Misplaced Pages

talk:Spoiler/Archive 13: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:59, 28 August 2007 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Let's have a guideline: Manually archiving. This section hasn't had new comments in 15 days and the page is a ridiculous 260kb in size.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:16, 28 August 2007 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits Removing minthreadleft temporarily as an experiment (should not cause unnecessary archiving at present). Seems to be suppressing *all* archiving at present.Next edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|minthreadsleft = 10
|counter = 8 |counter = 8
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(10d)

Revision as of 23:16, 28 August 2007

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archiving

Please explain why this page needs an automated archiving bot when there are thousands of talk pages on Misplaced Pages, including high-profile ones like Misplaced Pages Talk:No original research, which have longer talk pages. Postmodern Beatnik has already complained about his discussion being archived before he could finish it.--Nydas 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for inadvertently removing your comments in the last revert. I should have watched for comments, and I failed to do so.
Secondly the page is more than 85kb in size, and I'd like to avoid it getting any larger. I've set the archiving period to a generous eight days. That means that a section is archived if there have been no new comments in more than a week and one day.
Thirdly I've tried manually archiving sections but you have reverted several sections over six days old, and even two archived after over seven days without new comments, calling the archiving "heavy-handed and pointless". I know not why, but I hoped that you'd find archiving by bot less heavy and more objective.
The page size does need to be kept under control, and the archives contain all discussions, so there's no reason we shouldn't agree a reasonable archive period. If eight days isn't enough, try ten. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands of longer talk pages on Misplaced Pages. Why is this one being singled out?--Nydas 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean. This page isn't being singled out, except in the sense that if I'm going to be regularly loading it I don't want it to be ridiculously large and full of dead discussions. --Tony Sidaway 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The talk pages on WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV are much longer than this one. Why have you not applied the same standard to them? Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons (which you are involved in) is the same size and yet has no archiving bot.--Nydas 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it does, but doesn't have a template.--Nydas 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I find very long talk pages an obstacle to comprehension, for the same reason that very long articles are discouraged. The fact that some long talk pages aren't regularly archived doesn't mean that their example ought to be emulated. Marc Shepherd 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages talk:No original research and Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view regularly. I last edited the first of those two or three times just over year ago, when the page was about 70kb in size. I last edited the NOR talk page, less than half a dozen edits in all, at about the same time. The page was around 100kb in size. As for the latter page, the talk page of NPOV, it has not seen an edit by me in its last 5,000 edits.
Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons, which I have edited on some occasions since late April, ballooned up from 40kb to about 400kb during the denoument of a related arbitration case, the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, until it was manually archived by User:Slim Virgin . I installed Miszabot archiving immediately afterwards, on 26 June of this year . Often a very busy page, in its set fourteen day archiving period, it veers between approximately 250kb maximum in busy discussions and its current minimum of about 90kb, during a lull. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I set the archiving period parameter to 8 days during a time when I think the Talk:Spoiler page was much more active and ballooning. But as I previously mentioned, the problem with automatic archiving is that a slowing topic will go to zero posts. That will leave no threads to indicate where the last previous wave of debates came to a lull, when new editors arrive to join the next discussion wave.
To solve this problem, I think Mizabot needs two additional threshold parameters to set:
  • The minimum kilobyte page size below which unposted-to-topic archiving does not activate. Takes precedence over minimum number of discussion topics, since a few topics have gotten very fat.
  • The minimum number of discussion topics below which unposted-to-topic archiving does not activate. Leaves a minimum number of unposted-to-topics, unless minimum kilobyte page size is exceeded.
Theoretically, an editable consensus could be reached and top-posted on doing this manually, until/if the Mizabot programmer implements those additional threshold parameters. A semi-manual method would be for concerned editors to turn Mizabot on or off using those top-posted parameters. Milo 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If the discussion comes to an end and the archiver puts everything into the archive, that is a good thing. The archiver is operating as intended. Discussions that become stale shouldn't be kept around forever. The archives are always there. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
We should agree to disagree. Such extreme tidyness has costs. I think extra clicks to locate and access an archive is unnecessary navigation work and discourages discussion. Most WP talk pages I've seen work by default the way I've described. Some low-interest articles discuss very slowly, and might not communicate if archived the way you suggest. This week I saw several fresh posts to year-old discussions on philosophical issues, in a high interest article that only gets posted in waves. Milo 02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The question remains as why this intrusive archiving system is needed at all. The reason Tony has offered is 'I post here', which doesn't give him the right to apply idiosyncratic philosophies about talk page cleanliness. We've already had one person complain about their discussion being lost, that should be an end to the matter. It's better to live and let live than applying non-standard archiving bots that mindlessly hurl valid discussion into the dustbin.--Nydas 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(←)I would like to add my voice towards consensus on this. I much prefer that discussions not be archived on an automated schedule (unless a page is growing quickly and becoming unmanageable as this one was a while ago). Digging around in the archives to find prior threads takes extra work. Automated archiving bots are great on fast moving pages like WP:AN, but on a page like this is now, there's no hurry. Let's allow the discussions to remain visibile for editors to follow the debate without extra work. --Parsifal Hello 08:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when the page size reduces to a more manageable size, we'll do that. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What's a manageable size? What happened to your self-invented policy of blank talk pages?--Nydas 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"What happened to your..." Tony does occasionally moderate his extreme positions, as we all should in process. Applying some carrot here, I think he should be encouraged toward further moderation in the direction of consensus. Milo 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the current size is too large, in the sense that someone viewing a discussion for the first time has an awful lot of stuff to wade through, much of which is no longer current. Those of us who've been watching the page daily don't have that problem. But frankly, I'd like to find a way to draw some new blood into this discussion. Right now, we have the same 5 or 6 people repeating themselves ad infinitum. I think that new people find a very long talk page (which this is) somewhat daunting. The automated bot has its drawbacks, but at least it is neutral. If Tony does the archiving manually, the pro-warning camp thinks he's being heavy-handed. Marc Shepherd 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The current number of topics, 11, looks and feels too small to me for such a complex set of debates. Prior to automated archiving there were about 100, and I thought that was too many to easily sort out the then-currently posted ones.
Technically, without the need to scroll, 25 would fill a classic computer screen, and more would fill a hi-res large screen. Milo 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) re-edited 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
While there may 11 top-level headings, there aren't really 11 topics. The content under those headings tends to repeat itself over & over again, usually with the same few people making the same points they've always made.
As I suggested in a topic below, there are really only 3 questions: When (if ever) are spoiler warnings/notices appropriate? If they are appropriate, where on the page should they go? And what form should they take? Marc Shepherd 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I cannot fit all of this single topic on my moderately large computer screen, let alone 25, but I've no idea what that has to do with archiving.
To describe the position that a 100kb page should be regularly archived, as in any way extreme, is nonsensical. Until just a year ago or so, pages that exceeded 32kb in size would show a warning message when edited. A 100kb page load is large by all reasonable standards --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"To describe the position that a 100kb page should be regularly archived, as in any way extreme, is nonsensical" But I did not so describe.
My quoted phrase was: (Milo 16:19) "What happened to your..." from Nydas' sentence: (Nydas 13:32) "What happened to your self-invented policy of blank talk pages?", in reply to you: (Tony Sidaway 23:29) "If the discussion comes to an end and the archiver puts everything into the archive, that is a good thing" — by which you (Tony) promoted that the archive bot should be allowed to blank the talk page. That is an extreme position since I've never seen that happen anywhere, probably because most editors think archive page blanking is undesireable for the reasons I've previously stated.
"cannot fit all of this single topic on my moderately large computer screen, let alone 25," Pardon, I was referring to the table of contents box for 25 topics.
"no idea what that has to do with archiving" If one can see all the topics displayed at once in the table of contents, and if one can also recall those in which one is posting or desires to post, then archiving is unnecessary even for stale topics. This recall can still be done by scrolling the TOC, but at some point the sheer number of topics challenges one's memory and it takes excessive time for scrolling. Milo 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this page needs regular updating, as Safari can crash on these pages- granted, its an older version (1.3) but I don't think everyone has the fastest browser out there. Secondly, Nydas, why the hell are you arguing about automatic talk page archiving? Have you decided that since arguing the actual guideline is "pointless", you're going to argue about increasingly fickle stuff? David Fuchs 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

True or not, it renews suspicion under the previous hot topic of supressing spoiler tag debate. Milo 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not what you were doing, you were archiving six-day old discussions as 'stagnant' when the page was only 87K, and you have suggested that blanking is a desirable outcome for the page. The archives are longer than 100K (by a lot), should they be archived themselves?--Nydas 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it's desirable that the talk page reflect the actual state of discussion rather than continue to contain stale discussions. If there are no further discussions, there is no need for anything to be on the talk page and eventually any archive scheme is going to result in a blank page. To parody that as being in favor of "talk page blanking", as you have done once or twice, and repeat above, is amusing but not productive.
I was archiving discussions which, you seem to admit, had not had a single new comment in six days. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I've set the bot archive period to eight days, and I don't see why you shouldn't increase it to any reasonable value if you want. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The goal of archiving is not to clean up pages. It's to clean up pages which have become excessively large and unnavigable. There is no reason why old discussion should be archived, in and of itself. The benefit of keeping recent "dead" topics available for perusal is that redundant discussions can be avoided or, if unresolved, re-opened. If rampant archiving becomes the norm, we may all find ourselves rehashing the same arguments every few days (if we aren't already...) Girolamo Savonarola 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"eventually any archive scheme is going to result in a blank page" and "To parody that as being in favor of "talk page blanking..." Hmm. You favor using an archive scheme which results in blanking the talk page, yet I-hear-you-saying you aren't in favor of "talk page blanking", {shrug} it's just an archiving side effect that the talk page ends up blank. That strikes me as a Clintonesque parsing of statements that you need to either own outright or moderate your position. Milo 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Girolamo Savonarola. There is no reason to move topics off this page because they are not recent. This topic clearly is of interest to many, since new editors continually add comments. What's the hurry to blank this page?
Even Misplaced Pages developers tell us: Misplaced Pages:Don't worry about performance. We're talking about pages of 100KB plain text. Let's be realistic - that's only a couple seconds of broadband time. How much data is on an average Amazon.com page? I just checked and their main page tonight came in at around 600KB, and their main page is smaller than most of their product pages.
This page should be archived manually, not by bot, unless it becomes much more active.
A blank talk page is not a goal, a talk page rich with conversation is a plus for Misplaced Pages. --Parsifal Hello 07:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I just have to say, Tony's position REALLY makes no sense to me either. I *love* to read talk pages on a topic, and I'm far less inclined to go digging through an archive. The way I look at it, leaving old topic on a page is a GOOD thing, especially when there's not much discussion -- it allows people to see the ebb and flow of the discussion, as it were. It also helps avoid rehashing things -- if something two months ago was talked about, but nothing much since, it'd be silly for someone to bring it up again instead of having it right there to read and possibly respond to with new thoughts (and see who shares their own). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that, the question is moot at present because the page is increasing in size despite archiving, and the constant discussion is likely too keep it topped up for the forseeable future. If the last person to leave the page is of the persuasion that believes in leaving clutter on talk pages, he can switch off the archiving as his final edit. --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there is no consensus on archiving by bot. Currently, more editors have complained about that than supported it, so I removed the bot template. Regarding the comments by some that their browsers crash loading large pages or that they don't like waiting around for the pages to load - that's not a strong argument. 100KB or more is very small for web pages. As I mentioned above, even the Amazon main entry page is usually around 600KB and most of Amazon's pages are larger than that. I checked Ebay tonight and their main page is 500KB. Those companies need maximum users to be able to access them so they can make a profit. Doubtless, they've carefully determined that 500KB or 600KB is no problem for the vast majority of users, so we can easily handle a third of those sizes. And we also have our developers telling us Misplaced Pages:Don't worry about performance. Combine that with editors in this discussion complaining about sections being archived when they still have value to the community for reference and comment, and it seems we do not need automated archiving on this page. --Parsifal Hello 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can change how many days the bot waits to archive. You're thrown the baby out with the bathwater. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you've re-instated the bot, with a 30 day period. I prefer manual archiving by consensus, per discussion topic. However, I accept your 30 day solution as reasonable compromise. --Parsifal Hello 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
30 days is far, far too long a period. If the archiver had been working consistently on a 30 day archiving period over the current debate, this page would contain every discussion section in which there existed an edit on or since 5 July. This would include at least six sections from archive6 (75 kilobytes) the whole of the contents of archive7 (255 kilobytes) and the whole of archive8 (about 15 kilobytes) plus the whole of its current contents (100 kilobytes). That's a total of 445 kilobytes. A little less rampant stupidity about this would be in order, I think. --Tony Sidaway 09:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is having a normal talk page rampant stupidity? Parsifal, Milo, Melodia and Girolamo have made solid arguments, why don't you address them? --Nydas 17:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish Tony hadn't used the phrase "rampant stupidity." That said, how many 455k talk pages do we have, and how "normal" is that? Marc Shepherd 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion is 192KB and has no automated archiving bot. It has one archive page that is 463KB.
Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view is 282KB and has no automated archiving bot. It has many archive pages, done manually by topic and date, some of them are short, but a couple of the archives are 176KB and 244KB.
Those are core policy talk pages with discussion by many respected editors, and they don't seem to find the page size a problem. The question of archiving did not even come up at all on those pages (so far as I have been able to find).
I haven't had time to search for more, but those are two quick examples on important policy pages.
Also - with the bot at 30 days, or if it's disabled, manual archiving can be done when there are sections of the discussion that seem to be resolved and there are not wide objections to archiving them. --Parsifal Hello 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(in reply to Marc) 455K talk pages aren't normal, but no-one has advocated them.--Nydas 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted manual archiving, but it's nearly always reverted. Also the only extant complaint about an ongoing discussion being archived was due to manual archiving when Nydas last turned the archiving bot off. We don't want to have these ridiculous arguments every time someone dares to archive a section, so automation is a more sensible choice.
Archive pages themselves can be as big as you like, 250kb is a popular choice What's important is that the discussion page be kept at a reasonable size. The busier the discussion, the more important that is. Actual page size will depend on the volume of debate, but for a busy and highly repetitive discussion page a six or eight day archiving period is reasonable, up to fourteen days is acceptable.
Somebody set the archiving period to 30 days and someone else accepted that "as a compromise". I showed, with accurate calculations based on real data, that this was "rampantly stupid" because it would end up with a ridiculously large discussion page: I could have added that the page would have contained many redundant repetitions of the same arguments. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You were reverted because you were archiving six-day old discussions on an 87K talk page as 'stagnant', not because the page was getting too long. Your views on talk page cleanliness (including page blanking) have no basis in policy or precedent. Try putting them up for comment elsewhere.--Nydas 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
What's important is that the discussion page be kept at a reasonable size. Who determines what is reasonable? I made several comments above regarding specific page sizes and load times, and reasons that size of 100KB is arbitrary, but you didn't reply to any of my points. You also did not reply to the valid debate points of Milo, Melodia and Girolamo. Instead, you have stated your personal determination that you believe "six or eight day archiving period is reasonable, up to fourteen days is acceptable", but you've supplied no basis for that.
Why is it so important to you to shorten the talk page or move prior discussions to less visible locations? The page loads twice as fast as an Amazon or Ebay page and multiples faster than a medium resolution image from the Commons. On an average broadband hookup this page takes under one second. On a moderate cell-phone wireless card it takes maybe two seconds. The TOC allows quick jumps to any section for editing and response. It's pretty clear that there are not technical problems with a larger talk page. That means the issue is not technical. Why do you want the older topics to disappear more quickly? --Parsifal Hello 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just reverted another load of archiving by Tony Sidaway, which included hiding this debate on a subpage. There is clearly no consensus for such measures, as this discussion shows.--Nydas 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So far, you haven't reverted the archiving, just caused duplication. If you do revert an archiving operation, please make sure to actually remove the threads you claim as "active" from the archive. Kusma (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd still like to know why it's so important to keep this page short... None of the comments or questions above on that topic received replies. Instead, this section was moved to a different page without consensus, after only six days and over the objections of at least five editors. --Parsifal Hello 07:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I question your apprehension of the word "short". --Mark H Wilkinson 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, "short" doesn't exactly apply to this page, you have a point there (and it "short" reads pretty funny in retrospect). The term used in the debate was "reasonable size'', and that's what I had questioned, with examples, and received no replies other than the moving of this discussion . --Parsifal Hello 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, I personally have no interest in seeing the page dwindle down to nought, even though there are few signs that that's possible. However, the simple fact is that, despite some archiving being done, this page has grown from 126,354 bytes on 07:54, 21 July 2007 to 171,909 bytes on 07:54, 10 August 2007. The page is far from short; at the current rate of archiving, it will get a lot longer. Something needs to be done. --Mark H Wilkinson 08:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you are concerned about the page getting too long. But you haven't addressed any of the specific points I made about this in the discussion above, and neither has anyone else. I offered examples of other long talk pages, calculations of very quick page-load times, and other related points, and I asked a couple direct questions as well. So far, none of that has received any replies to the substance. Since the questions and examples are still listed right in this section, just above, I don't want to repeat them. But I am interested in replies about the reasoning for the page being kept to any particular length, because I don't see any problem with interesting extended talk pages on important topics. --Parsifal Hello 08:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In view of the spiteful and petty-minded resistance by Nydas to my attempts to maintain this already groaningly large page at a reasonable size by archiving discussions that are long over, I am forced to withdraw from this discussion. There has in any case been no serious debate in several weeks now. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am re archiving some of the sections as they are old discussions. If someone whats to revisit one of the topics, then they can start a new one at the bottom. But I do find Nydas reverting of the archives to be borderline disruptive and if he continues, should be taken to WP:ANI. --Farix (Talk) 15:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Address the points raised, rather than claiming my edits are disruptive. They are in line with the consensus. Tony Sidaway has not indicated that he has retreated from his unprecendented belief in talk-page blanking, nor has any substantial reason for the highly unusual archiving procedures been offered.--Nydas 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Archiving old discussions isn't something that needs to be discussed. I don't see any valid reasons why you are objecting to archive those old discussions other then as sense of WP:OWNership. --Farix (Talk) 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You can see the objections above, mostly not from me. As for ownership, Tony indicated that his presence here necessitated the use of highly unusual archiving procedures. Do you support his 'blank talk page after ten days' wikiphilosophy?--Nydas 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The only objections I see above are from you, and they can be summed up in that you don't want the discussions to be archived. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You might want to read the objections again -- they are in response to Tony's want to blank ALL inactive discussion, not trim down big pages. In fact, this page wasn't being archived at all (it was HUGE) until I first mentioned it. What Tony did overnight was fine, the page is still quite large. You're reverting it for no seeming reason that I can see. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What about the posts made by Parsifal, Girolama, Melodia and Milo?--Nydas 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Oh... my god. You guys are bloody ridiculous. I know! If the page gets too long we should all just stop discussing things! Then it'll be kept short! My god. You're warring over how long a talk page should be. Go outside and do something productive for a change. Kuronue 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys are bloody ridiculous. Ummm.... what's that mean? If you don't like reading this archive debate, you are welcome to not read it.
This is not an arbitrary discussion. There was non-consensual removal of 45,000 spoiler notices by a small group of editors. The only reason to shorten this talk page is to obscure discussion of what happened and that there is still no consensus on the spoiler notice issue. There are no other reasons the page needs to be kept to any particular length, as is clear since none of my questions about that above have received even one direct reply.
So, you might feel this is silly, and if you do, stop reading it. But the archiving debate is not about archiving, it's about transparency of the consensus process. That's why it's important. --Parsifal Hello 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I recognize this, parsifal, and I see what you're getting at, but it's ridiculous to get this wound up over the number of kilobytes a talk page has grown to. If you want to make claims that someone is trying to hide something, make them, don't go on and on about 100kb this and 8 days that. Kuronue 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, and several people have already made that statement, though it's not "something" being hidden, it's the whole process. I'm not going to go into that right here because it's a big topic, and it's all through this page and the archives. As far as getting wound up over the number of kilobytes a talk page has grown to... that's my whole point... I don't care at all about the number of days or KB. That was my reply to someone else, who had written that it should be kept to a certain number or days or a certain size. I showed those numbers as examples that the long talk page is not a real problem, it's a red herring. Let the page be long, so what? By setting the archiving bot to an arbitrary number of days or page size, a topic that could be of interest to a new reader would disappear; and there's no reason that needs to happen. --Parsifal Hello 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This is silly. Unfortunately, me not reading it will not make you realize how silly this is. A word of advice: There is no cabal. Archiving a talk page is not about facilitating a vast conspiracy. And it's also sad that even though every venue you've brought the 45K thing to... they've all declined. End of the line. So give it a rest, please? David Fuchs 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You have me confused with someone else. I've never brought this to any other venue, that was not me. I have never said anything about a cabal. I've not mentioned a vast conspiracy. All I said is that a few editors made some big changes without consensus. That's not a cabal or a conspiracy, it's just a few editors, and it appears to be what happened, which seems strange to me. --Parsifal Hello 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever recently set the archiving period to a sane value which I had already suggested two weeks ago. It seems to have taken this time. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


A few days ago I felt the need to refer to a few weeks old thread that had already been archived. This suggests to me that archiving here is too aggressive and possibly led to unecessarily repetitive discussion.
As of 8/17 Mizabot has independently programmed a new parameter "minthreadsleft", that I suggested above on 7/31 as "minimum number of discussion topics". I've installed and set that to 20, hoping to approximately fill the screen with the topics table of contents. After 20 topics appear, the bot will archive unedited topics every 10 days (unchanged by me) which allows once-a-week editors to have their say without being pressed. There is still no way to set maximum talk page size size, but based on discussion here, as well as my tests over months at another large talk page, that seems mostly an issue for editors on dialup. At the other large talk page I noticed that slow dialup loading (about 25 kbs) was feeling annoyingly draggy around a 500K page size, but there were no other technical problems. Milo 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If we preserved the last 20 discussions on each talk page, the page would currently contain all of its current contents (148kb) plus nearly all of archive8 (167kb). At a rough estimate, something approaching 300kb. I have set it to 4. Preserving the latest four active threads of discussion seems reasonable to me. --Tony Sidaway 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
4 is totally unreasonable, considering how much things are brought up over and over on this page already. I set it to 10, though I'm wondering if the bot's working at all -- check out 'comment by Wedineinheck', already 12 days old, so it should have been archived yesterday morning I believe...but it wasn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
10 is okay. The bot didn't archive the discussion you mention because there are only 10 discussions on the page and Milo had set minthreadsleft to 20. At about 150kb this page is just about bearable, though something under 100kb would be more acceptable. Milo's numbers seem especially odd--25kbs on a dial-up? Really? v90 maximum is 56 kiloBITS per second. --Tony Sidaway 12:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a 300 kilobyte page is a reasonable maximum on fast-enough dialup, like 47 kbs.
To the best of my knowledge, the full 56 kbs has never been allowed in the USA. IIRC, the FCC limits v90/v92 use to something like 53 kbs, due to concerns about crosstalk degrading the signal-to-noise ratio of adjacent pairs.
There are so many different local telephone office equipment and wiring arrangements that it's usually difficult to explain modem speed good or bad luck. However, I think one can only expect to get 53 kbs if one lives perhaps within a copper-wire block of a central office or the nearest line concentrator substation, or one has a copper-to-fiber interface box at one's property line, or one has digital telephone service from a cable company.
Beyond that limit, in most cities there is a problem called bridge tap.
The communications effect of bridge tap is to slow the kilobits per second rate between one's computer and the ISP. (A related but much worse speed degradation can be caused by loading coils in rural phone lines more than a mile long.) If your neighborhood is served by copper pair cables, they may have unterminated side branches leading to other neighborhoods. Unfortunately, all of those side branches act like electronic capacitors placed in parallel with the v90 modem signal, which sounds like audio white noise. Acting as an audio filter capacitors conduct and reduce the amplitude of higher audio frequencies in the modem signal. Higher audio frequencies are where the fastest/broadest bit information is modulated. For exaggerated demonstration, the audio effect is like tuning an old FM radio between stations, and listening to the white noise change to pink noise as one turns the tone control from treble to bass. The actual "pinking" effect of bridge tap on the modem signal may be too subtle to hear. Milo 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)



Current wording is biased against spoilers

  • The current wording of this guideline is far too biased against spoilers. We need to return to an environment where spoiler tags are respected and welcomed as useful tools. As a common sense guideline, any plot details that one would not expect to read in a newspaper film review should be placed behind spoiler tags. Johntex\ 04:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopedia, not a film review; the standards used by newspapers don't translate. Moreover, there has been an enormous amount of discussion on the matter. I suggest you read the May archives of the wikien-l mailing list. It's remarkable how much that discussion (that I had no role in) mirrors the current practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Along that line, here is a quote from JzG, May 31 . "As it stands, there seems to be broad support for the idea that spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject." — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The "newspaper review" standard might not produce the outcome you expect. Some people, for instance, thought that the newspaper reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows disclosed too much. I know many people who avoid newspaper reviews before they've seen a film, because they feel that critics routinely give away more than they should. I have yet to see a clear definition of what someone who wants to remain "unspoiled" would be willing to be told. It seems to vary from one individual to the next.
In the Harry Potter context, I noted that virtually all critics assumed that they could freely discuss the plot of the first six books. You see this in other contexts too. A critic reviewing a new play won't give away the ending. But a critic reviewing a revival of Hamlet doesn't consider himself to be under the same constraint. There is very clearly an unwritten rule that, at some point, critics no longer feel obligated to protect the reader from plot details. Marc Shepherd 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A Problem with local consensus

I have found the perfect example of why creating a walled garden of local consensus is bad: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Harry Potter-related articles). Some Harry Potter fans evidently took it upon themselves to come up with a "guideline" for Potter articles, which is full of some incorrect information, and is especially grievous when it comes to spoiler warnings. Wether or not you think that they should have spoilers, the guideline authors have decided that content must be strictly divided into spoiler and non-spoiler sections- which has been agreed upon as the wrong thing to do. Sigh... I'm hoping this is not the reason for so much HP cruft, at least. David Fuchs 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to a Style guidelines subsection of Harry Potter WikiProject, which is where this should have remained at all times - a useful guide that simply applies the wiki-wide MOS to the context of the project. (Also added a proposed template before the move; should that be deleted now?) Girolamo Savonarola 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus is not the same thing as a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden. There's nothing wrong with local consensus in Misplaced Pages, because if anyone non-local wants to get involved in the discussion, they then become local and can affect the consensus. Further, I see no problem with a Wikiproject-level style guide (not considered a formal Misplaced Pages guidline) that does not conflict with policy. Policy trumps guideline. WP:CONSENSUS is policy. WP:SPOILER is a guideline, and a disputed one at that. If the Harry Potter Wikiproject chooses to include spoiler notices or any other form of informing readers that spoilers may be present, that will be up to the consensus. Certainly, if they do include spoiler notices, their local consensus will not remain local for long, because the editors who are scanning for spoiler notices will be aware of them in no time and remove them, referring to WP:SPOILER as justification. The ensuing debate will certainly be interesting. One can imagine that there may be some very devoted Harry Potter fans who want to prevent the story from being ruined, or shall we say "spoiled", for others who have not read all the books yet. I'm not a Harry Potter fan (though I enjoyed the movies), but I will be interested in how this proceeds on their project page.Back to the initial topic here though, I see no problem at all with local consensus on style issues, as long as they do not interfere with policies. This may be a good time to point out that Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules is "policy", and not only that, it is one of the Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. WP:SPOILER is a guideline. Quoting from the guideline infobox, we see:

generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

...and in the formal guideline infobox, the words "occasional exception" are wikilinked directly to the policy of Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. --Parsifal Hello 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a trump card. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Girolamo Savonarola 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you about that. I was not suggesting anything else. The most important thing is to follow WP:CONSENSUS and all other Misplaced Pages policies. On the other hand, editors are not required to simply follow every guideline without questioning it, and that is included even in the definition of a guideline. I'm not advocating anarchy, I'm advocating the respect of consensus in every process, not only at the guideline level, but at the project and article level as well. --Parsifal Hello 04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that Harry Potter style guide is a bit dated (it still refers to the 7th book as a future event). In more ways than one, many Harry Potter editors don't seem to be observing it, or indeed, to be even aware of it. Marc Shepherd 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal. I am not saying that just because they disagree with the current guideline, they are evil and whatnot. However as has come up in RfAs many, many times, WP:IAR is one of those policies which are better used sparingly. In any case, I'm worried less about the existence of the page and more that the creators of the page arbitrarily stamped a "this is a guideline" template over it. David Fuchs 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that would be inappropriate of them to make it a guideline without process and unilaterally add it into the MoS. By the time I saw it, it was already moved to a project page and MoS/Guideline template was gone. --Parsifal Hello 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I see you posted a note on the topic I started over at the page in question. What I have issue there with is that rather than just using spoiler templates, they advocate segregating info and then adding spoiler temps. That was argued against strongly, and if anything is one of the few points that was taken constructively in this whole guideline fiasco. David Fuchs 13:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem there, I don't have any issue with that part of the guideline either. My response to this was more about the general idea of local consensus being a walled garden, which it's not, because new editors can always join any topic. I have concern that often article editors are not knowledgeable about guidelines or larger processes in general, so when they see someone quoting a guideline, even it they have a clear local consensus otherwise, they may immediately back off from their prior consensus without even wondering about it. I agree that WP:IAR should be used sparingly, but I also feel that WP:CONSENSUS is one of our most important policies, and that guidelines exist in service to Misplaced Pages, to make it better, but not to make a barrier to the policies.
In the note I entered over on that other page, I did not advocate for them to follow WP:IAR, I only mentioned that the WP:SPOILER guideline is not set in stone and gave a link to this discussion. Maybe you're right and that page is dead and so it won't make any difference but I figured they should have the option to participate if they have the interest. --Parsifal Hello 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just purely MHO and can be taken as what one will, but my POV on local consensus vs. policies and guidelines is something akin to a federalist system. You have "constitutional" policies, which are more or less inviolable and difficult to change, "federal"-level guidelines, which apply to all articles (or all relevant articles) and should be held fairly tightly, but are more open to easy change at the guideline level (but should generally be respected at the article level), and then you have "local" consensus on pages for issues which aren't covered by the policies and guidelines above. So if it's a question of something that's specific to the article, then it can be handled locally. But decisions that fundamentally have already been decided and their application delineated on policy or guideline pages need to be respected. I regard the IAR policy as an escape hatch in the event that policy and guidelines paint one into a corner regarding common sense application - it generally is begging for trouble to use it too broadly, indiscriminately, or controversially. IAR can also be viewed as a stop-gap until the approval and implementation of a guideline or policy to supplant the problem which caused IAR to be raised.
But these are just my thoughts, obviously. Girolamo Savonarola 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually there's no problem here. Any "local" consensus can and should be bulldozed, wiped out and nullified if it contradicts policy.
In the example David Fuchs gives above, "the guideline authors have decided that content must be strictly divided into spoiler and non-spoiler sections", isn't a big deal because of course we will boldly bend, fold, spindle, mutilate, trample, bulldoze, smash, crush, comminute and thoroughly ignore it because it's complete rubbish, directly contrary to our Neutral point of view policy which requires that we give all facts pertaining to the subject of an article due weight. It would be unacceptable to write an article about a recently released Harry Potter novel, for instance, that omitted important facts, or directed readers away from those facts through notices implying either that those facts were peripheral or that an encyclopedic assessment of the subject were possible if the writers directed the reader to ignore those facts. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with local consensus on the Harry Potter articles. The members of that WikiProject probably are more in touch with the likely readers of those articles than any other group of people on Misplaced Pages. They should be given some latitude to make a good set of articles. Johntex\ 04:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A note on the use of the word 'Warning'

I would like to have a horrible little semantic moment. Since June, Milo has added to our larger debate a very strenuous argument that the term “warning” is misused in reference to spoiler tags, and that those of us who persist in referring to spoiler “warnings” are attempting a kind of double-speak. Those aren’t his exact words, but they’re pretty close.

Milo’s exact words include the use of the phrase “spoiler warning” and “spoiler warning tags,” (May 31), so perhaps he too is attempting this doublespeak. Or—more likely—he simply slipped into the common usage, for the fact is that practically everyone in this discussion uses the phrase “spoiler warning.” Moreover, the common usage is clearly in alignment with the dictionary definition.

Per the OED, “warning” is: (1) a statement or event that indicates a possible or impending danger or problem. (2) cautionary advice. (3) advance notice.

Clearly everyone’s usage of “spoiler warning” fulfills (2) and (3). Presumably Milo’s concern is that, in regards to (1), a spoiler is neither a “danger” nor a “problem.” But this is a subjective claim, and it is at odds with the way people use the terms. There are, for instance, repeated uses of the admonition: “Danger: Spoilers!” or variants on the internet. At House Targaryen, someone writes “Misplaced Pages articles for Song should be useful...not dangerous.” At One Piece, posting spoilers outside certain parameters is called “crossing a dangerous line.” At Cheeky Angel, someone is forced “to cut the spoilers part because it's just TOO dangerous for first-time viewers of Tenshi na Konamaiki.” And on and on and on. Everyone I am quoting is pro-spoiler-tag. Everyone I am quoting believes that spoilers are dangerous. Ergo, everyone that I am quoting believes that spoiler tags are "warnings." Ethan Mitchell 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically the following two statements are true:
  1. spoiler tags and other notices are intended to put the reader on his guard
  2. there is a lot of precautionary wank on fan-sites because fans tend to be very young and naive, and overestimate the importance of the originality of storylines (although just about anybody over 30 will happily set them right on that score by reeling off a whole slew of earlier occurrences of the same plot, often going back thousands of years).
We can and should fart in the general direction of such nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the word "warning," though "notice" and "tag" are fine too. The main debate is whether that thingy—whatever you call it—ought to be present on some of our articles, and if so, which ones? Compared to that, the label attached to it is comparatively unimportant.
It's true that many plots have been around thousands of years. Nevertheless, when you're reading or viewing something the first time, you don't know which of those plots a particular story is going to turn out to be. I fully accept that there are readers/viewers who would not like to have the surprise spoiled. I just think that, in most cases, we don't need to pander to that small minority of people who cannot figure out that a heading labeled "plot" gives away the plot. Marc Shepherd 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Since it is impossible to work out from first principles whether a plot section will contain spoilers, the only minority being pandered to is hardcore fans.--Nydas 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a little trouble parsing your sentence. If you think the world is divided into "hardcore fans" and "everybody else," that's awfully simplistic. Marc Shepherd 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We should assume that most viewers of an article will not be hardcore fans, unless you (wrongly) believe that some articles are fans-only.--Nydas 09:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that most readers won't be hardcore fans. Indeed, that's a Misplaced Pages guideline. Articles are for the general reader, not the specialist or fan. But the implication is actually the opposite of what you've suggested. It's actually the hardcore fan that wants spoiler warnings the most, and it's also the hardcore fan that is most sensitive to what constitutes a spoiler.
For instance, when the New York Times reviewed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows two days early, the headline of the review was: "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood." Many HP fans regarded that headline—in and of itself—as a spoiler, since it disclosed the fact that Harry survived (i.e., made it to adulthood). As far as I know, it was only the hardcore fans who objected. (Obviously, those who went on to read the text were even more incensed, even though the review, like any normal book review, did not disclose very much of the plot.)
It is generally the hardcore fan who will argue that any plot point, however, minor, is a spoiler. That's why the only warning that will satisfy the people who care about them most, must go on the entire plot. Marc Shepherd 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're dead wrong here. Spoiler tags interfere with hardcore fans' sense of article ownership and their unrealistic assumptions about their fiction's popularity. They support non-hardcore consumption of fiction like waiting for the paperback or the DVD, which hardcore fans may resent.--Nydas 11:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Luckily, you need not take my word for it. The whole Harry Potter pre-release contretemps is quite recent, and easily google-able. You can research it for yourself, and see that it's precisely as I've said. Marc Shepherd 14:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The spoilers were mainstream news, with the author and various columnists expressing their opinions. It is hard to think of a less hardcore example.--Nydas 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
But the outrage came chiefly from the hardcore fans, which is the point. Marc Shepherd 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"the hardcore fan who will argue that any plot point, however, minor, is a spoiler." Hardcore fans would be the extremists at the opposite end from the clique. Pander to neither.
"That's why the only warning that will satisfy the people who care about them most, must go on the entire plot." You are stating an extreme position. Extremists need not be, and indeed cannot be satisfied.
"But the outrage came chiefly from the hardcore fans, which is the point." Ok. Your point is inclusively that they are extremists. It's best to ignore them and move on. Milo 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the 'outrage' chiefly came from hardcore fans. News reports of the controversy focused on Rowling, her publishers, and various commentators over the views of HP fansites.--Nydas 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


"those of us who persist in referring to spoiler "warnings" are attempting a kind of double-speak" That's not my explanation. Originally we were all unconsciously hyped. Persisting that usage after the definitional logic has been exposed is a more group-conformist and/or habitual phenomenon.
"Those aren't his exact words, but they're pretty close" Wrong - not even in the vicinity of my words. You also seem to be confusing an interpretation with a quote.
"Or—more likely—he simply slipped into the common usage," That's inadequate research. May 31 was about a week before I discovered that I and everyone else had been hyped, and that it mattered due to the constant red herring sidetrack of the disclaimer policy.
"practically everyone in this discussion uses the phrase "spoiler warning." Which is evidence of conformity, not correctness. It's also the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.
"the common usage is clearly in alignment with the dictionary definition." No. Since two dictionaries disagree (in the 3rd definition and the latter half of the 1st definition), it is not clear. Your overstated position is merely a disputable argument.
"usage of "spoiler warning" fulfills (2) " It's a poor fit, relating firstly to "danger" at COED and "warning" M-W.com, but anyway moot, since no one is likely to call it a "spoiler caution".†
"spoiler is neither a "danger" nor a "problem." Half wrong. It is a problem, or fans wouldn't complain.
(many references to colloquial usages of "spoiler warning") ... "everyone that I am quoting believes that spoiler tags are "warnings." So what? All of them have been successfully hyped. See bandwagon effect. Even if they don't know it, all of them are speaking colloquially. And most importantly, all of them are encyclopedically incorrect.
"usage of "spoiler warning" fulfills (3) " This is your only valid debate point. As weak as it is, I'd shrug it off and accept this false-hype colloqial usage - except that other editors persist with the disclaimer false argument against spoiler notices. They use emotionally charged yet incorrect comparisons to porn, obscenity, and emotional triggering disclaimers. Therefore, I insist on formal encyclopedic correctness to which Misplaced Pages claims to adhere by default, and thereby to purge the populist, hyped notion of a spoiler 'danger' that does not exist. Milo 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
†Later I Googled 827 instances of "spoiler caution" (0.05%), possibly a UK-influenced usage. (I recall that the U.S. "Miranda warning" is UK equivalently known as "the caution".)
By comparison there are 765,000 of "spoiler warning" (49%), a suprising 762,000 of "spoiler alert" (49%), and 14,000 of "spoiler notice" (0.9%).
Parsifal found that "alert" has a defined reference to danger , and is therefore about as unsuitable as the primary meaning of "warning". I'd like to think that the "spoiler notice" phrases were posted by rhetorically careful writers. Milo 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I disagree that the 'danger does not exist' compared to other warnings. Just yesterday someone's mood was HIGHLY affected by learning of the ending to a new game (outside WP). Basically it seems to me what you're saying is that the spoiler notices should be there because people want them and it's the courteous thing to do...while at the same time, it doesn't matter because they don't affect anything. How does that make sense? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"someone's mood was HIGHLY affected by learning of the ending to a new game" Danger from a mood?? Did they cut themselves or threaten worse? Did they fear they were going to have therapy bills from the emotional trauma of being spoilered? Let's see that link to identify what specific harm this person claimed or at least experienced.
"spoiler notices should be there because people want them..." For me that's a necessary but not sufficient condition.
"it's the courteous thing to do" That's not my position. My position is 'it's a useful thing to do' like the table of contents and permanent disambiguation non-content notices. One could get information without content notices, but they are more useful to have than not have.
"while at the same time, it doesn't matter because they don't affect anything. How does that make sense?" Maybe you are exploring a point I think I mentioned months ago, that the arguments against spoiler tagging are based on exaggerated positions (motivated by external "warning" hype), while spoiler notices are actually a feature of middling importance with a moderate effect. For example — spoiler tags aren't so important as to rise to the level of general disclaimer policy (see my hidden warning tag test), yet they aren't decidedly unimportant, since 40+% of readers/editors want them (#Poll 1). So, in terms of your question, my position is that spoiler content notices are a middle case feature that usefully affects some things, some people, somewhat. Milo 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Informal request for comments

I wonder if it would help discussion here if we focused on actual ongoing activity rather than ancient history.

I'll present my own spoiler-related activities over the past week as an example. As I begin write this, the time on the clock is 1440 GMT, 18 August, 2007, so I'll take 1440 on 11th, exactly seven days ago, as my starting point. That doesn't rule out discusion of my other activities related to spoiler tags since the start of the discussion on 15 May, but I thought it best to concentrate on what we're all up to now.

Of course we all know that I and some other editors occasionally take a peek at Whatlinkshere in article space for Template:Spoiler and remove stuff that doesn't seem to be appropriate. I won't go into detail on that here because that kind of editing seems to have been well discussed.

But also as was mentioned in Ken Arromdee's second application for arbitration I run a bot of sorts. I have described how it works here, The results of running this bot over the past week are publicly displayed at this page history. After running the bot I examine each article carefully to see if I think it's appropriate or not, then I may edit the article.

Examples of this are:

  • 22:23, 11 August 2007 Dear Frankie, "Remove home-made spoiler warnings. 1) use "{{spoiler}}{" and 2) not in sections like "Plot" that obviously discuss the plot." removing section headings that said "==Spoiler warning==" and "==Spoilers end here==" after a clearly marked "Plot" section heading.
  • 23:09, 11 August 2007 Goodbye Charlie Bright, "Remove home-made spoiler warning. 1) use "{{spoiler}}{" and 2) not in sections list "Plot" which are obviously going to discuss the plot.", removing tag that said "*Warning - Contains Spoilers*"

All other examples, which I won't give in detail, are as follows. I tried to use the templates template:col-begin, template:col-3 and template:col-end to make this list more compact on the page, but I'm sorry I can't seem to get it to work. If a kind magician should be reading this, I would welcome some help.


Comments on this output are welcome. There are thirty-odd edits so this activity amounts to about five edits a day. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I spot-checked about 25% of the examples above, and all of them appeared to be appropriate edits, and consistent with the existing version of the guideline. I realize that there are some editors who don't like the existing version, but that is a different issue. Marc Shepherd 16:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it would also help to see just who is adding the spoiler warning. In most causes I've encountered the person adding the warning is an anonymous editor, many with no other edit history. Registered editors tend to add them far less frequently. --Farix (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I have edited my list to use the "la" template, which gives links to article history, talk page, etc. --Tony Sidaway 10:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I'd only suggest taking more care not to bite the n00bs in the edit summary, particularly when they're being quite stupid, e.g. "Remove text spoiler, and not in plot section - see WP:SPOIL" or similar - David Gerard 14:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay no more references to "Z0MG SP01L3RZ!!!11!!" even when the warning is quite OTT. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The only comment I have is that this list includes removing spoiler warnings from plot sections, something that (a) we don't seem to have consensus for and (b) is done on the base of an illogical argument, my refutation of which was never responded to. As I have stated, I am neutral on spoiler tags in general, but of course I am all for eliminating abuse of the spoiler tag. Still, I think we should have consensus here before we go making encyclopedia-wide edits. Just call me old-fashioned that way. Postmodern Beatnik 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The current guideline says that spoiler warnings are usually redundant in plot sections. There are many Misplaced Pages guidelines that say "usually" (or "generally"). Indeed, it is the norm, since most rules have legitimate exceptions. An editor who believes the warning does not justify an exception is entitled to remove it. The burden is then on the editor who favors retaining it to explain why the situation is unusual.
I've been saying for a long time that the guideline needs to do a better job of explaining what constitutes an unusual situation. At some point, one of two things will happen. Either we will find a few examples that justify the exception, and then add them to the guideline. This will have the effect of making the bare adjective "usually" more clear as to its scope. Or, we will find that the exception is never justified, and "usually" will be removed.
Incidentally, I believe most of the examples above were "home-made" spoiler warnings, and didn't use the {{spoiler}} tag. This provided a second reason for their removal, since the guideline says that the template should be used, and this rule is not hedged with "usually". Marc Shepherd 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are trying to disagree with me, but you did not actually do so at all. I agree that most of the above examples were "home-made" spoiler warnings, and you'll notice I didn't object to their removal. What I objected to was that Tony still seems to think that the mere fact of a spoiler tag appearing in the Plot section of an article is a sufficient reason to remove it. There is no consensus for such a view, as you highlighted by noting that it is only usually the case. Postmodern Beatnik 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Brinker

Interesting that we have both independently obtained some stats on the dimensions of the spoiler tagging and reverting operations.
There is "leak" averaging 5 spoiler tags per day. There is a "head" of mostly IP-generated tags behind the leak in the en.wikipedia.org boundary. The head pressure doesn't seem high, so this would analogize to a large but shallow lake behind the leak.
Outside the boundary, I've found over 1.5 million web references to spoiler warnings, alerts, and notices. Considering these numbers and 2007's ramp-up in external don't-spoil sentiment, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the 6+ members of the Misplaced Pages hierarchy clique, are now opposed in principle by a million people, for classic reasons of convenience, and now, morals.
You are looking a lot like the nameless fictional character popularly known as Hans Brinker. How long can you hold your finger in the spoiler tag dike?
If you become indisposed or take a two-week vacation, 70 tags may pile up in your absence. Year in, year out, you need to do up to 1,825 tag reversions. As the seasons roll by, the first 1,825 may not be so hard. But by the end of 3,650 reversions two summers hence, the task may become progressively more tedious, thankless, and meaningless.
If my analysis is correct, spoiler tag opposition is an intergenerational conflict like 20th century opposition to dime novels, jazz, comic books, and rock 'n roll. The next generation usually wins in matters of popular culture, especially when big profit supports them. I forecast that in the end, in the time-uncertain arrival and coalescence of pro-tagging factors I've previously described, your thousands of spoiler tag reversion edits will mostly, or all, be for nothing. Milo 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to install the final draft. 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You are assuming that only 6 people are removing spoiler warnings. That isn't true, and as word gets around that they are deprecated when redundant it will become less and less true. Eventually the recent changes patrol will deal with them. I saw numerous editors removing spoiler warnings from the Harry Potter article when the book came out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I assumed only Tony would be doing the removing, since that currently seems to be his undertaking with the bot. If you are correct then he needs to do fewer tedious reversions than I suggested.
Since judgments and knowledge of the subject are required, I doubt that Recent Changes can handle spoiler tag reversions in the way vandalism is handled.
I came here months ago because an "enforcer" editor removed my spoiler tag, so that behavior might or not already be maximum. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No one is arguing that spoilers do not exist in that context (yes, wow, journals and newspapers use the word "spoiler". can we move on?). However if it's true that we are "fighting the flood", then, why do you care? Let us be obstinate old-timers. However arguing from google searches that we are "morally opposed" by a "million" people seems a tad presumptuous. David Fuchs 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"morally opposed" by a "million" I've replaced my earlier draft with a refinement of the "morals" point. (An escaped draft has happened to me twice without losing the edit window — I wonder if there's a software problem?)
I think currently most of the million would be opposed for classic convenience reasons. However, the San Francisco Chronicle has raised the stakes to a moral level, so it's not my presumption. (SF Chronicle internal link name is "Editorial: Spoiling is immoral") In the U.S. anyway, claiming a moral issue could mean political trouble for the anti-taggers, if that claim gains traction.
"why do you care?" I ask myself that periodically. I can't help but notice that both Nydas and I have been greatly influenced by Orwell. See my post #Misplaced Pages Farm.
Also if you haven't read much about the history of law, it's difficult to adequately convey how important due process is to the orderly and fair functioning of civilization, as well as the individual pursuit of happiness. See Code of Hammurabi. I've previously mentioned that had the clique gotten what they wanted without the process abuses (and I think they could have), I wouldn't be posting here.
Beyond that, there's the news spectacle of 'Internet Clique Bets Against Hollywood Profits'. This little story of an internal cultural dispute has mushroomed with elements of education, current events, big business, philosophy, and Greek tragedy with a theme of hubris. But ok, the final Harry Potter book is launched. What more big news could possibly happen that has anything to do with spoilers? Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Milo, your straw man arguments are becoming more fatuous the further you continue to spin them. First it was that we should avoid spoilers because that might possibly cause non-profitability which could cause Misplaced Pages to be sued. Now it's that the number of reverts would be so high that we'd all collapse under the strain. Or that future generations will hate us. Or something. Instead of providing vague hair-brained threats of "or else" and making up statistics in a flagrant misuse of a Google test, maybe you could try discussing the issues at hand today? I'm not convinced by your numbers, but were they even correct, would it matter? Do we give up on reverting vandalism because there is so much? Our job is to create an encyclopedia filled with articles that meet a standard for that purpose. That's not an easy task period. But betraying the project mission for certain "exceptional" articles for the sake of fanboys is unacceptable on all terms. For reasons that have to do with being an encyclopedia, no more or less. Girolamo Savonarola 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You have again assumed I wrote things that I didn't write, and pejoratively misunderstood even more; so, I find your posts unacceptable for debate. Furthermore, when you get your facts wrong and you are pushing WP:CIV to the limit, you are coming across in a way that I respectfully suggest is not good for your reputation. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
But betraying the project mission
So spoiler warnings are akin to treason .If you are going to have a go at someone for "going over the top" with their arguments it's best not to do it yourself .Garda40 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Poorly worded, I admit, but I think my point is clear - favoring certain actions for extra-wiki reasons which go expressly against our purpose and policies - is completely counter to our entire purpose. Girolamo Savonarola 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If they're true - and I don't mean to imply that they're not, don't misunderstand me, I simply didn't follow the sources on a quick skim - then it would be highly relevant, since 6 vs a million is hardly wiki-wide consensus. IP editors are still editors. Kuronue | Talk 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In the final draft I wrote "opposed in principle by a million people". Surely the vast majority of the million don't actually edit here as IPs. My point is that even if the clique does have Misplaced Pages consensus (which I claim will take at least a year to determine), they probably lack external consensus and it may be getting worse. I think external society will exact some cost for the clique's anti-spoiler-tag position. If, and only if, that cost is high enough, I expect the Misplaced Pages honchos will quietly revert the clique. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. Although some editors have historically argued that policies and guidelines should be adopted by vote or majority opinion, Misplaced Pages policy clearly contradicts this opinion. It should also be noted that while seniority and high edit counts don't confer more weight to particular users, anonymous IPs and new or light users generally are considered to have less weight on decisions unless they are part of the discussion and discuss with regard to policy and guidelines. (AfD, for example, states that Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted.) Clearly the question is what are reasonably informed editors doing. Which is also the reason why we do not give up the war on vandalism despite the preponderance of occurrence. Our concern is not what ill-informed editors are doing - it's what the average editor does. Girolamo Savonarola 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is "leak" averaging 5 spoiler tags per day.

A good way to assess this information is to compare spoiler tags to other kinds of "leaks." For instance, yesterday there were 129 articles proposed for deletion. A bit of research will show that, overwhelmingly, most of those articles are going to be deleted. So, in rough numbers, articles requiring deletion overwhelm "spoiler tag leakage" by about 20 to 1. I don't have a good way of counting vandalism edits, but I'll bet there are a helluva lot more than 5 of them per day.
So, if there are only 5 spoiler tag additions per day, that strikes me as a very low number, compared to all of the other kinds of guideline/policy-violating edits that are routinely reverted. Marc Shepherd 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You got it, Marc. Whilst it's true that only I am engaged in systematic searches for home-made spoiler warnings, the reason for that is more about the availability of the technology. Using my bot search-script, I've also engaged in similar regular cleanups for misnomers for The Times and inappropriate references to "Harry Potter" (such as this one). There are all very minor stylistic edits but I think they improve the overall quality of Misplaced Pages.
The investment of time at first is quite considerable: there are about 1,200 articles that legitimately contain the word "spoiler", mostly in connection with automotive aerodynamics or air flight, and these articles had to be identified and added to an exception list. There are some 2,500 articles that legitimately (or at least, not in a context that is grossly inappropriate) refer to Harry Potter, and these also had to be checked individually. Once this large task has been performed, however, it doesn't ever have to be done again.
I am currently engaged in software development work that should make the bot, and its technology, available to all Misplaced Pages editors. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not five tags a day, it's five homemade ones. It'd be pretty hard to really find how many of the templates are added, as they are constantly being reverted. I imagine it's more than five, but considering how few in number there tend to be at any given time, it's probably still not that much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is a matter we can do something about. I've written a script that checks the list of article transcluding template:spoiler every fifteen minutes, and updates the page User:Tony Sidaway/transclusions/spoiler if it has changed in any way in the intervening time. This wouldn't detect tags that are added and then immediately removed, but it will probably enable us, by watching the history of that page, to keep a fairly close watch on the rate at which spoiler tags are added and removed. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I can only wonder how much energy are you willing to spend on fighting, rather than on ways to find the consensus with people who want and use spoiler warnings (they are significant minority). I even proposed compromise that spoiler warnings would be hidden by default, but most anti-spoiler fanatics here seem to oppose even that (obviously such solution would harm no one). Lately, there has been proliferation of people for which the formal policies are more important than common sense (see for example ). I wish that Misplaced Pages would truly be democracy, so that all those elitists and "deletionists because of such and such policy" would left. The Misplaced Pages was built on assumption that people (as a community, not individuals) know better, and don't need to have complex formal rules imposed by high authorities. Samohyl Jan 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your appeal to "common sense" presumes that the current practice is non-sensical. Perhaps it is...but this hasn't been demonstrated. You appear to be equating "deletionism" and "elitism." But deletionism is a legitimate position, just like its polar opposite, inclusionism. Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy, and hasn't been for at least as long as I've been around. Misplaced Pages has always had rules. You cannot hope to create an encyclopedia of any value without rules. Marc Shepherd 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
To ignore what people actually want just for the sake of some formal rules is non-sensical. People here opposed spoiler warnings for various formal reasons like "it's redundant with the plot heading", "it should be expected" or "it contradicts no disclaimers". But if people in general want such exception, why not? In law, people are able to cope with reasonable exceptions, the rules don't have to be completely orthogonal. Although it's irelevant for this debate, I don't equate deletionism and elitism, I just equally despise both. And I actually mean a special case of deletionism, the one that leads people to AFD obviously notable articles that just lack sources, the one that Transhumanist mentions on that link, or the one that leads people to remove all spoiler warnings just because some of them are misused. What happened to the original "it's bad, maybe someone will come along and improve it"? Now we have "it's bad, let's delete it so no one can see it". And you seem to equate democracy with anarchy. Democracy has rules too, in fact, democracy is so good because it has a simple easy-to-check rule - voting. You don't need to have higher authority that decides who is right in democracy. And I wouldn't mind if only people who care enough (are registered and have enough edits, perhaps) are allowed to vote, that wouldn't be undemocratic at all. The point of democracy is that the rule is simple and obvious - no way for admins or other people to manipulate the outcome by saying - well, you may have the majority, but Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, so you are screwed. I don't think pro-spoilerists have majority, but this fixed rule would make such admins think twice about the minorities too, and they would be more willing to find compromise in general (because they may happen to be the minority next time). Samohyl Jan 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Reasonable exceptions exist on Misplaced Pages. It's pretty much how Misplaced Pages works. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place for a metaphysical discussion about Misplaced Pages's flaws—and it certainly has plenty. If you have a concrete proposal for improving the spoiler guideline, by all means make it (starting a new section heading would be a good start). Your proposal—whatever it may be—will still have to run the gauntlet of Misplaced Pages's "consensus" process. Flawed though it is, that process is the only one we have. Marc Shepherd 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Major themes of this debate for months before you arrived are:
  • Process has been abused beyond mere flaws to unavailability.
  • Through illogical fig leaves like circular reasoning, consensus is what the clique says it is.
  • Compromises and proposals have been repeatedly blocked or sidetracked by artifices and agendas stretching beyond operational reason.
  • Perceived attempts to suppress debate are inclusively an issue.
The problems here span a wide spectrum, meaning that spoiler-tag issues traceable to user conduct, WP's metaphysical flaws, or external big business pressures are on the table for discussion. I don't think you are actually attempting to suppress debate per se, but by declaring things to not discuss you are making yourself sound like a tool of whoever is suspected of doing that.
I'm in favor of concrete proposals, please proceed. But believe it or not, I can walk on concrete and simultaneously chew metaphysical gum. I think a number of other editors here are equally capable. Milo 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


My first concrete proposal is to actually go back to consensus. Saying "It is consensus when nobody manually reverts all of the thousands of changes we make using automation tools" is not consensus (especially when people who try anyway get told that they can't make the changes because consensus is already settled, which is circular reasoning.) Ken Arromdee 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I proposed two compromise solutions a while back, they can be found in the archives. They were completely ignored by the anti-spoilerists, so I take it they don't want to negotiate. The proposals were:

1. No guideline where to place spoiler warnings, just the local consensus on per article level. And no bots patrolling articles to remove spoiler warnings if someone adds them. Basically, revert the guideline to as it was before May 2007, and leave the 45000 removed SWs removed. If there really is consensus that SWs are inapropriate, they won't appear on the articles pages, or will be outed by the other editors.

There are many bots that search for potential violations of various guidelines and policies. There is still human judgment as to whether an edit is called for. It would be better if you pointed out a number of specific edits that you believe shouldn't have been made, rather than to state categorically that there shouldn't be bot patrols. Marc Shepherd 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Technical compromise. Spoiler warnings are hidden by default, but can be enabled by method similar to the method that was used to hide them, as was described on this page before May 2007. Anyone can add them to article as they see fit (within reasonable bounds).

There's lots of content on Misplaced Pages that some editors wish wasn't there. It's a little hard to believe that this is the first time Misplaced Pages needs to hide content because some editors would rather not see it. Marc Shepherd 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These are 2 different compromises, and none of them is acceptable (I guess) to hardcore anti-spoilerists. Because this is not about consensus or not seeing spoiler warnings, this is about "it will be our way and you shut up". Samohyl Jan 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


"hard to believe that this is the first time Misplaced Pages needs to hide content because some editors would rather not see it." It isn't the first time, but what matters is that it is the workable compromise this time.
Please avoid intraposting. It's a little more work to interpost with thoughtfully indented quote-and-response, but it keeps the threads together for easier reading — otherwise a new intraposted thread splits a post further and further apart. Interposting also doesn't obscure the coherence of ordered-point proposals like Jan's. Milo 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What I mean by "no patrolling bots" - this is to prevent situation like, if some editor adds a spoiler warning to the article, and it gets removed in 15 minutes without any discussion by another editor, because article appears on some personal watchlist. Or even cases when he discusses addition/removal of the SW on the talk page, and a bunch of people who have never made any edit to that article just come in saying "we don't want it", and it gets removed. Just because it triggered a scanner for the word "spoiler". This is not what I consider to be a local consensus. The order should be: Someone is bold and makes the edit (ie. adds the SW), then if other people (who are perhaps regular maintainers of the article) disagree, they say so on the talk page. The issue waits a week or so, and after a week it's probably obvious what the local consensus is. Samohyl Jan 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


I am not aware of any fighting. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Misza13 has also drawn my attention to the following record: . --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is a spoiler guideline, but whenever it's followed, editors like Tony Sidaway and David Gerard instantly go into attack mode as if they're the Spoiler Police. It's condescending editors like that who turn people off to this site. --YellowTapedR 22:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, for all practical purposes they are acting as if the guideline reads 'no spoiler tags under any circumstance' when in fact there is demonstrably no consensus for such a position. (see recent edits for Match Point for an example) Tomgreeny 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
We're following the guideline. If there is an objection to our edits we seek consensus on the talk page. No condescension, no "attack mode", no "Spoiler Police", no "'no spoiler tags under any circumstance'", but simple, patient discussion. This is how Misplaced Pages works. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If Talk: Halo: Combat Evolved is any example, then we will see: (a) threats (b) shifting the definition of consensus to mean 80% agreement (c) insults (d) changing the guideline to win the debate (e) "everyone knows" (f) "If we don't agree then it isn't consensus" veto-mode.--Nydas 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When people seek consensus on the talk page, it's impossible to get any headway because you, Gerard, Carl and one or two others monitor everything and always have some smartass comment to make yourself feel superior. I read an interview with one of the founders of Misplaced Pages saying the "cliques," consisting of longtime and houlier-than-thou editors, are turning this site to crap. That's you. You're gonna tell me this isn't condescending?: "(((current fiction)) (duh!))" Maybe that's not the best example, but I didn't feel like spending more than a minute going through your history. --YellowTapedR 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite a specific interview in which you claim that a Misplaced Pages founder says that I, or other editors performing maintenance edits, are acting in a "holier than thou" manner and/or "turning this site into crap"? Could you please explain why my self-correction from "template:recent fiction" (which doesn't exist) to "template:current fiction" (which does) accompanied by the self-deprecating comment "duh!" is in any way condescending? It was, I assure you, intended to be self-deprecatory. I made a mistake and then corrected it. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. He didn't say that you specifically or editors performing maintenance edits are ruining the site, but that longtime editors who form cliques make it unwelcome. I'd consider the anti-spoiler gang an example of that. I'll track down the link for you when I get a chance. It's the guy who is forming the new site for only experts to contribute to who said it.

I'm sorry, I was being quick and I took your quote out of context. --YellowTapedR 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of terms like "gang", "clique", etc, to describe people who share similar opinions (especially when those opinions enjoy wiki-wide consensus) is unhelpful. Please clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I need your advice, but thanks. Claiming to have "wiki-wide consensus" when you have no such evidence is also unhelpful.

The use of the terms "gang" and "clique" is accurate in this case. Look at ANY talk page where a spoiler tag is being discussed, and you'll see the usual suspects. So, it is impossible to get anywhere with the same -- I'm saying it -- gang on talk pages because of the circular reasoning and bully-like behavior. In most cases, consensus would clearly be for adding spoilers if it weren't for the gang, who monitors any spoiler-related activity closely, showing up everywhere. --YellowTapedR 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's all tone it down a notch and discuss our issues with guidelines, not editors. Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Other" compromise

Hiding the spoiler tag is not a real solution because all it does is hide the problem. Editors will still add "home made" warnings because the spoiler tag will not be visible. The real solution would be to establish objective criteria to determine when a plot detail is a spoiler and when it can receive a warning, much like how the notability guidelines work.

Also it is absurd to say that spoiler tags can be added without discussion but it needs to be discussed before it can be removed. We don't discuss if unverifiable information is unverifiable before removing it, do we? But if editors disagree with the removal of a spoiler tag, then they should discuss it on the articles talkpage to obtain a consensus.

Also, why go back to a version of the guideline that was clearly rejected by consensus (see previous MfD and subsequent RfC). It's much better to amend the current version with its vague consensus and find ways to improve that consensus then to go back to a rejected version. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate constructive argument. Hiding the spoiler tags maybe won't help problem you describe, but we don't actually know, if it's a problem at all - what will be the behavior of people if we do that. At least, it will be possible to see SWs for those who want them, and it won't make problem with making homemade warnings worse. And I would certainly revert homemade warning if there already would be a (hidden) warning, but I would probably save that effort in the current situation. So maybe editors will behave differently in a good way too, and this won't be a problem. The point is, we won't see until we try.
Regarding the second point, I actually prefer perfect symmetry with respect to additions/removals, it's just the situation we are in that results in asymetry you describe. There is a problem: if someone stumbles upon a page without spoiler warning, it is not obvious that it isn't there because nobody cares, or because nobody wants it (unless there was a discussion on talk page). So it is sane to assume that no-one cares, and add it (if he wants it) spoiler without discussion. In reverse, if the page already has spoiler warning, and there is no discussion of it already, it is obvious that the author or other people wanted it, so its removal should be discussed. So there is a natural asymetry from the fact that you cannot always detect rejection of SW, but can always detect acceptance of SW. This asymetry is further emphasized by the fact that almost no articles have SWs now.
As for the third point, I don't think the consensus was clear, but this was already debated to death. The reason why to return to the previous guideline is because it takes completely neutral stance - SWs may happen, and are subject to local consensus, and that's it (there were few non-contestable points such as no removal of content etc.). It was so neutral that it survived for several years without much controversy. So maybe there was consensus that better policy is needed, but I don't see much consensus for what such policy should be (except maybe no SWs in fairy tales, which is really a side issue). In fact, even editors such as Tony now talk more about return to local consensus. And also, it contained description how to switch SWs off if someone really found them offensive. Samohyl Jan 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Who determine when a plot detail is a spoiler? The problem with your system is that it reduces the definition of spoiler to its lowest common denominator—that of any plot detail. As show in the RfC, such a position is unacceptable. So we do need some sort of standard to determine what is and what isn't a spoiler.
Your statements also indicate that you prefer a system where there are no hurtles to add spoiler tags, but put up hurtles for those who want to remove them. The author adding the spoiler tag to identify and argue that a warning is necessary, but it is up to those removing the tag to argue that the plot detail is not a spoiler or does not need a warning (see negative proof). I'm completely opposed to such a position and think the burden of proof should be on editor(s) adding the tag instead of the one(s) removing the tag.
Of course, anyone adding or removing the tag should check the article's talk page. But 99% of the time, the inclusion of the spoiler tag is never discussed. --Farix (Talk) 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For every Misplaced Pages style issue I'm aware of, local consensus occurs within a "ring fence" established by site-wide guidelines. The only exception would be style issues that, by their nature, apply to only a small subset of articles in a specialist area, a situation clearly not applicable to spoiler warnings. I support the "local consensus" idea, but first there needs to be a site-wide guideline that covers the mine run of typical cases.
It's not really true that the previous guideline "survived for several years without much controversy." Spoiler warnings have been a continuously controversial subject, at least for the few years that I've been around. Marc Shepherd 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If the controversy would be measured by amount of discussion, then the current guideline is several times more controversial than the previous one. And it's not surprising - the previous guideline was rather neutral, while current one more or less bans most of SWs. As for the argument that site-wide guideline is needed first, it obviously wasn't there for several years. If you want to create guideline ex post in such situation, you cannot ignore (then) current practice, which is precisely what happened. Anti-spoilerists ignored the actual practice (that many people want, use and add SWs), removed SWs from many articles, and the resulting guideline is thus even more controversial. Samohyl Jan 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Because less then a half-dozen editors are keeping the issue alive by complaining about the May-June removals of the spoiler template, that certain editors are somehow "bad" for systematically removing the template from articles, and that certain MediaWiki tools also give them the advantage. In fact, very little of the discussion has been about the guideline itself. If that effort has been put into improving the guideline, then we would have had a much clearer consensus by now and most of the "discussion" wouldn't have taken place. --Farix (Talk) 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, as you can see, that's what I am doing. Obviously, there are people who find SWs useful and not unencyclopedic. So what parts of this guideline would you be willing to give up in order to have a compromise with them? It's nice words about improving the guideline, but if your points are non-negotiable, then it's just a fluff talk. Samohyl Jan 05:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For example, if there were clear guideline what is a spoiler, would you give up "no SWs in plot section"? Samohyl Jan 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see anything fundamentally wrong with the current restrictions. But if there are to be spoiler tags in the plot section, then it needs to be extremely limited—in other words not the entire plot section or even most of it—and with a clear TTL. Contrary to the belief of some spoiler proponents, spoilers do age and become less relevant over time.
However, the real issue that needs to be settled is trying to objectively define a spoiler. Mainly because what people thinks is a spoiler differs from person to person. --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That may be, but your "who determines when a plot detail is a spoiler?" argument is a red herring. The kind of reasoning that says "the line is blurry, so let's erase it and not have to think about an actual solution" is an appeal to laziness. Our job is to be editors. We make tough decisions. If you can't deal with the heat, get out of the kitchen. Postmodern Beatnik 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are objective and verifiable criteria to determine what is a spoiler, then spoiler tag because it will invariably violate Misplaced Pages's polices on WP:NPOV and WP:V. But since there is a significant minority that wants spoiler tags, a method of establish "spoilerness" is a fundamental requirement. The more we can eliminate editors' personal POV about what plot details are spoilers, the better off we are as a whole. --Farix (Talk) 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this: Why should anyone care if SW is NPOV? The people who want to see it probably don't care, and those who don't like to see it will see it regardless where in the plot it will appear. Also, there is no exact criteria for sections in biographies, nothing like "early life is up to 25" or something like that. In fact, if we had the precise criteria, we would solve problem for all articles, so coming to such criteria is no easier than to argue each page separately, as I suggested. Samohyl Jan 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, Farix, but you tend to assume that there are no such criteria rather than argue for such a conclusion. I called you before on your improper use of the Sorities paradox, and you never responded. I believe that there can be consensus over what constitutes a spoiler. Reasonable people can see which views are too lenient ("The movie begins on a Friday? I didn't want to know that!") or too strict ("Jack and Tyler are the same person, but don't worry—it's not a major plot point, unexpected twist, or anything like that.") and find that golden mean. Have some faith in your fellow editors. Postmodern Beatnik 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Because WP:NPOV and WP:V are non-negotiable policies that applies to defining spoilers just as they apply to any other article content. --Farix (Talk) 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think spoiler warnings are content (spoilers are something different). It's editor's decision, not content. There are many things in articles like that, such as layout, style and so on. I don't see why would we want NPOV or verifiability on things like that. I think you are just interpreting rules here in formal manner, without any common sense. Samohyl Jan 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler warnings are not the same as a section headings, it is a content disclaimer and falls under the same rules as content. Otherwise, there is no point in putting spoiler warnings on articles to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, Farix, use common sense. How differs a POV placed SW from an NPOV placed one? How can one verify SW by sources? Give me an example, if you can. These questions don't make sense, because it's just an editorial decision. If Misplaced Pages had content disclaimers, you would not need to come up with a source that article about an illness is really about an illness. To want that is just silly. Samohyl Jan 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

current AN/I report - spoiler issue

If anyone wants to check it out, here is a current AN/I report regarding a spoiler issue. Its heading is "Users pushing personal agenda", but the topic is spoilers. It's not about notices, it's about content removal, based on "popular opinion" as a justification. --Parsifal Hello 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And hopefully no one here is suggesting the user was correct in removing content of a spoiler nature just because it was a spoiler... David Fuchs 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Or the citation of "by popular demand" as a legitimate reason to remove any kind of content. --Farix (Talk) 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand either of those replies. And I don't know what, if anything, anyone else might be suggesting.

To be completely clear: I was not suggesting anything at all about that report.

All I did was post the link here because it points out that the issue of spoilers, and this guideline, is important and contentious enough in the wider community that it has made its way onto the admin noticeboard. --Parsifal Hello 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is judging you, Pars. I meant (and believe Farix does) that we hope the people here beating their heads against the wall arguing the guideline realize that justifying a template by "popular demand" does not validate it-- and that removing content for the sole reason of it being a spoiler is wrong. David Fuchs 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The only reason it when to WP:AN/I was because it was turning into an edit war. It actually had very little to do with "the spoiler issue". --Farix (Talk) 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks to you both for your clarifications. All is cool. I just thought it would be of interest that it popped up there, in that it shows the level of emotional charge on this topic with some people. --Parsifal Hello 06:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Were these edits valid?

It's perfectly relevant to discuss the editors who have appointed themselves as the Spoiler Police. They're the ones who are making it impossible to actually abide by the guidelines unless it's how they see fit. --YellowTapedR 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's even more relevant if you can produce a list of edits that you believe, based on the current guideline, should not have been made. We can then discuss the edits, rather than the editors. Marc Shepherd 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, here's only a few that I can think of. I don't have the time to sift through edit histories looking for more examples:

The Crying Game, where the major twist is given away in the introduction. The anti-spoiler crowd says the tag in the lead is ugly and the film is old enough that everyone going to the page already knows what happens. The guideline, however, says tags in intros are permissible in out-of-the-ordinary circumstances.

Match Point, where the twist is given away in the “thematic antecedents” section. Anti-spoiler editors say people viewing the article should know the twist will be given away in the section, and one editor says since it’s a Woody Allen film, the twist isn’t what’s important.

Sleepaway Camp, where the intro recently gave away the ending, but included a spoiler tag. I included the twist because I thought it was important, given that it’s the only thing most people remember about the film, but I included a warning because it’s gaining a cult following and a sequel is in the works. That means not everyone who wants to see it has. The plot twist has since been deleted by another editor.

If you look at all of the talk pages, it's the same old editors making the case against spoiler tags. --YellowTapedR 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Crying Game's plot twist is not what I would call a spoiler because knowledge of that plot twist is so wide spread. As for Match Point, I think someone already mentioned that the section was original research, so in that case the spoiler tag is a mute issue. And looking at the section before it was removed by Axem Titanium, I'll have to agree with the OR assessment until a secondary source is provided. As for Sleepaway Camp, it's a forgettable slasher film from the 1980s and I don't think there is much spoiler potential there to begin with. But the "spoiler" sentences about it was "considered by many viewers to have one of the most disturbing endings of all horror films" had issues with verifiability and original research as well as being weaselly worded. So again, the spoiler tag was a mute issue. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Farix, your comments about The Crying Game's plot point/spoiler being well-known and Sleepaway Camp being "forgettable" are personal opinion. It seems that the spoiler tag guidelines (such as they are) would be better applied if personal opinion was left out of the decision process. It would be chaos if every editor here went through and decided that some movies "deserve" tags and others don't. I've read through the archives (after inadvertently stumbling into this mess because I added a spoiler tag to Match Point) and confess I'm not even sure the guidelines, as they stand, can be modified. If so, is there room here for suggestions about the guidelines? Clockster 08:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you will agree on the point that an objective and verifiable criteria to determine plot details are spoilers and when exception can be made is necessary to make any progress on the guideline? --Farix (Talk) 12:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there does need to be an objective and verifiable criteria. Progress on this issue can't be made if we're arguing personal opinion about spoiler tag usage. Currently, there's a big problem of time and effort being wasted, not only in this discussion, but when new editors add spoiler tags. Editors find these newly-added tags and remove them without fully explaining why, which causes plenty of scuffles in individual articles. Everyone's time and energy would be saved if some solid criteria were in place, and the policy now is neither solid nor accurately enforced. Clockster 20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop using derogatory terms such as "the anti-spoiler crowd" to refer to people with whose opinions you disagree. Clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not derogatory in North American English m-w.com (click on crowd{2,noun}). That's a British connotation (COED "crowd") "often derogatory" but not always. Tourists can easily step into this spot of trouble, since I can't find mention of it in a British-North American dictionary. Milo 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using mother-esque phrases such as "clean up your act" when you talk down to people. There is nothing "derogatory" in saying "anti-spoiler crowd." It's just a lot more concise than saying "people who are against placing spoiler tags in articles."

To address The Farix's points:

  • You've given no evidence that the twist in The Crying Game is widespread enough that people reading the page already know what happens. I often go to wikipedia articles about movies I haven't yet seen to get an idea of whether I should waste my time/money on them. I'd never expect being spoiled just from reading the introduction.
  • I didn't realize that the section in Match Point had been deleted. So, yes, the point is moot. But, theoretically, if the section were to remain I would stand by my opinion on the need for a warning. I do not believe tags should be placed under "plot" sections, but in that case, it wasn't clear.
  • As for Sleepaway Camp, it's not up to you to decide whether the film is insignificant enough that it doesn't matter whether people are spoiled. I'm not the one who wrote the part about it being considered one of the most disturbing endings; I just elaborated. What would be your stance if it were like this?:

‎Sleepaway Camp was a 1983 horror movie written and directed by Robert Hiltzik—who also served as executive producer—about murders at a summer camp. The film came at a time when slasher films were in their heyday.

Template:Spoiler It is notable for its twist ending, during which it's revealed the killer is what seems to be a little girl. In the last shot, it's revealed the killer has a penis. Template:Endspoiler

But, looking at the Match Point article, I've learned something interested from Marc Shepherd:

"As of this moment, no movie article on Misplaced Pages has a spoiler tag. None. Nada. Marc Shepherd 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YellowTapedR (talk • contribs).

--YellowTapedR 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does this improve Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia? Girolamo Savonarola 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you're supposed to serve the reader, not just cater to snobbery. What do spoiler tags do to harm Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia?--YellowTapedR 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that's a huge assumption on your part regarding the readers. The encyclopedia exists to serve verifiable knowledge on an article topic. It has no POV as to what the reader wants to read. Girolamo Savonarola 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Alas, WP must now get rid of those POV disambiguation notices. Oh, wait, they can stay because Britannica has them, right? Milo 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, more offtopic conversation, great! The real world has forced encyclopedias to have disambiguation issues for hundreds of years. Paper encyclopedias have to choose what to list first (how do you order the meanings of Mercury?), online encyclopedias have to create links and decide whether to show the reader a topic page or a disambiguation page. If you think a no-spoiler warning policy necessitates that {{dablink}} and {{redirect}} may not be used, you should go and move Washington to Washington (U.S. state) (where it belongs) and Paris to Paris, France (where it doesn't belong). Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
1) It is on topic — I've discussed this point a number of times that you've missed.
2) Perhaps you are responding literally to an ironical construction? Milo 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure I get your reasoning. Misplaced Pages should strive to be useful to readers. Using spoiler tags allows for complete analysis of any given work while also giving readers who don't want to be spoiled a heads up. Most encyclopedias don't offer blow-by-blow plot descriptions, detailed articles on characters or video games, etc. --YellowTapedR 02:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Britannica online doesn't have spoiler warnings bc they don't provide deep enough coverage? I'm not saying that we have to parrot EB, but let's be honest here: encyclopedias generally are spoiler-neutral. Why should we be the exception? (Note that this has nothing to do with "Misplaced Pages is not paper", which is a capacity statement. I'm tired of hearing that defense for the wrong situation.) The main objections to the spoiler warning are 1) that it has nothing to do with what would normally be considered encyclopedic standards as applied by all other mainstream encyclopedias, 2) it violates a neutral treatment of all information in the article, and 3) it has no containable measure of what qualifies for being spoiled (and potentially could be used for non-fictional elements too). Personally, I don't think that the hypothetical reader can even be addressed as an issue until these outstanding problems are resolved first, since they involve concepts and policies. There will always be users objecting to one thing or another - the first question is do the policies and guidelines allow for it? If not, how much needs to be radically re-structured to accommodate, and is there a broad consensus for it? But without evaluating the non-human element first, you're appealing to the logic of a hypothetical group which has no definitive size. Girolamo Savonarola 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as useful, I quote a comment from the original RfC: Useful things are only part of our objective in so far as they directly contribute to the objective of being an encyclopedia. As said many times, useful things are not inherently placed in an encyclopedia. This includes phone books, any number of things that might be based on POV. Plenty of useful things out there. Not all of them conform to the principles of an encyclopedia, though, which is our only basis for what goes here.' Ryu Kaze 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girolamo Savonarola (talk • contribs).
That's all nice, but you shouldn't forget the practical perspective. If there is significant minority that finds the SWs useful and not unencyclopedic, then, if you ban them, you will always have a lot of contention. I don't think it's worth that. Samohyl Jan 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
From the looks of the archive, there's going to be contention either way, so that doesn't really argue for either side. Girolamo Savonarola 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler warnings are not banned. Where we have consensus for them, they can be placed in an article. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
They are effectively banned, given the ever-shifting and often contradictory definitions of consensus. At the moment, the guideline hints that they are sometimes allowable, encouraging good faith editors to waste their time placating the half-dozen anti-spoiler admins on patrol. It's intellectually dishonest.--Nydas 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
In the vast majority of cases, the removed warnings are placed on the entire plot. Like it or not, the guideline as currently worded says that you should not do that. Marc Shepherd 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It says 'usually'. And it's a guideline. Any addition of a spoiler warning will trigger an identical response, there's nothing to suggest that not putting them over the entire plot has any effect on the draconian enforcement of this 'guideline'.--Nydas 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's try this hypothesis: The problem is that the guideline is too vague. It says "usually," but there's insufficient criteria to allow people to reliably distinguish when the warnings they belong, and when they don't. The solution is to recommend changes to make clearer the kinds of circumstances when an exception is warranted. Marc Shepherd 15:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll also say that blanket tagging an entire section or article or even a large part of one should never be done. If an entire section/page or even a large part of it is spoiler tag, then either the tag is unnecessary to begin with or the section or article needs to be retitled. --Farix (Talk) 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've tried adding spoiler tags only at the point where a massive plot twist is revealed: it just gets reverted immediately by the usual suspects. Tomgreeny 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Can this be ended now? I suggest that we just let YellowTape chat on into an empty void. These points above he keeps raising have been brought up ad nauseum. He can read the archives, and there will be that much less crap on this page. David Fuchs 13:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The Crying Game has already been beating into a bloody horse-shaped spot. The other two had problems other then "spoilers" and trying to use them as hypothetical cases is absurd. --Farix (Talk) 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuchs, I will shut up then. We wouldn't want the talk page to be ugly after all. An administrator really shouldn't be acting like such a dick. --YellowTapedR 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not being a dick. I am pointing out that this discussion has been had several times; the content and arguments on both sides never change. So read the archives, and there is less repetition on Misplaced Pages. David Fuchs 19:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Without agreement, I think David Fuchs has been nice enough to at least listen to my points. Thanks.
What's amazing is that David isn't listening to himself. Here he is strenuously arguing that that other editors should go away because the debate here is repetitive. If he really believes that, why is he here arguing?. If he really believes that, he should go edit an unrelated article, watch YouTube, or turn off the computer and go outside. Everyone and everything here that he seems to be claiming as unimportantly repetitive will disappear. I suggest David is here arguing against arguing because he senses there is something important at stake, even if he's not quite sure what it is.
I, on the other hand, don't have to guess about what's at stake. I know. Consensus versus clique control of Misplaced Pages is at stake, not absolutely, but in balance of power terms.
Over the course of this long debate there have been changes, but they are subtle and require reading between the lines. One of things that the clique has learned is that they can't get away with making a 45,000 articles change without having to personally pay for it in lost debate time and some degree of notoriety.
Of the million-some bytes written here, let's say each side wrote half, and maybe Tony personally wrote half of the anti-tag side. In addition, he's putting a large amount of time into the spoiler vigilantes. Carl thinks he'll get help, but Tony may be committing a significant fraction of his entire life to work that will evaporate when the next generation arrives and changes consensus. Will he sign on as spokesperson for Phil Sandifer or David Gerard's next Wiki-wide crusade against the young? I don't know, but surely the prospect of just reading another million bytes of repetitive debate would give him severe pause.
Penultimately, opposition to the next generation's tastes is what this spoiler-tag guide smoke-and-mirrors logic is really about. Ultimately, such opposition is futile, probably because consensus paradigm shift will eventually sweep away vigilante persecution of spoiler tag editors. Or, worst case, the clique will somehow hold on to many such paper-worshiping practices, and force a showdown resulting in a gigantic fork migration — after which the clique will become masters of an irrelevant low-bandwidth backwater site, while still bowing daily in the general direction of Chicago. Milo 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Spiderman! :) Girolamo Savonarola 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All right

The problem is not the guideline itself, but the way it is enforced. So, how about keeping everything the same and adding something along the lines of:

Editors should seek consensus on the article's talk page before removing spoiler tags, unless they are in areas where spoilers are expected, such as plot, themes and character sections.

--YellowTapedR 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm pretty sure its says to obtain consensus already. David Fuchs 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, it says obtain consensus to place a tag on an article. This would require consensus to remove them. --YellowTapedR 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one's objecting, I'll take it to mean I have consensus. --YellowTapedR 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't. You need to wait more than 3 hours before declaring nobody is watching the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actually joking, using the same rationale that you guys use.--YellowTapedR 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A compromise

As much of this page is stuck in the usual doldrums of rehashing old arguments, I thought I'd launch a new sub-topic with a fresh approach. These are my views on the spoiler warning controversy. Please note that I have managed to draft this section without ever once suggesting that editors who believe differently are acting in bad faith.

1) I think that spoiler tags are strongly favored by a significant minority of the Misplaced Pages community. Because the pro-tag contingent is a minority, the site should not go to great lengths to cater to them. But because they are significant, some accommodation is reasonable. I suspect that most Wikipedians don't much care either way.

2) No one yet has proposed a compelling, widely-accepted definition of "what is a spoiler." The reasons for this problem are easy to explain. The whole premise of spoiler tags is that some readers want to be told a little — but not too much — about a fictional work (film, book, video game,). But no one can say how much is "too much." Every reader will have his or her own limit.

3) Spoiler tags embedded in the middle of an article are disruptive, unencylopedic, and only sporadically helpful. That they are disruptive is unarguable. The tags are meant to disrupt the reading process, to give the reader a chance to decide whether he wants to continue. That they are unencyclopedic is also unarguable: just look at other encyclopedias. Their helpfulness is harder to prove. But intra-article placement depends on editors being able to guess how much other readers will want to know. Such guesswork is inherently tricky, so inevitably editors will get it wrong. One also finds that spoiler-sensitive editors make specific decisions about structuring articles, to concentrate spoilers in just a few places. Thus, the structure and flow of the article is influenced by someone guessing what readers would prefer to avoid.

4) I therefore conclude that, in those articles that merit spoiler tags at all, the tag should be at the very top. The reader is then properly forewarned that, somewhere within the body of the article, significant plot details are discussed that could "spoil" the work. It is not up to us to guess how much a reader wants to know. With warnings at the top of the article, editors are free to structure the prose as they see fit, without trying to confine spoilers to one or more specific sections.

5) I think there is an overwhelming consensus — this does not, of course, mean unanimity — that at some point, a fictional work becomes part of "world culture," and people writing about it no longer feel constrained to provide a warning before discussing significant plot details. This does not mean that everyone in the world knows those details. It just means that an intelligent reader researching that work would not be surprised to find the plot openly discussed. Any literature search will quickly tell you that, the older the work, the less likely you will find anything resembling a "spoiler warning." Precisely how old a work must be before this happens is open to reasonable debate, but it's probably somewhere between 1 and 10 years after the work debuts.

6) In light of the above, a reasonable solution is to routinely tag every article on a fictional work that is, say, less than two years old. The tag would explicitly use the word "spoiler," because that is the commonly accepted term, and is unambiguous. The tag would go at the top of the article, because no one can guess which text readers want to see. The wording would be something like: "This article discusses a recently released . It may contain significant details, including spoilers." Such a warning could be made relatively discrete (to avoid offense to the anti-warning crowd), but conspicuous enough that no one who cares should miss it.

7) This proposal represents a middle ground between editors who want to tag every fictional work ever created, including the Three Little Pigs; and those who never want to see spoiler warnings under any circumstances. It offers a bright-line rule that would eliminate most of the judgment-calls, and would put warnings on most of the works that the pro-warning crowd feel most strongly about. It also marks the entire article, thereby sparing editors from guessing which parts of an article would "spoil" the story for some hypothetical reader.

I am not terribly troubled by the guideline we now have, but I do think the above proposal should give the pro-warning crowd a considerable amount of what they want, in an innocuous way that the anti-warning crowd could conceivably accept as minimally disruptive. Marc Shepherd 13:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Two years is pushing it IMO. I suggest instead the use of a {{current fiction}} or {{future book}} (or another tag from Category:Temporal templates) - it's larger and, by being immediately obvious in its meaning and applicability, doesn't encourage the proliferation of spoilers elsewhere. It's also (a) more specific (b) visually larger - David Gerard 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
A very well written, calm, and simple explanation and proposal. I like it -- it's temporary, it doesn't look heinous, and it helps the ignorant know exactly that. David has a point, but there's no reason we can't change one of the above templates to incorporate the idea -- we're a wiki, after all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have supported this compromise for some time. I made the template {{current fiction}} for exactly the purpose you have proposed. It has been used on the Harry Potter book and some other new releases with little opposition (or comment, really) from the people editing the article. The fact that there was no little comment seems to indicate that the point of the template is clear enough that people see why it's there. It helps that it resembles the template for a future work of fiction and the template for current news events, which are also widely used. I'll put a copy below. Rather than making a new template, just edit that one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This article documents a recently released work of fiction.
It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes.
Indeed. The stuff in Category:Temporal templates makes {{spoiler}} largely redundant - David Gerard 17:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


"A compromise "..."proposal represents a middle ground " In general, you can't propose a compromise unless you clearly understand the positions of all sides. You don't understand the pro-spoiler-tag positions.
This proposal is not only not a compromise, it's actually more anti-spoiler-tag than the current guide, since it would ban internal spoiler notices theoretically permitted now. Its essence seems to be to copy the general spoiler notice at the top of all fiction articles for two years after release. That's not different in practice than the present situation with no tags, because in either case readers want to read some or all parts of the article that are spoiler-free; they can't do that unless spoilers are identified by location within the article.
The central flaw in your reasoning is that editorial judgments about spoiler identity and placement or age of the work can somehow be replaced with any simple rule set. They can't, partly because one of the functions of art is to creatively break rules about art.
The genuine compromise is to allow these spoiler identity and tag placement judgments to be made easily (using a menu of real examples such as those used in standarized essay grading) by the local consensus art jury, and to hide the results from editors who don't want to see them. The compromise by the anti-tag side is that hidden tags get freely made and placed anywhere. The compromise by the pro-tag side is that newbs are going to get spoilered until they learn how to turn on the tags before reading. Milo 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thoroughly expected an ad hominem attack from the usual suspects, and Milo has not disappointed me. It's a classic diversionary argument to suggest that the proposal should be disregarded because the proposer allegedly doesn't understand the problem. I'm not sure Milo understands it either, given that he has not moved one millimeter off of the position he's previously stated dozens of times.
Milo suggests that we need "a menu of real examples such as those used in standarized essay grading." If that's your approach, then you need to start drafting the menu. It's not going to come into existence by magic. Marc Shepherd 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"the proposer allegedly doesn't understand the problem" That very response is evidence of my point. I didn't write that you didn't understand the problem. I wrote "You don't understand the pro-spoiler-tag positions." "The problem" and "positions" are not synonyms. When you can't accurately restate what other people tell you, you don't understand their positions, and you are unlikely to be successful in proposing compromises.
"I'm not sure Milo understands it either, given that he has not moved one millimeter off of the position he's previously stated " You seem to be saying that if I understood the problem, I'd naturally change my position. If so, that's a classic beginner's notion — negotiation and compromise don't work that way. Understanding the problem, and moving of positions, are complexly related by an informational and political calculus, which IMHO, you have not mastered.
"classic diversionary argument to suggest that the proposal should be disregarded because the proposer allegedly doesn't understand the problem" There's nothing logically wrong with doing that. A proposer who doesn't understand the problem is like a blind squirrel hunting for nuts.
But maybe you are mistating the ad hominem fallacy? The classic ad hominem logical fallacy is to disregard the argument because the proposer is some kind of objectionable person. (#Ad hominem as formal fallacy) For the record, I don't think you are objectionable as a person, and I think that you mean well, which disposes of all your ad hominem charges.
"attack" You weren't attacked. You were criticized for well-explained cause, and behavior is commentable. Notable work as a mediator, Marc — see the mess you provoked below with ill-chosen and inflammatory language. Perhaps you should not pursue negotiating as a career. Milo 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Milo, I am not suggesting that if you understood the problem, you'd change your position. But I am suggesting that if you understood the problem, you'd be willing to explore alternatives, instead of just saying the same thing over and over again. It is rare that progress is made that way, and it sure doesn't seem to be happening here. It's nice to know that I don't understand the "political calculus." I didn't realize I had joined a political site. Thanks for clearing it up. Now, back to nut-hunting. Marc Shepherd 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Pay no attention to Milo. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not interested in discussing the issue in good faith with his ad hominem attacks. However, one of the problems I do have with your proposal is the use of the term "spoiler". Because it is all too often a value judgment, it is a very ambitious term. And since one of the general goals of an encyclopedia is to be an academic work, I think the term should be avoided unless it is used within the context of source being cited. Using the {{current fiction}} as a base and renaming it to {{recent fiction}} will give it a longer TTL period then it currently has. But as an academic work, we do need to have a clear cut-off point as to when the template should be removed. --Farix (Talk) 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"ad hominem attacks" Pay no attention to that phrase. Marc can't tell the difference between an attack and being criticized for flawed debate reasoning.
"in good faith." Impugning my good faith is a personal attack WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith. Unless you are willing to repeat that at AN/I with documentation, please delete that second sentence in your Farix 18:56. I'd also like an apology, but I suppose that's asking too much of you. Milo 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I do like the idea Milo mentions about having the option to place a spoiler tag within the article instead of always at the top of the article. While I like Carl's template a lot, I think its placement should be fluid. If it's at the top of every article that's under, say, 2 years old, it will very quickly be overlooked by everyone. The eyes will scan right over it without registering its meaning. Also, I wish there was a better criterion to use than age of the work of fiction, but I don't believe there is one. Clockster 20:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"idea Milo mentions about having the option to place a spoiler tag within the article" Not my idea, it's currently allowed in the guide, and Marc thinks pro-tag editors should compromise by agreeing to remove that option, yet get nothing useful in return. Go figure. Milo 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, in exchange the pro-tag editors would be able to tag hundreds of articles, with a clear guideline permitting the tags to remain in place for a considerable amount of time. I do not object to tags within the articles as well, provided examples offering clear guidance for their use can be devised. For some odd reason, those most in favor of this never actually propose anything.. Marc Shepherd 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"in exchange the pro-tag editors would be able to tag hundreds of articles" That's not an exchange because a general spoiler notice tag at the top is useless, except for scorning readers who complain, which serves only the antis. But then of the additional, useful in-article tags, the local spoiler tag vigil-antis would say 'no way, you have a tag at the top'. Therefore, it would be a mistake for the pros to accept any such false compromise. Milo 07:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty with intra-article tags is that no one yet has suggested a workable standard for when and where they're appropriate. I'm open-minded, but I think the editors most in favor of them need to propose what the guideline should be. And no, "local art-jury" does not, on its own, suffice. Even juries need standards to guide what they do.
Consider the multitude of Harry Potter articles on Misplaced Pages: 279 of them, most of which refer to the plot. To someone who's read the first 6 books, any surprise from the 7th is a potential spoiler. To someone who's read the first 4, any of the surprises from Books 5–7 are potential spoilers. To someone who's read none of it, the whole plot from Book 1 onward is a potential spoiler. I don't know how intra-article spoiler tags are supposed to be structured in such a case.
Nor is the Harry Potter example unique. There are many series of Misplaced Pages articles where you have a continuing story that unfolds over multiple episodes or volumes. How much you can disclose without "spoiling" it depends on how much the reader has read or seen so far. Marc Shepherd 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"And no, "local art-jury" does not, on its own, suffice. Even juries need standards to guide what they do." The essay-grading type examples will provide the standards. Anyone involved in college-level English education knows the method works. No, I'm not going to waste my time writing them now. That's way too much into details when the two sides are so far apart on the central versus local control issues.
"I don't know how intra-article spoiler tags are supposed to be structured in such a case." One ideal way would be to use a tag hiding system with multiple options. Click the names of episodes one has read (or levels mastered), and the proper tags turn on. But that kind of problem is best handled by solution-seeking principles within the art-jury standards, and modular examples based on the current tool set. The tools and examples periodically change, but the principles mostly don't change.
"The difficulty with intra-article tags is that no one yet has suggested a workable standard for when and where they're appropriate." Some editors may believe this is a significant issue but I don't. Technical method issues are just a red herring which distracts from the real clique agenda, which is to prevent youth culture from morphing Misplaced Pages toward youthful expectations of how internet sites should work. Spoiler tags merely happen to be the current flash point of this intergenerational conflict.
As nearly as I can tell, agreement on the principle of tag hiding is the keystone to agreement on the other issues. If the clique doesn't have to look at the tags, then their other objections all summarize to variations on 'the world is changing and I don't like change, nor the young people who arrive bringing about change'. Milo 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
These "young people" whom you mention. Are they aware they've appointed you their spokesman? --Mark H Wilkinson 11:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk, it sounds like you are trying to suppress the Human Right to Organize. . Anyway, consider yourself opted out. Milo 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Am I? Grief, good of you to let me know. And there I was, simply thinking I was underlining someone's tendency to cry that there will be wolves due sometime soon. --Mark H Wilkinson 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
{ahem} Mr. Wilkinson, let me introduce you to the red herring. Oh, I see. You two are already well acquainted. My apologies. (And before you object, perhaps you could explain to me just how it matters that Milo is sticking up for those may not be aware of his support for them. Should I stop promoting freedom for Tibetans simply due to the fact that they are (by and large) unaware of my support for them? When debating whether or not to pull the plug on a comatose patient, is it sufficient to note that the patient is not aware of the debate and thus we can pull the plug without further debate? I rather suspect you will have a hard time coming up with a relevant answer.) Postmodern Beatnik 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It's simple enough: Milo has imagined a position that those young people have, and is now defending it. Like his story of film and television industry heavyweights who are due to pull out the rug from under Misplaced Pages, it's a work of not the real. In other words, he's crying wolf. --Mark H Wilkinson 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"In other words, he's crying wolf." You are confusing a forecast with a prophecy. You have simplisticly misrepresented my multiple options business forecast, carefully circumscribed with if/when/not conditionals, as "crying wolf". It isn't my position that the wolf is coming for sure, since that depends on whether big publishing/Hollywood can afford to hire a wolf; so, your "cry wolf" claim is a straw man fallacy.
"Milo has imagined a position that those young people have" Mass movements of young people aren't positions, so I'm not sure what you think I imagined. Milo 06:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Wilkinson, I see that you have not actually answered my question: why should I stop supporting a free Tibet just because Tibetans don't know about my support? That is, your comment rests entirely on the implied objection that there is something wrong with Milo supporting the interests of people without their being aware of his support. That, or you actually had no point at all and just wanted to blow off some steam with a quasi-witticism. But I prefer to assume that you had an actual purpose in commenting. Postmodern Beatnik 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to call me Mark, hardly anyone does. I'll keep it brief: I'm less than convinced that Milo is looking after those young people's interests. Which makes the case somewhat distinct from your patronisation of Tibetans. --Mark H Wilkinson 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Mark: have you considered that Milo and I might be some of those young people? (Besides, the point was not truly about age as it is about people who are pro-change vs. people who are anti-change.) Postmodern Beatnik 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How about a guideline for all plot points and/or spoilers to be placed under the Plot heading only, and if a spoiler tag is needed, it goes along with the Plot heading? That would be less intrusive but visually different than the "regular" Plot heading, and thus less easily scanned over by a viewer used to seeing the same heading on every article.
As for other sites that use or don't use spoiler tags (reference your comment below), almost every film site I go to -- blogs, reviews, forums, TCM, Usenet, etc. -- uses some kind of spoiler notice, even if it's a cursory notice somewhere in the FAQ. Most reference materials like World Book or Britannica don't go into enough depth on single films that they need to worry about spoilers. That said, many film-specific reference books contain spoilers galore. They don't have spoiler notices; film buffs like me just learn that film encyclopedias and such will possibly spoil you. The same goes with biographies and autobiographies. The problem is that the general user thinks of Misplaced Pages as an Encyclopedia Britannica kind of reference, not a Leonard Maltin's Movie Encyclopedia type reference. It certainly clouds the issue. My opinion is to err on the side of caution and keep spoiler tags and develop a clear guideline for using them. Clockster 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good compromise, but I appreciate the try. I don't explicitly disagree though, I just think it misses the point. The people you are trying to compromise with want spoilers because they use them. But there are no data available about how old the works they use them for are. There is simply no evidence at all that large majority of uses of SWs is (or would be) related to works no older than 2 years. If it would be true, I could agree with such compromise, but if it isn't true, then it misses the point. At least, I think it is not true for me, because, I used SWs often on movies that were from 70s, or on something that just went on TV. In fact, I think I more prone to get to know the ending of recent works from other sources than Misplaced Pages (because of the marketing), rather than obscure works I look up. I would like to see it backed up with some research. Samohyl Jan 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I started with the premise that the older the work, the lower the likelihood that you'll find spoiler tags employed on other reference sites. You needn't trust my judgment on that. Feel free to survey the landscape for yourself. Choose a number of works of widely varying genre and age, google them, and see where spoiler warnings are found. Or alternatively, search for spoiler warnings, and take note of the age/genre of the works covered.
Now then: If you find that other sites (outside of Misplaced Pages) have frequently employed the warnings in certain situations, it's evidence that the warnings are widely seen as useful. If you find that the warnings are largely absent in certain types of situations, then it ought to make you think twice about why we need them on Misplaced Pages. I do realize there are some people who think it's irrelevant what anyone else has done. But an argument without any external reference point is doomed to go on without end.
And I think I'm being pretty generous about my criteria. Some people think we should look only at what other encyclopedias have done. In that case, the discussion would be over with, because I've never seen an encyclopedia with a spoiler warning. I think we should be broader minded, looking generally and broadly at what other reference sources (broadly construing the term) have done. But I do think you need a reference point.
The two-year bright-line rule is simply an attempt to find a compromise between never and forever. It doesn't much matter to me if the line is at one year or five. If I'm wrong about the temporal nature of it—and there's evidence of that—then I would change my views. But I think you'll find that people worry a lot more about spoiler warnings on a film released yesterday, than on the plays of Sophocles. Marc Shepherd 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"two-year bright-line rule is simply an attempt to find a compromise" Any such hard-limit rule is not necessary, or practical, except to prevent the marginal use of spoiler tags. Therefore it's not a compromise with pro-tag readers and editors.
"I've never seen an encyclopedia with a spoiler warning" How quickly we forget — Misplaced Pages was the industry leader with 45,000 of them. Oh, that's right, you don't have a rear-view mirror. Milo 07:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes...and it was all by itself. And when others suggest that you find external precedents, you do not do so. Is it that you can't be bothered? Or is it because you fear the data will not support your position? Just wondering.... Marc Shepherd 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"when others suggest that you find external precedents, you do not do so. Is it that you can't be bothered? Or is it because you fear the data will not support your position? Just wondering.... " Apply Occam's razor — I simply see through it and need do nothing. External precendents aren't necessary to justify a feature Misplaced Pages use to have in great quantity, with consensus, and popularity. Milo 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags are favoured by a majority of Wikipedians (probably 70%), hence the extraordinary measures taken to remove them. These measures are still continuing, with the spoiler police and anti-spoiler bots. Were there consensus, these arrangements would not be necessary, just as there is no anti-trivia section patrol. The guideline, as written, currently tricks good faith editors into wasting their time arguing with the spoiler police.
No-one has offered a compelling, widely-accepted definition of 'early life' for biography articles, why not get rid of those as well? Editors can be trusted to make reasonable judgements about what constitutes a spoiler, just as they can be trusted to use wikilinks or see also sections.
The 'spoilers are unencyclopedic' argument is an illogical mix of semantics and conservatism. It's like a caveman insisting that all tools must be made of stone or wood, and metal tools are untool-like. Spoilers tags are not any more disruptive than section headings or tables, or any other way of presenting information. Their helpfulness is rooted in being a general reference work with a worldwide audience that gets new people coming in every day.
The anti-spoiler editors have a tough time taking a worldwide view, consistently adopting a US and fan-centric perspective. Early on, I asked how many women over 50 would know who Darth Vader was. The response was that they won't be browsing anyway. A thoroughly unwikipedian outlook, and old-fashioned too. As for entering 'world culture' after a set period of time, what about re-releases or remakes?
There are a few occasions where spoiling information in the lead is OK, but in the vast majority of articles, it's unnecessary and leads to bad, in-universe writing.--Nydas 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags are favoured by a majority of Wikipedians (probably 70%) — Ok, whence came the percentage and in what sense is the term "favoured" being used? I'm in "favour" of spoiler tags in the sense that I can think of circumstances under which they might be appropriate... --Mark H Wilkinson 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The figure probably comes from an improperly conducted straw poll in the last RfC in May/June. First of all, the poll never had any relevance to the discussions of the proper placement of spoiler warnings nor did it contribute to the discussion. It was simply an attempt by a couple of pro-spoiler warning editors to "score points". And second, the poll has never been closed, invalidating any potential incite it may have given. --Farix (Talk) 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
After reading the archived talk page, I'm reasonably sure there was no actual consensus. Since many spoiler tags are being added by a relatively large number of people but then removed by a small group of people, I can see where one could assume that tags are indeed favored by the majority. Personally, I feel the needs and wants of those who use Misplaced Pages -- even if they don't edit or contribute -- should be considered. I agree with Nydas on that. It's my understanding, however, that Misplaced Pages is "not a democracy" and it doesn't matter what the majority opinion is. If that's the case then we need to stop arguing about who's the majority and instead focus on some kind of workable spoiler tag criteria. Clockster 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"workable spoiler tag criteria" That would be local consensus decided, but freely-placeable hidden tags. It's win-win: pros get to use them, but antis don't have to look at them. Milo 07:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Every Misplaced Pages guideline is constantly violated by large numbers of people, only to be reverted. In light of this general trend, it does not appear to me that violations of the spoiler guideline are extraordinarily common. Feel free to show otherwise, if you can. There is no conceivable Misplaced Pages guideline that will not require monitoring. Marc Shepherd 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that guidelines don't need monitoring, just like I never said Match Point should have a spoiler tag because other film articles do. My point is that an inordinate amount of time and energy is being spent on the spoiler tag issue, in part because of the constant reversion of good-faith efforts made per existing guidelines to add a tag. Take Match Point for example. Anti-tag editors removed the tags for reasons that seemed like nothing more than personal opinion, and their comments contained little real information. At one point, discussion turned positively cryptic when an editor showed up just to tell us we were all wasting our lives. No mention of a larger spoiler tag issue was made until someone from the pro-tag side showed up, hoping to get allies to join their cause here. At that point it became obvious that editors from both sides of the issue are bounding into all sorts of articles they don't usually work on just to further an agenda. I'll be honest: I find all this agenda-based arguing silly and unproductive. If the issue is so heated that a relatively simple guideline will be impossible to agree to, then it's not worth my time to worry about it. Clockster 10:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to help cut through the agendas, talk up consensus for hidable tags. With that feature agreed in principle (ignore technical red herrings) then the other agenda-based issues can be resolved without your involvement. Milo 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Farix, are you claiming that the actual usage of SWs has no relevance to the discussion if it's good to have them or not? I would say it's very relevant. And by the way, when I started that poll, I was not involved on any side (though I had an opinion). It was just attempt to get information. The poll was never closed, because it was basically boycotted by the anti-spoiler people with the argument you give (I don't think 2 days is a reasonable time for such a poll). And for the record, I hate all that "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy" thing. I understand reasons behind that (there is no easy way to fight sockpuppets, so we need a catch like this), but unfortunately, if you won't respect majority opinion (of real people), what you will get will be either anarchy or dictatorship. Samohyl Jan 05:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The current fiction template is tested, neutral, and effective. I was also an observer of the HP7 page in the last week prior to release, and the template greatly helped. I agree with this proposal. Girolamo Savonarola 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
First, Marc, I'd like to start off by saying that thus far I've considered you one of the standouts of the anti-spoiler side. I mean that in a positive way. Even when we disagreed, you've been patience and showed willingness to change your mind, so I'd like to applaud that.
That said, I do not consider this a good compromise. It's another in a string of compromises that really only advance the anti-spoiler side. As others have mentioned, it amounts to a ban on spoiler warnings. I should also point out it does something that is apparently one of the arguments of those opposed to warnings consider a bad thing: it's a content disclaimer. And that's all. Saying something is current fiction and you may be spoiled is absolutely no different than saying 'there's nudity in this article', except that the current fiction notice will eventually expire, and, in effect, is only useful to people who want to know about spoiler warnings if they're willing to give up ALL other information on the topic that wikipedia can provide. Targetted spoiler warnings have uses beyond that, uses I have argued elevate it above just a content warning, and into something more like a section heading (but not exactly, because it won't go in a table of contents). One can decide they don't want to read someone's early life section (which, I agree, is just as much a 'NPOV judgement call' as whether something is a spoiler), because they're only interested in the end of their life. Similarly, one can decide they want to read enough of the plot to get an idea of it, without knowing the major events of it. Or, they can do the opposite... they can decide they just want to know the twists, and the spoiler warning helps them find that quickly. A label at the top has none of these uses.
I'd also state that different media seem to naturally have different thresholds of spoilerability, at least to me. Books, for example, (cases like Harry Potter are an exception) are much less likely to be read within 2 years before their contents are widely known. Comics much less, at least within their community, probably much more outside of it. Movies can keep for a long time before becoming 'classic'. I'm not even sure if it's possible for music or say paintings to have spoilers.
Beyond that, I'll not reiterate the arguments made by others in the section, except to say that I agree strongly with Clockster's comments about a lot of people who are biased one way or another in the spoiler debate jumping into articles they otherwise have no interest in. In the light of the lack of any consensus on what the guideline itself actually should be, this is not good policy. Ideally, we'd generate a good guideline with room for exceptions and leave it to UNINTERESTED parties to enforce it on the articles they happen to come across. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If a guideline has consensus, it doesn't need anyone to make a _mission_ of enforcing it (and deciding, for each article, whether a particular case is an exemption or not), because a strong population of the editors will agree, and enforce it locally on their own articles. Maybe not right away, but gradually, and over time, like the rest of wiki is improved (if indeed that's what it is to remove a spoiler warning). Why _should_ we be in a damned rush over it? What is so harmful about a spoiler warning that some people feel they must regularly watch to see if one's being added, and immediately stamp it out? If only these people used such zeal to improve articles in other, less controversial things that already had consensus. Wandering Ghost 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"it's a content disclaimer" No, it isn't. That's one of the hype warning fallacies.
1) A spoiler tag is not a disclaimer because it can't pass the hidden warning tag test, because there is no danger.
2) Since it's not a disclaimer, and there is no danger, it can't be a bone fide warning.
3) It also can't be merely called a warning, because then everyone thinks it's a disclaimer — but a disclaimer can't exist without danger, or at least a claim of danger.
4) Since it's also not an alert (to danger), that means it's a spoiler notice, which is a content notice like the disambiguation notice and the hidable Table of Contents notice, which no one confuses with disclaimers.
Milo 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Milo, no matter how many times you beat that drum, I don't think that majority of people buy it, nor do I really think it's relevant... and I'm strongly pro-spoiler warning. Because I don't think there's any danger in nudity, or coarse language, or more other things there's been a potential disclaimer about (violence may be an exception, because of PTSD sufferers), but it's still a content disclaimer if we point out that an article has nudity, or coarse language, or other controversial stuff in it. However, the spoiler warning is different, and should be an exception, because a) people want it, and consensus does not exist to keep it out like it does (I assume, I've not looked into the issue extensively) the others, and b) because it's not _just_ a content disclaimer. It has other uses, and those elevate it beyond one, and closer into something like a section heading, which, yes, might disclaim what kind of content you're about to read, but its utility outweighs that. However the 'current fiction' template removes those other uses and it become _just_ a disclaimer, and a rather pointless one.
(As an aside, Nydas and others have brought up, while arguing about the _other_ disclaimers, that even though we've agreed not to use things like graphic sexual content disclaimers, the actual amount of graphic sexual content is low - most sex-related articles don't have pornographic-type images, for example. I wonder now if it's at least partly the same effect as what I warned and have seen taking place... because of the lack of the ability to warn about spoilers, people will be more shy about including spoilers at all, or to remove spoilery sections. On lower-trafficed pages, this can become a problem, because the anti-spoiler patrol will watch that nobody adds a warning, but won't be watching every page to see if someone removes content. To me it would be better to allow a spoiler warning to go unremoved even where it might violate the guideline than to allow the much more important principle of "do not remove or keep out information 'because it's a spoiler'" to go on being violated, because that's what some people will do in the absence)
Anyway, the content disclaimer's like a blanket spoiler warning over plot, if you like, which the anti-spoiler side railed against as being redundant. They had a point that it's redundant when you put it over the whole plot section. But when the compromise is agreed to and 'whole plot spoiler warnings' is tossed out, for targetted spoiler warnings are harder to justify as being 'wrong'. Top-of-the-article disclaimers are _easier_ to justify as being wrong, for both sides, and so the compromise should not be going in that direction.
As to Marc's point about ongoing series... yes. That's a problem with spoiler warnings, but I don't think it's an insoluble one so long as the compromise allows targetted spoiler warnings. It's also not really corrected by the Current Fiction blanket disclaimer, either. If you take it this way, every TV series that is ongoing (and has been off the air for less than 2 years) would now have a blanket disclaimer on its main page. Every character page should likely have one, if they're a character in one of those series (or in a multi-book series that is ongoing). Okay, I'll give that most anti-spoiler people would probably not want these on character pages, but I think they're as appropriate there as on the main article pages, because otherwise you assume people reading will know that the character is fictional, and already know everything they appear in. If a character dies in book X, but makes a surprise reappearance in book X+N that just came out, people who've only read X would feel comfortable reading the page about that character, and get spoiled. So IMHO you can't leave out associated pages. Sorry, I digress again. Back to the pages which'll need current fiction warnings... Comics, sure. Comics have been running uninterrupted for decades, but they're still current fiction. Gotta slap a disclaimer on them if they might contain spoilers, like what happened in the current issue. They're current fiction. The compromise's bright lines shine a lot farther than you might expect. Personally, I'd much rather see targetted warnings where spoilers actually exist, than see a redundant warning over almost every fictional article I'm likely to read. Both are likely to mean a fair number of such warnings exist, but targetted ones at least have a lot more utility. Wandering Ghost 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, graphic sexual content is non-existent, anatomical articles aside.--Nydas 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


"I don't think that majority of people buy it" That would be an invincibility myth. An external majority doesn't buy the current misuse of "spoiler warning"; only 49% do based on Google test. "Spoiler alert" is also misused at 49%, while a little under 1% correctly use "spoiler notice".
"no matter how many times you beat that drum" That would be a hopelessness myth. With two incorrect language contenders almost equal, that's a significant PR campaign opportunity for the correct language to prevail.
"nor do I really think it's relevant" We can agree to disagree about that, but I have the logic necessary for consensus. My analysis of relevance is based on the numerous times otherwise valid spoiler tag debating has been sidetracked or derailed, by the invalid claim that 'spoiler tags aren't allowed because they are a disclaimer'. That's an incorrect statement in a WP environment obeisantly dedicated to correctness, while WP is strongly criticised for correctness unreliability by academia. Once that point has been learned by editors here, it's self-defeatingly hypocritical not to fix it in the spoiler guide. Most importantly, if you think that a negotiated compromised should at least be attempted, this incorrect language matters because it's a removable obstacle to negotiation. Milo 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough

This stuff about the anti-spoiler crowd claiming to have consensus is nonsense. If you read through the archives of this page, the majority clearly supports keeping them. Now they'll say that wikipedia isn't a "majority rules" organization, but that doesn't mean that everything must be decided by the MINORITY. The pro-spoiler crowd needs to be more bold and just edit the damn guideline. --YellowTapedR 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment regarding this proposed compromise... Girolamo Savonarola 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What do those still discussing on this page hope to achieve?

In the wake of a Miscellany for deletion discussion that changed into a Requests for comment process, this guideline underwent substantial change in late May and was last edited in late July, just over a month ago. During the period mid-May to 10 June, some 45,000 redundant spoiler tags were removed from Misplaced Pages.

As I write this, only one spoiler tag has remained on Misplaced Pages for any substantial period of time: on Sōsuke Aizen where there is consensus for the tag after discussion.

A monitoring process run by User:Misza13 has run every six hours since mid-June, and examination of the few interactions over spoiler tags on articles listed in the history of that page seems to show very little opposition to the current guideline.

Attempts at mediation, and a complaint about early use of an automated editing tool have failed. No less than two attempts at bring some grievances to arbitration failed abjectly.

Discussion on this page can be summarised by looking at the sections and their main topics. In archive8, which became the main archive about three weeks ago:

And on this page currently:

  • Archiving: Another metadiscussion about archiving.
  • Let's have a guideline: "Nydas, here's a radical thought: do you actually have any ideas about spoiler warnings? You have plenty of ideas about archiving, NPOV, censorship, "cabals," and edits that took place three months ago. But I have yet to see a proposal from you about the actual topic of this page. Do you have one?" User:Marc Shepherd
  • Current wording is biased against spoilers: "The current wording of this guideline is far too biased against spoilers. We need to return to an environment where spoiler tags are respected and welcomed as useful tools. As a common sense guideline, any plot details that one would not expect to read in a newspaper film review should be placed behind spoiler tags." -User:Johntex
  • A problem with local consensus: "have found the perfect example of why creating a walled garden of local consensus is bad: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Harry Potter-related articles)." -User:David Fuchs
  • A note on the use of the word warning: 'Everyone I am quoting is pro-spoiler-tag. Everyone I am quoting believes that spoilers are dangerous. Ergo, everyone that I am quoting believes that spoiler tags are "warnings."' -User:Ethan Mitchell
  • Informal request for comments: "I wonder if it would help discussion here if we focused on actual ongoing activity rather than ancient history." -User:Tony Sidaway
  • Hans Brinker: "You are looking a lot like the nameless fictional character popularly known as Hans Brinker. How long can you hold your finger in the spoiler tag dike?" -User:Milomedes
  • The "Other" compromise: "Hiding the spoiler tag is not a real solution because all it does is hide the problem. Editors will still add "home made" warnings because the spoiler tag will not be visible. The real solution would be to establish objective criteria to determine when a plot detail is a spoiler and when it can receive a warning, much like how the notability guidelines work." -User:TheFarix
  • current AN/I report - spoiler issue: "If anyone wants to check it out, here is a current AN/I report regarding a spoiler issue. Its heading is "Users pushing personal agenda", but the topic is spoilers. It's not about notices, it's about content removal, based on "popular opinion" as a justification. -User:Parsifal
  • Were these edits valid?: "t's perfectly relevant to discuss the editors who have appointed themselves as the Spoiler Police. They're the ones who are making it impossible to actually abide by the guidelines unless it's how they see fit." -User:YellowTapedR
  • All right: "Editors should seek consensus on the article's talk page before removing spoiler tags, unless they are in areas where spoilers are expected, such as plot, themes and character sections." -User:YellowTapedR
  • A compromise: "As much of this page is stuck in the usual doldrums of rehashing old arguments, I thought I'd launch a new sub-topic with a fresh approach. These are my views on the spoiler warning controversy. Please note that I have managed to draft this section without ever once suggesting that editors who believe differently are acting in bad faith." -User:Marc Shepherd
  • Enough: "This stuff about the anti-spoiler crowd claiming to have consensus is nonsense. If you read through the archives of this page, the majority clearly supports keeping them. Now they'll say that wikipedia isn't a "majority rules" organization, but that doesn't mean that everything must be decided by the MINORITY. The pro-spoiler crowd needs to be more bold and just edit the damn guideline. -User:YellowTapedR

The problem is that these discussions don't really tell me what, if anything, should be done to the current guideline as it stands. No concrete changes likely to command consensus have been suggested throughout the three weeks.

So why does discussion continue? What concrete changes are we each hoping to achieve? --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading to say that changes occured in the wake of the discussion. The discussion was completely ignored.
As for now, the discussion does not need your personal permission to continue. Unlike spoiler tags, which do.--Nydas 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Could we stay on topic, please? What do you hope to achieve through this discussion? --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A very smug way of telling people to shut up. I have suggested that the burden be put on people wishing to remove spoiler tags, unless they're in redundant spots, to show why they should be removed. I got no response.

If you look through the archives, you'll see that the pro-spoiler crowd clearly has consensus. There is only one spoiler tag on wikipedia because you and others have made it your obsessive mission to systematically remove them all.

Team Anti-Spoiler has been fillibustering on the talk page for months. I say it's time to stop letting the minority control everything. That's what I'm hoping for by continuing the discussion--YellowTapedR 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody actually interested in addressing my question? What concrete changes does each editor in this discussion hope to achieve? --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that many people here want SWs back, in some form. It shows that there is no actual consensus about the current guideline. Tony, you seem to think that the fact almost no one is trying to add the SWs back shows consensus, are you serious about this? Because, as an admin, you should understand that people respect WP:POINT, and prefer discussion here to edit wars with your bots. Samohyl Jan 09:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well here's the thing. I've mentioned this before, but one of the main problems -- especially now that it's died down as a shifting issue and turned into a lingering one -- is that anyone coming in NEW to the discussion is likely going to be one who wants a change, so a lot of the talk here is 'weighted' on the pro- side. If there were a watch list notice (which won't happen, as this issue isn't nearly large enough), then we would probably see a far more true summation of what people /actually/ want. But here's the thing -- and I don't know what it really means -- but almost every admin I've seen in this discussion over the whole months of it has been on the anti- side (no I won't say all, just most of them to my memory). I realize admins don't have any more weight in their opinion, but what they DO have is a certain knowledge of WP needed to even be granted admin in the first place. Does that say something? No idea. But it might be something to think about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to get past the repeated personal attacks and false accusations (note above for instance, among other false accusations, that Samohyl Jan falsely implies that restoring spoiler tags would entail edit warring with bots!) At the risk of sounding like johnny-one-note, I'll try to drag this back to the subject: what concrete change do those discussing here hope to achieve? Arbitration isn't going to happen, mediation failed, there don't seem to be any outstanding conduct issues, the false accusations aren't working. What concrete changes can we make to the guideline, that are likely to gain consensus? --Tony Sidaway 12:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The people who most strongly favor spoiler warnings (or tags or notices, or whatever you call them) seem to fall into four somewhat overlapping groups.
In the first place are those who feel that the current guideline and its enforcement were arrived at by illegitimate means. They believe that a "clique" of a few "senior admins" is all that's standing in the way of what the rest of the Misplaced Pages community overwhelmingly want. I don't know what they think they'll gain by continuing to bring this up. But they keep doing it.
There are some who want a very different guideline. The most commoonly expressed view is that headings like "plot" or "synopsis" do not automatically convey that significant plot details are going to be given away. This implies that an explicit warning conveys a useful independent purpose. Those with this opinion hope to achieve consensus that spoiler warnings (or tags or notices, or whatever you call 'em) should be liberally employed. This seems to me a perfectly legitimate intellectual position, and while I'm not sure they'll win their argument, I have no quarrel with the concept. Where I fault them, however, is that they haven't moved beyond this concept to a more detailed proposal—one that would produce a practical guideline for what types of plot details merit spoiler tags.
LThen, there are those who object that the current guideline seems, on its face, to suggest that spoiler warnings ought to be appropriate in some circumstances. Yet, in almost every actual case, editors remove them on sight. I agree that this situation is somewhat contradictory. If it keeps going that way, at some point it would be sensible to acknowledge that, as a practical matter, spoiler warnings are all-but banned on Misplaced Pages. But here too, although this position is a very reasonable one, most of those pointing it out have not moved onto details.
The last faction, again somewhat overlapping the above, consists of those who want spoiler tags to be optionally hidden; or, in the alternative, hidden by default, but optionally visible. The people arguing for this viewpoint seem to think if only the tags were capable of being hidden, the anti-tag faction would go away. "Out of sight, out of mind." The problem with this approach is that I think everyone here, regardless of his or her position, actually does care about the content of the encyclopedia. There's no other example where Misplaced Pages hides content because some editors think it does not belong. If the tags belong, then everyone should see them. If the tags do not belong, then no one should see them. So I think the "hidden tags" idea is doomed to go nowhere, but a few people keep banging that drum. Marc Shepherd 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Sidaway is actually reading the discussion, because people are answering his question. --YellowTapedR 02:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You can call me Tony. If people are answering the question, you should be able to say what concrete changes have been proposed to the guideline in the past few weeks that might gather consensus. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't say what might get consensus because I'm not a psychic. I think some editors think "consensus" to mean agree among everybody, which is impossible to obtain in just about any issue. So, why, I ask, do the outcomes always have to fall on the anti-spoiler side?

What I suggested, I think, would be a significant change. It would suggest that editors seek consensus on a talk page to remove warnings, unless, of course, they are in spots already deemed redundant. I think people reading a section called "plot" should know there will be significant details, especially if they are lengthy; many are way too long, but that's a different discussion.

If your stance on warnings has "wiki-wide consensus," then surely consensus would be gained in most cases, right? So, what's the problem?--YellowTapedR 08:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, so I apologize if so, but it sounds to me you want to force consensus to delete the warning, but not to add it. Why should one be allowed to add it but not delete it? Though granted, it's somewhat the opposite situation now...which contrary to what some people here state, the policy of which was arrived at with quite a large number of people contributing to its creation.
To sum it up, basically now -- discussion must be had to justify the warning be there - which isn't happening much if at all. What YOU want is for discussion to justify it NOT be there -- what makes you think THAT will happen too? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be different, I think, because there aren't people patrolling wikipedia adding spoiler warnings, only deleting them. It wouldn't prevent anyone from removing warnings from redundant places, but would encourage discussion for removing them in other places. You're right, you don't need consensus to remove something from an article, but you don't need it to add something either. Why should the anti-spoiler editors get the upperhand then when they're already at the advantage?--YellowTapedR 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the word "advantage" couches this like a kind of competition, where one side has been given an improper edge. We're all simply trying to build an encyclopedia. Periodic scans for spoiler tags are simply one of numerous scans that run all the time, looking for patterns that warrant editorial attention.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, where you find a spoiler tag, the editor has just slapped it on the entire "plot" section. As you know, the current guideline says that spoiler tags in such situations are generally not called for. An editor does not need prior authorization to modify an article that goes against a Misplaced Pages guideline, and the spoiler guideline is no different.
Like any Misplaced Pages guideline, exceptions are allowed...with reasons. An editor who disagrees with the removal can re-insert the tag. It's appropriate to write in the edit summary, "Re-inserting spoiler tag; see talk page." The talk page can then explain the editor's view of why that particular situation is different enough to justify an exception. This, by the way, is no different from what an editor should do in any guideline-exception situation, whether it was a spoiler tag or something else. Marc Shepherd 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've no problem with the requirement that a spoiler tag cannot be removed without consensus. In fact that's what I follow right now, with a lot of success. All edits on Misplaced Pages, with some rare exceptions such as copyright and defamation, are subject to consensus. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's what YellowTapedR meant. He's suggesting that you obtain consensus before removing the tag. What you've been doing, I believe, is to boldly remove the tag if it appears to you to be wrong, per the guideline. (That's not a criticism; just a statement of what I believe the process to be.) If that decision is challenged by another editor, you will of course abide by the consensus process. But you don't wait for a consensus to develop before initially removing it. Marc Shepherd 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that 'consensus' means pretty much whatever the anti-spoiler warning admins wish it to, hence no spoiler tag existing without the unanimous approval of half a dozen people.--Nydas 19:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "advantage" wasn't the right one to use. Like I said before, it wouldn't prevent anyone from removing a spoiler tag in an inappropriate spot, but just in the out-of-ordinary sections that, admittedly, are rare. Why does it say that consensus should be obtained to place a tag anyway? --YellowTapedR 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Nydas, obviously if there is substantial opposition to an edit it will be reverted and will not prevail. Removals of spoiler tags have succeeded perhaps more spectacularly than any other edit apart from reverts of obvious vandalism.
In response to YellowTapedR, of course consensus applies to all Misplaced Pages edits (with rare exceptions such as copyright and defamation). --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot doesn't necessarily indicate a spoiler.

When you ask a friend "What's this movie about?" they usually tell you the plot, without giving away the important and surprising aspects of the story.

This is how I expected plot summaries on wikipedia to be - unless otherwise indicated (with a spoiler alert), plot summaries would not give away important or surprising aspects of a story. However, I guess I was wrong, judging from all this - it seems most people see "plot" as being synonymous with "spoiler". I can't be the only person who finds this false.

I am quite distressed, since I decided to look up a book that I've been wanting to read for ages, and decided to read the plot summary since there was no spoiler sign. Bad idea. I was shocked to find that it described a vital plot twist. Now the story that I've been waiting years to read has been spoiled for me. If you are wondering, it is Sati, by Christopher Pike.

It seems that other people have been editing the page to include the obvously needed spoiler tag, but they keep getting removed and this page is cited as the reason for removal. I highly object to this. When I see a heading indicating "Plot", I don't think that it's a spoiler unless it's marked as such. Rediahs 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would direct you to the lengthy discussion on this point in the archives. I don't think anything else needs to be added. David Fuchs 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It has always been the stated aim of the anti-spoiler people to 'burn' those who expect spoilers, until they learn otherwise. They see you as stupid and at least some of them consider you an aesthetic pervert for liking narrative suspense.--Nydas 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a lesson in this: if you don't want to find out the plot of a book, don't read the plot section of its Misplaced Pages entry. --Mark H Wilkinson 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
In other words Don't use Misplaced Pages .Garda40 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Nydas, Phil wrote that email. I didn't. I have not been subscribed to the Misplaced Pages mailing lists for some time (I did when I was trying to resolve a dispute regarding the Hebrew Wiki) and in any case never noticed anything about spoilers. In any case, I am not trying to 'burn' Rediahs, only prevent pointless iterations of the same arguments over and over again. That's the point of archives, history, whatever. David Fuchs 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you resist the urge to prevent discussion.--Nydas 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't use Misplaced Pages if I don't want to learn something. I use Misplaced Pages a lot. --Mark H Wilkinson 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll just sidestep Mark's snide implication that those who don't want spoilers are uninformed, and answer Garda40 on a personal level: I do a lot of research on movies for various reasons, and no, now that I know Misplaced Pages actively discourages the use of spoiler tags, I won't use it for research anymore. There's no reason to use Misplaced Pages if the content can include spoilers but readers get no warning of this. As for what I was hoping to accomplish, well, it's pretty obvious most here don't want to accomplish anything. The anti-tag people are too busy being smugly self-righteous, and the pro-tag people keep thinking life should be fair. Clockster 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Previously, Clockster wrote: "almost every film site I go to -- blogs, reviews, forums, TCM, Usenet, etc. -- uses some kind of spoiler notice, even if it's a cursory notice somewhere in the FAQ." If "a cursory notice" is sufficient to permit you to use a site for research, Misplaced Pages already has it. Many of the pro-warning crowd say this isn't good enough, even though apparently some of the other sites you refer to employ a similar warning technique.
You could really move the debate forward by surveying some of those other film sites and reporting back how they handle spoilers. Is it just a general notice on the site, or does it appear on every page? Is it at the top of the page, or embedded in the middle of the text? Marc Shepherd 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read parts of the archived discussion and I think I understand now where people are coming from. However, I must disagree on quite a few grounds: - I've been told that I'm "stupid" for looking at a wikipedia article of a work that I don't want to be spoiled, because I shouldn't be looking at it if I don't want it to be spoiled. That's a circular argument. We could easily fix this by adding spoiler tags. Then the article would be safe to look at. Believe it or not, there is other content in a wikipedia article than spoilers. - I've been told that I shouldn't be looking at a plot summary if I don't want the plot given away. I agree completely, except that there is a difference between plot and story. As I mentioned earlier, if I ask a friend what a movie is about, they typically don't include spoilers. It is common courtesy in our culture to mention the fact that what is upcoming might include spoilers. I have legitimate reasons for wanting to read the article, and not wanting spoilers in my face: - I might want to read about it to find out if it sounds interesting to me. - I want to know information such as the author, actors, etc - As for the plot sumamry and not wanting spoilers, I probably want to know how the movie/book begins - the introductory premise, and a vague explanation of how it resolves. However, I don't want details about certain large events such as a chacter dying or something. I find the indication that users who read wikipedia articles of works they do not want spoiled are stupid to be incredibly closed-minded and offensive. I want to read the article; however, I do not want it spoiled. This is normal in our culture. Do you understand this? As for users who think that if we learn our lesson by being shocked by the spoiler in one plot summary we won't do it again, of course, I won't do it again. However, it narrows the usage of the article. It makes it accessible to less people. And it makes it unusable to those who do not want it spoiled. And users who do not want it spoiled have valid reasons for wanting to read it, as I explained above. Don't say we're stupid. Isn't it a BAD thing to make an article available to less people? -- Rediahs 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to read the article; however, I do not want it spoiled. This is normal in our culture. Given how strongly you feel about it, would you be willing to do a little research? Do a survey, and take note of where "in our culture" spoiler warnings typically are found, and where they are not. For a change, we would have some real data that might help inform where those warnings belong in Misplaced Pages. Marc Shepherd 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding spoiler warnings removes nothing. It doesn't harm the article. It's a courtesy. It works well. It's considered polite. I understand this is an encyclopedia, but we've never had an encyclopedia quite like this before. Can't our wikipedia be polite? -- Rediahs 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary. It causes information to be 'shuffled' between the tags. It's ugly. It potentially violates WP:NPOV. And wouldn't it be polite to say that Irrumation has a drawing of a sex act (I've never even heard of the word, so following a link to it I'd have no idea)? Or how about a warning that something might be harmful if tried/consumed? Yet we don't have THOSE warnings. But this is all rehash of the arguments. Read the archives. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It causes information to be 'shuffled' between the tags. That could be an effect, but in what way is that a problem, as long as the resulting text is well-written and according to policy?
It's ugly. One might consider that beauty (or its opposite) is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I find spoiler notices pleasing if they are well-done and well-placed.
It potentially violates WP:NPOV. That may be so. But there is no policy against "potential" violations. If in a particular situation, a spoiler notice violates NPOV, that should be addressed and fixed, in that particular article where it happened. --Parsifal Hello 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
But then, why do you resist doing the research I suggested? If it's "a courtesy" and is "considered polite," presumably you can find other sources that provide a similar courtesy. We might learn something by observing what they did, and the way they did it. Once we've seen what kind of works receive spoiler warnings in other sources, and the wording/placement of those warnings, we'd have some hard data to go by, instead of just dueling personal opinions. Marc Shepherd 23:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


The plot summary in an encyclopedia must discuss all significant elements of the plot. That is what it is there for. A plot summary that omits significant elements is not potentially but actively in breach of the neutral point of view policy, assuming that the plot is ata all significant (which it usually is--I can't think of an exception off-hand. Perhaps some articles about specific soap opera episodes, otherwise unimportant, where something significant happened to a member of the case or production team).
So we have a case where every plot summary, synopsis or other plot-related section, including every article about a fictional character and object, must describe everything worth knowing about the item in question. Misplaced Pages must, by its very mission, become a neutral purveyor of all relevant information.
Some people feel betrayed if they obtain access to information about a work of fiction through a route other than sitting down and reading a book or watching a television program or film. Their feelings, which I'm sure are deeply felt and genuine, are not compatible with Misplaced Pages's mission. It would be nice to try to accommodate those people's feelings into our mission if at all possible.
What to do? Until mid-May, we had sporadically sprinkled spoiler warnings on some 45,000 articles. And we had put home-made warnings on perhaps 1,000 others (the latter is my estimate because I found and removed most of them in June/July). The obvious problem with this is that, in a wiki of some 2,000,000 articles, Misplaced Pages must have many more than 45,000 articles about fictional subjects. Even when we had that many spoiler tags, the odds were that when you visited an article about a fictional subject at random you would not see a single spoiler tag. And yet every single article about a fictional subject must, perforce, be a revelation to the reader who visits it in ignorance. And if "significant new information about a fictional subject" is not a good candidate definition of the word "spoiler", I don't know what is.
So it's actually a pretty difficult decision to make, because the obvious, pragmatic solution has been tried and failed, only resulting in useless clutter. But although it's a difficult decision, it's an unavoidable one: we have to be more pro-active about spoiler tags: each time somebody adds one, they should be able, at least in principle, to explain why it's necessary. And Misplaced Pages being consensus-based, they should be able to demonstrate consensus for that tag. And conversely, we shouldn't be afraid to remove a spoiler (whether tagged or not) that isn't necessary. Our current guideline allows both of those options. We don't tag spoilers unnecessarily and we don't include information that, while it's trivial in the current context, may not be what the reader is expecting. If we have an article about buckets, it would be unnecessary, and really rather silly, to include in that article some information to the effect that the climax of a certain Harry Potter novel involved creative use of a bucket, ten inches of post office string, and a stick of sealing wax.
And that isn't a new thing. That's the way Misplaced Pages works. Or at least, it's how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. You can't just stick something into an article without consensus.
But that being so, what am I doing to improve Misplaced Pages? Chopping out tags that some people find useful? Not a bit of it. Mostly I remove redundant tags from sections with names like "Story", "Plot" or "Synopsis". As I've stated above, it's not acceptable in an encyclopedia to write about such matters without covering what most reasonable people would consider spoilers. But that's not all I do. I change the names of sections, or add section names where they do not already exist, so that the reader will not be misled. Don't misunderstand me: I don't create corraled areas of spoiling content. Rather, I create structure in the article that shows the casual reader that this is an encyclopedia and not a fan site, that its mission is to inform and not to conceal. I am performing an essential function in the construction of an encyclopedia: making an infrastructure that permits all significant elements of a subject to be covered, and removing elements that make such coverage difficult to provide in an integrated manner. We shouldn't be dodging in and ou of "spoiler" areas dictated arbitrarily by random editors. Rather we should always feel free to refactor any article to improve the delivery of information. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt your claim that Misplaced Pages must have 'many more' than 45,000 fiction articles is correct. Your editing patterns trick you into thinking that the situation with Doctor Who, Star Wars, etc is 'typical'. How many fictional franchises have more than 50 distinct articles? Not many.--Nydas 12:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, there are 28,795 articles with a WP:Film banner, and 18,009 with a WP:CVG banner. Granted not all of these are fictional topics, but that doesn't even get into books, fairy tales, plays, songs, and other things that often had the warnings attached to them. And furthermore, even at the time, none of the Final Fantasy articles or the opera articles had them, by consensus of their respective projects. Final Fantasy VII was a featured article before it happened, and the warnings were kept off it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If a fair quantity of films are either non-fictional or are stubs too short to contain spoilers, and many (probably most) video games don't have plots, then the 'many more' claim is without merit.--Nydas 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another anecdote. Long ago, editors on WikiProject Opera decided that spoiler tags were never appropriate on opera articles. New editors would come along and add the tags, and veterans would remove them. I cannot think of a principled reason why opera articles omitted spoiler tags, when they were present on fairy tales like Three little pigs. It was simply a case of one group of editors reaching a decision that was the opposite of what other editors preferred. There are hundreds of opera articles on Misplaced Pages.
So I agree with Tony that the former practice was highly inconsistent. When reading about fictional subjects, there was no real rhyme or reason as to whether you would encounter a spoiler tag or not. Marc Shepherd 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Instead of resorting to the fairy tale strawman, what about the novel mentioned in the beginning of this section? Is it 'highly inconsistent' to have spoiler warnings on novels but not on operas?--Nydas 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Three little pigs isn't a strawman, because it had a spoiler warning for a while, and there were editors who argued quite strenuously that it was appropriate. Yes, you could argue that it is inconsistent to have spoiler warnings on novels, but not on operas. There are also differences between the two, which some editors find significant. Marc Shepherd 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Another way to look at it... the previous state of 45,000 fiction articles with warnings, and a somewhat unknown number without _already_ constituted a compromise between the pro-warnings group and the anti-warning group. Granted, a sloppy one that probably could have used some refinement and consistency applied to it, but one that nevertheless was apparently quite tolerable for most people.
Let's say we reach a valid compromise on where spoiler warnings are appropriate, and it leaves, let's say, 1000 warnings up. (This is wildly optomistic, considering how few warnings are getting through the spoiler patrol). What's to stop, a few months down the road, the vehement anti-spoiler side demanding yet another compromise, permitting even _fewer_ spoilers? Because right now it seems, at least in my view, the pro-spoiler people have been doing most of the giving in the give and take of compromise. So, since the question's been asked about what concrete changes the pro-spoiler side wants to make that they think can get consensus, let me turn it around. For those who are anti-spoiler, what compromises are you WILLING to make? Hopefully something beyond simply "we can allow them if they demonstrate consensus", which, again, can't happen so long as there are even a small number of determined anti-spoiler people digging in and deciding in every case that comes up their answer is 'no' (thus making consensus impossible to get). Because if you _can't_ offer compromises, then I see no point in trying to either, and might as well revert my policy from one of compromise to being extremely pro-warning, because it's more likely to get me action in the direction I want.
As to your example on what WP:Opera did... I've actually considered that this might be a good idea, as policy. Let individual projects determine for themselves what their spoiler policy is. Different projects will decide different things, but different pages within their project will hopefully be consistent, and at least it would seem to reflect a better consensus, and would address certain things like "does this count as too old to need a spoiler warning" (which might for a comic be a few months, and a book a few years) in the other bright-line policies. Of course, the major problem here would be in handling overlap of projects. Wandering Ghost 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, as you know, I'm fairly anti-warning, but I proposed that spoiler tags should be routinely employed on all articles concerning fictional subjects, where the work in question is fairly new. I suggested two years as a good dividing line between "new" and "old", but I wouldn't be unhappy with three or five. In my experience, the vast majority of the complaints affect works that are new. This would therefore give the pro-warning side a good deal of what they want, and would lead to spoiler tags on thousands of articles. Whether you like this compromise or not, you can't say that the anti-warning side is unwilling to compromise.
I am also fine with the idea of allowing each project to customize the guideline. This is how Misplaced Pages works. But you get the best results when there is a higher-level guideline to provide the "guard rails." A project team can decide how the guideline applies to their specific situation, but can't ignore the guideline or make decisions that lead to wildly inconsistent results). Marc Shepherd 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The two-year compromise you propose is actually what I implemented on the Doctor Who episode articles. I went through and removed all spoiler tags for older episodes, and retained the newer ones, adopting May, 2005 as my cut-off point. However when someone else removed the remaining spoiler tags they were not restored, and new articles about Doctor Who episodes soon ceased to carry spoiler tags. So the compromise I implemented proved to be too far over to the "include tags" side to survive for more than a few weeks. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And did you tell anyone about your compromise? If you didn't, then people just behaved according to current guideline, so there is no proof how much of them disagreed with it. Samohyl Jan 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You can see that I commented several times on the relevant WikiProject talk page as I progressed through the task, particularly here, where I had covered everything from William Hartnell to Peter Davison (1963-1984), and here where I announced that I had completed all removals up to The Empty Child, which was broadcast by the BBC on 21 May, 2005. On the last comment I said "Comments and edits welcome, please take the trouble to examine and revert if you think I've gone too far." As you can see from this revision of the talk page over three weeks later, there do not seem to have been any further comments on the matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)