Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ken Arromdee (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 29 July 2007 (→RFA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please 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

Archive index Misplaced Pages talk:Warn readers about spoilers/Archive 1 Misplaced Pages talk:Warn readers about spoilers Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Archive Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Archive2 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2 Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning/RfC Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive3 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive4 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive5 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive6 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive7 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive8

Is the word Spoiler Now Banned ?

Came across this edit just now to change the word spoiler in an external link to plot details

As it happens on that website there is a one line summary of the episode which the word spoiler can cover( since to some people a one line summary can be a spoiler ) but which in this case plot details is not correct .Garda40 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is not band. But in this case, it falls under WP:NDA and not this guideline. --Farix (Talk) 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh what are you talking about? The article says Plot summary and that's it .Garda40 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I made that edit. I made it because as an Englishman I don't like to read jargon on English Misplaced Pages when the information can be expressed much better in English. If I were editing French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian or German Misplaced Pages I'd seek the more natural expression of the concept in the language of the wiki, and would only resort to jargon if I were absolutely sure that the idea could not be expressed in that language. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::: I made that edit. I made it because as an Englishman I don't like to read jargon on English Misplaced Pages when the information can be expressed much better in English

Except in this case the term which was used "Plot Details" is wrong because there is no plot details on that linked page beyond a generic "the SG team have an adventure on planet X this week" .Garda40 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case there is nothing to say and the text can be removed. I am left wondering what the fuss was about. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC

The fuss was why you felt the need to remove the word spoiler that happened to be on that page , and replace it with a generic term , that wasn't even a content disclaimer for the article and wasn't even much of a content disclaimer for the link rather than delete an out of date link .Garda40 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to describe an off site link, but it's another thing to put what amounts to spoiler warnings on said links. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to provide warnings about off site content and such warning are contrary to WP:NDA. --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a historical link that was placed there soon after the page was created in September 06 and which at this point can be removed rather than purged of the "nasty" word spoiler .Garda40 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If it doesn't contain anything useful such as plot descriptions (which is what I naively assumed "spoilers" meant) then it's pointless and can be removed. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC uses the term. "JK Rowling rails against spoilers."--Nydas 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, so I might be wrong, but doesn't she use the word "spoilers" to mean "the people who spoil the excitement for the kids" instead of "plot details you might not want to know"? Kusma (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, but the term is used later in the article in the correct sense.--Nydas 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Potted Harry for beginners. Good to see the BBC using a spoiler template. --Nydas 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They do indeed, but they are in the minority. Just about everywhere else, people write openly about what happened in the previous 6 books without any disclaimer. Marc Shepherd 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By 'everywhere else', do you mean fansites and blogs that most people never read?--Nydas 09:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am persuaded that it is appropriate for Wikinews to use the word "spoiler" now. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a good chance our Harry Potter articles will have spoiler notices, possibly in the form of {{current fiction}}, for a short time. There is a much lower chance that the spoiler notices will remain there forever. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind a tag like {{current fiction}} at the head of an article. It's far less intrusive than a spoiler warning in the middle of a page, and there's a pretty clear "statute of limitations." You won't see it there a year from now, nor probably even six months from now. Marc Shepherd 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, NPR yesterday followed their story on teh tight security surrounding shipping of the new Potter novel, with a reassurance (disclaimer?) that ... they would not be broadcasting "spoilers" (their wording) as "spoilers are not newsworthy." So it may be jargon, but it's reaching the level of common use. // Tony, cleansing the EL of the word spoiler was silly. Replacing it with "plot details" ... did you look at the external page, I wonder. WP doesn't put disclaimers on ELs (e.g. "Warning: you are now leaving WP, we are not responsible for content on external sites"), just an accurate description, e.g. "Naugahyde(TM) official site," "Blade Runner resources (fan site)," "Roger Ebert review of the film." // I also don't see why the fuss, as it's not a "bad word," so knee-jerk reactions to the word, or to its replacement with more specific descriptions, is childish. Let's all take a deep breath and get some perspective. The word is reaching common use (AND it's in my Oxford Concise Dictionary, 11th ed.), get over it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed, evidently the page in question contained nothing of much use and the link was removed. This highlights why it's much better to use good English than to use misleading jargon. There are occasions when the word "spoiler" is appropriate in an article about fiction, and occasions when it isn't, and these should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, I think, the term "spoiler" is used when the writer means "plot detail", and obviously the latter is more easily understood, more neutral, and less ambiguous. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't misleading jargon when that link was created and for the next month as the one line summary on that external link was the most plot detail you would find anywhere.Of course it should have been removed when SKY showed the episode but everyone seems to have forgotten about it by that point .Garda40 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on your position on this subject. Is it your position that the word "spoiler" was more appropriate than the phrase "plot detail" ? --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My position is that the link should have been removed rather than changed from what was at one time an appropriate useage of jargon but that the editor who inserted it last September wouldn't have been wrong to use the words "plot detail" as at that time they amounted to the same thing. .Garda40 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which usage would have been inappropriate the other day, when I changed the wording? If "plot detail" would have been appropriate both in September and in July, wouldn't that have been a better overall choice? --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Both were inappropriate the other day and therefore one usage should not have been changed to the other whether it was "Spoiler" to "Plot detail" or "Plot detail" to "Spoiler".

If "plot detail" would have been appropriate both in September and July

Since there isn't any plot detail on that external site now compared to the article "Plot detail" isn't appropriate in July .Garda40 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that "spoiler" is a word in common usage, and it should no longer be considered pop jargon. But that does not mean that every use of it is the clearest and most appropriate way of expressing the idea. Indeed, the {{spoiler}} template, as currently worded, says "Note: Significant plot details follow," without using the exact word "spoiler." Among other things, the phrase "plot details" is more neutral. It implies no view about whether anything is being "spoiled" for anybody. Marc Shepherd 18:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. I would say that it's jargon in the sense that its meaning is likely less apparent to a random English speaker than "plot detail." I would also add that I hadn't encountered the term, as a voracious reader, prior to contact with the internet. and that I tend to find so-called spoilers rather enticers, making me want to read or watch a work (I'm sure you know what I mean--Last Tango in Paris would have been a lot less interesting without the butter, and you're not going to want to watch Fight Club if you think it's just some crap about idiots fighting one another).

I can't think of a single movie that I watched to see what happened in the last reel. That includes Citizen Kane--anybody who thinks the movie is spoiled if you know about Rosebud must have slept through it--and The Phantom Menace (we know before the first reel is over that the cute little kid will end his life fighting an epic battle of good and evil, and will only in death be won over to the side of good--why? because we saw the same guy die in Return of the Jedi!)

So I am left wondering where this weird obsession with the secrecy of the final reel came from. I don't know. I don't care. I do know that it has no place in any encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony: vague and misleading allusions to my comment about Citizen Kane do not serve to make your case any more logically sound. I made that point in the context of an entirely different conversation about whether or not "Plot" and "Spoiler" are coextensive. David Spalding made an interesting reply, and we went back and forth a bit (during which I changed the content of my example for the sake of clarity), but at the end of the day the point remained: "Plot" and "Spoiler" are not coextensive. I did not say that knowledge of the ending ruins the film. I've watched Fight Club, for example, roughly 50 times. You are also incorrect about the "obsession with secrecy." It isn't necessarily about the third reel. What is it about? Well... spoilers (obvious, eh?). As I said to David Spalding, the ending of Fullmetal Alchemist episode 5 (victory!) does not spoil. The events of Fullmetal Alchemist episode 25 (death!) do spoil. And at 51 episodes, number 25 is not quite the "third reel."

On the issue at hand, though, it seems quite clear that "spoiler" is an appropriate term for Misplaced Pages. Not only is it being absorbed by the professional media, but it is already in use on Misplaced Pages outside of the spoiler template and the pages on the guideline. Specifically, it is used on the content disclaimer page (which, I might add, links to a page which explicitly states that spoiler tags will be included on Misplaced Pages). Postmodern Beatnik 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why spoiler warnings should not exist

The fact of the matter is that the Misplaced Pages, like all encyclopedias of any gravity, is an academic book. It is an attempt to synthesize all of the scholarship about all knowledge into suitably-sized summary articles, with sufficient additional articles for subtopics.

As I'm sure any who has read much critical literature in college knows, the form of academic writing includes unflinching writing about all matters, with rigorous sourcing. Most academic writing about literature overtly spoils not only the main topic of discussion, but also peripheral works which are often brought in to compare or bring into context. I think that in my four years of liberal arts education, I was exposed to hundreds of spoilers in the course of reading critical papers necessary for study in my classes.

While most of us editors are not academics, we are expected to hold our articles to academic standard, whatever the topic. Serious writing does not include spoiler warnings - and furthermore, for most artistic pursuits it is preferable that the articles contain extensive discussion regarding critical comparisons to other works. This will inevitably cause cross-spoiler..ing.

If you're reading an encyclopedia and don't expect to be told everything, then I find little blame other than towards the reader. We're expected to be comprehensive and thorough, and our job is not to protect "virgin eyes" or the profit margins of publishers and studios. Girolamo Savonarola 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The academic standards are expected by whom? I would say there are different types of users on Misplaced Pages (or better, people use it differently depending on their specialization). In articles about fiction, some of the users are maybe academics, but most of them are probably amateurs and fans, who may appreciate spoiler warnings. You really shouldn't prefer one group of users to another. For another example, I find the current out-universe fiction writing style on Misplaced Pages to be very tedious for reading, because usually, I want to know about some part of the fictional universe, and I am little interested about canonicity and in what exactly episode the subject was revealed (I would prefer footnotes and references for that). I understand that professionals making research on the subject will appreciate that, but for me, it is often more tedious than in-universe style. Note that I don't think that the needs of these user classes are mutually exclusive, but both classes should respect the needs of the other. So, IMHO, academics on Misplaced Pages should respect "normal" users which may want spoiler warnings (or they can use another source of information, if they consider them offensive). Samohyl Jan 05:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are different types of users - but we cannot apply a miscellany of writing styles across different topics simply because we expect more X-type users will read that sort of article. What I am saying is that the form of writing needs to fit the function of the site. Our function is to provide an encyclopedic reference, under the general principles of academic writing. There's nothing obscure about that - it means, among other things, transparent sourcing and the assumption that someone reading an article about a subject will receive a thorough treatment of it, written in the belief that they want to read it in its entirety. Girolamo Savonarola 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't ask to have different writing styles across different topics, I believe all the user cases can be integrated into one style, but obviously, all users have to compromise a little. To tolerate spoiler warnings is one of such compromises. I am certainly not against transparent sources (my objection above was about form, not their existence). But I disagree with assumption that people always want to read the article in its entirety, it is simply wrong assumption. Spoilers are one example, here is another: In many mathematical articles, there exist several levels to approach a given topic. For example, a limit can be approached from topology or from mathematical analysis perspective. The topology perspective is more abstract and less known among non-mathematicians, but certainly important for mathematicians. The analysis perspective is less abstract and more practical one (used on engineering schools), and therefore, some not so mathematically versed readers may want only this information. Obviously, the article has to be cleverly written to encompass both approaches, because both of them are important, even if the audience is different. Actually, if mathematical articles were written to rigorous academic standards (for mathematics), no engineer would be able to read them (see Bourbaki). So if it is possible (out of necessity) to handle different user cases on mathematical (or other highly specialized) topics, I believe it is possible in fiction article. Samohyl Jan 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To put things a different way, it's not the fault nor the responsibility of the editors if some people come and want to use WP different from its intended purpose. You wouldn't add guitar tabs to a sheet music site, just because some people MIGHT by guitarists who can't read notated music. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an arrogant position, Melodia. Anyone who worked in communications (advertising, journalism, PR, etc) long enough knows that the intended use of a mediated work is irrelevant if it doesn't take into consideration the actual wishes of the audience. Your example especially doesn't fit, because WP is a general-purpose encyclopedia for a general audience, and seeing tab notation does not cause potential harm to a reader, unlike spoilers. hateless 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not arrogant, it's factually inaccurate. Properly notated tabs are sheet music. And many (if not most) sites include them. Postmodern Beatnik 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to throw in a highly relevant point that no one ever seems to notice: It doesn't matter what "IMHO" you think Misplaced Pages should be and what its audience is. Misplaced Pages has guidelines and policies, the core of which will probably not change for a long while. You follow those; if you think they're stupid, leave. David Fuchs 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you did not notice the remarkable speed which WP:BLP became a bedrock principle of the encyclopedia. The one principle of Misplaced Pages that probably will never change is that policy comes from community concensus, which mean IMHO's matter. Shutting up and following the rules is a key component of bureaucracy, which in principal WP is not. hateless 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP only worked because it follows strictly from neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked at all. Similarly, the collapse of spoilers was because someone flagged just how badly they were trashing neutral point of view and encyclopedic content - David Gerard 00:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removals made via mass editing tools and backed by admin threats are always going to stick. It's soley down to that.

The removal of spoiler warnings has detracted from a neutral point of view, since it was aimed at excluding the 'wrong' kind of people. People who get new fiction later than 'fans', people who live in late release regions, anyone who wasn't alive when it was released the first time, people who don't carry release dates around in their head, non-native English speakers, people who might look at an article on a fictional character that they're not familiar with, etc.

The one thing these people have in common is that they're not likely to be fans, or in the case of non-native English speakers, sufficiently different to not care about. Misplaced Pages is well-known for a bias towards fannishness, and the removal of spoiler tags is an expression of this.--Nydas 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not an admin — and never have wished to be — but I thought it was a sign of great maturity that Misplaced Pages finally reached consensus to remove spoiler warnings. Their deletion was not aimed at "excluding" anybody. No one has demonstrated that this change caused anyone to be excluded from Misplaced Pages. Marc Shepherd 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is a sign of maturity that Misplaced Pages reached consensus to remove spoiler warnings or not, that's not what happened. It's just not. What happened revealed that Misplaced Pages is deeply divided on the issue, which naturally suggests that a compromise is in order, allowing spoiler warnings in some situations, but not in others. That is, ideally, what we're attempting to negotiate here, not rehash the whole general issue of whether spoilers have a place or should be banned _entirely_ (a RfC would seem to be the best place to open that can of worms again, but given we've just gone through it I suspect a lot of people would be too worn out for a new debate). However, despite that deep division and need for compromise, a few people decided, on their own initiative, to remove all spoilers, do it in a way that suggested it was already policy, and to enforce that removal by monitoring every use of the template, and jumping in to vote against it - taking advantage of a technical imbalance in the ease of monitoring to remove vs the difficulty of properly placing one. This should not be mistaken for a consensus, and it certainly doesn't indicate maturity on the part of the people doing it, I'm afraid. There are many of the anti-spoiler-warning side who I've grown to respect, even where I disagree, but there are also clearly some of them abusing adventages to push their point of view through and who do not seem to wish to compromise. Wandering Ghost 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an extremely biased (and by now well worn) account. The RfC certainly didn't suggest sufficient consensus for the tens of thousands of spoiler tags that had been placed on Misplaced Pages articles, in particular for those that had been placed at the beginning of a clearly marked plot-related section. This was sufficient to justify bold experiments with removal, which were so overwhelmingly successful that the removals continued until they were nearly all gone.

You refer to editors removing spoilers, and as usual you do so in the most disgraceful, offensive and unwikipedian terms, hinting and sometimes outright accusing them of misbehavior, whereas the only editors who have engaged in blockable behavior to date over the spoiler tag issue have been a few individuals who edit warred to retain tags against as many as six other editors removing the same tag. Stop engaging in these unacceptable and baseless personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree.

You say that editors removing the spoiler tags are "taking advantage of a technical imbalance in the ease of monitoring to remove vs the difficulty of properly placing one." This is a very odd way of conceding that when a spoiler tag is placed it is easy enough to tell whether it has been placed appropriately, whereas across the whole of Misplaced Pages, with many tens of thousands of articles on fiction to choose from, few legitimate placings of spoiler tags have yet been identified by consensus. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusing others of making personal attacks is a personal attack in itself. Put up or cease your suggestions that personal attacks have taken place. You have repeatedly called people who like spoiler tags 'stupid and perverse' and other things besides.--Nydas 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a silly sausage. I'll point out when editors are falsely accusing others of misbehaving, and that's no personal attack but instead a call for the other editor to mend his ways. I have indeed characterized the motivations behind placing spoiler tags in an encyclopedia "stupid", "perverse", and a lot worse, and I stand by that characterization. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to justify your actions as 'characterising motivations' does not change the fact that they are personal attacks aimed at insulting and disparaging people. I have no doubt that if I were to 'characterise the motivations' of the anti-spoiler brigade with the same language you use, I would get a warning or outright ban.--Nydas 08:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the current edits at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows are extremely instructive about the difficulties spoiler warnings present. Editors keep moving the spoiler tags, as they can't agree about precisely where in the article the "significant" plot details begin and end. Of course, the very first thing in the article is a {{current fiction}} tag.Anyone who read that would be very foolish to read on, and then be surprised that the article discloses significant plot details. Spoiler warnings beyond that, wherever they are placed, merely amount to saying the same thing twice. Marc Shepherd 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethics of spoilers

Here's food for thought, from the San Francisco Chronicle, an editorial on why spoilers are unethical (in the context of Harry Potter):

First, the fans of Harry Potter have invested a lot of time, money and passion in the first six volumes in the series. They have read and re-read hundreds of pages over 10 years, and they are entitled to discover Harry's fate on their own.

Second, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has a right to have her intellectual property respected. This right is fundamentally an ethical one, whether or not it is codified by law. That is, even if you aren't breaking the law by spilling the beans, you still shouldn't do so.

Third, society has a compact with artists. They entertain us, and we support and protect their right to do so. If either party reneges, the deal is off....A spoiler intentionally or negligently subverts the compact between artist and audience by throwing up an obstacle to the artist and giving him or her a reason to cease their creative activities. After all, why would a writer want to spend years spinning a tale as elaborate as Harry Potter if some blowhard is going to come along and ruin the surprise of how it all turns out?

hateless 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want counterpoint, look here. Both arguments are irrelevant - the encyclopedia is spoiler-blind. Girolamo Savonarola 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we've got, or are likely to have, any problem with Harry Potter fans. We're certainly not in the business of supporting the idiots who enjoy spoiling people's fun. I think Harry Potter fans recognise that they can come to Misplaced Pages for reliable information, and that they won't find gratuitous "Snape kills Dumbledore" nonsense all over the place. That isn't what Misplaced Pages is about. Misplaced Pages does, however, have a reputation as an encyclopedia to maintain, so we'll definitely carry full plot details of the seventh Harry Potter novel, in the appropriate place, given due prominence, and with appropriate labelling (which may involve the use of spoiler tags for a short or possibly even a long period). We will carry that information as soon as there are editors able to edit the appropriate articles (some of them have apparently had early release copies for some days now but have respected the embargo). --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is really that spoilers are not harmless, that there are ethical considerations involved. Point 1 is most readily applicable to us here. Otherwise, I agree with you completely, Tony. hateless 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this childish crap?? You're not "spoiling" something to discuss it comprehensively and without POV bias or censorship, as one does in a reference work. Those who do not want to read comprehensive, unbiased, unrestricted content, oughtn't go reading reference works. It's pretty simple, that. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is valuable, non-plot information in the article. I would personally like to read reviews and publishing information without seeing the plot. Unfortunately, a glance at a paragraph is all that is required so it is impossible to read follow on sections without reading the entire page. If it's on the screen, it's absorbed regardless of intent to absorb it. --Tbeatty 07:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also question ethics of a comprehensive, unbiased, reference work would be summarizing the copyrighted, fictional, creative works of others in the same medium in which it was created (i.e. the written word). It seems to me that this raises ethical questions in and of itself. --Tbeatty 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding you, as it seems that you're asserting that written book reviews are inethical ... critical treatises on novels and fiction (e.g. a written analysis of Raymond Chandler fiction which includes detailed examination of plot points) ... periodical reviews (Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times Review of Books) coverage of fiction ... are all inethical?? (shakes head) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

uh, I'm pretty sure its 'unethical', David, but your point is valid. Tbeatty, you seem to be saying that you'd like a separate article for the plot of the book, because you don't want your poor eyes to look over a section labeled synopsis or plot. That would be unnecessarily segregating information to the degradation of the article. Plot summaries are exactly that: plot summaries. The current plot section on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is incredibly bad, because all it does is recant the plot. According to policy, guideline, and what you call "ethical questions", plot summaries are supposed to contextualize and allow the reader to figure out what happens in the book; the rest of the article is supposed to tell you why that's such a big screaming deal. And no one copyrighted plot summaries. My god, then Interpol would swoop down and have carted me off to jail a while back for writing an email to a friend telling him what happened in the latest Transformers movie. You're inventing moral questions where none exist. David Fuchs 23:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I would like a navigation feature like a hide box that allows users to navigate around articles to get the information that they want. How do you argue that a reader should avoid the plot using the TOC but at the same time argue that the TOC is not used to skip sections they don't want to read? I think an analysis of a plot is fine. Large, detailed plot summaries that are not analysis or review, however infringe upon the creative work of the author. Rarely, if ever, do major review houses give away the entire plot. It seems somewhat convoluted logic to argue that a plot summary that "hides" a large portion of the book is okay, but a hide box is "censorship." There is no difference between the use of a hide box and the use of a summary where "censorship" is concerned. --Tbeatty 00:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say the pro-spoiler-warning crowd wants to have it both ways. A short scroll up this page, I am taken to task for using the words "warning," "safe" and "suffer" in the context of people's emotional reaction to spoilers. Here we are discussing the question of "ethics" and "harm" in relationship to spoiler content. Clearly, if those who feel that spoilers harm them in an ethically--and borderline legally--significant way are going to press those claims, then we will also have to respect the claims of people who feel "harmed" by information in other ways. This is precisely the false-comfort argument.

On another note--it is my general sense that the people sensitive to a legal recognition of spoilers as a kind of IPR believe that by making such a claim they are defending property rights. I would question whether this is a well-considered position. The Canadian injuction against people who had (accidentally) purchased copies of J.K. Rowlings book prematurely would seem to champion intellectual property rights over and above the common property rights in a free market. This is a weird and scary road to go down with discussing it first. Ethan Mitchell 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

A disclaimer saying a plot section contains spoilers is like a disclaimer saying an ocean contains water. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a fansite (nor a promotional synopsis database). Readers who understand this should know that any part of an article may contain important plot details. Obviously, disruptive spoilers aimed at deliberately revealing endings to unsuspecting readers shouldn't be included, but they are almost always simple vandalism and do not raise any policy questions. Noclip 15:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again:

• While all spoilers are plot elements, not all plot elements are spoilers. The idea that a plot section necessarily contains a spoiler isn't true. All oceans, by definition, contain water; all plot sections do not contain spoilers--the definition is in the other direction.
• Spoiler warnings can be placed in particular locations, thus giving more information than "there is a spoiler somewhere in this section.". A spoiler warning in the *middle* of a plot section not only says that there's a spoiler there, but also explains where the spoiler is located--information that the reader cannot deduce from just the fact that it's a plot section.
• Even if plot sections always contained spoilers, putting warnings on them would be good from a user-interface point of view. It makes more sense to put warnings on every spoiler than to omit some of the warnings because readers can already figure it out from the title of the section. Warnings on every one are consistent, warnings on only the ones that can't be deduced are not consistent, and a poor usability choice. Most human communication contains redundancy.

Ken Arromdee 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But when the overwhelming majority of plot sections do contains spoilers, putting up warnings becomes pointless. Also, when editors plaster spoiler warnings around any kind of plot detail, which was how the warnings where been used before May, it devalues the warnings to the point it being completely useless.

Of course identifying particular spoilers have a whole host of problems with WP:NPOV and WP:V and is one of the reasons why most editors didn't do it. Instead they placed warnings around any kind of plot detail in a CYA feel good measure that didn't actually do anything. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you see such text, removing it. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If a plot section in Misplaced Pages does not contain all significant plot details, it's incomplete and inadequate. Presumably the word "spoiler" applies to "significant plot detail" at least at higher levels of significance. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why "significant plot details" is a bad euphemism for "spoiler". Kuronue 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You might argue that it's a poor match (is it?) but it's hardly a euphemism. Anybody who can read English knows what "significant plot details" means. The meaning of "spoiler" seems to be somewhat fluid. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone up above said, "While all spoilers are plot elements, not all plot elements are spoilers." I have to disagree. As Tony noted, the meaning of "spoiler" is rather fluid. Perhaps the term once referred only to the "big surprise" at the end of a thriller (e.g., "Snape kills Dumbledore"). These days, practically any plot detail whatsoever is considered a spoiler by somebody.

For example, the title of Michiko Kakutani's New York Times review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was: "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood." Many Harry Potter fans thought that this title, in and of itself, was a spoiler, because it pretty much gave away the fact that Harry Potter survives the final confrontation with Lord Voldemort.

Even after the Times was confronted with Potter fans' ire, the paper insisted that Kakutani's review had given away no important plot details. And yet, the review did explain what the "Deathly Hallows" of the title meant. Rowling herself had been asked about this and declined to answer, saying that it gave too much away. Given that this information isn't disclosed until about halfway through the book, it is at least arguable that some readers would have preferred not to know this.

I think you'd have a tough time defining what constitutes an "insignificant" detail that wouldn't "spoil" it for somebody. A heading labeled "Plot" is always guaranteed to give away details that "spoiler-sensitive" readers would prefer not to know. Can any of the spoiler-proponents can give even a single example of a section labeled "Plot" in which the details that are disclosed aren't "significant"? Marc Shepherd 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One example of the fluidity of the term "spoiler" has been the debate over Halo: Combat Evolved. The very existence of The Flood is held by some editors to be a "spoiler", although Phil Sandifer has pointed out that the first Halo spinoff paperback, which became a bestseller, mentions them in the blurb on the cover, and the second Halo novel is actually called "Halo: The Flood", and is an official a tie-in with "Combat Evolved". That novel also became a bestseller. Morever The Flood features prominently in marketing material for Halo 3.

That being the case, there's a very good argument for just going with our standard site disclaimer which warns that articles contain spoilers. If any and every plot feature is going to be regarded as a major plot spoiler by some readers, there's no point having these extra tags. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A bestseller in how many countries of the world?--Nydas 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a forest in amongst those trees, you know. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a world outside fansites. Most people have never heard of Halo, let alone the spin-off novels.---Nydas 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anyone in my generation that hasn't. However, I'm sure there are tons of us who have never heard of the novels. A lot of gamers don't read and a lot of avid readers don't game. Kuronue 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What about people in your generation from Asia or Africa? The Halo series has sold about 12 million copies... one for every 550 people.--Nydas 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you sincerely arguing that we need to have a spoiler warning on Halo:Combat Evolved for the sake of children in Africa who haven't heard about Halo? Phil Sandifer 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just for them, for the 85% of humanity which doesn't know. If you think developing countries don't count, there are still plenty of people in the developed world that won't know.--Nydas 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why somebody in a developing country without access to an XBox or Halo is going to care about the spoiler. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or someone in a non-English-speaking country. Such as all countries of Europe, Western, Northern, you name it, except for Great Britain and Ireland. Few books on the whole are translated, and it takes an exceptional level of language skill and/or hardheadedness to read several hundred pages of text in a foreign language. You'll notice that Nydas said nothing whatsoever about people in developing countries until you brought them up, and then explicitly excluded them. It does his argument and him a great disservice to reduce it to something it's not and then dismiss it on that basis.

We have previously established that the English Misplaced Pages is truly international instead of being the regional encyclopedia for US/Canada/Britain/Australia - the majority of its traffic comes from non-English-speaking countries - and I say that means that we cannot base our assumptions of accessibility or availability on what's available in the States and in the UK. --Kizor 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. The French translation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows isn't out until October, for example.--Nydas 10:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just enforce the secondary source requirement about plot revelation? It seems that plot summaries taht are created by Misplaced Pages editors are Original Research compiled from primary sources. Revealing the plot elements that were revealed by the New York Times or an established gamers magazine would eliminate much of the problem. --Tbeatty 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because it isn't very practical to do so. Reviewers aren't reliable sources precisely because they do obfuscate plot, and sometimes even connive with the writer to intentionally mislead the reader. This is a rare case where, in the absence of scholarly secondary sources (not even a Cliff Notes for instance) we're often better off with a synthesis from primary sources. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your assessment of the sources. But I do disagre with the "we're better off" with a synthesis from primary sources. Who exactly is allowed to synthesize material? Lacking a secondary source, I think it should not be in the article. For cases where the secondary source obfuscates, it should simply not be cited. I oppose primary source synthesis of fictional plot elements on ethical and encyclopedic grounds. The reason for secondary sourcing is that Misplaced Pages lacks formal editorial oversight. Without that, there is a question of the ethics involved in publishing the creative works of another person. There is a reason why secondary sources don't reveal the entire plot. Ethics is one. --Tbeatty 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing "original research" and "research." Misplaced Pages cannot quote most of its sources verbatim: that would be a copyright violation. Therefore, practically every section of every article is a summary or synthesis of material published elsewhere. Plot summaries are merely one example of this.

Plot summaries, of course, cannot exist without an editor making judgments about which details are relevant. But no Misplaced Pages article on any subject can exist without such judgments. Anyone who has ever added content to an article (we've all done that, haven't we?) is making judgments at every turn about what details are important to present, and the manner in which they should be presented. If that violates WP:NOR, then there can be no Misplaced Pages. Marc Shepherd 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On talk pages

So far as I know, spoiler warnings don't go at the top of talk pages, right? If so, should the page state that, or does that fall under the jurisdiction of Misplaced Pages:Use common sense? 17Drew 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's common sense. You can't discuss an article about a fictional work without discussing the content of the work. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some would argue that it is common sense to avoid reading a section called "Plot summary of X," if there is a portion of X's plot that you will go into conniptions if you read by mistake. But somehow we have ruled this argument to be unkind. Ethan Mitchell 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the rationale for spoiler warnings (already quite weak) is even weaker on talk pages. According to WP:TALK, the purpose of those pages "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article...." Anyone who's editing would almost certainly know the story. It's bad enough to suggest that we need to protect readers. I can't imagine the justification for protecting editors, too. Marc Shepherd 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory

I think that every page that spoils all important details or most of them should have a manditory Spoiler Warining on it. If it doesn't new people to Misplaced Pages can have things ruined for them. Don't say people will see plot summary and think it gives away things, because not everybody would think that. Sometimes they think it is like the summary on the front or back of a book. Adding the spoiler warining would take like 5 seconds and that helps many people. I hope some or all of you agree. Rembrant12 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single page on Misplaced Pages contains a link marked "Disclaimers", which warns you that:

WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE

Adding more is really just pandering to rampant stupidity. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You killed your own argument in word 8. The pages contain a link that says wikipedia contains spoilers. However the spoilers are right there on the page, sometimes even above the cut. Readers are not steeped in wiki culture, but reach wiki pages through google, msn, whatever. There is a difference -between being "rampantly stupid" and simply "not a part of Tony Sidaway's world view".

What argument is there for having a full synopsis of every fictional work on Misplaced Pages? Do regular encyclopedias do that? No they do not. The effect of replicating fictional works in painstaking joyless detail is not to further the knowledge of mankind but to devalue the works themselves and destroy the pleasure of uncovering the plot points in the order intended by the author. Surely a much more socially responsible approach is to include information concerning why the work is viewed as meritorious or controversial. A synopsis in the detail I've seen on wikipedia is tantamount to simply repeating the work itself. Sweavo 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional: you have to SCROLL PAST the spoilers to get to the (tiny) disclaimers link. Tony, do you read every web page from the bottom up, starting with the smallest fonts and clicking all links before getting to the thing you came to the page to read about? If so, then I retract my argument.

This all just sounds like special pleading to me. If you admit that "the spoilers are right there on the page, sometimes even above the cut", then the disclaimer is correct, and it doesn't matter whether anyone can be bothered to read it or not. If you have an issue with the location of the disclaimer note on the default skin, then edit the default skin so that users will see the disclaimer link at the top (an example of how to do this is given in the Cologneblue skin, where the disclaimer is at the top). If you don't think our articles on fictional subjects should have a full synopsis, argue for this on the relevant page (Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). I agree with you that some plot summaries are far too detailed, and they often also have an inappropriate in-universe perspective.

But while readers may not be "steeped in wiki culture", they're certainly capable of using their commonsense. Those few to whom it is not immediately obvious that an article will discuss its subject in reasonable detail, soon learn. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's seriously THAT HUGE and THAT OBVIOUS. Who the hell clicks the "disclaimer" link? Kuronue 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell clicks on the legal disclaimer? Doesn't make it any more or less valid or important. Girolamo Savonarola 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. However, I would note that the content disclaimer itself links to WP:SPOILER, which states that we do use spoiler warnings. So anyone doing their homework (the mythical "ideal reader") will see (1) there are spoilers, but (2) there will be warnings. This is just yet another argument that should be laid in its grave. Postmodern Beatnik 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tony, the fact that the disclaimer page (which I admit I'd never visited) uses the word "spoiler" settles the issue of whether the term "spoiler" is appropriate for WP. It is. It's there on the disclaimer. Internet culture is here. Case closed. But I agree with you, since a top level disclaimer on the project has the warning, then additional disclaimers are probably not necessary except in significant cases. (Like the hugely popular Harry Potter series, in which kiddies and adults who don't click the small type disclaimer ;) might not know that the plot will reveal, well, the plot. :} David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to confuse use of the term on an editorial level (mandated since so many people have complained using the term) and on a textual level (bad because it's a neologism that doesn't appear in the OED or Merriam-Webster). That is to say, the word can form a part of policy discussions on Misplaced Pages and a part of the resultant policy, as this page shows. But it ought not appear in the articlespace. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking the issue under discussion. No one disputes that "spoiler" is the word in common currency to describe the situation where someone "spoils" a fictional work by giving away key plot details. The word has probably moved beyond the "neologism" phase; it now appears regularly in newspaper articles without a definition—suggesting that professional editors believe the meaning is well known, and doesn't need to be explained. The issue here is not the use of the word per se, but whether (if ever) articles require an additional warning—beyond the standard disclaimers—that such details are about to be disclosed. Marc Shepherd 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're engaging in this level of nitpicking, it looks like the great spoiler debate is effectively over. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys. I have a brain. I am not Albert Einstein but that does not mean that I am not smart. I would never do more homework than I had to. Instead of linking people here, which brings them there which finally tells them something in technical talk that only very honed minds can figure out, why don't we just say "SPOILER WARNING, gives away details and information"? It simplifies matters and is much easier to understand. Rembrant12 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it take "a very honed mind" to figure out that a heading labeled "Plot" discloses the plot?

One compromise I could support would be to modify the {{current fiction}} template to include the explicit word "spoiler." The wording of that template already says that the article may contain "detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." It doesn't take Einstein to figure out what that means. However, as "spoiler" is the word in common currency, we might as well use it, and remove all doubt for those who don't seem to understand what "detailed information" means.

This compromise works for me, because {{current fiction}} is an already accepted disclaimer. It appears at the top of articles, and doesn't disrupt the flow the way {{spoiler}} does. Also, it doesn't involve judgments about precisely which parts of the article are "spoiling" it for somebody. And lastly, there's a tacit understanding that {{current fiction}} doesn't last forever. For instance, it is on the latest Harry Potter book, released under a week ago, but it's not on the other six books. At some point, Darth Vader's "No, I am your father" becomes part of the popular culture, and it's just tough luck of someone stumbles across it by accident.

Under no circumstances could I support spoiler warnings on everything ranging from ancient works of literature to nursery rhymes, as was the case before. Marc Shepherd 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you then run into the problem of what is {{current fiction}}.Just the other day I came across a book that according to it's copyright notice was first published in 1995 in the US but only in 2007 in the UK. American editors could rightly say it's not {{current fiction}} but it is to British readers. So who's correct if the tag is used on an article about the book .Garda40 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most spoilers will never become part of 'popular culture'. Which nation's popular culture is the standard?--Nydas 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I don't think spoiler warnings are needed. This view is culturally neutral, and doesn't presume which works are "popular." It so happens that articles on "popular" works seem to generate the most debate, but I have never suggested a different standard for those works. Marc Shepherd 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not culturally neutral, it's an expression of Misplaced Pages's institutional bias towards English-speaking developed countries and hardcore fiction fans. Fiction articles will get updated when the fiction is released, inevitably favouring regions where fiction gets released first. It also favours people who know release dates off by heart and see fiction very shortly after it is released, i.e. fans.--Nydas 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is full of bias. The article on Terri Schiavo is longer than the article on Mother Theresa. There are more Misplaced Pages articles on the Harry Potter universe than on the entire output of William Shakespeare. The bias, both towards English-language subjects and recent subjects, pervades the encyclopedia. It's nothing to be proud of, but I don't see how the spoiler policy will fix it. Actually, I don't see any correlation between the two. Marc Shepherd 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't see how it is biased to declare 'everyone knows this' or 'it's been out for a week' as a grounds for spoiler tag removal?--Nydas 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that "everyone knows this," which would be absurd. But let's say we adopted the approach of putting spoiler warnings on every article that discloses plot details of fictional works. I have to ask, "Where is there a parallel for that?" Find me a reputable source on Shakespeare or Dickens that has spoiler warnings. They just don't do it.

So when people advocate widespread use of spoiler warnings, as it appears you do, I have to ask: Why is that right for Misplaced Pages, when most other sources don't seem to have found it necessary? I also have to ask: How effective could it possibly be, when other comparable sources don't do the same? I mean, we could kid ourselves into thinking that we're the go-to source on Shakespeare, but it just isn't so. And no one else who writes about Shakespeare seems to think it necessary to warn people before mentioning that Hamlet dies at the end. (Ooops, I just gave it away...sorry.)

There does seem to be a commonly observed exception for brand new works. Many media sources are actually using the word "spoiler" before giving anything away about the new Harry Potter book. But typically it's only for that book, not for any of the earlier ones, and it's only temporary. It's not as if, 5 years from now, they're still going to be putting "spoiler" out there whenever they mention that Harry Potter defeated Voldemort. (Ooops, I just gave another one away...sorry.) Marc Shepherd 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're side-stepping my point about the geographic and fannish bias implicit in the removal of spoiler tags. If it's out in the US, it's considered out in the world. If fansites and blogs have been talking about some plot point, then it's considered common knowledge.

I have advocated a spoiler guideline that mirrors WP:ENGVAR, stressing that spoilers are neither good or bad. It's not likely that spoiler tags would return to Shakespeare, Dickens, fairy tales or any of the other common 'examples' under such a guideline. Regarding your points about reputable sources, I am not aware that Misplaced Pages was in competition with anyone. As for your claim that people don't come to Misplaced Pages first for Shakespeare, it is just that, a claim. Tailoring articles so they're aimed at people who are already familiar with the fiction is another example of our fannish bias.--Nydas 09:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Misplaced Pages isn't in competition with anyone, but clearly it aspires to be an encyclopedia. When people ask, "What should an online encyclopedia be?" they take their guide from other encyclopedias. The comparison is particularly relevant with respect to spoiler warnings, because they only work if they're widely used.

I had taken you to be advocating spoiler warnings on all types of narrative fiction, including Shakespeare, Dickens, and fairy tales. If that's not your position, then it might be helpful if you start a new section and crisply state your proposal. At this point, I know what you're against, but I don't know what you are for. Marc Shepherd 12:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If people scrupulously copied everything done before, we'd still be living in caves. Misplaced Pages has five pillars, and none of those prohibits spoiler tags. 'Encyclopedia = no spoiler warnings' is like 'swan = white feathers', it's not a logical argument. Something can easily pass all the criteria necessary for being an encyclopedia and still have spoiler warnings. Probably the main reason why other encyclopedias don't usually have spoiler warnings is technical limitations. I think they're appropriate because they help dispel the 'fans only' or 'everyone knows' biases.

The claim that people want spoiler tags on fairy tales etc is a longstanding strawman. I want an open spoiler policy that does not depend the whims of a tiny number of editors adhering to a de facto 'no more than six' policy. If the anti-spoiler brigade had any confidence in their own claims of 'consensus' they'd lay off and see how things develop.--Nydas 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As an more philosophical aside, I'd like to just remark that if spoilers "ruin" a work, then how easy it would be to quickly dispense with the need to actually digest media! I wouldn't need to read all of Shakespeare - I could just read all the "Plot" sections of the wiki articles! Of course, we know that this isn't true. So why prize the plot as being more "precious" and "fragile"? Could you not say that the cultural context and metaphor of The Crucible is actually more important (and worthy of something-equivalent to spoiler warning) than the plot of the play, for instance? Spoiler-obsession is to value to the plot at the expense of the mood, style, and subtext. Which, quite frankly, are the more defining characteristics of the work and its skill. Anyone can write a murder mystery - it's how its told that is more important and defines the work. Plot is one small element in this process. To venerate it so much speaks poorly of ones ability to absorb media critically. Girolamo Savonarola 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should Misplaced Pages be reworked so that it flatters the aesthetic beliefs of people who find narrative suspense distasteful?--Nydas 09:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says I find it distasteful? I said I find it disproportionally valued. But suspense is not the job of an informative encyclopedia article - quite the opposite - the purpose is to lay out the information neutrally and evenly. I'm saying that discussion of a work needs to be more evenly-rounded. Girolamo Savonarola 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That you find plot 'disproportionately valued' is irrelevant. If you wish to 'improve' people's aesthetic tastes, get a website or a blog. Spoiler warnings do not interfere with the informative and neutral layout of articles, nor do they discourage discussion about mood and tone.--Nydas 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wi/ all. Razorclaw (talk · contribs) 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with adding the words "SPOILER WARNING" to the template. And the template's font should be larger and some pages have it in bad spots or not at all. (Harry Potter 7) Rembrant12 23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Girmolo. We are not talking about "ruining" a work. It is just upsetting to have the ending given away for it does take away some of the enjoyment. Rembrant12 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why I choose carefully before venturing into the plot section of a film or book that I might be interested in. I've spoiled myself silly in the past, but I did consciously choose to. Why is that so difficult to swallow? Girolamo Savonarola 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely oppose using the term "spoiler" in any Misplaced Pages template. Simply because what is a spoiler is too vague and left up to each person's interpretation. For some, only those plot details that absolutely ruin a movie, book, or TV episode for everybody would be considered spoilers. For others, every plot detail, no mater how insignificant, is considered a spoiler. And then you have everything in between. It's better to avoid such a vague term altogether. --Farix (Talk) 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to call it quits?

The anti-spoiler team definitely wins. That's because they're more hell-bent on the issue than the pro-spoiler people. Why else would they take the effort to do this:

"I've got a pre-release version of TonyBot running and compiling lists of articles unexpectedly containing the word "spoiler", which it writes to the above page. It uses an exceptions list to exclude articles I've already checked, so this page should be worth watching rather than searching manually for the word "spoiler". I'll get the bot to run at least once a day and update if it sees a change. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)"

So, you're right, it's probably not worth arguing anymore. --YellowTapedR 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty much the kind of purpose for which I proposed TonyBot in Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/TonyBot in early May, a couple of weeks before this spoiler tag thing showed up. Eventually it will be available for any user to use to perform general queries on the wiki contents. Writing the spoiler query was the first true test of its capabilities. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am reluctantly forced to agree. Anti-spoiler hardliners have dug into positions where use of any spoiler tags whatsoever requires their approval, and I can think of nothing we can say or do that would dislodge them. It's quite impressive. --Kizor 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Beware of the cabal... Girolamo Savonarola 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are a relative newcomer to this two-months-old farce, are you not? Then you probably weren't around when maybe half a dozen users purged all 45 thousand spoiler tags in use on Misplaced Pages. That wasn't even contested when the case was presented to ArbCom. What am I supposed to call such a group? --Kizor 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A "group", I suppose. A group that apparently was interpreted to have consensus, I suppose. Can you supply some ArbCom links? I'd be curious to have a look at the history, which you correctly surmise me to be ignorant of. Girolamo Savonarola 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you didn't mention the spoiler part when you sought approval. --YellowTapedR 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody had mentioned spoilers in early May when I sought approval. That came two weeks later. I thought I had made it plain in the above that the bot is a highly programmable general purpose query tool and looking for the word "spoiler" in articles is only a small part of what it can do. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But what you're *actually doing with it* is using it to delete spoiler tags. Which matters more: what you could use it for, or what you are using it for? Ken Arromdee 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All I'm actually doing with it is performing a normal Misplaced Pages search (the same one you could do by pressing the "Search" button) on the word "spoiler", compiling a list of the article names, removing from the list those article names that are already in a file I keep on my laptop, and then writing the resulting list to a Misplaced Pages page in my user space, User:Tony Sidaway/spoilers.

If you would prefer, I could get the bot to refrain from writing the list to the wiki page. It would be easy enough to write the list to my console and then I could paste it into the page by hand. That would mean that absolutely nothing I was doing required any bot approval at all. Anybody can issue the http requests I issue, they wouldn't even need to register an account. And it's up to them what they do with the information on their own computer as long as they conform to the GFDL.

I absolutely am not using the bot to edit articles. It does not have permission to edit articles. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions archived?

I feel like a couple of ongoing discussions were archived recently, possibly for no other reason than because they were near the top of the page. I was certainly in the process of responding to some comments that were made only a few days ago and yet were quickly archived. Does anyone else feel the same way? Postmodern Beatnik 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are permitted to "restore" ongoing discussions if you have further comments and they have not lapsed for too long. Girolamo Savonarola 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think the conversations were ongoing; there had been no comments in several days. The talk page was 100KB long, so ongoing archiving is needed. User;Nydas removed the code to use automatic archiving, so we have to do it by hand instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There would be no harm adding it back. It would certainly save all the tedium of doing it by hand, and the bot is specifically designed not to archive ongoing debates. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A week or so back, someone said the page was too long and reset the archiving bot from 8 to 6 days. I noticed the page soon got too short.

"There would be no harm adding it back" There is a problem. If the discussion really is winding down then auto-archiving could eventually result in a blank page, unless the archiving time is made progressively longer to match the wind-down, ultimately returning to manual archiving. Milo 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right that archiving needs to slow when discussion slows. But the page was 100KB when I archived it last. I don't know what you consider "too short" - you shouldn't estimate length by counting sections in the TOC, but by editing the page and looking for the "oversize page" message. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's no more ongoing discussion, a blank page is the desired state, The archives are perfectly accessible for someone who wants to read the old discussions.

I really take strong issue with Milomedes' claim that this page ever got too short due to auto-archiving. A brief scan of the page history will show you that MiszaBot II has never left this page smaller than 116kb. It is currently half that size, solely due to manual archiving. --Tony Sidaway 10:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I blame the victims

Ayuh. I'm over at the Deathly Page, reading the twenty-odd archives, almost every one of which contains at least one post expressing shock and outrage about the fact that plot summaries contain plot details. All policy questions aside, I have to say that I just don't understand this attitude. It really appears that people want the internet (and wikipedia) to magically allow them to coast to the exact edge of their own, personal, sense of the plot being spoiled, but not disappoint them. It is as if we are being asked to ensure that everyone's christmas presents will make a little bit of noise if you shake them, but won't have the name on the box in a visible location if someone tries to peek under the wrapping.

I don't even understand how someone can effectively use a spoiler tag within an article like Deathly Hallows. I, for one, would not trust my own optical processing to ignore paragaph B while I was reading paragraph A. But what I really do not understand is how anyone can think of these barriers as culturally neutral, NPOV distinctions. All I am left with--in perfect sincerity--is the notion that the people who are outraged over being 'spoiled' are in some sense seeking out the righteous indignation of not-having-been-protected-from-themselves. That's probably uncharitable and oversimplified, but at the moment I don't see another explanation. Ethan Mitchell 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

At this stage I think it would be unwise to err on the side of charitability. The "oh no I didn't realise the plot summary would give the plot away" argument is about as good as it gets. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that many of the shocked people at the Deathly Hallows talk page didn't actually learn the ending on Misplaced Pages. They're just indignant as a matter of principle. Marc Shepherd 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it is never unwise to err on the side of charitability. Reasoned discourse rests on the principle of charity, which is why it is (implicitly) enshrined in WP:AGF. Or are you finally deciding to be what the pro-spoiler camp says you are (a troll, a vandal, etc.)?

Besides, the whole "Warning: Misplaced Pages may contain information" rant you have been going on since day one of this campaign is nothing more than rhetorical flourish. No one is arguing that we should remove spoilers (and if they are, they are misguided). Instead, some are arguing that spoilers should be labeled. Add to that the fact that the soundness of your own arguments against spoilers is sorely suspect and the above accusations sound increasingly hollow. Postmodern Beatnik 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it so much as a rhetorical flourish as a truism. It makes the pointless nature of the rest of the debate apparent by highlighting the absurdity of putting warnings into an encyclopedia that the poor defenseless reader may learn something. And that, surely, is the point. And do mind your ad hominems. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's always good to see someone titling their opinion with the name of a fallacy (i.e. blaming the victims). It really makes the work of debunking much easier. If you can't trust yourself to avoid paragraph B while reading paragraph A then no, spoiler tags won't help. But perhaps you should get your eyes checked. Postmodern Beatnik 13:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm less annoyed than Beatnik right now, but I have to note that you say what you think your eyes would do. Personally, I have used the tags, well and often, and found them highly effective. Polls both on-wiki and off tend to agree with this sentiment - two-thirds said in the RfC that they do use spoiler tags, they do work for them. This isn't worth a summary dismissal as ineffective. --Kizor 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I've submitted the RFA again. Ken Arromdee 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It was deferred due to the ongoing mediation, which has since ended. --Kizor 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, four arbitrators have rejected it--two obviously didn't even read it (IRC conspiracies? What?) and the other two gave no explanation at all. I'm beginning to wonder if there *is* an IRC conspiracy; it's like a politician making a speech and adding "and no matter what you think, this has nothing to do with my Haliburton contracts" when nobody's mentioned Haliburton before him. Ken Arromdee 15:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)