Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:44, 29 January 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spoiler page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. This is, on occasion, a very busy discussion page. Newcomers are encouraged to read the copious archives. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spoiler page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Proposal: Plot summary => Full plot summary_Full_plot_summary-2008-01-07T18:18:00.000Z">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've got some examples of tagging incomplete plot summaries: .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can't require every visitor to read the disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony's demons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? where? --Yamanbaiia 19:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Avoiding spoiler issues by providing encyclopaedic plot summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoilers outside of fictional-work articles

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

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

— Misplaced Pages:Spoiler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler template?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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