otherwise, why else be on the site at all?Caidh (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The main reason "spoiler warnings" were removed is due to the fact that they violate a core tenet of the project: Wikipedia is not censored (and along with that, no disclaimers in articles, as disclaimers are a form of censorship). No one presented a valid reason why we should willingly ignore a major policy just to suit a template of dubious nature and vague terms of usage, and there was never any consensus to implement the template across the site in the first place.
Besides, you don't open a paper encyclopedia and see "SPOILER WARNING!" all over the page. There is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia should do it. It's just not professional. By all means move information to a more appropriate and logical section (plot should generally always be kept to the plot section), but it's simply not our job to run around telling people to watch out for certain bits. Especially when it decends into chaos as to whether The Hungry Caterpillar or Santa should be censored. This was by no means not a spur of the moment decision. Calling people "idiots" certainly won't help your cause.--Dorsal Axe 19:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has a general content disclaimer that is linked from every page on the site and includes such warnings. And no, the decision to not include spoiler warnings was not a "vocal minority" decision. Sure, you might see disparate voices on this page that complain because they just read a spoiler. But every single time there has been a sitewide discussion such as an RfC regarding this matter, consensus has been to keep spoiler warnings off the site.
In addition, your tone and editing history suggests a tendentious attitude that is detrimental to the project. I would encourage you to read WP:CIVILITY and attempt to work with other editors to solve problems rather than consistently mocking them. elektrikSHOOS 19:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers in the edit summary

Spotted in recent changes [2] an edit summary making sure you don't even have to read any of the article , in this case The Dark Knight , to get a spoiler .

It's one thing accepting the fact that if you read the article you may get a spoiler but you shouldn't have to stay away from recent changes as well Garda40 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 03:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A question for pro-Spoiler Warning editors

You see, I don't get why such a minor disclaimer such a spoiler warning should be placed on Wikipedia articles, when more important and useful disclaimers such as NSFW disclaimers or disclaimers that say that there are pictures of Muhammad aren't be used. People go to an encyclopedia to learn things, and in the case of Wikipedia, as much as possible, we try to give the most complete and verifiable information on a given subject. If a person read an article on, let's say Star Wars and was spoiled, it's his fault, because he looked it up on Wikipedia, and she should have known that Wikipedia strives to give complete and uncensored information. If he didn't want to be spoiled, he shouldn't have looked it up at all. I know that most of our readers are completely unfamiliar with our policies, but that shouldn't be an excuse for spoiler warnings to be used.

I have seen the archives a number of times, and the question why spoiler warnings should be used when there are no disclaimers in Muhammad, but the question was never answered. If someone was spoiled because he looked up a Wikipedia article, he might get sad, he might get mad, but if a Muslim saw our pictures of Muhammad, he would probably kill us, and if parents saw images of penises and vaginas, they could sue us. Those are genuine concerns, unlike people who are spoiled, the most they will do is probably rant about it somewhere. So why should spoiler warnings be used on Wikipedia if can't we use other, more important and useful disclaimers that would actually make sense? And no, I'm not promoting the use of disclaimers in articles, I'm also against them because there are already disclaimers at the bottom of each page, and the use of more disclaimers would be quite redundant when we already have them. 112.208.114.247 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are reading the Lord Voldemort article, and you see his family, you won't expect to see Harry Potter usually. That kind of thing is something that might need a spoiler warning. There is no "Plot" or "Summary" header, but there is an important part of the story.

W (talk)alex03 22:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think that most people who would look up Voldemort would be familiar with the main character from the book series that he appeared in nor would be shocked to see his most significant foe mentioned. Granted there may be some readers who ramndomly stumble into the article and have no knowledge of Harry Potter but highly doubt that it would be anywhere close to common enough to justify reinstating the spoiler warnings.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this guideline affect external links?

So I was looking around some articles, and I saw many external links that have the words "spoiler warning". Does this guideline affect placing the words "spoiler warning" if the words are part of the page's title, or are they excluded. An example would be "Review of Movie X by George Spielberg (warning: contains spoilers) - John Doe, Anytown News". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't attach spoiler warnings to external links. --TS 12:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
But the problem is that the spoiler warnings are in the actual title of the page or on the URL. For example: "http://www.example-review-site.com/reviews/movie-x-review-warning-spoilers". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The description should reflect what's in the link (in this case "Review of X at Review Site" or something, though if that's actually a valid EL anyway is another matter). In such a case there should be a warning prominently at the top of the linked page anyway, so it's hardly up to WP to really need to give a warning anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Change in policy

Guys. Come on. 17 pages of archives. I'm not sure how to find this. Wikipedia used to have spoiler warnings. Now it doesn't. That's fine with me, but for history's sake, let's mention when the policy changed, shall we? Big archives are a big hassle. --BDD (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. It probably happened in late 2007, around the time that Template:Spoiler was deleted. Anomie⚔ 13:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Why there's no more spoilers warning?

Why did wikipedia remove spoilers warning, one may want to read out some details they missed from something, and the article may lead someone to thinking it won't spoil anything, but in the end, it ends up spoiling things. So my question is why did they remove these warnings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.158.186.30 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The general thinking behind the removal of spoiler warnings is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people should expect encyclopedia articles to contain all the major information pertinent to the topic. This was in part brought about by the addition of spoiler warnings to Shakespeare's works, fairy tales, and the like. You might like to review the deletion discussion for Template:Spoiler to see more of the actual arguments made at the time. Anomie⚔ 01:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally think this should be up for discussion. Wikipedia shouldn't strive so hard to be like other encyclopedias that it should lose site of its goal: A free encyclopedia that is a culmination of all information. If people don't want to see that information, they should be informed that it contains it in a minor, non-intrusive but noticeable for those who are looking for it way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.4.38 (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, the reason that spoiler templates were removed was not because the people who edited Wikipedia wanted to be like other encyclopedias but for two other reasons. The first was that the template was being highly misused (ie fairy tales, a works of shakespeare hundreds of years old were being tagged). The second, more significant issue was that most of the sections being tagged were titled plot and most editors considered it redundant to mention that a plot section may contain part of the plot that someone has not yet seen/read. I see little reason to believe that the consensus has changed to anywhere near enough to support readding the spoiler warnings.--70.49.73.84 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That is only part of it. There is also the fact on how do you verify that a plot detail is a spoiler, or remains a spoiler. All of the spoiler warnings that were used were based entirely on original research and personal opinion and had little to no bases on reliable sources. Thus the application of such warnings were in violation of Wikipedia's three core policies. —Farix (t | c) 14:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think better housekeeping is in order. It took far too long to track this page down, when I was just interested in why {{spoiler}] tags no longer work. There needs to be a better mechanism for page cleanup that people who take on the task of deleting tasks should initiate. The system is broken as it is. rhyre (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The place to look would be [3]. Sure enough, that leads to the old template talk page. At the head of that page is a link to the RfC that lead to deletion.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The rationale for not having spoiler warnings is that it falls under no admonitions (or what-ever they're called). At that page, there is a statement that it is a consensus just below policy level. To my reading, the only really relevant points in support are that it's not encyclopedic (vague and probably based on certain old possibly no-longer viable concept(s)) and that it would be too onerous or disputatious to carry out. I wonder if the issue could be raised again: Many people would like to know something about the content of a work of art with-out getting the climax or key thrust upon them. Giving an indication that a key point is given in the article (e.g., in "The Gift of the Magi") is not censorship: the reader is free to continue or not.Kdammers (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is more the case of "what is a spoiler?" We had edit wars where spoilers were being applied to details that most wouldn't call spoilers (to the point where naming the actor for a specific character was considered spoiling), as to old works (like Shakespear plays), and non-fiction. The cleanest solution is simply to remove them, and to note in our disclaimers that we're covering works comprehensively and thus may include spoilers. Spoiler warnings aren't coming back. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
And on top of that, we don't put in medical disclaimers, why the hell should be put in plot disclaimers? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Filter for addition of spoiler warnings?

Wouldn't it be alright to add a filter if possible spoiler warnings are added? For example, if text is added which says "WARNING! This article contains spoilers", then "Tag: Possible spoiler warning added" would appear. Would that be practical? This because, sometimes spoiler warnings are added to little-watched articles, and thus these edits may remain undetected for some time. I actually removed such instances of added spoiler warnings - I removed them about two weeks after they were added. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WT:Spoiler/old template

This page is nominated for discussion but not by me. In fact, I'm not allowed to propose a deletion without approval from my mentors. Nevertheless, I fully support "merging" it to main page, WP:SPOILER. Seriously, there are concerns over using this page as this ({{WT:Spoiler/old template}}) and its historical value. Feel free to discuss in WP:MFD. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

added two new sections

Based the recent discussions on Talk:Skyfall and other places, I was bold and added two more sections. The first is adding a section explaining more about dealing with different release dates across the globe. The second one is based on the recent article where Skyfall's distributor complained "on a crowd sourced site like Wikipedia, it is difficult to police spoilers after a film has opened." So I want to make it clear that if they were actually thinking about "policing" the spoilers directly on the article, it would be COI editing. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The first part should be merged in with "Broadcast delays" with the section retitled. The section section however, is not needed as we already have WP:COI and this guideline already which prohibits the removal of plot details that some consider "spoilers". Besides, the whole idea of "policing spoilers" on the Internet is a lost cause. —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Extending the guideline for solutions to puzzles, riddles and games

There is a thread at Wikiproject Mathematics about an editor who has hidden "puzzle spoilers", that is, solutions to logic puzzles in their articles. While it's consensual that the spirit of WP:SPOILER applies, he has a point in saying that the guideline now applies explicitly only to works of fiction. How should we expand it to cover also this case? It requires a bit of rewording of the lede and I'm unsure on how to do it best. --Cyclopiatalk 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding a section covering the matter; please revise as necessary. I don't think we necessarily need to adjust the lead, but if someone else does feel free to propose something. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Addition seems reasonable, and agree it follows from policy that we don't use spoiler warnings/strip answers from stuff like just because it is a spoiler. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure about the "it must not necessarily be included" part -it makes sense, but is it needed? I wouldn't like people using it pointily as an excuse to remove information nonetheless. That it has to be compliant with consensus and other policies should be implicit. --Cyclopiatalk 14:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a verdict or is the jury still out? Other languages?

Hi. I can't figure out whether spoilers are in or out - a real case on not being able to see the trees for the woods. From the project page I read that "However, editors could not reach a consensus about whether the presence of spoiler warnings in articles was an improvement to Wikipedia." So, what is the policy in the meantime? And although each language WP does its own thing, there should be and there are a number of basic pillars. Certainly something like this should be part of the common policies not left to the individual WPs? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On en.wiki we don't use spoiler warnings, and we don't write to avoid spoilers if they are necessary to comprehend the work. It is up to the other language wikis to decide if they want to follow suit - though arguably, you'd expect them to be the same - the same problems for why to avoid spoiler warnings/ignore writing around spoilers in English will exist in all other languages, but we here at en.wiki have no control on that in other languages. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. Is there a set of 'guidelines'/ 'rules' as to what ALL languages must abide by and what is at the discretion of EACH language? Thanks and best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Any Foundation-wide mandates will exist on meta, with all projects (including the various WP languages) expected to follow such. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Has the possibility been discussed to make the Plot section collapsible like the table of contents? That would be a compromise between having and not having spoiler warnings, because initially it would be collapsed and the reader has to click on it to see the plot. An added advantage would be that the plot often takes up a lot of space, spoiling the overview of the "real encyclopedic data" Geke (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
How is what something is about not "real encyclopedic data"? And collapsing is still censoring. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The guideline was getting fat

This happens. I've removed a lot of superfluous baggage from the page. --TS 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that for movies and television shows that there should be a basic information summary outlining the plot or episode in question. It is no fun having your show ruined reading the episodes list, when it gives you the whole show wrapped up in a a couple of sentences. If someone wants to create a special page for individual episodes, they are free to do so and there they may provide as much information as they want. This way there is BOTH a shortened summary for people who do not want their shows spoiled and a page for people who want detailed information. We are not removing information from Wikipedia but providing more of it, in a better viewing environment. Hua89 (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Most episodes do not have the notability to substantiate a stand-alone article nor should plot summaries be split off of the main article. This is a form of censorship as you are attempting to "hide" the plot summaries. Plot sections are already clearly labeled and so are episode lists (so its your own fault for reading them). And finally, we only need one summary for a television show or film. There is no reason to have two different summaries and would come into conflict with WP:NOT, which states that plot summaries must be concise. I would suggest that we add an explanation of why the spoiler guideline is the way it is similar to what I've drafted. —Farix (t | c) 03:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
There are some shows which already have both an episode list, and individual pages for individual episodes. In fact, there are even some which have a master episode list (with no plot summaries), per-season lists (with brief summaries) and per-episode pages (with detailed summaries). In such cases, I would argue (and have argued) that there is room for sensitivity in the brief summaries without compromising encyclopaedic standards - in the brief summary it may be more relevant to the episode's significance to describe the nature of the spoiler than to detail it. For example, the brief summary of a certain episode of the '80s series Dallas might include that "Bobby returns", leaving it to the episode's page to describe how he returns. Obviously, in the case of Dallas, there aren't pages for individual episodes, so the details of Bobby's return can only go in that brief summary. I'm not arguing that episode pages should be created to house spoilers, but that where episode pages already exist, it is a small annoyance to people looking for that detail (and any other details of the plot not found in the brief summary) to have to follow a link from the episode list, and avoids a large annoyance to people who, for example, wish to look up the previous episode and are unaware that the newest episode has aired.
In essence, I'm arguing for spoilers to be included as a specific example of the general principle that the brief summary of an episode which has its own page should be more selective in what to include than that of an episode where the only place for notable information is that summary. Rmsgrey (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
that sounds to me to be more of an issue regarding WP:UNDUE that a spoiler issue since it is entirely possible that a event in a episode could be important for the individual episode but but not for the overall work.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion these kinds of spoilers are OK: All spoilers on the general article of a certain movie, trilogy, book, tv series etc. and Season X spoilers on the season X page etc. However it is not OK to put spoilers about season X+n on the article of season X. For example, it is OK to write that a character dies in season 3 on the general page of that series (as long as it is written for example under heading "Season 3") and on the season 3 page but NOT on the pages for season 1 and 2. I think this should be clarified in the guidelines.188.67.147.173 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that as being more of a case relevance than a spoiler issue. The reason being the fact character dies in a future season has nothing to do with particular episodes that predates the death. The death should only be covered regarding the episode that it occured, or possibly a plot summary on the main page for the series (if the death is significant to the overall story). In other words we don' need in a section of a hypothetical episodes summary in a season 1 article with Jake robs the bank (he will later die in the second to last episode of season 5) since it would be irrelevant to the actions in that episode and I doubt that anyone would complain with that removal.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too)

While the argument that a section titled plot should be expected to include possible spoilers may be proper, it is also contrary to general use on the Internet and subverts the expectation of many readers. It seems to me one need not compromise either: create a template which splits a plot section into "premise" (or "blurb") and "synopsis" (or "details" or "plot"). The premise would be a brief outline of the subject without revealing spoilers, the synopsis delves into detail. Premise might contain unobtrusive green cues and synopsis red ones. This avoids censorship, improves readability and meets general reader expectation.--195.240.199.250 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia is not intended to be like most other websites. After all, Wikipedia doesn't have spoiler warnings in the first place. The goal of Wikipedia is to give information that is as complete as possible, no matter how offending it may be (well, except for BLPs, we have high standards for their articles, but that's another story). Separating the sections could potentially cause technical problems, but also is a form of censorship in itself, and Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia isn't IMDb either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Reference works (e.g. CliffsNotes) on fiction don't contain spoilers either - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
They aren't encyclopedias. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia is all about complete information. For more information on this guideline, read the section "Why spoiler warnings are not used". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course there is a rationale to the current policy. That doesn't mean it is beyond examination. What I am proposing isn't an attempt at censorship, but an approach to accommodate the various arguments into a coherent model. Dividing plot into premise and synopsis does not pre-empt authorship, but guides it into established expectations. If the opposing argument rests upon proper adherence to the conventions, it follows the same applies to divide plot into premise and synopsis with their assigned function. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the philosophical arguments, excluding "spoilers" is absurdly complicated. There are numerous topics which cannot be discussed independent of their conclusions. The broad impact of, for instance, the Christian gospels depends, in large part, on the final act. Not thrilled with the example? Fine, how about The Crying Game? Isn't "Nothing happens. Twice." a spoiler for Waiting for Godot? Discuss the plots of Star Wars V and VI without "spoiling" IV? Can't be done. Discuss "Gilligan's Island" without giving away that they don't get off the island in episodes 1, 2, 3, 4... Doesn't Truman Capote "spoil" Capote (film)? How much knowledge of a plot "spoils" it? While there are some plots that hinge on one element for the meaningful ending, more complex stories have numerous elements that exist throughout the story. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is conflicts between conventions of Wikipedia and usage on the Internet in general. Most are barely noted, with "spoilers" an oft discussed exception. The topics you raise fall outside this category, as the scope of a section on discussion and analysis are generally understood. It is mostly in plot, though there are others, in which usage diverges. Plot can be formatted to align conventions, but, you are right, it does not address other conflicts.195.240.199.250 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The majority of the Internet is not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The discussion is indeed about the difference. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental assumption of this proposal is that spoiling may be prevented by presenting the information in (sub)sections with titles which mean the same on Wikipedia as elsewhere. While the original proposal was limited to dividing plot into premise and synopsis, the same aproach may limit spoiling for articles as a whole. That said, while an examination of jargon as a solution is an interesting idea to me, I doubt whether articles could be (sub)sectioned unambiguously either in theory or in practice.

While I will not pursue this proposal further, I would like to note the defense of the existing policy on grounds of non-censorship, or unlimited information. As you value freedom of expression, you should value the informed choice of the audience. The proper thing would be a visible but forgetable icon along the top. Perhaps a red jigsaw with an exclamation mark in the Wikipedia globe, linking to the a summery of its policy. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To readers, the issues of spoilers is the case of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Once they understand that information at WP is unbridled, they shouldn't go there on works that have been released to try to learn more if they are completely trying to be spoiler free. Too many people come here trying to consider WP as a replacement for Google when it is never our intent. There are tons better sites for most of these works to learn about the topic that are dedicate to those types of works and can avoid spoilers. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This page is filled with what this site is and is not, but little explanation as to what the downside is to pointing out the difference to readers who are unaware of it or its implications. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that by quoting this page people seem to justify spoilers all over a page, I will use the House of Cards (U.S. TV series) as example: where are we "serving encyclopedic purpose" by putting major spoilers in a section, the cast one, that is usually as neutral as possible? The encyclpodic purpose of some section should be to give just some basic information, especially if it's marked with an innocent title like "cast". Sunitsa (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I do see your point, of just wanting to look up the cast list and having the show spoilt, and how annoying that is. It's hard to avoid that, given an important function of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is to be a Cliff's Notes - something that really has to precis for you everything relevant that there is to know about a given work. One way to look at it that may be useful: it's an encyclopedia - a complete compendium of everything - so treat it like it's Hamlet - what would you expect to see in the article if House of Cards was 500 years old? Write it up in those terms - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I also dislike when people use the Spoiler guideline to try to justify putting spoilers any and everywhere. Like the guideline states, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." It can be encyclopedic not to include spoilers just for the sake of including them, especially in the case of works where the brilliance of that work hangs on it not being spoiled; The Sixth Sense immediately comes to my mind in such a case (and its Wikipedia article is currently careful not to spoil the ending, except for in the Plot section and Production section), and some aspects of the The Walking Dead series quickly come to my mind as well in such a case. Time and again, we get readers who complain about Wikipedia having ruined a story for them because of spoilers; often times, these people are not only spoiled by the Plot section, where they should expect spoilers, but needlessly by the lead or a random place in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Editorial "courtesy"

I'm perfectly OK with no spoiler warning, but I do wonder if there's some recommendations to avoid "giving away more information than needed", at least in the opening section. Basically, using "John Fender is a character from McExample who appears as a supporting character introduced in the second season..." instead of "John Fender is a is a character from McExample who is the previously unknown father of Protagonia", "...who appears in seasons two to three and returns in the ninth", or "... who kills Madame Evil in the finale". There are some cases where the spoilers are inevitable in explaining the importance of the character (such as the lead of a movie whose first rule prohibits me from discussing it). On the other hand, discussing John McClane doesn't need a mention of the Gruber brothers unless when discussing their specific films.

Of course, such recommendations are not to be taken with a grain of salt, as there are several "nonstrictly plot-related" sections where spoilers may be necessary (for example, discussing the actors who portray a character, critic commentary, etc.).

Summary: it's OK to include spoilers when discussing fiction, but a bit of consideration should be put into where they're appropriate.

And yeah, I do realize a well-written page implicitly structures itself as this. But a note won't hurt anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.190.31.64 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

IP, I'm generally against spoilers in the lead, and I noted so in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) section above. I generally don't see any benefit to it at all, unless it's minimal spoiler information...such as a general summary that does not give away major spoilers (especially any plot twists), or unless the major spoiler is such a defining moment for the character that it should be mentioned in the lead. Having worked on various television and film articles, with some of them being WP:Good or WP:Featured articles, I have never, or perhaps hardly (to be more precise), seen the benefit of including a major spoiler in the lead. Including that material only serves to anger our readers; I've seen such anger time and time again. And we should be thinking about our readers on such matters, not ourselves. So I completely understand where you are coming from on your above post, and I believe that the WP:Spoiler guideline should state something along the lines that care should be taken when deciding on whether or not to include a major spoiler in the lead. But with as little traffic as this WP:Spoiler talk page gets, the only way to get sufficient change regarding the "Yes, yes, to spoilers. Don't delete information simply because it's spoilerish." crowd is to start a WP:RfC here on this talk page, preferably a wide-scale WP:RfC. As stated in the aforementioned section above, people including spoilers everywhere in a Wikipedia article and pointing to the WP:Spoiler guideline as justification for that is ridiculous. Anyway, I decided to pop back up at this talk page after a recent comment I made in this section at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series). For the character articles of that series, editors (me included) have generally been keeping the "this character died" aspect out of the lead, and I think that's the right thing to do. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert/Warning for WP readers (not Editors)

Here its stated that "Please do not read the following plot summary if you have not seen the film as it has major spoilers, especially since the film is a crime thriller."

Spolier Alert is given here also.

As We know movies come in different genre , so every movie genre should have different rules.Some editors told me that WP actively rejected spoiler warning claims . I think WP should reconsider. I am not against writing full movie plots , But some warning must be given to the readers . Every movie page don't need warning for spoilers . But there must be a scope for the editors to reach a consensus whether spoiler warning is required for a particular movie or not.My first question on Tea House was about movie spoilers , and i was told to come here .

If I read the plot of The Lord of the Rings (film series) andRaiders of the Lost Ark , then it won't affect the pleasure of watching the movie :: but if I read the wiki plot of The Sixth Sense , The Devotion of Suspect X , it gives away the entire movie itself and spoils the fun of watching the movie . And movies like Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) can be grouped in the middle where knowing the story can spoil half the entertainment (as they are Sci-Fi or fantasy genre).I know why "Why spoiler warnings are no longer used". But I am asking only for those movies belonging to Mystery Genre and which has some twist in the story (Mostly importantly a new movie )

i am not asking for spoiler alert in case of classic thrillers like Rebecca (1940 film) or for Sherlock Holmes novels.CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia and meant to comprehensively cover a topic. That includes the plot and revealing the ending even if is commonly considered a spoiler. You shouldn't be using an encyclopedia to learn about a work if you are trying to stay away from spoilers about the work itself. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
All Wiki readers are not editors . 99% of those who read WP don't edit. In a zeal they might read the full plot in case of new releases and later on regret . I am talking about teens or kids also . Internet access is easy . Teenagers don't have patience . Why should we spoil their fun. If we google search a movie name , first the IMDb page appears at the top followed by Wiki page or the Wiki page comes at the top followed by IMDB page.I am mentioning this once again that I am not against writing of full plot including twist ending but some warning must be given for the readers if the story is full of twist and turns. I don't want spoiler warning for Jurassik Park type movies CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The warning is implicit that they are on a comprehensive encyclopedia which is going to go into all details about the work. They should be aware that there will be spoilers here without any warnings, and thus if they only want to learn a brief summary, to go to another site. Further, what is a spoiler to one may not be a spoiler to another, so it is a very subjective thing, hence why we got rid of them. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Proclaiming any specific plot detail as a spoiler is, frankly, original research. We also have a strict guideline of not including disclaimers in articles, of which a "spoiler warning" would be such a disclaimer. —Farix (t | c) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
So —Farix (t | c) , if it becomes original research , then if anyone can find a reliable source that which part of the movie is plot spoiler it can be included . --MASEM (t) , it's a subjective thing but that's what i wrote at the beginning and gave examples of movies. I started this discussion only for those movies whose genre is Mystery and Suspense according to Rotten Tomatoes. If we visit the Rottentomatoes page of a movie and find Mystery and Suspense is included as a genre then either we should give a spoiler warning or there must be restriction on editors to write the plot for at least six months after the release date. As after that the movie won't be running in theatres.CosmicEmperor (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If several reliable source discuss a specific plot point being a "spoiler", that is something that may be included in the reception section, but it is not something that will justify a disclaimer in the plot section (which is a descriptive summary only) or in the lead. It doesn't matter what genre the work is. —Farix (t | c) 02:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Farix I don't think it would be disruptive editing if we include it in the sub-heading like this :
Plot {Warning- Contain spoilers} .
If we can find reliable reference about which part of the movie has twist in the story.CosmicEmperor (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It would still be contrary to Wikipedia's "no disclaimer in articles" guideline. Also, you have yet to provided a justification as to why a disclaimer will improve or help maintain Wikipedia. We don't provide disclaimers on articles with medical information. We don't provide disclaimers on article with content some may find offensive. Those would be more useful a disclaimer about spoilers. On top of that, we cannot be selective of which articles gets spoilers. Mystery and suspense are no more "special" genres than fantasy, science fiction, comedy, drama, etc. No top of that, the only known study done on spoilers how affect people enjoyment of a story has shown that they do not lessen someone's enjoyment, instead they have the exact opposite affect. And finally, if you are reading a section titled "Plot", it is because you want to know what the plot is, including its spoiler. A disclaimer isn't going to be of any help except be a sign yelling "READ ME" (which is the whole point of why media uses spoiler disclaimers in the first place). —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is what I would suggest. Go near the top of the page to the 'archive' box. Go and read. There's a lot to choose from but most of it will tell you why Wikipedia is the way it is and has been for many years now. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk)Most people who visit WP don't know what it is(Encyclopedia) and most don't know about five pillars of WP . Lets say a 12 year old boy reads the plot of The Sixth Sense before watching the movie . And when he will watch the movie , he won't find any thrill as he already knows the plot twist. CosmicEmperor (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
CosmicEmperor, I know how you feel. I noted in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) and #Editorial "courtesy" sections above that Wikipedia should do better about not spoiling its readers, especially as far as the lead goes and with works that have twists that will significantly affect the readers' experience if spoiled on them. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So then maybe what we need to do is post at the top of every article a description of what an encyclopedia is, rather than a spoiler alert? Look, I get your arguments, @CosmicEmperor:, but they're entirely emotional. Wikipedia is not a babysitter. Promoting ignorance is the exact opposite of what an encyclopedia does. If a parent took objection that our article on Santa Claus spoilt his daughter's Christmas, would you argue that any content about Santa being a myth should be removed or disclaimed? There is a greater academic purpose that is intended here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb I am not asking for every page . Only for those movies which come under "Mystery and Suspense" according to Rotten Tomatoes (or any other reliable source where the genre is Mystery). In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) only at the end it was revealed who is the half blood prince. Let kids and teens read the full plot. Before reading the plot they should be aware that they will read the plot twist .Even after that warning if they read the full plot then I don't have objection.CosmicEmperor (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I think Farix came with a logical conclusion that spoiler warning might force people to read the spoiler . But in that case I suggest ,we should not write the full plot summary of Fiction Novels/Stories for six months after the publication of the novel :: And the same goes for all movies (excluding documentary movies). Only small plot synopsis should be allowed . After six months of the book/movie release , one can write the full plot summary . This is not the right place to disquss that , I have to move somewhere elseCosmicEmperor (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This may be surprising, but there are students in the world who might benefit from understanding the entire plot of a recent work. Students of film, television and literature, for example. And even people working in these industries would benefit from the knowledge, as it is presumably difficult to see every new movie, watch every new TV series, read every new book. Understanding the rough structure of the work would be critical for them. Wikipedia is not an entertainment site, it's an encyclopedia. It's where people go for information, not for the lack of it. And your six month argument isn't going to help anything. TV shows, for example, are often released at different times across the world. Though you might "save" one demographic, you'll "spoil" another. I've seen lots of spoiler removals at Broadchurch because people who just got the series in their countries feel that some of the content spoils their experience. It's been more than six months since the series was released. What's the difference? Waste of time, this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What about just moving possible Spoilers at the Very End for Recent Released Movies?

I understand Wikipedia policy on being as "complete" as possible and that is understandable.

But, putting spoilers at the very top of articles for recently released Movies in my opinion would not benefit some users.

All I am asking is to just move all spoilers to the very end of the article, no special sections or warnings needed.

Most people read a webpage from top to bottom.

Once they have all of the information they need would normally stop.

So in these cases if a user does not want to know any spoilers they would stop reading once they have all of the information they needed.

Maybe for Movies list first information that a "Movie" goer would want to know before seeing the movie.

Like cast members, over all plot and things that were contain in trailers and etc.

Then after a "Before Seeing" the movie information, include additional information afterwards.

Keeping spoilers at the very end and that is it.

Nothing special or additional steps for editors :)


We need to provide usefulness for all different users intent.

1. Information to decide whither to see the movie or not. 2. Information about the entire movie


Both intents can be provided useful information with out "Censorship" just by having "Before seeing Movie" information listed first at the top and then additional information about the movie listed below towards the bottom.

Don't see why that is so hard to do?

Can anyone else explain any issues with this?

Kbdavis07 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, once something is available for a reasonable size of the public, its material that should be covered in the article. We're not here to help people decide to see a movie or not (that's not the purpose of an encyclopdia), we're here to discuss a movie in comprehensive nature, so we don't use spoilers for this. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Masem,

I understand your point.

I guess my question would be more specific to movies then.

Take a look at this:

Spectre 2015 Movie

In the cast section is it correct to include events that happen in the movie in the cast section?

Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of an assassin killed by Bond.

Should that be in another section then?

Being "killed" is an event, that happens during the movie and not specifically describes who that person is?

Who a person is: "Alessandro Cremona as Marco Sciarra,[12] an assassin and husband of Lucia Sciarra."

Thanks,

Brian Davis

Kbdavis07 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want to know the plot, then they should be reading the plot section, which is always clearly labeled. If they don't want to know details about the characters, they shouldn't be reading the character/cast section either. We don't change the organization of an article because of so-called "spoilers". Instead, we should write articles without concerning ourselves about what is and is not a "spoiler". As for the specific detail you are complaining about, it isn't even a spoiler. It is a description about a specific character is in the film. —Farix (t | c) 09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers are Needed

I encourage you to follow this simple line of logic:

  • 1. Spoilers can ruin a media experience.
  • 2. Wikipedia's goal is to inform about media.
  • 3. Wikipedia cannot inform about media if it spoils media.
  • 4. Wikipedia spoils some media in its articles.
  • 5. Spoiler warnings would prevent spoiling of media, and therefore allow Wikipedia to inform about media.
  • 6. Therefore, spoiler warnings should be used.

A simple small font warning is a very simple solution to this problem. The community did not have a problem with what the admins perceived as "too many spoiler warnings." A poll would show this.

As of now, Wikipedia spoils multiple media, and continues to do so as long as there are no spoiler warnings. I was made aware of this silly debate after I myself was spoiled by an article.

This is a problem, and it needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.90.194 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with the following above Kbdavis07 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
74.100.90.194 Your logic is flawed for many reasons. Point #3 is an unsupported assertion based on a garbage premise that an encyclopedia exists to preserve enjoyment. An encyclopedia exists to provide the academic service of delivering information about a topic, not to obscure it or to hide this information. A much simpler line of logic involves one step: 1) If you don't want your enjoyment spoiled, don't go to an encyclopedia to learn about the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Using that logic, perhaps I should follow your advice and not access Wikipedia to see how good a movie is, how much it got at the box office, who the actors are, what the budget was, where the film is made, or any of the other hundreds of pieces of information, because "I don't want my enjoyment spoiled" as you said.
That's hilariously incorrect. People have a right to see relevant movie information without having the movie ruined for them. It's the same reason Quentin Tarantino tore up his script and started over when it leaked online. It's the same reason why no one wants you to talk about the storyline of a movie if they haven't seen it. And it's the same reason every movie company on Earth forces all employees to sign waivers to not discuss anything about what they are working on.
Whoever decided against spoilers made a poor decision, one that constantly affects hundreds each day. Spoilers are necessary to have on Wikipedia. Period. They should be implemented as soon as possible.74.100.90.194 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, first of all, you're all over the map. You're arguing for the inclusion of spoilers, but what you actually mean is that you don't want spoilers, or that you want "spoiler alerts". You should probably get your own position clear if you're going to try lecturing people about logic. Secondly, the logic is only hilarious if you know nothing about logic. You snuck in a statement that is a Begging the question logical fallacy, because one of your arguments is basically just another form of your conclusion. Your argument is "We need spoiler alerts because Wikipedia cannot inform about media if it spoils media." But when was it established as a fact that that Wikipedia cannot convey information about media if it spoils media? You need to first support the "Wikipedia can't do X if it spoils media" part of your argument before you build your entire argument around it. Not even sure what your point is about Tarantino's script. That was stolen before it even became a movie. That's not even close to the same thing as writing a general plot summary for a published work that's already out for consumption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, no one is suggesting that we should be stealing unpublished scrips and placing them on Wikipedia so the Tarantino issue is irrelevant. I also don't see how placing spoilers means that we can't inform about media since that would literally be a case of informing people about certain aspects of media.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree Wikipedia isn't censored, if you want to avoid spoilers why are you looking up a article about the topic? all the spoilers will typically be in a section for "plot" or "Synopsis" and if you're too dumb to avoid that you're likely able to suspend your disbelief no matter what and any movie will entertain you :P I don't mean to sound rude but I don't see a need for spoilers at all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears as though Wikipedia is not, as I had initially anticipated, a true source of unbiased and properly structured information. If the policy truly is that no one should look up ANY information about ANY topic whatsoever if they simply do not want to have that topic spoiled, even if the information being looked up is something as innocuous as how well the movie did so as to determine whether or not one should SEE the movie, and if such a policy cannot be changed through clear logic due to a few members' fear of change (adding a tiny warning or simply not including possible spoilers), Wikipedia is not suitable as an information source. I hope that this is wrong and that a higher-rank moderator observes the obvious need for such a simple system and is able to make such a change. But so far, even with multiple users in agreement, nothing has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.90.194 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not here as a consumer guide, which is what you're trying to get at; our goal on movie articles, for example, is not to give information for a reader to determine if they should see a movie or not. Instead, our goal is to established contextually what the relative importance of that movie is within the entertainment industry and to the rest of the world, if it should have that type of impact. That's what being a comprehensive educational resource is all about. You're asking for something far different than WP's main purpose. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@74.100.90.194: You continue to make unrealistic, overly-simplified emotional arguments, your previous claims of "logic" have been fundamentally flawed. Obviously you haven't processed any of that, since you haven't acknowledged any of it. Bias has nothing to do with including plot summaries in articles. Nobody has said that you shouldn't look up ANY information, and anybody with a shred of sense knows that an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information. That's like opening a phone book and getting upset that there are phone numbers in it. Encyclopedias are where you go when you do want information. If you're on a quest to suppress spoilers, ask your local libraries if they're willing to post spoiler warnings so that people who haven't yet learned how the US Civil War turned out, or that Tupac and Eazy are dead, won't have their experience "spoiled". Maybe this is indicative of problems in the Internet age--people of your age have never seen a paper encyclopedia? I don't know. Lastly, you've been at this for 2 weeks. Either participate more regularly in the discussion, or drop the stick. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we're not here to help you perpetuate a months-long complaint. This topic should be quickly closed if you don't have anything more constructive to add than a complaint you've already espoused several times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The specific "spoiler" that the IP was originally trying to remove form Wikipedia was such a minor plot detail, most reasonable people wouldn't even call it a spoiler.[4][5] In fact, the IP was even going so far as to change the context of a quote in order to remove the specific plot detail. Which exemplifies the problem with labeling plot details as spoiler. Each person's view of what plot details "spoil" the work is different, and to cover all bases, all plot details would have to be considered spoiler. But that is just as silly on its face, like labeling all people who drink alcohol are drunkard or alcoholics. On top of that, the one study conducted on spoiler demonstrated that knowing key plot details ahead of time does not actually decrees the enjoyment of the work. On the contrary, it had the exact opposite effect as the participants payed more attention to clues and foreshadowing. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow. That is not a "spoiler". That is the premise; her sneezes cause problems. That's like not mentioning in the article on Gilligan's Island that the crew was shipwrecked on a desert isle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A whole new level of WP:LAME. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers are only necessary on racing cars. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

TheFarix, I was about to ask you what study you are referring to, but I see that you mentioned it in the #Spoiler Alert/Warning for WP readers (not Editors) section above. Still, I don't think that we should be going on that one study to assert that spoilers don't upset people. That source you cited even notes the words suggests and can with regard to spoilers increasing enjoyment; it is not definitive. And are we sure that this study is the only known study on spoilers? Like I noted in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) and #Editorial "courtesy" sections above, spoilers clearly do upset people, and we should be careful to make sure that we are not unnecessarily spoiling readers. It is seen all the time on Wikipedia, and all over the Internet, that spoilers upset people, especially in the case of surprise endings being revealed. And there are WP:Reliable sources noting that spoilers upset people. That stated, some people love spoilers and love spoiling others (which is why I've seen some people recklessly spoil our readers), and I understand what you mean about the Frozen Fever case not generally being considered a spoiler. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This is my final attempt to ensure Wikipedia's policies do not fall into disrepair. This forum is designed (or appears to be designed) to allow each person to speak equally. If not even this can change things, I don't know what else will. I will go over every single point. Please take the time to understand what I am saying, as I am attempting to be very clear here.
We're not here as a consumer guide, which is what you're trying to get at; our goal on movie articles, for example, is not to give information for a reader to determine if they should see a movie or not. Instead, our goal is to established contextually what the relative importance of that movie is within the entertainment industry and to the rest of the world, if it should have that type of impact. That's what being a comprehensive educational resource is all about. You're asking for something far different than WP's main purpose. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A comprehensive educational resource is a great goal, Masem, however there are limits to everything. You have certain contraints in place. Quotes are avoided if there are frequent swear words. Gory details are withheld or only briefly summarized, when they would otherwise provide more information to the topic. By doing these things Wikipedia is indeed catering to a specific audience. Perhaps if I was asking for something incredibly specific that only affected a very small minority, I would need a much stronger argument to change the status quo, but spoilers affect everyone.
@74.100.90.194: You continue to make unrealistic, overly-simplified emotional arguments, your previous claims of "logic" have been fundamentally flawed. Obviously you haven't processed any of that, since you haven't acknowledged any of it. Bias has nothing to do with including plot summaries in articles. Nobody has said that you shouldn't look up ANY information, and anybody with a shred of sense knows that an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information. That's like opening a phone book and getting upset that there are phone numbers in it. Encyclopedias are where you go when you do want information. If you're on a quest to suppress spoilers, ask your local libraries if they're willing to post spoiler warnings so that people who haven't yet learned how the US Civil War turned out, or that Tupac and Eazy are dead, won't have their experience "spoiled". Maybe this is indicative of problems in the Internet age--people of your age have never seen a paper encyclopedia? I don't know. Lastly, you've been at this for 2 weeks. Either participate more regularly in the discussion, or drop the stick. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we're not here to help you perpetuate a months-long complaint. This topic should be quickly closed if you don't have anything more constructive to add than a complaint you've already espoused several times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I will look past the intense aggression and negativity to answer the small argument you have made. You have still not addressed my refutal of your argument if no one should look up any information, then to naturally avoid spoilers (as anyone would want to do before watching something) they should restrict themselves access to all of Wikipedia, not just the Plot sections (which would obviously have spoilers). Think about what this means. You’re saying they shouldn’t look up the “Reception” section on Wikipedia because they don’t want to be spoiled. Why else would they look at the Reception section but to see whether or not the media is good enough to enjoy? Spoilers are fine in Plot because they are obviously going to be present, but in a section someone would read before watching media, spoilers are wrong.
The specific "spoiler" that the IP was originally trying to remove form Wikipedia was such a minor plot detail, most reasonable people wouldn't even call it a spoiler.[1][2] In fact, the IP was even going so far as to change the context of a quote in order to remove the specific plot detail. Which exemplifies the problem with labeling plot details as spoiler. Each person's view of what plot details "spoil" the work is different, and to cover all bases, all plot details would have to be considered spoiler. But that is just as silly on its face, like labeling all people who drink alcohol are drunkard or alcoholics. On top of that, the one study conducted on spoiler demonstrated that knowing key plot details ahead of time does not actually decrees the enjoyment of the work. On the contrary, it had the exact opposite effect as the participants payed more attention to clues and foreshadowing. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A study does not mean that spoilers should be pushed into people’s faces. That indeed breaks the rules of Wikipedia’s concept of neutrality. Additionally, my edits are not part of the discussion. In terms of what can be thought of as a spoiler, it is a simple “Would it ruin a viewer’s experience knowing this information before watching it?”

Wow. That is not a "spoiler". That is the premise; her sneezes cause problems. That's like not mentioning in the article on Gilligan's Island that the crew was shipwrecked on a desert isle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A whole new level of WP:LAME. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers are only necessary on racing cars. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is directly attacking me, not refuting the argument. Please review my previous texts. I would have liked to continue this argument, however I cannot put more time into what may just be an exercise in futility.
I’m not sure how much clearer I can state this. Spoilers are bad. Almost everyone would agree with that. That is a fact. If you somehow don’t believe that, look it up for yourself. Wikipedia has spoilers and, given the current policy and arguments, it is completely acceptable that you should never look at a movie, book, or other media page if you do not want to have your experience ruined, even if it something as innocent as the release date (“an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information”). If you are truly too uneasy to do a poll that would reveal that the majority of users do not want Wikipedia spoilers WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY EXPECTED (that is, not in the Plot section etc.), perhaps you do indeed realize that I am speaking the truth. In which case, are you merely unwilling to accept change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.90.194 (talk • contribs)
I can understand why you're feeling attacked, though I'm doing my best to focus on your arguments. I'm sure you're a swell person, but I don't see any merit to anything you've argued so far. Here's my simple response:
  • Your first post was a list of "logic" steps that wasn't a logical progression at all, because your third point was based on a false assumption.
  • You have an opinion that spoilers are bad, we get it. That doesn't make it a fact, and that doesn't mean that everything is a spoiler, or that Wikipedia must preserve your enjoyment of any fictional work.
  • Your opinion is not consistent with consensus. And consensus isn't determined through voting, so your poll suggestion isn't really relevant.
  • Your last comment suggests you don't even understand the spoiler guidelines. You wrote "the majority of users do not want Wikipedia spoilers WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY EXPECTED (that is, not in the Plot section etc.)" But the Plot section is absolutely the place where you'd expect spoilers. And potentially in the character section too. Maybe this was a simple case of you accidentally using a double-negative? I don't know, but if you think spoilers don't belong in Plot sections, that is the exact opposite of what is expected.
  • You haven't provided any specific examples of content you found to be spoilers, thus TheFarix provided some diffs. In those examples, you were absolutely wrong to remove information that a character's sneezes cause a complication in the storyline. That's not a spoiler, that's a key plot point, and should reasonably appear in a review of the film as well as a plot description, provided it wasn't a trivial joke. That's like criticizing a movie trailer for "spoiling" a battle between The Avengers and the Chitauri by showing action-packed scenes. It's absolutely not the same thing as saying in a review, "Audiences will be surprised to learn that the kid in The Sixth Sense can see dead people" or "Audiences will be surprised to learn that Darth Vader is Luke's father".
  • If you have a problem with this content appearing in reviews of the film, take it up with the reviewers who generated the content. Why should it somehow be the Wikipedia community's concern that you don't like how Ket Smith revealed a plot point in a review of the movie? And under what existing guideline or policy should the content be removed, in your opinion?
Again, unless you have a more substantive argument to present, this topic should probably be closed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers in the first line of the article

It's fine and dandy to argue about whether spoilers should or should not be on Wikipedia pages. I'm fine with them there, without any need for disclosure or warnings. Sure, I've read a few things I wish I hadn't, but I've learned that this is part and parcel of being on Wikipedia. I can simply choose not to visit Wikipedia if I'm worried about being spoiled on a particular work.

However, that doesn't work when the spoiler is in the very first line of the article. If I type in the name of the work to a search engine, Wikipedia is quite likely the very first hit, and the Google except will display the spoiler. For example, the long-running sci-fi book series by David Weber, Honor Harrington, begins by talking not about the series but the titular character. In it, it names Honor by her married name. She doesn't marry until the 8th or 9th book, and to a character that's a bit of a surprise if you're still early in the series. So when I had finished the third book and went online to look for the book order by typing "Honor Harrington" into Google, the very first thing I saw was "Honor Stephanie Alexander-Harrington (née Honor Stephanie Harrington) is a..." Considering this is a series that works off of slowly building up to events and then surprising you with sudden twists, reading this spoiler had a tremendously negative impact on my experience with the books.

Wikipedia may owe it to its users to be honest and forthcoming about all content, and therefore include spoilers, but as one of the top ten websites on the internet, it also owes it to the rest of the world to not include those spoilers in the absolute opening of their articles where people who have no interest in seeing them will. It's like a shop that sells pornographic materials putting those items in a window display along their busy storefront. Azuarc (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how knowing a character will be married later in a series can, in any way, "ruin" the enjoyment of a work. And that, frankly, is part of the problem of labeling plot details as "spoilers". What is a "spoiler" is entirely in the eye of the reader. However, Wikipedia works on information that is verifiable without injecting the editors' (or readers') personal interpretations. To keep such a plot detail out of a lead simply because it may be a "spoiler" is, in fact, inject a personal interpretation of the significance of the plot detail and how it would affect the enjoyment of others. —Farix (t | c) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not the fact that she marries. The series goes on for a great many books. The spoiler is who she marries, since anyone who's read the first five or six books would react by going "she married HIM!? Why the...how the...really?" It's like reading a story with a love triangle and finding out that in the end the girl thumbs her nose at both guys and picks somebody else entirely. There's no question about whether or not it's a spoiler. And as Flyer22 alludes to beneath me, there is absolutely no benefit to giving her married name in the lead. 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.87.210 (talk)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Azuarc (talk · contribs), see what I stated in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) and #Editorial "courtesy" sections above. As seen there, I clearly agree that there is usually no need for huge spoilers in the lead. Note my use of "usually." Sometimes, a huge spoiler can be validly argued as being there; but in the vast majority of cases, I have not seen the benefit. Like I recently stated in this discussion about the lead of the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article, "Most importantly, it is bad form to unnecessarily include major spoilers in the lead. Our readers generally do not like that, which is exactly why that IP removed your huge spoiler. [...] Like I stated [before], we have generally been leaving huge spoilers out of the lead of The Walking Dead character articles. We only include them if they seem like something that should be in the WP:Lead, as an improvement. And as seen in [ this discussion ], we removed unnecessary spoiling from the lead of the Kingsman: The Secret Service article. Imagine if you were a reader coming to Wikipedia to simply read the lead to learn a little about the topic and were hugely spoiled. Unless you like spoilers, you would find that unacceptable. And our readers repeatedly find it unacceptable." Sock, since you felt similarly about the Kingsman: The Secret Service matter, do have any opinions for this discussion about spoiling in the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact, since my fellow editors at WP:Film have varying opinions about film matters, I might query them to weigh in on this discussion. Same goes for editors at WP:TV. Sock is one of my fellow film editors. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: Azuarc, I hadn't read your comment in its entirety before I replied to it. This is because I was busy with other matters. But seeing now that you are complaining about the married name being in the lead, I'm noting here that I did address problems with including the married names in the leads of fictional character articles; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Married names in the lead of fictional character articles. That's an archived discussion, so don't comment there. As seen there, I never got around to proposing wording for a guideline on that matter, but I eventually will. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


New person here. I just want to chime in --- Characters marrying and Wikipedia showing the updated name is a issue I'd like to see fixed. As example, the main page of Desperate Housewives lists character Susan as 'Susan Delfino', spoiling the fact she marries Mike later in the series. That tupe of stuff should only be listed in specific episode articles or in the case of books, in the article of the chapter in which the spoiler appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.175.113 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That problem's more WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - unless these characters are named this in the show itself, it's someone cobbling something together - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The characters are named as such, but it's women getting married and changing their last names as time goes on. I've seen it in many articles. I just think it would be best not to list "updated character names" until we get to the specific season article in which the marriage happens. I can see, however, that this is a big situation that isn't going to be solved any time soon. Who is in charge of the policies? I agree when I read that wikipedia should be forthcoming with all knowledge on a work, but a person shouldn't have to complete an entire television series or a series of books to do any reading on something they like. That's my opinion anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I changed the Susan Delfino wording; I will eventually get around to removing the name from the lead of her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Flyer22. Daleylife (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this an issue relating to writing about fiction. In my opinion, articles about fictional characters should probably start with the name they are known by at the start of the work, not at the end (or in the latest episode). I would say that soap operas could be an exception, but people still watch them on a delay (especially if watching in countries than the original broadcast, or with catch-up services). Off topic, but they especially shouldn't include the word "née", since it's widely established that fictional characters are not born, but are created by writers. AnemoneProjectors 11:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My opinion on Spoilers

I believe where television shows are concerned, spoilers should be marked and only mentioned in episode summaries where said spoiler appears. I think most people try to not spoil content within reason. And, a person should be able to read up on their favorite show, even if they haven't watched every episode (thus, potentially getting spoiled.) For example, I was reading up on How To Get Away with Murder and on the main page, in the CAST section was a spoiler for one of the characters. There's no need for a spoiler to be in the Cast info! I'm just amazed Wikipedia has this notion that spoilers don't need to be hidden. It's ridiculous in my opinion. They can be in articles, but have them marked and hidden like Reddit does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.175.113 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that arguments been presented before. We're comprehensive, and if you're coming to WP to expect not to read up on the current events of a show, you're coming to the wrong site for that. And then the question of how "new" a show we do that for? Walking Dead? Breaking Bad? Dallas? It just doesn't work out well in the long run. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
No? I disagree. I do not understand why this sort of thing isn't even being considered. How "new" a show is wouldn't matter if said spoiler is only mentioned within specific episode articles. It makes perfect sense. And, I'm sorry, but spoiling a major plot point in the CAST SECTION of a show is insane! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.175.113 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
At the end of the day, we're an encyclopedia, and plot elements are meant to support encyclopedic content; we are not a fan guide or the like to help you catch up on your shows or the like. We need to be comprehensive to serve the first purpose and trying to accomodate spoiler warnings gets in the way, to the point that people insisted we had to spoil things like Grimm's Fairy Tales. And of course, what is a spoiler to one person may not be to another, such as the addition of a new cast member to start with. So it's best to ignore spoilers to write our best about such works. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
A "spoiler" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Claiming that knowing plot detail ahead of time will "ruin" the enjoyment of a work of fiction is an interpretation. This is a violation of both Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. —Farix (t | c)
I guarantee if we polled a large sum of people, the majority would say that when it comes to works of fiction, knowing future plot details would ruin the media for them. I'm just completely shocked that this is even a debate on the site. And to Masem, I don't use this as a "fan guide", I am interested in the creation and such of many media. Wiki is a vast source yes, and I believe spoilers can be included, but they should be marked, at the very least. I do not see what the big deal is. By your logic, if I'm interested in a show that has 9 seasons, I need to watch all nine seasons before I can do any reading on a show I'm enjoying? I can envision a wikipedia that 'spoils' every little detail of a work of fiction, but spoilers are marked or only contained in specific articles of certain episodes or book chapters. I'm not here to bite anyone's head off, really. I just came across this article and decided to contribute after I saw a huge spoiler for a show in the CAST SECTION of a show. I didn't understand in why a short little character bio, we needed the whole mystery to the first season spoiled. I even edited the article, but the edit was undone and got a message about it. The entire season one mystery is spoiled up high and on the very first page and that angers me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife (talk • contribs) 10:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This policy lists "plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc" as places where the reader would expect to find plot details. If that wasn't the case, where would we draw the line - would character descriptions have to limit themselves to however that character was presented in their first appearance only? (If Bob is a pizza-delivery guy for one episode and later revealed to be an undercover government agent for the rest of the series, would we just list him as "Bob, the pizza-delivery guy"?) If a character bio is including spoilery details which serve no "encyclopedic purpose" then they could be cut, but in some cases spoilers are unavoidable if we're trying to provide a list of who-was-what in a TV series. --McGeddon (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Daleylife, re: I guarantee if we polled a large sum of people, the majority would say that when it comes to works of fiction, knowing future plot details would ruin the media for them. Ha, well, if you phrase your poll question in such a biased way, you're bound to get the answer you want. Your premise, however is flawed, since encyclopedias do not exist to promote enjoyment of fictional works the way an entertainment blog, a fan site, or a discussion forum might. Encyclopedias exist to provide crucial information about the fiction work from concept to conclusion. That's it. I got on the Breaking Bad train a season or two late, and had to catch up, and the last place I went for information was Wikipedia because I didn't want any of it to be spoiled for me. I didn't want to read about any characters, (especially ones who hadn't been revealed, or who hadn't died yet), I didn't want to know anything about season arcs. I didn't want to know if any actors had died while the show was being produced... To me, it defies logic that someone would go to Wikipedia and not expect to happen upon spoilers. This is one case where I feel it is perfectly justifiable to blame the victims. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem with identifying "spoilers" is that everyone's opinion of what a spoiler is different. For example, unlike Cyphoidbomb I would not consider cast changes, either as a result of a contract dispute or an actor's death, to be anything close to resembling a spoiler. Because spoilers are a very opinion based, it is irreconcilable with Wikipeida's core content policies, such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia also has a guideline about not including disclaimers into articles. A "spoiler warning" is a disclaimer, and there is no justification to allow them when other disclaimers, such as for nudity, offensive material, medical, and other risk disclaimers that would actually be more useful are excluded. —Farix (t | c) 19:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is for documenting information. It is not a fan site. It is not a news site. It is not meant to hold your hand. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, is meant to have academic-style prose on everything that is considered notable. Sometimes this means including info that would be considered a 'spoiler'. It's really very simple, beyond any of what people above said -- if you don't want to maybe get spoiled about things that are verified and known, then don't read it. Age is irrelevant. Popularity is irrelevant. You control what you read. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
None of you understand what I'm trying to say. Or, maybe you aren't paying attention. Cyphoidbomb teases me as if I 'don't want to know about season arcs.' No, no, no. Read what I've been trying to say, AGAIN: Spoilers can be easily marked, within specific articles. For example, let's make up a tv show, "Utopia Lane." It's a primetime soap with lots of twists and turns. Spoilers like who the murderer is, who dies in the car crash and who has the set of twins, can be "spoiled" in the SEASON ONE EPISODE ARTICLES. Like any real article where you click on "season one episodes" and it explains the episodes in details. Spoilers can appear there fine. But, on the main page of "Utopia Lane", plot details wouldn't be spoiled. What I'm trying to communicate is that a person should be able to come here and read up on a show or book or whatever they enjoy and say Utopia Lane has 9 seasons. I should be able to come here after only having seen one season without fear of spoiling anything else, with the knowledge spoilers will be marked in specific episode articles. Main pages of shows and books should be brief like the back of the book and not spoil anything, unless marked. And, in reference to McGeddon's comment--- this page is about CHALLENGING the current policy. That's what I'm attempting to do. I am advocating for spoilers to be marked and for MAIN PAGES of media to not reveal plot spoiled details unless they are marked. Per your example, if Bob is really an undercover cop, but in his first apperance he is a pizza dilvery guy, his description could hint to something more ie "Bob, a pizza delivery guy, with a dark past" or, you could simply mark the spoiler that the user would have to uncover. Or, we could have "basic character details" and then a separate article for in depth character descriptions. It really isn't that difficult. Wikipedia is one of the largest places for information, and I shouldn't have to watch nine years worth of programming before I can read any articles about it here. This is very frustrating. I just don't get what's so difficult to understand. Response by: Daleylife (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Daleylife, I assure you that we know what you are saying. We've heard these arguments numerous times across many talk pages. We are very much aware of what a spoiler alert is. Rather, if you were listening, you'd understand that we've already explained that Wikipedia does not disclaim, it does not warn, it does not euphemize, it does not promote vagueness, it does not censor, and one man's "spoiler" is another man's "information he needs in order to get his degree". Respectfully, your argument is emotional, not rational. You're saying, "but, I really want this and it's totally easy," but we're saying, "easy or not, it is not consistent with broadly held community values." It goes beyond consensus, it contravenes our principals. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Daleylife has a point - it's probably worth clarifying the spoiler guideline to say which kinds of sections include spoilers and which shouldn't, to reflect how articles are generally being written. The article for The Sixth Sense does not give away its twist ending in the lede, or even directly state that there is one, but has no qualms about mentioning the ending in the Production section, since it's useful to the interested reader to share information about how the filmmakers approached it. The Breaking Bad articles approach character descriptions exactly as Daleylife suggests - the overview cast list treads lightly and doesn't go much further than saying which seasons characters appeared in, while the full List of Breaking Bad characters article goes into great detail about each character's story arc, as this is the kind of thing somebody researching the show would want to know.
Clearly there's some informal consensus that when writing articles that it's inappropriate to spoil plot elements in places where they aren't entirely necessary and might surprise the reader ("make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" is perhaps trying to say that), and I think this guideline could do with pinning that down. --McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep; see my comment in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) section and in the sections following it (including the #Spoilers in the first line of the article section); I certainly keep certain spoilers out of the lead, and out of sections where readers wouldn't normally expect them. There are obvious things that should not be spoiled in the lead or without good cause, such as the twist ending to the The Sixth Sense. Even though the lead of the The Sixth Sense article does not spoil the plot, which is obviously due to the very significant fact that the story hinges on that spoiler, it does note that there is a "twist conclusion." The fact is that many of our readers, including those who have never heard of Wikipedia, come to Wikipedia for just a summary without expecting to be unnecessarily spoiled. We even have some editors who unnecessarily spoil just to be WP:Dicks. When we spoil, it should be within good reason. And I'm not talking about trivial things that most reasonable people wouldn't consider a spoiler, such as a synopsis. I'm also mainly speaking of major spoilers when it comes to not spoiling, considering that some aspects of the plot are going to be spoiled, either in the lead or lower in the article. Readers should expect to be spoiled somewhat when reading up on the plot of a television show, film, or play, or if they search heavily on such matters. Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank God McGeddon and Flyer22 get what I'm saying. I originally came to this article when a critical piece of plot info was spoiled for a show in its CAST SECTION, a place where I feel character descriptions should be brief. But what I saw was: "Actor John Doe plays Detective Bob... who is the murderer!" That's all I'm getting at... Spoilers don't need to be in the most basic of sections, where an unsuspecting reader might come across it by mistake. I am all about having Wikipedia spoil the crap out of things, but we need to think of the "just wants a summary" reader. Daleylife (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The proposal fails. Apologies for revealing that in the lead. While many participants agree that, in general, the lead of an article is not the place for spoilers, a clear majority disagree with the proposal as stated, and a substantial number do not even agree that there is a solvable problem here. Objections include: that it is unclear what the specific proposal is (for instance, the proponents in the discussion seem to assume it is mainly about the article lead, but the language of the proposal itself doesn't mention that); an inability to determine objectively whether a specific fact is or is not a spoiler; a resistance to increasing the length of regulations; a resistance to using "spoiler" status at all in determining whether or where a detail goes in an article; and that the area is necessarily vague or even specific to each work, so any attempt to legislate it in general will fail. --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Many editors and readers, including a number on this talk page, have expressed concern that there is much unnecessary spoiling allowed on Wikipedia, and that this guideline is used as justification for spoiling any and everywhere; this is also despite the fact that the guideline currently states, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Like McGeddon noted, "it's probably worth clarifying the spoiler guideline to say which kinds of sections include spoilers and which shouldn't, to reflect how articles are generally being written. The article for The Sixth Sense does not give away its twist ending in the lede, or even directly state that there is one, but has no qualms about mentioning the ending in the Production section, since it's useful to the interested reader to share information about how the filmmakers approached it. The Breaking Bad [...] character descriptions [in the] overview cast list treads lightly and doesn't go much further than saying which seasons characters appeared in, while the full List of Breaking Bad characters article goes into great detail about each character's story arc, as this is the kind of thing somebody researching the show would want to know. Clearly there's some informal consensus that when writing articles that it's inappropriate to spoil plot elements in places where they aren't entirely necessary and might surprise the reader ( 'make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served' is perhaps trying to say that), and I think this guideline could do with pinning that down."

I concur with McGeddon, and propose that the "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." wording be changed to the following wording from WP:How to write a plot summary#Spoilers: When summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers.[1] Wikipedia should contain potentially 'spoiling' detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers. Or that we just use the second sentence. Or that we change the wording to something else that is clearer than the current guideline's wording, to indicate that it is not okay to spoil for spoiling's sake. A Proposals section is below for those who want to suggest alternative wording. And a Discussion section is below for whatever else. I will alert WP:TV, WP:Film, WP:Manual of Style and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: At the time that I made the above post, this is the state of the page I was referring to when I relayed "including a number on this talk page"; but the archives obviously show more complaints than that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This standard parallels the dynamic tension between the policy that Wikipedia is not censored, and the practice of not tolerating sensationalism or offensiveness for its own sake.

Survey

  • Support proposed wording (specifically the second sentence) or similar wording. I mean, does anyone really think it's a good idea to include the twist ending spoiler in the lead of the The Sixth Sense article, when the entire story hinges on that twist ending? How is that helping anything? Similar goes for this spoiler case at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service. A number of editors were clear that it was not necessary in the least to include those two huge spoilers in the lead, and they were subsequently removed. I am all for including spoilers in the lead or elsewhere when needed. But I am against including them in random places, or when they do not significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the topic. As far as I'm concerned, all this "Nana nana boo boo, I'm going to include a spoiler right here because I want to, and there is nothing you can do about it because of the WP:Spoiler guideline." type of editing needs to stop. And I remind editors that it is a guideline, not a policy. And all of our policies and guidelines should be treated with WP:Common sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose These sorts of proposals fall afoul of an inherent belief that people coming to the article have not seen the work in question. That's completely presumptive. We have no way of knowing if a person is coming to that page that way or not. For all we know, they're coming to confirm a plot ending. Afterall, we are an enyclopedia...you know, the place where people come to learn about things? Further, we have no way of knowing if a person cares or not. We should not be in the business of holding people's hands. If someone doesn't want to know the twist of a plot, the end of a movie, the outcome of a penultimate scene, then they shouldn't be reading about it. I personally am not under the assumption that readers of our articles are baldfaced stupid and incapable of understanding that reading an article on a given subject might give them information about how it turns out. Dancing around trying not to offend readers sensibilities when we have no idea of the state in which they come to our articles is flat wrong. What's next, not giving the results out for superbowls in the lede of those articles for fear readers might learn the outcome? Come on. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan guide. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    Addendum Something just occurred to me today. I've been watching an episodic series on Netflix. When you look at an episode before playing it, there's a little summary. Recently I've been avoiding reading those, as they seem to give away too much at times. This begs the question; how much information is too much? What do we decide is giving away information and what is not? Why should we care when we're an encyclopedia, not a TV/movie/book/whatever fan guide? I'm glad to see that (at least at this point) this suggested change is failing to achieve consensus. There's just far too much nebulous area here to define what is and is not a spoiler. Even more importantly, there's no justification for an encyclopedia to care about spoilers. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. There are places where it is stupid to avoid spoilers (like the plot section), and once that place has been encountered in the article, it is fair game to assume the spoiler is in the open. However, before that point, if the concepts presented before where the spoiler must be said can be understood without the spoiler, throwing the spoiler in is not helpful or serving the encyclopedia. The Sixth Sense is a good example. That Willis' character is dead has to be mentioned in the plot, and discussed later as part of the movie's reception and M. Night's establishing "twist". But in the lede, you don't need it to get what the gist of the lede is about; even the abbreviated plot summary, about a man trying to help a boy who claims to see dead people, is sufficient without mentioning the spoiler. To put it another way, we have always stated that because we've labeled a section as "Plot" or "Summary" or "Synopsis" that that is an implicit warning for spoilers, and anything following that header is fair game. But this also implies that what is in the article before that point should be reasonable spoiler free, unless absolutely necessary. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but I think the wording needs to be more specific: "merely ruins the experience" is too subjective, and will just be pointed at by people saying "but this ruins the experience" when deleting content from Plot or Reception sections. I think it needs to say something explicit about avoiding unnecessary plot spoilers in introductory summaries (lede sections and across-all-seasons character lists) and tangential contexts (the Bruce Willis article gives a couple of sentences to his appearance in The Sixth Sense, but does not give the ending away) - and that this reflects how such articles are already generally written. --McGeddon (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle: Just like anything else, spoilers should only be added to Wikipedia if appropriate, not because 'we don't remove spoilers!!!' Obviously it is logical to add spoilers to the plot summary, and in subsequent sections that discuss the making of or reception to specific moments. But I think it is also obvious that the lead, a condensed, summarised overview, is not the place to be dropping plot complications. In the Kingsman case, a good sentence in the lead would be something like 'A young man begins training with a secret spy agency, who are facing a wealthy megalomaniac.' That is all that is required in the lead, and the argument that Wikipedia doesn't remove spoilers is not a valid reason for adding further plot information there. For The Sixth Sense, the lead mentions twist endings twice, which I think is appropriate coverage considering its importance to the film and its reception, but we don't state what the twist is, because the lead is not the place for that level of plot detail; the summary sentence given accurately establishes the film's premise, which in terms of WP:Real world is far more important for the lead overview than an in-universe reveal at the very end of the film. I am not so certain about the wording you have suggested here, but I do think the section should be clarified, to emphasise that Wikipedia allows spoilers only if they are required, and then perhaps give examples of a plot summary and a production section or something. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Hammersoft hits some salient points, but the simpler answer is that no examples of any harm caused by the current verbiage are presented at all, and the suggested rewrite just gets more mealy-mouthed about the subject. Why add unecessary bloat to the guidelines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - Proposed wording swings too far toward mollycoddling readers than I am presently comfortable with. Premise: I'm a film/tv student and I need to a comprehensive understanding of a number of films/tv series. I don't have time to watch them all. Shouldn't I expect to find comprehensive coverage of crucial plot detail in an encyclopedia? People don't buy CliffsNotes and get mad they were cheated out of the enjoyment of reading the full book. If you read a book that analyzes MacBeth, do you feel deprived because you didn't get to figure out the thematic puzzle yourself? Above all else, Wikipedia is an educational tool, not an entertainment guide! Academic references should provide as much critical detail as is necessary for someone unfamiliar with the work to walk away with a full understanding of the work, and that might very well include the revelation the Darth is Luke's pappy, or that Character A and Character B were married in the final episode of Show C. This information wouldn't belong in the lead, but you'd absolutely expect to find them in plot summaries and in character descriptions, and yes, they might absolutely impact a person's enjoyment. So what? We've been spoiled about spoilers. It's very possible to know crucial details about a story and still fully enjoy how those details unfold. Ever seen Columbo? Pandering to the occasional reader who winds up at Wikipedia to not get information (which is what the "I didn't expect to see SPOILERS!" argument really is) does not further our goals as an educational tool, and just like common sense is required when enforcing guidelines, common sense is required when coming to Wikipedia to find out about a show that you're not all caught up on. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose How can you identify any plot detail is a "spoiler" without violating Wikipedia's core policies? Nor do I think it is beneficial in any way to arbitrarily restrict plot details to certain sections of an article. —Farix (t | c) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons we don't have a spoiler warning already: an encyclopedia article should be complete, there is no test of what does or does not constitute a spoiler that is not utterly subjective - I would like you to detail for me how to determine what is and is not a spoiler in a manner that meets the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR - and the proposed test is uselessly subjective. There is no reason to make this guideline wafflier - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per David, articles need to describe their topic completely, paying no attention whatsoever to whether some fact might possibly constitute a spoiler for some readers. And the lede should summarize the most important points, which should include "spoilers" if they are an important part of understanding the topic. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current wording is good enough. We shouldn't be discouraging people from adding encyclopedic content to an encyclopedia or telling them to hide it somewhere else in the article, where it's more difficult to find. Revealing Darth Vader's real name in the first sentence of his article is a spoiler for the first trilogy. However, this is encyclopedic information and should be present. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose If someone doesn't want to know a spoiler, then don't click on the article. We shouldn't have it the other way around. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the idea to "preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers". If you do not want full information, use a non-Wikipedia source instead. We should not accept any compromise about the quality of the lede section over spoiler concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 10:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    I also find it difficult to understand the "Kingsman" example. I don't see how knowing or not knowing this makes any essential difference to enjoying the film. If it really makes a huge difference, the film must be pretty bad. —Kusma (t·c) 10:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the things I have often used WP for is to find the "first" in a series of novels. I often stumbled upon a later volume of series at a booksale and after reading the first chapter I want to identify where I should start reading. Running across needless spoilers ruins the experience. See my related proposal below. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing should be included anywhere in any Wikipedia article if it does not "serve an encyclopdic purpose". Facts about that plot that might be spoilers are no different from any other nfact, and should not be treated differently. DES (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: Rebuttals to above arguments are in the Discussion section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In addition to what several editors above have said, particularly Hammersoft, Cyphoidbomb, and David Gerard, I just don't think this is workable. What is and is not a spoiler is inherently subjective. The arguments here in favor seem to be focusing on plot twists and character deaths, but any unexpected plot point could potentially be considered one. For example, if you've somehow managed to avoid knowing anything about It's a Wonderful Life when you sit down to watch it, the part of the movie that is the one thing everyone knows about it, even many who have never seen it, would certainly be unexpected, so it is a spoiler? The lede for Hot Fuzz mentions The film follows two police officers attempting to solve a series of mysterious deaths. While it does not mention the solution to the mystery in the lede, that there are mysterious deaths at all doesn't come up until the second act, so is that also a spoiler? If the work is based off of historical events, can anything in it be a spoiler? Just the fictional elements? Does it matter how well known the real events are, or how faithful to real history the work is?
The Darth Vader = Anakin Skywalker example has been mentioned as the kind of spoiler that everyone already knows, so it's not as big a deal. It is difficult for anyone to not be spoiled on that. But the kind of thing that "everyone knows" is also subjective. There are some pretty famous spoilers, but not everyone would agree as to which ones belong on that list. I'm sure that there are some who would say that the Sixth Sense twist is one of those "everyone knows" spoilers.
Overenthusiastic spoiler removal can also lead to worse articles. Look at Hans (Disney), for example. Of the nine sentences in the lede, six are spoilers. Removing them would clearly make the lede worse, and there isn't much to say about the character that wouldn't be a spoiler. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that, most of the time, only the main characters and the conflict are necessary for passing mentions and the lead section of a work, but far too often I see foreshadowing relied on to avoid stating the resolution of a plot. "Jane discovers something odd about John" reads like the back of a DVD case. Our plot summaries shouldn't sound promotional.
More to the point, an encyclopedia should be detailed and concise, and it's not up to us to discriminate against important plot elements because they deal with the conclusion; we're not a film review site. If there's disagreement about whether a certain plot element belongs in the lead, then we reach a consensus. This is what the Manual of Style suggests: "If there is a difference in emphasis between the [lead and the body of the article], editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." 23W 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per DES. Sentences that enhance an article should be kept whether or not they are spoilers. Sentences that degrade an article should be deleted whether or not they are spoilers. This is a collection of knowledge, not a collection of enjoyable knowledge. Connor Behan (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, although some people treat it like one. We shouldn't be concerning ourselves at all about whether or not something may be spoiled for somebody by coming here. Leave that for the fansites. The job here is to create an encyclopaedia. The text that is being proposed here for addition is from an essay, not a guideline or a policy, but even that essay says "By the nature of being an encyclopedia covering works of fiction, Wikipedia contains spoilers. It is traditional for Wikipedia articles on fiction (including featured articles) to summarize the work's plot in the section fairly early on (often immediately following the lead, though in other cases after a background section or list of characters and the actors who play them). Information should not be intentionally omitted from summaries in an effort to avoid "spoilers" within the encyclopedia article. (Spoiler warnings were used early in the project but the consensus of editors was that this practice was unencyclopedic so their use has been discontinued.)" This proposal actually came about only after I opposed removal of content explaining that a character had died.[6] Is it essential for such information to be included? Yes, because death tends to be part of the essential history of an individual, whether they are real or fictional. If you don't believe that, then should we exclude infomation about Jack dying in Titanic, or that Darth Vader (who was Luke Skywalker's father) died in Return of the Jedi? Another one: Should we suppress the fact that Kate Beckett was promoted to captain in Castle?[7] No, because that fact has changed the dynamic in the latest season of the series. If we start expecting editors to consider whether they might spoil something for somebody, then we should stop writing plot summaries altogether, because virtually anything in an episode can be a spoiler for someone. And yes, I have an example of that. I was recently abused by a girl because I revealed that Titanic sank in the movie and that spoiled the movie for her. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Appropriate plot summaries often include spoilers for those unfamiliar with the work. But there is a limit; the lead is usually not the place. Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, not sure I care much exactly how it's worded. The distinction being drawn is valid and important. We have a small subculture of editors who take glee in pointedly spoiling key plot points right at the start of episode summaries, and otherwise being, well WP:JERKS. There is essentially no way to restrain them, unless multiple editors happen to be around to revert them; if it's just you and a "spoilerizer", they will WP:WIN through tendentiousness and WP:WIKILAWYERing of the fact that there's no policy or guideline restraining from this exact, particular form of jackassery.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Note AussieLegend and I disagreed on a recent spoiler case, but that is not the reason I started this discussion. I was already going to start this discussion before making that disputed edit. And I was already anticipating being reverted in that case; I still made the edit, however, for reasons noted, but, also as noted, I left the death information for a different character. This discussion is not really about cases like those, where it's a List of characters article that is mostly about plot and will likely include spoilers, including huge spoilers. It's about the type of cases that have been discussed in this RfC. Jack dying on Titanic is in its appropriate place in the Titanic (1997 film) article; it is not in the lead or in a section that it does not need to be in. This discussion is not about logical places spoilers may be found in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I was already going to start this discussion before making that disputed edit. And I was already intending on being reverted in that case; I still made the edit Have you ever read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? If you knew you were going to be reverted you shouldn't have made the edit. Instead you should have discussed it on the talk page first. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever read WP:Assume good faith? A Wikipedian making an edit and suspecting that he or she might be reverted on it is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And, as discussion on this matter with you has shown, you would not have been open to discussion on it anyway. You just cite "WP:Spoiler" and leave it at that, as though WP:Spoiler is a policy, and without any regard for WP:BURO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You didn't say you suspected that you'd be reverted, you said you intended being reverted. There's a big difference there. "I don't like this guideline, so I'm going to make this edit so I get reverted" is right on WP:POINT.
you would not have been open to discussion on it anyway. You just cite "WP:Spoiler" and leave it at that This guideline is clear "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." You clearly identified it being a spoiler as the reason for removing it and, if you note, I took it to your talk page so please don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss it, especially when you were quite blunt in your reply. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The word intended was a typo, and did not make sense; I changed it to anticipated soon afterward. And in this case, anticipate and suspect mean the same thing to me, which is that "I thought I would likely be reverted." And again, editors make changes while suspecting or anticipating a revert all the time; the WP:Bold, revert, discuss (WP:BRD) essay, which is often treated like a guideline, is based on it. The WP:Bold guideline even essentially subscribes to the same rationale. I do not dislike the spoiler guideline; I dislike how it is misinterpreted and misused. And while we're speaking of differences, there is a big difference between stating "You must follow this guideline because that's the way I interpret it." or "Because the guideline says so and so." and actually being open to discussion regardless of what the guideline states. So WP:BURO, an actual policy, applies in this case. You blindly follow this guideline, like so many others. You first reported me at the WP:TV talk page like a vandal, then needlessly commented on my talk page when the discussion was already at the WP:TV talk page. You warned, demanded, reprimanded, and expected me to blindly follow. That is not being open to discussion in the least. If you don't want to be accused of things, don't accuse me of things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The word intended was a typo Or was it what you really meant. Often the first thing we say is the truth.
You first reported me at the WP:TV talk page like a vandal I mentioned you there because of your apparent intent. After I reverted your removal, you removed it again, stating I know about that guideline; I and others have commented on it at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, and I will be proposing changes to it soon, preempting the outcome of this discussion, and without making any attempt to discuss the edit.
then needlessly commented on my talk page when the discussion was already at the WP:TV talk page At the time I was commenting on your talk page, you hadn't been to WT:TV. As I indicated at WT:TV, you were apparently commenting there as I was commenting on your talk page.[8] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, the word intended was not grammatically sound for that sentence. I meant anticipated. But let's say I had made the edit with the intent of being reverted; if that had been the case, that is in line with the widely cited WP:BRD essay and the WP:Bold guideline. Making an edit and expecting to be reverted is normal editing on Wikipedia, which I already noted. I would rather have not been reverted, however. And I did not preempt any outcome of the discussion, since that revert is not tied to this matter (except for the fact that I was thinking that I would not agree to have Lexa's death explicitly mentioned in the lead of her Wikipedia article all because of a strict interpretation or strict enforcement of WP:Spoiler). I already stated above, "This discussion is not really about cases like those, where it's a List of characters article that is mostly about plot and will likely include spoilers, including huge spoilers. It's about the type of cases that have been discussed in this RfC. Jack dying on Titanic is in its appropriate place in the Titanic (1997 film) article; it is not in the lead or in a section that it does not need to be in. This discussion is not about logical places spoilers may be found in." Nowhere in this discussion have I proposed spoilers be removed in cases such as the one you and I reverted each other on. You stated, "Often the first thing we say is the truth." If you want to argue that, I can argue that it's also often the case that the first thing we state is not what we mean; and I can cite it if you want.
WP:TV is on my watchlist; I am a WP:TV and WP:Film editor (among other things). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I think the proposal overall is a good one. Flyer is essentially proposing we replace vague wording with specific wording that defines what we mean by an "encyclopedic purpose" in this context. I don't think the proposed revision is really changing the guideline, just explaining it better so I'm puzzled by some of the opposition to it. Presumably we have the essay to help editors properly apply the guideline, so why not just incorporate that into the guideline itself? While I am in favor of clarifying the guideline I am not in favor of making it more prescriptive i.e. stipulating where spoilers can be and cannot be included etc. While I personally try to avoid putting spoilers in the lead it may not be always possible; for example, the re-introduction of the Moneypenny character is mentioned in the lead at Skyfall and many readers may well consider this a spoiler, but the re-introduction of the character and the casting is an important component of the coverage. Truth is you never know when you're going to need a spoiler, so a prescriptive instruction will run into trouble at some point, but there is room for clarification in regards to how it is currently worded. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 01:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The WP:SPOILER guideline is often used as a carte blanche to put any plot point at any position in any TV program related article. And even worse, the guideline is often used to prevent or close any discussion about what can go where. I am also aware that there cannot be a fixed list of what may go into the lead, into the character descriptions, into the plot section, and into the production section, so there will always be long discussions about that. But any change to the guideline that will foster discussion and encourage scrutiny will be for the better. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

  • I would like to add a sub-proposal that any content spoilers need to include an explicit justification as to their encyclopedic value so that consensus can be established correctly. This could take one of two forms: (A) create some sort of inline cite-type tags like {{spoiler-justification|reason=...}} and {{spoiler-justification|talkpagesection=...}} or (B) create a guideline mandating a never-archived ==Spoilers Justification== section on the talk page. Additionally, even if the above sub-proposal is not adopted I think it would be reasonable to create a template so that a spoiler could also be challenged just like any other content, using a {{citation needed}}-type tag, perhaps something like {{justify spoiler|date=...}}. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree with the utility of Koala Tea Of Mercy's proposals for a few reasons. The justification for a spoiler will almost always be "people doing detailed research on a work should know X crucial detail". Shifting the burden onto the person adding the spoiler erroneously pre-supposes that an encyclopedia has an inherent duty to preserve enjoyment of a fictional work. If anything, the person removing the spoiler should be tasked to justify how the information does not serve an academic purpose, and why it should be removed from a project that does not typically censor, and yes, that will be very hard, because people study every facet of fictional works. The {{justify spoiler}} template sub-proposal would only encourage drive-by tagging and force spoiler-adders to jump through the hoop of visiting the talk page to perfunctorily comment "Sigh...people doing detailed research on a work should know X crucial detail". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • This is a bad idea. We don't mark spoilers on Wikipedia, for all the reasons already stated at length: there is no neutral, verifiable way to pick something as a markable spoiler that isn't just original research, if something could be cited as being a spoiler that would constitute it being a fact important enough that it did in fact have to go into the article, and we don't have disclaimers. This is functionally a proposal to reintroduce spoiler tags by the back door - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose sub-proposal. I strongly do not want to clutter the article with explanations of why we built the article the way we did. If new editors keep showing up and screwing with it then put a <!-- hidden comment --> in the wikitext. Put a *brief* explanation not to screw with it and/or a pointer to the Talk section. Alsee (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposing something concrete, based on my earlier comments: to replace "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." with "Any short summary of a fictional work or character (such as the lead section of the subject's article or a series character list) should avoid significant plot spoilers, and mentions of a work outside of its own article should only include spoilers if doing so serves an encyclopedic purpose." Some room for subjectivity here (what is "significant", what is "a spoiler" and we've still got "an encyclopedic purpose"), but I think this reflects how articles are already being written in these cases, and is worth writing down if true. --McGeddon (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Define "significant", and indeed "spoiler" well enough for this to be a useful change, else it will only serve directly to reintroduce subjectively-added spoiler warnings - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
      • If you can point to any articles where existing content would have to be removed under this wording, I'd be interested to see what edge cases we've got. My impression is that we're already operating under the general common sense approach that you don't put the ending of The Sixth Sense in its article's lede, nor in M. Night Shyamalan's biography, you don't explicitly say that a guy died in season 5 when giving a series overview of characters, etc. If I'm wrong about that, fine. But if that's true, let's save people time by reflecting that in the guideline, instead of asking people to trust in WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:ETC and arrive at the same conclusion from first principles after every month-long talk page argument where someone wants to put a big spoiler in the lede "because WP:SPOILER". --McGeddon (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this sub proposal more strongly than the first. We should not move towards requiring explicit justifications for adding any sort of content until it is challenged on a talk page. Spoilers should not become the next BLP with a bunch of special and separate criteria. Spoilers should not be kept of of lead sections because they are spoilers, but because in most cases they are not significant enough to the article as a whole to go into the lead section. Where a plot element that might be a spoileer is significant enough to go into the lead section, it should be there, and no special justification statement should be required. DES (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • So would it be useful for the spoiler guideline to just point out that "in most cases [spoilers] are not significant enough to the article as a whole to go into the lead section" instead? What are the cases where a spoiler is significant enough that it is justified in the lede? Even the strongest example I can think of - Psycho, whose shower scene was genre-defining and is one of the best-known moments in cinema - coyly avoids giving anything away in its article's lede, and it's listed as a Good Article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I also oppose these proposals. There is no need to highlight or require justification for all spoilers, we just need to make it more clear that WP:SPOILER can't be used as a sole excuse for including in-universe information. If people are going to ignore the 'encyclopaedic purpose' line then we need to expand it to a paragraph, or even its own section. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • DESiegel (DES), you stated, "Spoilers should not be kept [out] of lead sections because they are spoilers, but because in most cases they are not significant enough to the article as a whole to go into the lead section." But people put spoilers into the lead simply because they are spoilers and then point to the WP:Spoiler guideline as justification for keeping the spoiler there. And even in cases where they did not put the spoiler into the lead lead simply because it's a spoiler, they use the WP:Spoiler guideline as justification for keeping the spoiler there when the spoiler is absolutely not needed in the lead. Like I stated in the Discussion section below, "Whether to include [a] spoiler in a certain area of an article should be made on a case-by-case basis with respect to the guideline being clear that we should not be going around adding spoilers in random places, or in other ways that they do not benefit the reader. Right now, this guideline is used as a license to add spoilers anywhere, and it has proven problematic, with much edit warring and debates ensuing. [...] The spoiler guideline already tries to advise that we should not needlessly include spoilers, but that vague guidance is not getting through to editors, and they use this guideline to enforce a spoiler being anywhere, when including the spoiler should be more of a common sense/case-by-case matter." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If something shouldn't be in the lede, for encyclopedic reasons, then it should be removed, it's as simple as that. That, in someone's opinion, it is a "spoiler" is not an encyclopedic reason. And that's all it can be but someone's opinion, the notion of what is or isn't a spoiler being completely subjective and hence POV. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. If someone is putting a plot point in a place that doesn't benefit the article, then it should be challenged on the grounds that it doesn't benefit the article, not because it's a spoiler. It's just as if someone put production details or critical reception details in such a place. If someone is putting plot points in a place that it doesn't make sense for them to be, and then using the spoiler guideline to defend doing that, the response should be to point out that that's a non sequitur, not to attempt to change the guideline. However, if a plot point being listed somewhere, including the lede, does benefit the article, then of course it should be there. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Paul August and Egsan Bacon, the spoiler aspect is where we disagree; this is because it is so easy for editors to place a spoiler into the lead or elsewhere, regardless of the merit of the placement, and defend it because of this guideline. If we look at the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article, we don't see any big spoilers in its lead (which I'm thankful for since I haven't seen the film yet). But what is to stop an editor from adding big spoilers there and defending it as encyclopedic? You two have stated that what is or isn't a spoiler is subjective (and I agree with that to a degree; I state "to a degree" since, in my experience, people usually agree on what is or is not a spoiler, especially on what is a huge spoiler), but people also disagree on what is or is not encyclopedic. The current, vague "encyclopedic purpose" aspect of the guideline is not helping anything. Editors are consistently using this guideline as a weapon to unnecessarily add and retain huge spoilers. If editors are going to add something simply because it's a spoiler, we should be able to remove something because it is an unnecessary spoiler. If I see an unnecessary spoiler in a lead, I am likely to remove it and call it unnecessary spoiling, knowing full well that an editor might revert me while citing this guideline as justification for reverting me. Also, I doubt that The Sixth Sense twist is one of those "everyone knows" spoilers. But either way, because the entire story hinges on that spoiler, I would never be okay with an editor including that spoiler in the lead of that article, and my argument would be focused on the spoiler aspect...with sources to back me up on it. As for the Hans (Disney) article, I don't agree that it needs those spoilers in the lead, and my opinion on that is clear on the article's talk page and with this edit, but I left the spoilers where they were since it's a part of his reception, which is covered lower in the article. A clear-cut encyclopedic purpose is being served by including those spoilers in that lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • What if the guideline remained the same, save for the addition of: "Please avoid adding major plot/character twists to the lede, where casual readers may not expect to find them." We'd still be in a position of deciding what is or isn't a major plot twist, which will still rankle some of our friends here, but at least this construction addresses a specific irritant without: 1) asserting fallaciously that an encyclopedia has a duty to preserve enjoyment of a fictional work. 2) Without compromising the idea that an encyclopedia should absolutely deliver important facts about a subject, and major plot/character events are important facts. 3) Without irresponsibly shifting the burden to the person adding the content to defend their addition of important facts. I don't know how my proposed wording would have helped in the Kingsman dispute. Like Kusma, I don't see how that content in the lede constitutes a huge plot spoiler. Maybe to someone who's seen the film, it does, but shouldn't it be obvious what is or isn't a spoiler? What's the problem part? Noting that the mentor dies? Wouldn't that be the entire premise of the film? "Mentor dies, guy goes off to avenge his death"? How could you write a lede and not include that information? Seems that if we're going to avoid adding spoilers to the lede, they should be glaringly obvious. "Turns out she's trans!" "Daniel defeats Johnny at the karate tournament!" "Snow White wakes up, leaves the dwarves, and goes off to bang the prince!" Those are obvious spoilers. But echoing David Gerard's query, what's the test for determining a lesser spoiler? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, I don't think people usually disagree on what is a spoiler. From what I've seen, people are usually in agreement on what is a spoiler. And if they are not, that's what the talk page is for. I disagree with Kusma on the Kingsman case; this is because I would have been upset or annoyed as well to know about that death before watching the film. I don't think the death was anything to expect; it was unpredictable. Thankfully, I'd already seen the film at the time that editors were arguing about that death spoiler being in the lead. While that death spoiler does not make or break the film, it's certain that a good number of people would rather not know about it before watching the film. And given this, and that it is not necessary in the least for the lead, including it in the lead was unnecessary spoiling. I advise editors to read Sock's sound arguments for removing the spoilers in the case of that article. I know he's opted to abstain from this debate so far, but I'm pinging him again since I mentioned him again, and in case he wants to add something to this debate after all. He is one of our finest film editors, and, in my opinion, made the right call in that case. As far as I'm concerned, it's common sense not to include the death of a major character (or any character) in the lead...unless necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
"Again, I don't think people usually disagree on what is a spoiler." This is a failure to predict what has already happened: editors doing precisely this, and then erring to massive and ridiculous overapplication, was precisely the problem last time around. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say that it seems you don't understand why the guideline is in its present form - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
David Gerard, I've been with Wikipedia since 2007 (I know you've been here since 2004), and I'm speaking from experience. So I do not see it as "a failure to predict what has already happened." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been reading encyclopaediae since the 1960s and I've been using the internet since before it was called the internet, and I have to agree with David Gerard. This discussion even proves it. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What this discussion proves is that a change to the guideline is needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it demonstrates that some people don't understand what an encyclopaedia is. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors disagreeing with you (and a number of experienced editors in this discussion clearly disagree with you) does not mean that they don't understand what an encyclopedia is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal: replace the sentence "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." with "Whether an editor considers a particular detail a 'spoiler' or not is not relevant; the only consideration is whether a given detail serves an encyclopedic purpose." The first sentence in context is clearly intended to place encyclopedic purpose above considerations of whether something is a spoiler - but fans of spoiler warnings in this section are repeatedly misconstruing it as support for spoiler warnings above encyclopedic considerations. I suggest the change to make it absolutely clear that we're here to write an encyclopedia, not a media recommendations guide - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Whether something is, in someone's opinion a "spoiler", ought to have no bearing on whether or where a given detail is included in an article. Paul August ☎ 02:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Support. Sounds good–whether an editor thinks something is a spoiler or not should have no influence on how (and whether) to write about that something. —Kusma (t·c) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal: Add in something along these lines: "Please be considerate when using spoilers, and take in the principle of least surprise. While Wikipedia does not hide spoilers, spoilers should not be included where they do not aid in understanding the current context of the article or outside a context where one would normally expect a spoiler. This most often will be in lede sections; spoilers from a revelation late in a work are typically not necessary here to understand the major themes of a work as documented by the lede. However, this advice must be metered against effective communication of a topic, which always remains a priority." --MASEM (t) 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • How about something like the following: "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Whether an editor considers a particular detail a 'spoiler' or not is not relevant. So-called 'spoilers' should not be included simply because they are considered spoilers; neither should they be excluded simply because they are considered spoilers. Like all content, spoilers should be included when and only when they improve the article by serving an encyclopedic purpose." Perhaps a bit wordy, but it should make the point clear and be a bit less open to misuse in either direction. DES (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I think Masem's proposal is the best proposal so far; it's what I'm looking for. And what I'm looking for is a reasonable compromise between those who like or love to spoil, or don't mind spoiling, and those who are more conservative about spoiling. In my opinion, whether or not the content is a spoiler matters, especially in the case of huge spoilers, and I think this guideline should lean in the direction of being more considerate in spoiler cases and note something about the placement of spoilers being a case-by-case matter...open to discussion. As I've stated before, the current guideline leaves no room for discussion, except for the "encyclopedic purpose" aspect that is routinely ignored. I would rather the guideline support that editors be more considerate with information that may be a spoiler and that it urge discussion in such cases where there may be disagreement; this would make it so that editors cannot simply point to WP:Spoiler for retaining a spoiler even when the spoiler is not necessary, and let editors know that certain spoiler cases may require discussion. So to the oppose voters thus far (Hammersoft, David Fuchs/Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Cyphoidbomb, Farix, David Gerard, Paul August, NinjaRobotPirate, Lugnuts, DESiegel (DES), Egsan Bacon, 23W, Connor Behan), can you support Masem's wording or something similar to that? Will you support anything that bridges that gap between those who love to spoil, or don't mind spoiling, and those who are more conservative about spoiling? Any proposal of your own? I see David Gerard's and DES's proposals above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • The attempt is good, but if the present wording is (as we see in this section) misread by spoiler proponents as support for spoilers because they're mentioned at all, this just gives them more to misread. I'm not sure it'll actually help - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how Masem's wording would give the spoiler proponents (the ones who unnecessarily add spoilers) more of a license to do what they want with spoilers. I only see it as something that would help...significantly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, I cannot support Masem's proposal as worded above, nor any proposal which makes whether something is or is not a "spoiler" a factor, even a small factor, in whether to include or exclude it from any part of any article. DES (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, meant to ping Flyer22 Reborn, as this is in response to a comment by that user. DES (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Concur. You're on Wikipedia. Surprise! There's information here! If someone is dumb enough to read an article hoping not to have the plot spoiled, there's nothing for it. Frankly, I would be very surprised if an article didn't contain the plot and its ending. NO then, NO now, NO future. This will never work. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree, with DES: I can't support "any proposal which makes whether something is or is not a "spoiler" a factor, even a small factor, in whether to include or exclude it from any part of any article." Paul August ☎ 15:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
      • "... those who like or love to spoil, or don't mind spoiling, and those who are more conservative about spoiling": Talk about loaded. It's good to know who your audience is, but articles about artistic works shouldn't be held to a different standard than articles on more practical things, just because there's emotional intent behind artistic works. Even though I write mostly about media, I still try to adhere to the real-world perspective. We can't determine if a fictional work will provoke a reaction; we can only say that it did. When you're used to taking a disinterested stance, scruples like spoilers rarely come to mind. So to make it an issue of wanting to prevent the reader's enjoyment seems presumptuous. Aside from that, I agree with David and Farix's proposal more. 23W 20:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • These new proposals are futile attempts to define "encyclopedic purpose". There will always be inclusionists and deletionists who interpret it differently. Arguing about particular spoilers on a case-by-case basis is still the only solution I've heard that works. Connor Behan (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Like I commented in the Discussion section, "Sure, there are readers who come to Wikipedia for spoilers, or to be spoiled. But what about the ones that don't? We are simply supposed to state 'Screw them.'? The vast majority of our readers do not know how Wikipedia works. They don't know that Wikipedia is ready to spoil them at any moment, as is clear by complaints on this talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Expecting them to know that 'Oh, you shouldn't read anything on Wikipedia if you don't want to be spoiled.' is silly. Furthermore, there is no need for Wikipedia to work that way (placing a spoiler anywhere and using this guideline to enforce the placement)." So, no, I cannot support this guideline as is, with its vague "encyclopedic purpose" wording that is routinely ignored.
23W, I stated, "those who like or love to spoil, or don't mind spoiling, and those who are more conservative about spoiling" because those editors exist (including on Wikipedia), and I see some of them in this discussion. That's one of the points in my initial proposal. Anyone adding unnecessary spoilers is likely someone who doesn't mind spoiling and is not taking our readers' feelings into consideration. Some editors here seem to take our readers' feelings into consideration for all kinds of things, except for spoilers. And I disagree with that. There will always be works like The Sixth Sense where it is absolutely unnecessary to spoil the outcome of that work in the lead, or in a section unless the content is serving a valid purpose. Like various others have stated, there is no justification whatsoever for spoiling the twist ending of The Sixth Sense in the lead, and I am asking for the guideline to be considerate in cases like those. Right now, this guideline can be used to enforce unnecessarily including a twist ending, just like it is used to unnecessarily include spoilers in general. I don't buy that "This [making sure that editors are more considerate when adding spoilers, and/or that the guideline clearly allows for a case-by-case basis] will never work." Masem's wording would work. And, really, given Masem's past comments on this talk page about spoilers, which I took as him not minding if people are spoiled, I was surprised to see him support what I am stating here. He was even cited on my talk page by AussieLegend, who seemed to believe that he would oppose my rationale. Masem likely would oppose my rationale for removing a spoiler in that case, and I understand why (I was removing a spoiler from a plot area, after all). But Masem, who is one of the editors here who strongly believes in the inclusion of spoilers, can fully see where I am coming from on this matter; that gives me hope for a reasonable compromise. And I reiterate that I don't mind spoilers either...when they are necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, there are readers who come to Wikipedia for spoilers, or to be spoiled. But what about the ones that don't? Any reader who comes here not expecting to be spoiled really should pick up a decent dictionary and learn what an encyclopaedia is. Then they should go to a library (they can find out what one of those is in the dictionary) and look at one. As I commented above, WP:PLOTSUM says "By the nature of being an encyclopedia covering works of fiction, Wikipedia contains spoilers."
The vast majority of our readers do not know how Wikipedia works But they should know how an encyclopaedia works. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Not everyone knows what Wikipedia is, and most certainly don't know how it works, as is clear by WP:Newbies day in and day out. That spoilers exist when it comes to works of fiction does not negate the fact that they should not be placed any and everywhere. There is a time and place for spoilers, like all things. The lead is not the place for Jack dying in the film Titanic. The lead is not the place for the twist ending to The Sixth Sense. Masem and McGeddon have been very clear that something being a plot summary does not mean that a huge spoiler must be a part of it. And like McGeddon stated above, "we're already operating under the general common sense approach that you don't put the ending of The Sixth Sense in its article's lede, nor in M. Night Shyamalan's biography, you don't explicitly say that a guy died in season 5 when giving a series overview of characters, etc." If the placement of the spoiler cannot be justified, then it most certainly should not be included where it's placed. And I have many decent dictionaries and encyclopedias that do not spoil. Wikipedia is not like traditional encyclopedias anyway, as we all know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Not everyone knows what Wikipedia is, and most certainly don't know how it works Deja Vu. I refer you to my post immediately prior to yours, because the same reply applies since you've said the same thing. They may not know how Wikipedia works, but they know it is "the free encyclopedia", especially those using mobile devices, and "By the nature of being an encyclopedia covering works of fiction, Wikipedia contains spoilers". If they want to avoid spoilers, they need to go to a fansite, not an encyclopaedia. If they don't understand that, they should have paid more attention in school when they were learning about fiction and non-fiction. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And I refer you to my "15:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)" post, because it applies to this new comment of yours as well. Having enough respect for readers, or enough common sense, to not needlessly spoil is not treating Wikipedia like a fansite. Believing in the WP:Principle of least astonishment, like the Wikimedia Foundation does when it comes to WP:Offensive material, is just that -- believing in the WP:Principle of least astonishment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, with as many Wikipedians who are gleeful about needlessly spoiling, we need an "Allowance of spoilers does not give special favor to spoilers" type of wording in the guideline, similar to WP:Offensive material stating "'Not censored' does not give special favor to offensive content." And I see suggestions for just that in this section. Whenever someone blindly cites WP:Not censored, I point to WP:Offensive material. Sure, WP:Offensive material is a guideline while WP:Not censored is a policy, but WP:Not censored points to WP:Offensive material for reasons made clear in the WP:Offensive material guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Farix's Proposal
Replace: When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.
With: When including plot details outside a section that isn't already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details—plot summary, character descriptions, episode summaries, etc.—editors should make sure that the details support critical commentary or provide background for such. Whether an editor considers a particular detail a 'spoiler' or not should not be relevant to its inclusion or exclusion.
Reason: For starters, we should only have one standard for all plot details, not just those that some consider to be "spoilers". This is to avoid problems with Wikipeida's three core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Second, this defines what we actually mean by serving an encyclopedic purpose. The existing wording does not describe what the encyclopedic purpose of plot details are. Third, it makes it clear what I and the majority of other editors commenting it the RfC have said that whether a plot detail is a spoiler should not be a consideration. —Farix (t | c) 16:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
TheFarix, I'm not sure that the majority of other editors commenting in the RfC have said that whether a plot detail is a spoiler should not be a consideration, at least not in the context of "should not be a consideration at all." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Alsee's Proposal
The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform a reader who is seeking information. Concealing important plot elements is incompatible with Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. A plot point commonly considered to be a "spoiler" is likely an important element of the work, and as such it likely warrants inclusion in the article. However it also indicates that it is not commonly expected to appear in brief summaries of the work (such as the article lede), nor in locations where there is little purpose for inclusion.
Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings.
Alsee (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The stronger any claim of of "spoilerness" the stronger the case of importance and mandate for inclusion. And there seems to be pretty general agreement that something like the 6th Sense twist probably doesn't need to be in the lede. Alsee (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, Alsee. Thank you. That is all that I am asking for when it comes to this matter. No one here is stating that spoilers should be excluded from an article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact that no one here wants spoilers excluded is arguably a strong reason to open with iron-clad "incompatible with Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose" language :) Maybe it's my personal style but sometimes I like to draw a hard wall, then in the gray zone I place a soft arrow pointing towards the wall. In this case the wall is exclusion and the gray zone is the infinitely fuzzy question of where and how to include things. Alsee (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • When including plot details outside a section that isn't already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details—plot summary, character descriptions, episode summaries, etc. Plot and episode summaries are expected to include plot details. Even character descriptions necessarily contain some plot information. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal: The following proposal assumes that we are only talking about addressing spoilers in the lede: Since we're having difficulty agreeing on language that addresses everybody's concerns, would it be of any benefit to come up with a few examples of spoilers in the lede that may be appropriate and examples that may be clearly dickish, so that at least there are some rough parameters of what constitutes an "encyclopedic purpose" in the lede? It seems that for inclusion in the lede, context should accompany the inclusion. The surprise ending I've included here, just seems gratuitous: "The story follows Jake, an irresponsible teenager whose parents recently died in a car accident. Suddenly on his own on the mean streets of Toledo, he has to overcome excruciating laziness to become the parent he never had. Jake eventually dies of tailbone cancer." While obviously a shitty movie premise, context is missing to explain the relevance of tailbone cancer. If, however, there was context that explained that tailbone cancer was on the rise in Toledo, (fracking?) and the film was written to raise awareness of the issue, that might serve a more clear encyclopedic purpose. (I just want to stress though, that context should not be necessary in the plot section, because the encyclopedic purpose of a plot section is to explain the plot, which would almost certainly include the tailbone cancer), similar for character sections. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, by "The following proposal assumes that we are only talking about addressing spoilers," do you mean my proposal? I've been clear that it's not simply about leads. Alsee's proposal also is not solely about the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
And I like your suggestion that we "come up with a few examples of spoilers in the lede that may be appropriate and examples that may be clearly dickish, so that at least there are some rough parameters of what constitutes an 'encyclopedic purpose' in the lede." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
As for the Plot section, there is agreement that readers should expect spoilers in the Plot section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Re: The following proposal assumes that we are only talking about addressing spoilers in the lede, I'm saying that my newest proposal for providing examples only pertains to the lede. I would expect ample plot details and spoilers to be in the plot section, which, as you note, is what should be expected. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Cyphoidbomb. Thanks for clarifying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, when it comes to your "Please avoid adding major plot/character twists to the lede, where casual readers may not expect to find them." suggestion, is there anything else you would add to that? I mean, as others have pointed out, sometimes a spoiler, including a huge spoiler, is beneficial to the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
On a side note: There is no need to ping me to this talk page. And I take it that there is no need to ping you here either. So do you mind me simply responding to you without pinging you? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish, since you often help write our policies and guidelines, weighed in on this matter in the Survey section above, and are good at rejuvenating discussions, do you have any proposal in mind? Any opinion on the current proposals? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Driving toward consensus wording

Okay, whether we figure out new wording during this RfC or after the RfC, it seems that editors are generally in agreement that the current guideline should be changed since "encyclopedic purpose" is not getting through, and since the guideline is being used by editors to justify adding a spoiler even when unnecessary. Looking at the comments in the Proposals section, we haven't yet fully agreed on the precise wording. But we all seem to be in agreement on the case-by-case basis aspect, correct? So maybe we should focus proposing wording for that aspect first, or for now? I said in the Discussion section, "I would rather the guideline support that editors be more considerate with information that may be a spoiler and that it urge discussion in such cases where there may be disagreement; this would make it so that editors cannot simply point to WP:Spoiler for retaining a spoiler even when the spoiler is not necessary, and let editors know that certain spoiler cases may require discussion." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that "editors are generally in agreement that the current guideline should be changed since "encyclopedic purpose" is not getting through, and since the guideline is being used by editors to justify adding a spoiler even when unnecessary." Paul August ☎ 15:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the entirety of this discussion (the Survey section, the Proposals section and the Discussion section), you think that editors are generally or mostly in agreement that the guideline should stay the same? I don't. A number of editors, including oppose voters, have agreed or indicated that the "encyclopedic purpose" part of the guideline is not enough and that the current guideline is being misused by editors who enforce the inclusion of spoilers where they are not needed. I do not see any agreement, or general agreement, that the current guideline is satisfactory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic purpose" doesn't seem to get through anywhere on Wikipedia, even in this discussion. That some people seem unaware of the purpose and makeup of an encyclopaedia doesn't mean we need to change things. We just need to educate people, since the school system doesn't seem to be doing it. The one thing that I originally did agree with was that "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" needed to be changed, or removed, but I'm not so sure now, having read this discussion in toto. I'm now of the opinion that when a Wikipedia page opens, We need some sort of bright red, flashing notice that says "THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA, NOT A FANSITE", preferably with an accompanying klaxon. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus that the changes you wish to make are good ideas or even in the direction of good ideas - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree with David. There's no mandate voiced here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And nowhere did I state that there "is consensus that the changes [I] wish to make are good ideas or even in the direction of good ideas." I was very clear that there is no agreement in the least that the current state of the guideline is fine as it is. And I based that on what is clearly stated in the Survey, Proposals and Discussion sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice: leave the wording as-is, despite persistent misunderstandings by those determined to misread clear intent. Second choice: my suggested stronger wording above - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing a bit too much bullying here, let's focus on content and not the nature of other people commenting. There is a legitimate issue here, and the current wording would benefit from changes. Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

David Fuchs (Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs), you stated, "no examples of any harm caused by the current verbiage are presented at all." Is the aforementioned Kingsman: The Secret Service case not example enough? Two huge spoilers were included in the lead of that article, and various editors (including registered newbie editors, registered experienced editors, and IPs) protested it. Despite the protests that the two huge spoilers being in the lead was unnecessary spoiling and was resulting in much edit warring, the WP:Spoiler guideline was being used as justification for retaining those two huge spoilers in the lead. This type of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia, where editors use this guideline to spoil any and everywhere, even in places where it makes no sense to spoil; I've repeatedly seen this as detrimental to our readers and editors. They've spoken out about it enough. A person knowing of a spoiler is not the issue (except for when that person adds content simply because they want everyone else to know the spoiler too). The issue is people who don't know of the spoiler and would rather not be unnecessarily spoiled. If they read the Plot section, being spoiled is their faults. If they read a spoiler in a spot where it logically shouldn't be or doesn't help their understanding of the topic, it's our faults. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't think this guideline applies much to spoiling real-life events like a football game's score results (although it does comment on it). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about real-life events or the other real-life material mentioned in the guideline; I doubt WP:Spoiler issues commonly arise in those cases anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, the proposed wording is not suggesting that spoilers should not be in the Plot section, or in the Production section (or similar) where necessary; it's suggesting that spoilers should not be included where they are not needed and/or do not significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. So why are you opposing the suggestion? As seen above, there are editors who don't support the exact wording in green, but they support the fact that we shouldn't be unnecessarily spoiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, the twist of Sixth Sense, to me, would absolutely be information that significantly enhances a reader's understanding of the film. One person's "substantial enhancement of the reader's understanding of the work" is another person's spoiler, it's unclear how to differentiate between the two, and I still don't understand yet why it is the goal of an encyclopedia to "preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that the twist is essential reading to fully understand the article on the Sixth Sense. No question on that, it is what made M. Night famous and put the film on the cultural map. That said, in considering the "elevator pitch" (aka the lede) about the film, that twist is far less essential. I can distill all the key parts of the article without mentioning it while still putting the film in context of the cultural map, in particular, noting that this film was well received, that it put M. Night on the map. There is no need to introduce the twist to give the lede of this film, but it is required for full understanding of the film. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the lede would not be a good place for this content. And if we want to rewrite the spoiler guideline so that it's clear "don't put the surprise twist from the Sixth Sense in the lede, you dingus!" then we can all discuss that, but that's not what is being proposed. And still, there is the matter of spoiling Darth Vader's name in the lede of his article, as NinjaRobotPirate pointed out. How do we decide which spoilers belongs in the lede? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Simple, we don't. We shouldn't consider whether a plot detail is a "spoiler" when writing about it in article. Especially considering what plot details are "spoilers" is completely arbitrary to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 23:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I really think common sense comes into play. First, we recognize that there is a difference on writing articles on a film/TV show/etc., a character, and other articles (eg such as actors); the structure of these articles are very different that one set of placement advise for spoilers doesn't work across the board. Then we think about the principle of least surprise. If I'm going to a film article, I would anticipate that a spoiler would be introduced where it is fundamentally important - the plot at minimum - but no sooner. If I go to a character article, that same spoiler may be essential to understanding the character (eg Darth Vader is former Jedi Anakin and father of Luke + Leia) and must be in the lede; I don't have the same expectations to hide a critical spoiler like I would for a film article. For an actor, it might not be necessary to spoiler anything at all (eg James Earl Jones doesn't void anything related to Anakin), and only if its necessary to explain the role would a spoiler be necessary (for example, that Sean Connery appeared as King Richard in a last act, previously unannounced cameo for Prince of Thieves, so we'd have to reveal that in Connery's filmography.) I really think there is common sense logic here alongside the principle of least surprise that works to distinguish where to withhold spoilers in some parts of an article, and it starts with recognizing that "one size fits all" doesn't work. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
To add, the common sense approach is a case-by-case thing. Back to Vader, that Vader is Anakin is clearly a spoiler for the first six (I-VI) films. But it is an essential spoiler to set up what episodes I through III are about since those are about Anakin's transformation to Vader, so mention in the lede is essential. In IV, this has almost no bearing on the plot, and far from essential, so omission makes sense. It is revealed at the end of V and how that film resolves, but not essential to the broader plot, so omission makes sense. VI is the hardest of the set, since it is possible to discuss the film briefly without mentioning this, but a major theme is the tension Luke has knowing Vader's true history; this would be a case to defer to consensus, but SPOILER should definitely not prohibit the inclusion of this spoiler in the lead. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. That twist (the one to The Sixth Sense) does not belong in the lead in the least. It would be completely unnecessarily spoiling readers. And those who would argue to include it are those who likely do not care about being spoiled themselves, or get a kick out of spoiling others. It's not about "One person's 'substantial enhancement of the reader's understanding of the work' is another person's spoiler." It's about the fact that many people would consider such material a huge spoiler. It's a certainty that the vast majority of people do not want to be spoiled on The Sixth Sense when it comes to that huge spoiler, and there are WP:Reliable sources that have stated as much. Even in the case of Million Dollar Baby, enough publications respected readers enough not to spoil. Wikipedia is the only place that says, "I'm going to spoil you, for no reason at all, really, and you just have to suck it up."
As for NinjaRobotPirate, Paul August, and others commenting similarly, I think they are missing the point, which is that it's not okay to needlessly spoil, and especially in places where it's not logical to do so, and that the current wording is so vague with regard to "encyclopedic purpose" that most editors ignore it and force unnecessary spoiling in our articles. Most people know what needlessly spoiling means, and the current wording in the guideline is not helping to keep such unnecessary spoiling at bay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
And if we "shouldn't consider whether a plot detail is a 'spoiler' when writing about it in [the] article," then the guideline would not currently state, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
On a side note: That Vader is Anakin is well-known. It is difficult for anyone to not be spoiled on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like the proposer to detail for us how to determine what is and is not a spoiler in a manner that meets the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Farix and David Gerard, if that's the case, then why does the guideline currently state, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served."? Why should we keep that vague piece of material instead of being explicitly clear about what is or is not an "encyclopedic purpose" or appropriate? You honestly think it is fine to include a spoiler any and everywhere in a Wikipedia article and then use this guideline to dictate such nonsense? I ask because that is exactly how this guideline is used, especially by the editors who gleefully like to spoil others. People are not idiots; while some people differ on what they consider a spoiler, most people know what huge spoilers are. Enough editors certainly have enough sense to know that the twist ending spoiler for The Sixth Sense does not belong in the lead of that article. Adamstom.97 had it right when he stated above, "Just like anything else, spoilers should only be added to Wikipedia if appropriate, not because 'we don't remove spoilers!!!'" Just like you don't like people dictating where spoilers should go, many of us who think spoilers belong in more logical places and not in places where they are not needed and do not serve an encyclopedic purpose whatsoever should not be dictated by misuse of this guideline. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are two of the most misused policies ever, and do not apply here. WP:NPOV is about giving appropriate weight; it is not, as a number of editors mistakenly believe, about what being neutral means in common discourse. And WP:NOR is about whether a source exists for any statement; it is not, as a number of editors mistakenly believe, about something simply being unsourced. And in the case of The Sixth Sense, many reliable publications call that twist ending a spoiler. In the case of most huge spoilers on Wikipedia, there is a reliable source calling the spoiler a spoiler. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Trouble is, if it being a spoiler is famous, that makes it an encyclopedic detail that must be covered for a complete article. In the lede, in fact, because the lede is supposed to serve as a standalone summary of the article. So you're making a case for putting a spoiler in the lede.
In almost no cases where people might want to put a spoiler warning - say, the tens of thousands of instances of the {{spoiler}} template before it was abolished - were there WP:RSes as to a given spoiler being a spoiler.
So, given that, you are failing to answer the question: how will you determine something is a spoiler, in a manner that is neutral, verifiable and not merely original research? We discovered once that "common sense" doesn't work for this in practice. What new criterion are you putting forward? - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
David Gerard, we have to agree to disagree then. Because I do not think that the fact that a twist ending blew people's minds means that the twist ending should be explicitly revealed in the lead, especially when the enjoyment of the story, for the vast majority of people, hinges on that twist ending. Watching The Sixth Sense after knowing the twist ending defeats the purpose of the film, really; critics have been clear about that. It is not the same as watching it without knowing about it. No one here is arguing for a spoiler warning. And what is or is not a spoiler should be based on what reliable sources state, and whether to include that spoiler in a certain area of an article should be made on a case-by-case basis with respect to the guideline being clear that we should not be going around adding spoilers in random places, or in other ways that they do not benefit the reader. Right now, this guideline is used as a license to add spoilers anywhere, and it has proven problematic, with much edit warring and debates ensuing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
And, as was noted, the twist ending aspect is mentioned in the lead of that article (The Sixth Sense), but not in a way that gives away what that twist is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"I see dead people" is well-known and has been lampooned and memed to death. We aren't here to decide by committee what is or isn't a well-known plot point to spoil. "Encyclopedic purpose", while perhaps general, suggests strongly to me that pivotal detail must be included and not tippy-toed around, which the proposed language seems to lean more toward. Knowing that Spock dies in Wrath of Khan serves a significant encyclopedic purpose to someone who is researching the franchise, or the impact of the series on fans, or the general mythology of the Star Trek universe. It also explains why in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock they go searching for Spock. This isn't trivial detail. In contrast, knowing that Spock nerve-pinches a punk rocker on the bus in Star Trek IV might be considered a spoiler that serves no encyclopedic purpose, because it doesn't enhance your understanding of the story, and only takes away from your enjoyment of seeing 23rd century fish out of water interacting with 20th century San Franciscans. Those are significant differences. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"I see dead people" being well-known isn't the same thing as people knowing the huge spoiler that the film rests on. Many people still have not seen that film, and various critics agree that it's a film that people should not be spoiled on, just like various critics agree that people should not be spoiled on the Million Dollar Baby matter. I even cringed when Masem noted (above in the Survey section) the exact details of the plot twist for The Sixth Sense. That the plot twist for The Sixth Sense is so important, that it's crucial that people not know it before watching the film for the first time, is even discussed in screenwriting books...like this one. Just about everyone and his daddy knows that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker and that he is Luke Skywalker's father. Unlike "I see dead people," the "Luke, I am your father" (really, just "No, I am your father") quote is a humongous spoiler; it's also a quote that is certainly more well-known than the "I see dead people" quote. My youngest sister had never seen the Star Wars films until she watched them for a film class (before finally focusing on being a veterinarian), but even she had heard of that quote and knew that Darth Vader is Luke's father. We can't do anything about cases like that, where people know the spoilers almost from the time they exit the womb. But we can do something about cases like The Sixth Sense, the aforementioned Kingsman: The Secret Service case, and similar. That same sister would have killed me had she been spoiled on The Sixth Sense. No one is asking that we remove spoilers that should be there, or that we remove spoilers from the article completely. We are only asking that they be placed where they are more logical, and especially only where necessary. And I don't understand the objection to that. I believe in WP:Principle of least astonishment. And as seen at WP:Offensive material, so does the Wikimedia Foundation. The spoiler guideline already tries to advise that we should not needlessly include spoilers, but that vague guidance is not getting through to editors, and they use this guideline to enforce a spoiler being anywhere, when including the spoiler should be more of a common sense/case-by-case matter. And I cannot support that type of reckless editing. Respecting readers enough to not needlessly spoil is not coddling readers; it's simply respecting them enough. I think we should be thinking about our readers more than ourselves when writing articles. And they have spoken when it comes to needlessly spoiling, especially with regard to the detail we put in our leads. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: I cut in between Adamstom.97's reply here; we were typing at about the same time, and I took longer. I meant my reply to be for Cyphoidbomb. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
If the objective of this RFC is "We are only asking that [spoilers] be placed where they are more logical", that's entirely unclear in your proposal. The first paragraph of your proposal seems to lean toward, "yo man, let's try to keep the spoilers out of the lede", which I think most people would respond to as, "Okay, well, maybe--if there's a good reason to keep them out." The second paragraph re-raises the issue of whether an "encyclopedic purpose" is being served, which is of course subjective and goal-specific as I've previously argued. The proposal then introduces language that seems to dissuade the introduction of spoilers, even though that's contrary to established consensus, and reeks of a begging-the-question logical fallacy because it includes as an unsubstantiated fact that the goal of an encyclopedia is to present content "with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers". This is entirely unsubstantiated and is in conflict with the existing attitude "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article 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". I further worry that the proposed language needlessly shifts the burden to the spoiler-includer to prove to your satisfaction that the content doesn't "merely ruin the experience of the work of fiction for our readers" when the standard before was "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." That's a huge shift, and not one that should be buried inadvertently under "We are only asking that [spoilers] be placed where they are more logical". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
How is my proposal not clear that my objective is that "[spoilers] be placed where they are more logical", when I clearly stated in my proposal that "many editors and readers, including a number on this talk page, have expressed concern that there is much unnecessary spoiling allowed on Wikipedia, [...] despite the ['make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served' part]"? How is my aforementioned objective not clear when I specifically quoted McGeddon noting what makes sense when it comes to where to place a spoiler? The lead matter is an example only. And it is a primary example, because it is spoilers in the lead that editors have more of an issue with. And that issue is valid, since 99.9% of the time, spoilers are not needed in the lead, especially not huge spoilers that ruin an entire film for our readers. How is my aforementioned objective not clear when, after the suggested wording, I stated, "Or that we change the wording to something else that is clearer than the current guideline's wording, to indicate that it is not okay to spoil for spoiling's sake."? You are still focusing on the language in green when even I was clear that I am not tied to the proposed wording, and even when editors support what I mean but not the exact wording. I even included a Proposals section for alternative wording. That stated, I don't see anything wrong with the "Wikipedia should contain potentially 'spoiling' detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." part. To me, that is true to the "encyclopedic purpose" aspect. Those who expect our readers, the ones who come to Wikipedia to read a brief description of work, to just suck it up if they are needlessly spoiled are not thinking about our readers; they are thinking about themselves. Sure, there are readers who come to Wikipedia for spoilers, or to be spoiled. But what about the ones that don't? We are simply supposed to state "Screw them."? The vast majority of our readers do not know how Wikipedia works. They don't know that Wikipedia is ready to spoil them at any moment, as is clear by complaints on this talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Expecting them to know that "Oh, you shouldn't read anything on Wikipedia if you don't want to be spoiled." is silly. Furthermore, there is no need for Wikipedia to work that way (placing a spoiler anywhere and using this guideline to enforce the placement). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: The problem with your argument here, is that you don't want to unnecessarily spoil anyone, which is admirable, but not an appropriate stance here. Editors should do what is best for each article—if that means spoiling the film or show, than that's what they should do, and this guideline basically exists to stop newbies and IPs from removing that essential content because they don't want people to be spoiled. The issue that I take here is that instead of doing what is best for the article and using WP:SPOILER to keep it that way, some editors are doing the opposite of what is best for the article and using WP:SPOILER to keep it that way. This is the issue with your Kingsman example, as I tried to explain above: the lead just shouldn't have that level of plot detail, but editors were using WP:SPOILER as an excuse to keep it in that poor form. Yes, it isn't great that such major spoilers were in the lead, but that can't be the point, not here.
So, I am in support of adjusting the wording here to put more emphasis on the fact that there must be a good, encylopaedic reason for including the information as well: Information can't be removed solely because it is a spoiler, but it also should not be added with the same reasoning. I just don't think the single line "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" is enough weight for the idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Adamstom.97, I don't think we can avoid unnecessarily spoiling everyone; so I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing against unnecessary spoiling. And you and I seem to be in agreement on what is unnecessary spoiling. While some editors will disagree on what is unnecessary spoiling, that is what the talk page is for. That is why we have case-by-case matters for a number of our guidelines. And WP:Spoiler is a guideline, for goodness' sake, but most editors treat it like a policy. The current guideline does not truly allow for case-by-case matters. When a spoiler is included in a place that a number of editors disagree with, very experienced editors simply point to the WP:Spoiler guideline to stop such objections and feel that that's; this is what we saw in the Kingsman: The Secret Service case. It took two significantly experienced editors doing something about the unnecessary spoiling in that case: Sock and I. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
We cannot "agree to disagree" on WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR, and you appear, for all your words, to not understand the reasons for the present guideline, nor that talk page participants cannot agree amongst themselves to invalidate WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR in a particular circumstance - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I already addressed your WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR arguments above; I was very clear about how WP:NPOV and WP:OR are actually supposed to be applied. And that, among other things, is why I stated "agree to disagree." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
And as for "reasons for the present guideline," I understand completely why it was created; the history of why it was created is even still in the guideline. And my knowing the reasons for why it exists does not take away from the fact that it has been misused for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Totally disagree and in fact I would make the provision that we give the entire rule much stronger. Our purpose is not to serve as an substitute for a work, but to describe the work. Our purpose is not to serve as an advertisement for the work, a teaser to lead the reader into buying or viewing the complete work, but to describe it. Our goal is to tell the general reader what they might want to know,and primary among this is how the story comes out. We don't write articles about parts of events, of the first half of someone's career. We're an encyclopedia , providing information about subjects. If we were a movie guide, we'd probably avoid spoilers, since that is the style there, and the act as a kind of advertisement. Are we going to describe a past election, and say at the end, to find who won, get a copy of the local newspaper?
Generally we should put the ending into the lede . We put the key parts of the subject into a lede. How a work ends is a key part. To the extent that for some it might be the principal part, that is all the more reason for including it. Possibly, as a matter of style, for some types of fictional works (such as mystery stories) we might want to delay it a little, but it should always be in the article. I can think of some mysteries where the point of the books is not in fact the details of the ending, but the atmosphere. I can think of works that end ambiguous, and the solution is only disclosed in a follow-up work, and therefore need not necessarily be said in the article on the first work. I can think of works where the conclusion is so complicated that actually specifying it would burden the lede paragraph. There will be similar exceptions, so we can't really say it should always be in the lede. But very article we have on those works of fiction that have a definite plot and ending should specify it. If it is natural to include it in the lede , we should. How much detail we include is variable. But the idea of writing an article on a work without disclosing the ending is not encyclopedic.
In a sense it's true that "there must be a good encyclopedic purpose for disclosing the information. The good encyclopedic purpose is that we're an encyclopedia . I can not imagine any situation whatsoever consonant with our fundamental purpose here for ever omitting it, except if it cannot be determined. The values of avoiding sensationalism do not extent to fiction. To the extent fiction is sensational, its an intrinsic part of the fiction. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
We only include plot summaries in articles to give context to the WP:Real world facts in the rest of the article, meaning that the plot summary itself shouldn't be that important in the grand scheme of an article. In summarising the article in the lead, yes the plot should be mentioned because it is still part of the article, but the majority of the lead should focus on the production, reception, etc. So no, the ending of a plot should not be included in the lead. Mentioning that the ending was received in a certain way, as The Sixth Sense twist ending is noted as being praised by critics, is fine since that is part of the reception, but mentions of the actual plot in the lead should be kept to a bare premise at most.
For instance, in the lead of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, it simply states "In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America, Black Widow, and Falcon join forces to uncover a conspiracy within S.H.I.E.L.D. while facing a mysterious assassin known as the Winter Soldier." This gives the main characters and premise, without giving away the two major twists of the film, as that would be ridiculously trivial and in-universey for the lead; the majority of the lead instead focuses on the cast and crew, the production, the release, and the reception of the film, which are all far more important and are due more weight than the plot summary. Obviously you would give away the ending of an election, which is a real world event. Likewise, it would be ridiculous if the lead of Boston Marathon bombing didn't tell you who did it. But when dealing with fiction the rules are different, and we must be careful to follow WP:INUNIVERSE and not treat fictional events as if they actually happened. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"Generally we should put the ending into the lede." Actually, we rarely put the ending for a work in the lede (spoiler or not), but instead just enough to set up the setting, characters, and major conflicts. (This is obviously not a hard and fast rule, but more just observation). If an overall theme of the film is a spoiler (eg, as with Star Wars Ep I-III that Anakin becomes Darth Vader), then it has to be included, but most times, the spoiler is a last act reveal (Willis' character is dead in the 6th Sense) that doesn't impact understanding of the broad themes of the work. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
(I originally posted most of this comment in the Survey section. Whoops. Now I've moved it.) I think the Sixth Sense spoiler should not be part of the lead because it's not really part of the film's premise, and therefore inappropriate. On the other hand, take Terminator 2; it was supposed to be a surprise that Arnie's character was the good guy, but it's such an intrinsic part of the film's basic premise that mentioning it in the lead is totally appropriate, even if that technically constitutes a spoiler for people who know nothing about the story and have only seen the original Terminator. (The fact that nowadays everyone knows this about T2 is irrelevant.) I agree it also seems dangerous to suppose what is and is not common knowledge about a story, ie what constitutes a spoiler and what doesn't.
Basically I'm with Masem. Popcornduff (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If you apply this only to the lede, it can be a reasonable compromise. If you omit plot endings from the article, it detracts from the encyclopedia to the extent of invalidating the basic principle of NOT CENSORED. Which of the two is the active proposal here? DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
DGG, so far, the discussion has mostly focused on spoilers unnecessarily being in the lead. No one is suggesting that we omit plot endings from articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Another view towards this. In the present language of SPOILER, there is nothing stopping anyone from adding "Willis' character is dead" to any article talking about the "The Sixth Sense", which would include the film's page (including the lede), M. Night's page, and Bruce Willis' page. And if there is an editor being persistent to keeping that can defend it being kept by the language of this guideline presently (that we don't hide spoilers). The point though is that that bit of information really doesn't matter in all those locations. You don't need to know that from Willis' page, for example, and from the lede of the film, it's not really needed. The language to be added should be to simply avoid splattering spoiler information anywhere where it may be relevant just because we don't hide spoilers, but instead use reasonable judgement where the spoiler information is pertinent and obviously can't be avoided, compared to where the inclusion is trivial. Whatever suggestion should not be about trying to prevent spoiler inclusion, as many others have expressed concern about, but just recognizing where inclusion of spoilerish information is not essential to a specific topic or a section of a topic. (And I'll stress again, once an article introduces a spoiler, that spoiler must be considered fair game for the rest of the article: so in a film article, anything below the Plot section should be considered fair game for inclusion of the spoiler). --MASEM (t) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I must apologize for not being sufficiently perceptive to realize the actual matter under discussion. Whether it belongs in the lede is indeed a matter of judgment. Applying the general rule that the lede should indicate the main points of the article, then if the ending is the point of the film or other fiction, it should be mentioned concisely. If it is rather inconsequential or diffuse or obvious from the nature of the genre, then it need not. This however leads to the paradoxical result that (to take the genre that seems to be used here as an example) if it is a mystery where the interest is in who did the crime, or, whether the known criminal will be punished, then it's the key point and must be mentioned in the lede. (Note this is not really true of all mysteries: there are some --the ones that occur to me immediately are Dorothy Sayers' books [[Gaudy Night] and [Busman's Honeymoon]]-- where the point is the romantic and psychological relationships of the two principle characters, and the actual crime is just a device, and trying to mention it in the lede would seem just to complicate what should be a short paragraph/ (I see for the actual article for Gaudy Night that the lede doesn't indicate the point at all. ", Harriet eventually asks her old friend Wimsey to investigate.." is exactly the kind of summary that does not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There are definitely cases where a spoiler belongs in the lede: the best example being that it is inappropriate to not mention that Anakin becomes Darth Vader for describing Star Wars Episodes I through III. So we should not be trying to eliminate any spoilers in the lede, just be aware of spoilers that are necessary towards the theme or importance of the work, and spoilers that just result from the plot progression and are not as critical. (And that consensus should still decide where that balance is needed.) An interesting case, for example, is how The Mousetrap is handled, in that yes, the fact there is a twist ending is in the lead, and up through to the plot, that twist is not revealed though clearly noted, only until the plot is it actually spelled out. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Masem, all of what you've been stating on this matter is what I've been stating as well (though obviously not in those exact words), and I cannot thank you enough for your wise and respectful attitude on this issue. I told you before that I always appreciate what you have to state (whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me), and I mean that.
DGG, it's understandable that what is meant by this discussion can get lost on a person. But, yeah, with my initial post for the RfC above, I was clear that I was only referring to adding spoilers where they are not needed and when they unnecessarily spoil. You know, like the much mentioned The Sixth Sense case. Like Masem, I have noted that a person can add that twist ending to the lead of that article and use this guideline to defend or enforce the addition. If I were to revert the person, stating, "Removed unnecessary spoiler from the lead.", that person would likely revert me by stating "WP:Spoiler"...as if that settles the matter and now I should shut up and move on. And, to me, that is wrong. You seem to be in agreement with me and Masem about not unnecessarily including spoilers, at least in the lead. So are willing to make that clear in the #Survey section above? Maybe propose new wording in the #Proposals section? That goes for Alsee too. Well, Alsee has already commented in the Proposals section. And then there's Popcornduff, who also agrees with Masem. I'm pinging these additional editors because having these feelings noted in the Survey section above would make the matter of disagreement clearer to the closer of this RfC. I would hate for this RfC to close with nothing being done about the current state of the guideline. Of course, we could have an "After the RfC" discussion to work on the wording, which is done in the cases of some RfCs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my true concern is not the ledes but the articles. The discussion in the section below shows how the desire to avoid it in the lede will merge into the desire to avoid it in the text. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
DGG, if the matter of advising against unnecessary spoiling is done right when it comes to the guideline, there will be minimal misuse of it by those who want to unnecessarily hide spoilers. And I state "minimal misuse" because all of our policies and guidelines are misused, including the current WP:Spoiler guideline. We constantly tweak them to make sure that they are applied correctly. I am against unnecessary spoiling, and against unnecessarily hiding spoilers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This is going nowhere.

Pinging two other experienced WP:Film editors: Erik and Betty Logan, any opinions on this topic? You both know that I highly respect you, and appreciate your opinions on any topic, including when they are at conflict with mine. Can you support Masem's suggestions, as seen in the #Survey, #Proposals, Discussion and #Define "spoiler" sections? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you support Masem's suggestions, as seen in the #Survey, #Proposals, Discussion and #Define "spoiler" sections? - That's perilously close to WP:CANVAS. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Pinging experienced film editors about a matter that I am proposing is not a WP:Canvass violation. Masem's suggestions are my suggestions. But he framed the matters better, as I've already noted. There isn't a thing in the WP:CANVASS guideline you can find supporting it as a WP:CANVASS violation or "perilously close" to a WP:CANVASS violation. And despite some editors wanting forms of pinging to be seen as WP:CANVASSING, it is highly doubtful that such an addition will be added to that guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Pinging is fine, but requests for involvement should be neutrally worded. When you specifically ask editors to support a particular point of view, as you did, that's canvassing. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Pinging editors for their opinions on a proposal is fine. That's what I did. Asking Erik and Betty Logan if they can support Masem's suggestions is not me asking them to support Masem's suggestions. I do not think that I needed to state "Can or can't you support Masem's suggestions?" I was also clear that "I highly respect [their opinions], and appreciate [their] opinions on any topic, including when they are at conflict with mine." This is because they offer meaningful commentary, and almost always in a polite way; they do not get unnecessarily snippy with others and condescend to others. They are very much like Masem in that respect. And even if I had pinged them stating something like "Support Masem's proposal.", there is nothing in the WP:CANVASS guideline that addresses pinging, despite those who want the guideline to do that. And it's unlikely that any such proposal would pass, given that, all over Wikipedia, editors ping others specifically to ask them to support a particular point of view, for a variety of reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Asking another editor "can you support this" gives the distinct impression that you are asking them to support something, whether you intended it that way or not. That is why requests need to be neutrally worded. Pinging editors is no different to actually posting on their talk page. They're still going to see the notification and the message that you left for them. It doesn't matter how you ask them, you're still asking them, and whether you do it on their talk page, via email, or pinging them, it's still canvassing is you ask them to support a particular POV. WP:CANVAS does indeed address this problem, in the section titled "Inappropriate notification". That it doesn't specifically mention pinging is irrelevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, taken in context with the rest of what I stated. That you took "Can you support Masem's suggestions?" as me asking them to support any of the suggestions is your interpretation. If I had stated "Can or can't you support Masem's suggestions?", I highly doubt you would have taken issue. But there was no need whatsoever to state "Can or can't you support Masem's suggestions?" Some grammar experts, for example, believe that stating "whether or not" is redundant; you can simply stop at "whether." I stopped at "can." When I pinged them, it was without any assumption of what they would state....unlike when you tried to pinged Masem to my talk page. You clearly believed he would support your viewpoint. WP:Canvass, as made clear at that guideline and on its talk page, is about knowingly pulling in editors to influence a discussion in one's favor. I did not know or suspect that Betty Logan felt this way. And I felt it was better that I ask for their opinions on this dispute out in the open on this talk page instead of at their talk pages. And, for the last time, pinging editors to a discussion is not stipulated as a canvass violation anywhere in the WP:Canvass guideline, which is why it's debated, even currently on that guideline's talk page. And given that editors ping others to support their viewpoint in discussions all the time, including with regard to disruptive editors, I reiterate that it is unlikely that pinging will be added to the guideline as a form of WP:Canvassing. If it is ever added, it will be added with very careful wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If I had stated "Can or can't you support Masem's suggestions?", I highly doubt you would have taken issue - That's more neutral than what you posted, but it's still unnecessary. All you needed to say was "Pinging two other experienced WP:Film editors: Erik and Betty Logan, any opinions on this topic?" By specifically asking them "can you support the suggestion" you have essentially negated what they might have to say, even if they claim it did not affect them, especially as you attempted to influence them by flattering both when you said You both know that I highly respect you, and appreciate your opinions on any topic. WP:CANVAS syas that soliciting support other than by posting direct messages is an inappropriate form of notification. Whether or not it was via a ping is irrelevant, as I've explained above.
"unlike when you tried to pinged Masem to my talk page. You clearly believed he would support your viewpoint." - No, not at all. I don't talk about editors behind their backs. If I cite another editor I prefer to ping them so they have the option to disagree with me if they see fit. This attack by you seems rather hypocritical, seeing that you justified this type of action, both at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing,[9] and on an IP's talk page.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The notion that I canvassed or came close to canvassing is yet another thing we disagree on. But since you've taken the matter to the WP:Canvass talk page, it will now be discussed there. It seems your interpretation of a number of Wikipedia rules conflicts with mine. Furthermore, you insult and expect not to be insulted back. You attempt to read my mind and assess my motives and don't want me to do the same to you. And yet you have the gall to talk about being hypocritical. Either way, you are wrong. And had Betty Logan weighed in with an oppose vote, you would not have started your "Oh, you canvassed" nonsense back up soon after she voted. Sorry, I can't do anything about what she thinks. Feel free to ask Betty Logan if I influenced her vote, though -- if I made her feel she had to support me. But I'm sure Betty knows better, since we have disagreed in the past and it's always a civil matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: I think it is reasonable for Flyer22 to ping some of the more active Film article editors in discussions about guidelines that have an impact on that particular area. We agree on a lot but not on everything, but she should appreciate that you wouldn't know the nature of our editing relationship. On that basis I think there is a lesson for her to learn here: if you ping editors for an RFC then "What do you think of Masem's proposal?" would be preferable to "Can you support Masem's proposal?" On the matter at hand I chose to make my response a general one and stayed away from the specifics of what Masem proposed: [11]. I think it's fairly clear from what I say that I don't favor changing the actually meaning of the guideline (although I would welcome some clarification), and I don't favor the prescriptive solution that perhaps Masem favors. It seems to me this RFC has got terribly sidetracked with editors wanting to fundamentally revise the guideline while some would like to see it dropped altogether. My interpretation of the guideline is that it does treat spoilers differently from non-spoilers, in that they require encyclopedic justification. For example, a lead will often contain a basic story premise but while that will include plot details we don't reveal endings and twists just for the sake of revealing the twist or the ending. If, on the other hand, spoilers are meant to be treated no differently to any other content then why doesn't the guideline say that, instead of insisting on the rather mysterious "encyclopedic purpose"? It is pretty obvious this RFC is going to fall through so I've entered the discussion in a dying phase but it would be interesting to know how everyone interprets "encyclopedi purpose". Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty Logan. I'll keep your advice regarding pinging in mind when it comes to RfCs. By "this RFC is going to fall through," it's clear that you mean it will close as "no consensus" or similar. And, yes, it may very well close like that, even though I think there is clear consensus for a change (taking all of the RfC into account, not just the Survey section). I see enough support for editors to work on new wording for the guideline after the RfC closes; the #Driving toward consensus wording section I started above reflects that. And I asked an editor who regularly closes RfCs if he wouldn't mind closing this one once it has run its course. WP:Requests for closure is usually backed up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Betty, thanks for that clarification. There are certainly things that Flyer22 can learn from this. I agree that pinging is fine, I've already said that more than once. It's also fine for others to ping others as is seen necessary. As for what people interpret as "encyclopedic purpose", that's a question that is not easily answered. I don't think a lot of people really understand encyclopaedias and treat Wikipedia as if it was a fan site or TV guide. That's why I've suggested people visit a library and look at a paper encyclopaedia. To me, "encyclopedic purpose" is obvious and just common sense, but I grew up in a world that relied on paper encyclopaedias for the first 40+ years of my life. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed the Canvassing heading you added, since it is your interpretation of what happened, an interpretation I disagree with, and is therefore non-neutral. It also has no support at the WP:Canvassing talk page where you addressed your concern.
On a side note: Betty Logan, pinging "Flyer22" no longer works since my username is now "Flyer22 Reborn." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, Betty Logan, by "while some would like to see it dropped altogether," do you mean "get rid of the spoiler guideline" or rather "drop this discussion"? I ask because I don't think anyone here wants to drop the spoiler guideline in its entirety. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The heading accurately describes the subject of this part of the discussion. However, since you don't like it, I have replaced it with something more accurate. This part of the discussion needs to be separate from the rest of the discussion, so a heading is appropriate. A heading is also needeed to break up this part of the discussion because it is so long.
It also has no support at the WP:Canvassing talk page where you addressed your concern. - Your comments are, at best, misleading. At the time you wrote that, the comments had been up for just over a day and nobody has yet responded. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
And I removed your second heading, per the same reasoning. It placed my initial comment (regarding your accusation) under a disputed heading that I did not add, and it biases the matter toward your viewpoint. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply here. And if you really need a heading, you should use "Section break," as is commonly done. I see no need for a heading at all, really; this matter is a part of the discussion, and the canvassing accusation aspect of it is essentially over. As for my "it also has no support at the WP:Canvassing talk page" commentary, there was nothing misleading about it. The editors you had pinged there ignored you. You persisted after I made my "21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)" comment and now one editor has finally replied, and I still don't see him supporting the notion that I canvassed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You're blatantly canvassing. If you don't want canvassing and discussion of canvassing under a heading "canvassing", the very first thing to do is not to do that - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
And you are blatantly stating that I canvassed due to our disagreements on this talk page. Unless you can show that the WP:Canvassing guideline supports that I canvassed, you are incorrect. Also read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments when it comes to headings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You've been told by two editors that you were canvassing, another has said you should have used different wording, and at WP:CANVAS you were told to use neutral wording, which is what I said. It's clear that you canvassed and you were caught out. Your persistent removal of the heading three times now (that's 3 reverts by the way) is disruptive. This section needs separation from the rest of the discussion, because it is a completely separate issue and editors should be made aware of that. The addition of headings is supported by WP:TPO. If you don't like where the heading was added, I'm more than happy to add the heading above my own post. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

One of those editors is you, who has shown a gross misinterpretation of Wikipedia's rules, and has aggressively opposed just about anything I state in this RfC. And the other editor is someone who has also aggressively opposed anything I state in this RfC. Those are hardly neutral viewpoints. Furthermore, two editors' misinterpretation of a rule does not make the misinterpretation correct. Repeatedly restoring that heading was disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Using a heading in a biased way as you did is clearly a violation of that guideline. And I was well within my rights to remove that heading each time. You are the only editor who has been disruptive in this discussion, with your overaggressive tactics and belittling of others. This edit you made to my talk page was also disruptive, and does not work as a scare tactic, with regard to me, in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of who made the accusation, it has been made, and the heading was entirely accurate. So far, you are the only person claiming that you didn't canvas. None of the four other editors so far involved has supported your claim. Have you even considered that it is you who is wrong? As far as I can see, the heading does not contravene WP:TPG at all, and you have not explained how it does. If the heading is restored, and you remove it again, we can resolve this at WP:AN3. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
And the claim being made means that a biased heading should stay? I think not. The section headings part of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments states, "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, 'owns' a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial."
In other words, you do not own that heading, and I am free to remove it because of its biased nature. The WP:Spoiler guideline does not support you and you have not shown that it does. You have not shown that Betty Logan and Collect support you either. Your "01:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)" post misrepresents what Betty Logan and Collect stated. Betty Logan did not state I "should have used different wording." She indicated that different wording would have been better because of those (like you) who will see guilt in wording where none exists. And Collect, who ignored you and clearly couldn't care less about this canvassing accusation of yours, did not address his post to me. His posts at that talk page support what I have been stating, which is that canvassing is the intentional action of trying to sway a discussion in one's favor. He also spoke of those who always agree with the person. Betty Logan and I do not always agree, as even she made clear, and we have disagreed plenty. I had no idea that she would offer a "support" vote. And, as she has made clear, her support vote does not even fully agree with my arguments; this is yet another thing she disagrees with me on.
As for reporting me at WP:AN3, that will not go over well. But you can try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
And the claim being made means that a biased heading should stay? - The heading is not biased if it accurately describes the content of the section. "Alleged canvassing by Flyer22 Reborn" very accurately describes the content of the section, as does simply "Canvassing". You only believe that it is biased because it discusses your canvassing.
you do not own that heading, and I am free to remove it because of its biased nature - There is a bright line rule and you have reverted the addition of a heading 3 times now. You are not free to remove the heading just because you don't like it. A heading is clearly required to separate the "Discussion" from the "Canvassing". At the moment it is necessary to scroll through over 6,400 words just to get to the canvassing discussion, and another 3,000 to get to here.
She indicated that different wording would have been better because of those (like you) who will see guilt in wording where none exists. - She did not say that at all. She said I think there is a lesson for her to learn here: if you ping editors for an RFC then "What do you think of Masem's proposal?" would be preferable to "Can you support Masem's proposal?" The those (like you) who will see guilt in wording where none exists is only your interpretation.
Collect, who ignored you and clearly couldn't care less about this canvassing accusation of yours, did not address his post to me. His posts at that talk page support what I have been stating - Collect actually said when you ask other editors, you should use language which in no way whatever can be construed as showing your own opinion. This actually supports what I have been saying, that the wording should be neutral.
I had no idea that she would offer a "support" vote. - And yet, that's exactly what you asked her to do.
Of course, in all this, you continue to ignore what an admin told you (before you reverted him), that you were blatantly canvassing.
As for reporting me at WP:AN3, that will not go over well - Feel free to test this by making another reversion. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The original heading you added was biased, and so is the "Alleged canvassing by Flyer22 Reborn" heading, which is meant to take focus away from the discussion and notify others, including the closer of this discussion, of supposed wrongdoing. That I canvassed is your interpretation, an interpretation supported by an editor who has acted just like you in this discussion when it comes to antagonistic remarks toward to me. Like I stated, "two editors' misinterpretation of a rule does not make the misinterpretation correct." It was a clear-cut case of WP:Tag team. Your interpretation that I canvassed is not supported by Betty Logan or Collect, no matter how many times you state or imply that it is. Collect was speaking generally; he was not speaking directly to me. And I did not revert any administrator on this matter; so your "before you reverted him" comment is false. You have acted like using "can" in the way that I did is an offense; it is not. It is a simple question. You took that simple question out of context and turned it into something that you feel needs reprimanding. Yes, construed is the keyword here, since you misconstrued matters. There is often no way for editors to word things in ways that will never be misconstrued; this RfC is an ample display of that, and so is your accusation. The aforementioned "Section headings" part of WP:TALK clearly notes that no one owns a heading and that biased headings are to be avoided; it also clearly states, "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." You did not follow that advice, obviously. Your biased heading was not needed in the least, especially at the time. And to try justify the heading some more, you have kept this debate going so that your sidetrack of a discussion is significantly longer than it was back when you should have WP:Dropped the stick. I already noted: "If you really need a heading, you should use 'Section break,' as is commonly done." As for your threats, you must have me confused with another. As many at this site know, threats do not work on me. In fact, they fail or backfire every time. But feel free to test my patience. I objected to your biased heading, and WP:Edit warring on my part does not apply here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I struck part of my post since I see that he is an administrator. But for the record: Being an administrator does not make him any more right. Do read WP:Administrators, including the WP:No big deal aspect of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to endlessly debate this with you, as it is clear you are not taking anything on board from what other editors have said, instead applying your own interpretations. Perhaps David Gerard will care to comment further when he is back online, but that's up to him. You canvassed, you were caught. Please learn from it and don't do it again. And don't revert anyone in the meantime. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I took Betty Logan's and Collect's comments on board, and I've been clear about that; I simply do not interpret their comments to mean that I canvassed. Neither of them have supported the notion that I canvassed. And you know it. Commentary from you or David Gerard that I canvassed are opinions I clearly will not be subscribing to. What I did was not any more canvassing than the fact that you just needlessly pinged David Gerard. If I want to use "can" in the way that I did in the future, I will, since I use it regardless of whether or not I would answer "yes" to the question. If you think you have a strong enough case against me now or in the future, you can try your luck at WP:AN or WP:ANI. But the "can" type of wording I used is showcased all over Wikipedia, including at noticeboards, and never are asinine accusations of canvassing thrown out as they have been in this case. Drawing out this sidetrack of a discussion is not helping a thing, and it would be best if you avoid me in the future. Discussion with you in this RfC has repeatedly been a nightmare because of your need to assign your beliefs to my viewpoints and motives, and your need to belittle, and somehow not expect the same treatment in return. But it's behavior like that which makes me appreciate editors like Masem, Collect and Betty Logan all the more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
And to be even clearer, when I told Betty Logan above that "I'll keep [her] advice regarding pinging in mind when it comes to RfCs.", I meant it. When I get constructive criticism or similar, I tend to listen and apply it (in real life and on Wikipedia) when it's coming from a good place. So, yes, I intend to use more careful wording in the future to avoid messes like this. But also per what I stated above, I'm not going to be overly cautious either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've said, I'm not going to continue to debate this with you. I will however ask you to stop your personal attacks. They are not appropriate. You really need to drop the stick and back quickly away. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
And yet another policy misinterpreted by you. As for the rest, pot meet kettle. Citing "drop the stick and back quickly away" after I've just cited it to you? Original. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, this nonsense has gone on long enough. Pinging interested editors is not canvassing, posting accusatory headers is a failure of AGF, and it’s time to stop the bullying, stop commenting on editors or motives, quit accusing people of canvassing, and go back to simply discussing the issue. We are done here. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Define "spoiler"

Here's the rub. You can't define "spoiler" in such a way that it applies to all people, nor even a strong majority. Maybe a particular recurring actor's appearance in an episode of a series might give away plot elements someone would find unacceptable. Maybe the visual appearance of a particular character might lend too much to maintain surprise at ending. Thing is, we just don't know. "Spoiler" has no objective measure. To prevent spoilers for all readers of an article, we might have the original Star Wars consist of the name of the movie, the year it was released, and how much it grossed. Beyond that, you start spoiling. Just in the second paragraph of that article alone, one could conclude there are at least six spoilers. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

General comment - I can't think of anywhere else to add my general comment, so I guess I'll do it here. I get Flyer's point about "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" spoilers, I'm just having trouble visualizing language that will reasonably prevent dickish behavior defended by WP:SPOILER, and I'm having trouble thinking of real-world examples. Having real-world examples in any proposed language change would be helpful. Would it be sufficient just to tack on "while Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia, not an entertainment guide, remember not to be a dick just for the sake of being a dick"? I'm also in agreement with Hammersoft that defining what constitutes a spoiler is not always easy. As I've noted elsewhere "Mentor dies, guy goes off to avenge his death" could very well be a film's premise, but it contains a spoiler that a mentor, presumably someone that we've become fond of, dies. From E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, "It tells the story of Elliott, a lonely boy who befriends an extraterrestrial, dubbed "E.T.", who is stranded on Earth. He and his siblings help it return home while attempting to keep it hidden from their mother and the government." Ta-daa, a significant plot escalation, that E.T. is being pursued by the government, has now been spoiled, and we also know that he makes it home. Even changing the last part to "Elliot and his siblings try to get E.T. back home" doesn't solve the problem because it's a kid's movie and you know that the bastard's gonna make it home alive. And you can't leave that part out entirely, because that's the premise of the film: "Alien lands on Earth and befriends a boy who tries to get the alien back home. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
"Would it be sufficient just to tack on "while Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia, not an entertainment guide, remember not to be a dick just for the sake of being a dick"?" Unfortunately, it seems not, given e.g. Flyer's past editing behaviour around spoilers including knowing WP:POINT violation. Remember, it's always the other guy who is a dick per a "don't be a dick" guideline, never oneself - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite the claim of a WP:POINT violation on my part in the #Survey section above, there was no WP:POINT violation. You could always report me at WP:ANI and see if editors will generally agree with you that making an edit while suspecting or knowing you will be reverted is necessarily a WP:POINT violation. Like the "Important note" section of WP:POINT states, "A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in 'POINTy' behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'." In the aforementioned case you are referring to, I very much agreed with that edit; I did not make it because I disagree with it.
As for what is a spoiler, I already responded to you in the Discussion section; I stated, "[if it's the case that what is a spoiler is always subjective], then why does the guideline currently state, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served."? Why should we keep that vague piece of material instead of being explicitly clear about what is or is not an 'encyclopedic purpose' or appropriate? You honestly think it is fine to include a spoiler any and everywhere in a Wikipedia article and then use this guideline to dictate such nonsense? I ask because that is exactly how this guideline is used, especially by the editors who gleefully like to spoil others. People are not idiots; while some people differ on what they consider a spoiler, most people know what huge spoilers are. Enough editors certainly have enough sense to know that the twist ending spoiler for The Sixth Sense does not belong in the lead of that article. Adamstom.97 had it right when he stated above, 'Just like anything else, spoilers should only be added to Wikipedia if appropriate, not because we don't remove spoilers!!! ' Just like you don't like people dictating where spoilers should go, many of us who think spoilers belong in more logical places and not in places where they are not needed and do not serve an encyclopedic purpose whatsoever should not be dictated by misuse of this guideline. [...] In the case of most huge spoilers on Wikipedia, there is a reliable source calling the spoiler a spoiler."
As for people insisting that something is a spoiler when it obviously is not a spoiler, at least to most people, that is what the talk page and WP:Verifiability are for. That is why I stated that "a case-by-case basis" aspect should be made clear in the guideline, just like a case-by-case basis aspect is made clear for a number of our other guidelines. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel obligated to point out that WP:DICK is now m:Don't be a jerk. It just doesn't have the impact that it used to. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm one of the editors who disliked that move; this one too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I would actually propose that we can draw a hard line to encompass most facets of a topic that are not a spoiler given a work. It still leaves a grey zone and vagueness to what may be a spoiler, but flipping the question around can help to reduce the size of that grey zone. Specifically, anything related to a work's production (casting, crew, locations, etc.) that is otherwise reliably sourced should be not as possibly being a spoiler. A work's major themes or concise 2-3 sentence elevator-pitch summary you'd find in most reviews should not be considered a spoiler either: the ET example above is prime of what is a major theme and should never be taken as a spoiler. This primarily leaves minor narrative elements for a work to consider on a case by case basis if it is a spoiler, and thus if it should editorially omitted from non-comprehensive sections of articles (ledes or on other related articles). Doing something like this - establishing the line we don't even cross - would help to limit to what I would argue is common sense understanding of what a spoiler might be. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
And despoilering advocates will take a ceiling as a floor, as Flyer keeps doing in his her repeated insistence that the current language against even considering spoilers is strong advocacy for considering them above NPOV, V or NOR - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if I would say that, but I would like to consider if that's an option that might help in the future, to say that "We should never handle material of type X as a spoiler", putting our foot down to the isolated cases that complain about these. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
David Gerard, I am a she, not a he; and your "19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)" description of me is inaccurate. If it was correct, Masem would have long stated something to me about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Pronoun corrected; my description is of your editing in this section - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: In other words, as I have made clear, and as Masem and others have made clear, the current language is problematic because it does not clearly allow for a case-by-case basis and is often misused by editors needlessly retaining spoilers in places they do not need to be. Even WP:Lead allows for a case-by-case basis, as is seen in its WP:Cite lead section and elsewhere on the page. WP:Spoiler can and should do the same. Editors' misuse of the guideline is obviously more at fault than the guideline, but the guideline does need tweaking as a result. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The more I read the Manual of Style, the more I see it at odds with this proposal. The guideline states that the lead section is supposed to obtain the reader's interest in viewing more of the article (not the topic of the article). This would naturally lead them to the plot section in the case of a fictional work, even if they haven't seen the work in question. The guide also states that the lead should avoid "teasing" or "hinting" parts of the article. Foreshadowing is the main tool of marketers to sell a work without giving away the ending, but that's clearly teasing. The only part of the guideline that doesn't conflict with the proposal is its rules concerning the opening paragraph, which should define topic neutrally and succinctly.
For fictional works, I would agree the primary characters and the conflict are the minimum that needs to be established in the opening paragraph to get an understanding of a work. I would argue, however, that outside the first paragraph, any specific plot elements that strengthen the idea of the following paragraphs should be included, whether secondary sources consider the elements "spoilers" or not. Similarly, passing mentions of a work don't need to establish the entirety of its plot, but if you were in an article named "Afterlife in fiction" you'd expect to find The Sixth Sense in there with the supporting context. 23W 20:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
23W, the proposal is not about teasing the reader. So I don't see it as being at odds with WP:Manual of Style regarding leads. It's about making the guideline clearer with regard to when and how to include spoilers, and so that it's not misused by editors to unnecessarily include spoilers anywhere they want to; and, yes, that pertains to not putting spoilers in the lead when they don't need to be there. I see the merit in including the spoilers in the lead of the Hans (Disney) article, even though I personally dislike that the spoilers are there. I don't see the merit in including the twist ending in the lead of The Sixth Sense article. Even in this spoiler case at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service, I clearly do not see why those two spoilers needed to be in the lead of that article. Including them there was unnecessary and caused unnecessary conflict. And this guideline was used as justification to keep them there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, to you the death of the mentor in The Kingsman was an obvious spoiler, but as someone who has not seen the film, the text I saw didn't have the ring of an obvious spoiler. This creates a weird situation where people who have seen the film are the only ones in the position of deciding what may be or may not be a spoiler, and someone who has not seen the film is just oblivious. If I don't perceive it as a spoiler, has it been spoiled? And why should it be removed from the lede if I didn't perceive it as a spoiler? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, that enough editors (including two experienced Wikipedians) viewed it as unnecessary spoiling, and that it was causing unnecessary distress and edit warring, was reason enough to remove it. Readers/editors who had not seen the film were also distressed and angered by those two spoilers. It was not just a matter of "Oh, I've seen the film, and I am deciding for others that this is a spoiler." I noted in the #Proposals section above, "[...] I would have been upset or annoyed as well to know about that death before watching the film. I don't think the death was anything to expect; it was unpredictable. Thankfully, I'd already seen the film at the time that editors were arguing about that death spoiler being in the lead. While that death spoiler does not make or break the film, it's certain that a good number of people would rather not know about it before watching the film. And given this, and that it is not necessary in the least for the lead, including it in the lead was unnecessary spoiling. [...] As far as I'm concerned, it's common sense not to include the death of a major character (or any character) in the lead...unless necessary."
Like I told DGG in the #Discussion section, "I am against unnecessary spoiling, and against unnecessarily hiding spoilers." Crafting the guideline so that there is minimal misuse of it by either side is not too complicated of an issue. I don't think that the solution is to let the guideline stay as is, out of fear that we will be allowing the other side to misuse it. One side is already misusing it. All of our rules are misused, and it's our job to ensure minimal misuse of the rules. And I think Masem's proposal in the Proposals section is on the right track. Maybe he wouldn't mind taking a shot at drafting a case-by-case proposal and seeing if we can agree on that. I might add a proposal, but I'm still thinking things over, considering all aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
"In my opinion, that enough editors (including two experienced Wikipedians) viewed it as unnecessary spoiling, and that it was causing unnecessary distress and edit warring, was reason enough to remove it." This is directly against what the spoiler guideline says, which is why your continued insistence that spoiler status should even be a consideration is coming across as increasingly bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The guideline specifically states, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." And that is what Sock and I cited with regard to removing those two unnecessary spoilers. We did not see any encyclopedic purpose being served by including them. And that people apparently interpret "encyclopedic purpose" differently and often ignore it is all the more reason to change the guideline so that unnecessary spoiling is not allowed. Furthermore, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, a policy, is very clear that we do not solely go by what the rules state. An over-reliance on guidelines, including this one, at the expense of common sense is a problem. If what I am stating here was bizarre, there would not be so much support for what I am stating. Forget the headcount in the Survey section. Look at the reasonable arguments elsewhere on the page supporting what I have been stating. What is bizarre is the insistence that we must continue to unnecessarily spoil or that we cannot possibly come up with wording that will prevent that. Some editors are simply okay with spoiling, or love to do so. Others, like me, are not/do not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
What is bizarre is that people constantly ignore the fact that encyclopaedias do not concern themselves with spoilers. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And as this discussion shows, editors disagree with you on that. And like I already noted, Wikipedia is not like traditional Wikipedias in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)‎
That some editors may misunderstand the make-up of an encyclopaedia, and not realise that an encyclopaedia is not a fansite or TV Guide is unfortunate. That they apparently don't read is even more troubling. I've already pointed out that the essay from which you obtained your proposed wording (which doesn't limit its application to the lead despite claims to the contrary) says "By the nature of being an encyclopedia covering works of fiction, Wikipedia contains spoilers." WP:DISC, which is linked to in that quote, says "Wikipedia contains spoilers". I've even encouraged others to go to an actual library and look at a real encyclopaedia so they can see the difference. Encyclopaedias really don't give a damn about spoilers. How many early 17th century encyclopaedias do you think got letters saying "you didst spoileth the outcome of Romeo and Juliet for me"? Encyclopaedias contain spoliers and people reading an encyclopaedia should be reading one if they don't want to be spoiled. It's really that simple and we shouldn't have to baby our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Like I told you in the #Proposals section above, "Editors disagreeing with you (and a number of experienced editors in this discussion clearly disagree with you) does not mean that they don't understand what an encyclopedia is." As for the rest, I've clearly already given my arguments. And it's clear you and I will never agree on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And for the record, no one claimed that the aforementioned essay limits its application to the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to comment in considering my concept of defining what is absolutely not going to be considered a possible spoiler on WP, I would set a bright line that any details from a work more than 50 years old (heck, maybe even 25 years) is assumed to be nonspoiler. EG: no piece of the play Romeo & Juliet should be considered as a spoiler, and everyone can safely write openly assuming that it is within common knowledge that Rosebud is the sled or that the Titanic sinks. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we spoil Star Wars VIII when it's released? The story is from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Just trying to bring a little levity back to the discussion so we can all be friends again one day... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Humor taken, but just to extend on that thought, if a new work came out that is historically accurate re-narration (eg like the film Titanic), I would also consider that the narrative elements related to real history are completely outside what we'd even start to consider as a spoiler. Eg: That the Titanic sinks is no way a spoiler, but that Jack (a fictional character made for the film) dies at the end might be considered one to discuss on its inclusion in lede or elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close discussion

GRuban, I appreciate you closing this RfC, but I want to address your statement that "any attempt to legislate [spoilers] in general will fail." This is not criticism of your close; it's just disagreement with one aspect of it. From the above discussion, or from editing Wikipedia daily, I'm not seeing that any attempt to legislate spoilers will fail. I mean, this guideline is already used to legislate spoilers. It's used to argue that a spoiler can be validly placed anywhere. There is substantial agreement in the RfC that a spoiler cannot be validly placed anywhere (in other words, there are at times nonsensical or poor places for spoilers), and that this guideline should not be used as a license to be a jerk about spoiling. As you noted, "many participants agree that, in general, the lead of an article is not the place for spoilers." Even some of the oppose voters and those who did not vote agreed that spoilers generally should not go in the lead. My proposal did give "don't spoil in the lead" examples, and spoiling in the lead is the main objection when it comes inclusion of spoilers. So it's understandable that this discussion focused so much on leads. I also saw enough agreement that some editors are using this guideline to WP:Game the system and that the "encyclopedic purpose is being served" aspect of the guideline is unnecessarily vague. So when it comes to those particular points, I think that the proposal succeeded. It spurred on a conversation involving a number of editors who agreed that the current wording is not satisfactory. I think that this topic should have more discussion, and that wording from Masem could be widely supported if the proposal was done in a manner that is clearer than my initial proposal. But I recognize that this particular RfC is over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not meant to be either my opinion or prediction, just my attempt to list one of the objections. --GRuban (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers are usually not necessary in the lead. This discussion is a close discussion, and I'm saying my piece. This discussion should have closed as consensus for no spoilers in the lead unless necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.236.128 (talk • contribs)

I reverted your edit on the grounds that a Wikipedia policy should not be changed by a drive-by IP with three edits ever, including the above comment - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
There was no consensus to change anything in the guideline. Several proposals and counter proposals were offered, but none got support. —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The IP, who also seems to be this IP, has a point about the general agreement found in the RfC; as noted above (including by the closer), there was general agreement that the lead is usually not the place for spoilers. So that sentiment had abundant support. Some of the proposals had a little support as well. But, yes, there was no consensus on exact wording. This matter will be revisited again anyway. And if I'm the one to start an RfC in that case, it will be clearer and likely more so tailored to discussion of spoiling in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, this is a guideline, not a policy. As previously noted, editors treating it like a policy has been part of the problem. But I agree that, given the above discussion, this edit made by the IP needs discussion if it is to remain. So the IP should not WP:Edit war over it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Archive_17&oldid=1137455104"