Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:42, 18 July 2007

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

"Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text."

What is the justification for including this in the guideline: "Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text?"

Templates are helpful tools, but I'm not used to seeing templates that are required to be used. Does this just make it easier for editors to search for all spoiler warnings across the encyclopedia, and remove them by automated process?zadignose 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to put it bluntly it keeps the articles clear of inappropriate and extremely unprofessional clutter. This has been part of the guideline for some years now. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a 'bright line' case? What happened to the 'no hard rules' philosophy?--Nydas 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a "bright line" case, and an appropriate one. "Spoilers on all articles about recent fiction" is an example of an inappropriate one, for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposed alternative did not insist on spoiler tags on all recent fiction, it said they may be used. It was not a hard rule. The 'no bright lines' philosophy, with its subjective interpretations, isn't a Misplaced Pages policy and has no role in forming this guideline.--Nydas 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?--Nydas 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, from all standpoints home-made spoiler warnings shouldn't be used. I know some people here are worried over the whole AWB thing, but if you have custom warnings several things happen:

• global changes to the template would not be feasible on the pages without the template.
• the look and feel would change from the accepted template, thereby making it possible the following content would not be considered a spoiler (in other words, makes it more confusing and easy to miss)
• if spoilers were banned outright for some reason, or a significant change in the spoiler guidelines changed how they were used (like they were no longer redundant in the plot summary, but shouldn't be used in the lead), it would be very hard to change this. Maybe its not "a pillar of Misplaced Pages", but its common sense.

David Fuchs 18:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the above discussion, I've continued to wonder about this part of the guideline:

Do not improvise such warnings in plain text, always use the templates.

That sentence is bold in the guideline, and seems overly strong. What is the policy basis of this requirement?

I've reviewed a random selection of other editing guidelines and while many of them are quite specific on certain elements of style, I did not find any others that included a requirement that a template be used if a certain type of content is included by editors. Even with Wikiproject guidelines, the inclusions of Categories and Templates are most often stated as recommendations or suggestions rather than as requirements.

Even with charged issues such as warning users of vandalism, templates are not required but are provided only as a convenience. The vandalism warning template usage page here states the following:

They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then go ahead and say it normally.

Based on the core policy of WP:Consensus, editors decide if, where, and how to use spoiler notices in the articles - just as Misplaced Pages allows editors to structure articles with headings and subheadings and info-boxes and all sorts of style components that are not controlled from a centralized guideline that requires certain templates to be used. As a guideline, WP:SPOILER helps editors to make these choices with regard to spoiler notices. It should provide the option, but not require the use of the templates. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No other sort of style or maintenance template can be replaced with a handmade warning - think of {{unreferenced}}, {{fact}}, etc. Moreover, having this as a template allows mirrors to ignore it, and should allow individual users to hide it by CSS if its set up correctly. I removed the claim in the guideline that hand made warnings are acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any policy on Misplaced Pages that prohibits the use of plain text to indicate issues like "unreferenced" or "citation needed". In warning templates for talk pages (granted, that is not article mainspace), the template instructions specifically indicate they may be replaced by plain text. If you know of a policy that states that the use of templates rather than plain text is required for style elements, I would be interested to see that - would you please provide the Wikilink?

Regarding the reasons you listed that templates may be better - CSS hiding of the notices and mirrors ignoring them - those are valid points. However there are valid arguments for accepting plain text notices as well. For example: making the notices less obvious or less disruptive to the flow of the articles; customizing the notices to the content of a particular article; and other reasons that others have discussed above.

It's not obvious that technical template notices are always better - there is not consensus on that, at this point. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

add-on... I noticed that you changed the plain text spoiler notice I added to Memories of Matsuko to one that uses the template; you stated in your comment that you don't think it's needed and you expect that someone will remove it (for context, the editors working on the article have consensus that it's wanted on that article). You are probably correct, that once the template broadcasts its presence, editors who in general do not like spoiler notice templates might show up to remove it. That's another good reason not to require the use of templates rather than plain text, let the article editors form and execute their consensus. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main reason you would like to use home made spoiler warnings is so that you can hide them from others to avoid the effects of this guideline. . The Memories of Matsuko article is a perfect example of a place where spoiler tags are not needed - they're in the middle of a plot section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, you didn't need to dig up my comment to another user on his user page, since I stated that same point in my comment right here - I did not try to obscure it. That same point is also in the earlier discussion above, in this same section. And, there is a difference between "not broadcasting" the presence of a spoiler notice and "hiding" it. A notice is not hidden when it's in plain view on the page, it's just not advertising its presence to other editors who don't have a particular interest in that article. Regarding your use of the term "hiding" - that could imply someone did something wrong or disingenuous. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I thought I should point it out in case someone may have misunderstood. In particular, the guideline is still in dispute (and not just by me), so there is no "rule" at this point anyway, that spoiler notices are prohibited from being written in plain text.

Regarding how the notice looks on the page, I found it stylistically less disruptive and cleaner in plain text. The notice as it is now with the template interferes more with the look of the page. Regarding your comment that the warning is in the middle of a plot section, I put it there because the first two paragraphs of the plot present the premise and don't include the spoiler. After reading the premise, one who has not seen the movie might want to know that something unique is approaching. It seems like a perfect place for a spoiler notice to me. I don't understand the idea of allowing spoiler notices, but not in plot sections... plot sections are most often where spoilers will occur.

One more point, a question actually. In my earlier reply to your comment above, I asked you this: "If you know of a policy that states that the use of templates rather than plain text is required for style elements , I would be interested to see that - would you please provide the Wikilink?" Is there a policy like that? Would you please direct me to the link, I would like to read it. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a straightforward reason for this at this point - given that spoiler tags were recently in gross overuse, it remains important to carefully monitor their usage. Templates make this possible. Phil Sandifer 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that concern. On the other hand, so far I haven't seen consensus that those uses of spoiler notices were not valid. All I've seen is the circular logic that because they were removed recently and haven't been re-added, there must be consensus. But they were removed quickly, based on a guideline in dispute, and referring to the guideline as the authority for removing them,...so it's not clear whether or not the editors on those articles agree the articles are better without the notices.

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I have not seen where that idea has been accepted as fact by the people discussing on this page. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is left defending the full extent of past spoiler practice - nobody, for instance, has advocated spoiler tags on fairy tales in ages. Phil Sandifer 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Although some people might have said "per WP:SPOILER", the removals were justified based on the principles in WP:NOT and WP:NDA. The removals were accompanied by an RFC and a long discussion on the mailing list where this justification was discussed at length. But the warnings have not been reintroduced in any large number, considering that 45000 were removed, which is indeed a sign that there is no large outrage that they were removed. Policy evolves to mirror practice, and that is what is happening here. There is no need to have unanimous support for a guideline before making any changes.

Your request for a policy saying that {{fact}} tags shouldn't be hand written is pure wikilawyering - that practice, related to WP:ASR but not described there, is so uniform across WP that no guideline is necessary. Remember WP:ISNOT#BUREAUCRACY. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It was not Wikilawyering - that accusation is unfair. It was a sincere question. I am not aware of a policy like that and wanted to know if there is one.
• I've never seen WP:ASR before, so thanks for posting that here.
• According to WP:ISNOT#BUREAUCRACY that you posted here, my opinion is that requiring spoiler notices to use templates rather than plain text is a perfect example of what that section tells us to avoid, "instruction creep."
• I was not aware of any mailing list discussions. Seems to me that if there are off-wiki discussions about an active debate like this one, a notice should be posted on this page so everyone interested in the subject can see all of the information.
• I am under no impression that unanimity is required for consenusus. I understand the policy.
• In light of all of the above, I believe this guideline is "misguided" in requiring the use of the templates rather than plain text. As I see it, that part of the guideline does not have consensus. However, I could be wrong about that. Unless others start posting comments in support of what I've been saying, I am dropping my efforts to change it for now.

Thanks for explaining your point of view and posting those links.--Parzival418 _Hello 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to reraise this point, but I got kind of burnt out. Now I'm semi-back, and I wanted to point out that, in the case of Matsuko, a homemade tag was removed with an edit summary indicating that it's not appropriate for fact or unreferenced, so it's not appropriate here. However, the fact and unreferenced tags are "part of the Misplaced Pages project rather than the encyclopedic content," and yet not even they explicitly require the use of a template or forbid handmade warnings. Clearly, the requirement to use the spoiler tag is inappropriate. As for the Matsuko article, as soon as the handmade warning was replaced by a template it brought about a mini-edit war instigated by editors who removed the tag citing "consensus," before attempting to participate on the talk page discussion which indicated a consensus for inclusion at the time when the tag was (repeatedly) removed. This is not the kind of behavior we want to encourage. It could have been very easily handled by participating in the discussion, rather than contemptuously dismissing it.zadignose 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no prohibition about handmade fact tags because nobody does it - it's just common sense not to do so, and if anyone runs across handmade fact tags they can just remove them per WP:ASR and common sense. We don't codify things unless there is a reason to, since Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy. Apparently it is necessary to point out for spoiler tags because people do, mistakenly, write handmade spoiler tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the fact remains that there is no precedent for a template being required to be used in article namespace (unless someone can provide a relevant example). The discussion of avoiding self-reference WP:ASR is somewhat tangential, but I think it provides a further argument against the use of spoiler warnings, not against hand-crafting them. We can guide people on how, when, or even if they should use spoiler warnings. We can even go so far as to recommend the use of a template. But requiring a template's use is inappropriate, and requiring it because it allows us to keep track of which articles include spoiler warnings is so unprecedented as to border on abusive. We're giving guidance, not creating a method of policing Misplaced Pages.zadignose 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro rework

Recent edits have really slashed out some of the context of the intro, making the guideline read arbitrarily. In deference to concerns about some of the past justifications, I added a section that justified it in historical terms, attempting to summarize the concerns that led to the rejection of the previous guideline. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline was never rejected. Unless you mean the closed-after-a-day MfD or the subjective 'no significant resistance' criteria. In which case, I disagree as to the validity of these measurements.--Nydas 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline was rejected when it became clear that it had no consensus - which has been shown in numerous places. If you want to insist the previous guideline had consensus, you are, of course, free to, but at that point I can no longer see any way to take you seriously. Phil Sandifer 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion should have been adequately publicised and allowed to run for at least seven days before people started declaring 'consensus' and rewriting the guideline. That would be normal, straightforward and fair. I have no doubt that it would have reached a conclusion in favour of keeping spoiler tags. If it hadn't, I certainly wouldn't complain. Even then, the fair thing to do would be to gradually phase them out, like trivia sections.--Nydas 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Between the RFC and the extensive mailing list discussion it was clear that there was not consensus for the inclusion of most of the spoiler tags that used to be here. Given that the tags violate other policies that there is consensus for, removing them was a natural outcome. We don't write proposed policy, find support, and then implement it – policy is useful only to the extent that it correctly describes recommended practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians will never glance at the mailing list, and there was no consensus after one day on the RfC for the mass removals. Even if you do think that the mailing list is appropriate for determining consensus, the discussion there ran for no more than two or three days.--Nydas 06:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re-removed the section outlining what are essentially Phil's personal views from the intro. It read as if there was a consensus for them, which is incorrect. I have also removed the section suggesting that readers could guess whether there were spoilers from the length of the plot summary. Phil justified this as 'closing a silly loophole', reasoning which is both bureaucratic and arbitary. It does not make any sense to declare that consensus should be reached on talk pages, only to dash back to the guideline to close off 'loopholes'. Nor does it square with his previous rhetoric about 'no bright lines'.--Nydas 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On examining the removed comments, I find that they seem to be simply a description of the concerns that led us to change the guideline, and the context of this guideline within the no disclaimers in articles guideline. I don't think it's at all right to state that this is simply Phil's personal opinion. It may need reworking for consensus, but simple removal is inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A description of the concerns belongs in the discussion page, not on the guideline page itself. The guideline, as I have stated before, has no consensus whatsoever. If you do wish to claim that this represents consensus, based on 'no significant resistance' or the closed-after-a-day MfD, why not mention those directly in the guideline?

I must reiterate my point that saying discussion should be taking place on article talk pages, only to dash back to remove 'loopholes' makes no sense. There is no WP:LOOPHOLE.--Nydas 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that policy formation and rejection is in some way about process, and that an existant guideline is a prerequisite for something being a good idea. Closing off places where the phrasing allows things that make no sense is obvious - nobody has written a guideline to say "Be sure to edit guideline pages to clarify possible misunderstandings" because nobody is silly enough to think such a guideline is needed. And a description of the concerns is needed, not because it's essential to the guideline, but because guidelines ought offer some account of their own justification. In this case, it's important to note why the guideline has changed, because people may well be surprised by the shift. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This contradicts your statements about 'no bright lines'. Buttressing inconsistently applied personal policies with meaningless adjectives like 'silly' and 'obvious' does not make them any less arbitrary. I am not concerned about 'process', I am concerned about what is fair, straightforward and ethical.--Nydas 08:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah, hey, ok, stay on topic here. Let's not get into a huge fight about what, in the past, did or did not have consensus, and focus on attaining consensus for the lead of the CURRENT guideline, okay? Kuronue 00:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this version. The first para is fine. The last sentence of the second para is too vague. It should say that spoiler tags should be used only in places there is consensus to use them. The first sentence of the third para is OK, the second should be more explicit about spoilers in ledes. The fourth para is OK, but could be phrased better. The final para should move lower and be replaced here with a shorter summary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)::

I moved the fourth paragraph up from the bottom into the lead because I think that we should make it very clear through even a cursory examination that content forks and technical gimmicks should not be used for spoilers. David Fuchs 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nydas and Phil, please cease your edit warring on the guideline. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"(Revert Nydas's two edits. First one because it's just flatly wrong, second one because it's an important clarification in practice.)"

"(re-removed Phil's personal views and 'loophole' closure)"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Spoiler&diff=143674906&oldid=143629532
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Spoiler&diff=143675717&oldid=143674906
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Spoiler&diff=143709772&oldid=143675717
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Spoiler&diff=143744882&oldid=143709772

One revert is not edit warring. Please do look at situations before commenting. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I had looked very carefully at the thrust-and-parry reversals of Nydas' text by yourself, Nydas, and Tony. I'm not taking sides, but a re-read of WP:EW clearly indicates that a minor edit war was brewing though without a 3RR vio. 'Nuff said. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Nydas on this. "Even in the absence of subsections, the reader of a long plot summary will generally know to expect plot revelations near the end of the summary, without the need for spoiler tags."? While I agree that the subsection idea isn't to be taken as an absolute, I'd at least like this to be reworded so that it doesn't actively tell the reader what they do or should think. Philip Reuben 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll rephrase. Phil Sandifer 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro seems a bit long winded, and it contains advice that should be left for the sections. It needs some hacking. — Deckiller 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think should be hacked out? Phil Sandifer 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to synthesize some of the ideas that have been presented, and offer clear guidance in the lead without the necessity of describing the history of our disagreements, without including contentious language, and without needing to go too far in justifying the guideline. It's true that editors who want to know the history, or justification for a guideline should read the talk page and pursue the matter there. I hope the results of this edit are mostly satisfactory.zadignose 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (see text below)

"Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning. In Misplaced Pages, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. For purposes of style and clarity, the use of spoiler alerts is generally avoided unless a plot spoiler appears in a truly unexpected place. Because the overuse of spoiler warnings can have a damaging effect on article organization, they should only be used sparingly, and only in such cases where the local consensus demonstrates the need for their use."

Spoilers and occurrence in "plot" sections

I've been mulling over the reasoning behind this, and thought I should post some of my meanderings:

• Fact: 45000 articles contained spoiler warnings in sections in which we have declared "spoilers are to be expected".
• Fact: Sections of this nature exist which do not contain significant plot details. eg: the summary section here

• Conclusion: Although it may be expected that such sections may contain spoilers, it is not expected that they will always contain spoilers.

In other words: Readers can no more expect that such sections will contain spoilers than that any other part of the article will contain spoilers.

• Hypothesis: Editors were using spoiler warnings to distinguish plot sections which contained spoilers from those which did not.

• Note: If this is true, then spoiler warnings would seem to serve a useful purpose for these sections, where the sections do contain spoilers.
• Proposition: Unless a plot section is always expected to contain spoilers (or "significant plot details"), removing all spoiler warnings from those sections is harmful, as it prevents people from distinguishing those that do from those that don't. Some means to inform people whether or not a section definitely does contain spoilers seems to be what we want, and this can be achieved in one of a few ways:

1. Placing spoiler tags on plot sections that do contain spoilers.
2. Placing a "no-spoilers" tag on plot sections that do not contain spoilers.
3. Using section headings as a definitive means of distinguishing (eg: all "plot summary" sections contain spoilers, while "story background" sections do not)

I do think it's important that we clarify this, one way or the other. -Kieran 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This depends on far too many attempts to psychically intuit what a reader will or will not consider a spoiler. At some point, the onus has to go on the reader - if a reader is seriously concerned about spoilers, they should avoid the Misplaced Pages articles on the subject. Anything past that is an attempt to guess what sorts of spoilers might really surprise someone. In some cases, this is easy, as a spoiler will obviously surprise even a prudent reader. In most cases, however, this is pure speculation. Phil Sandifer 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phil here, writers shouldn't have to intuit (or as Tony has said, condescend to) readers and their interest. Determining what is and isn't a "spoiler" also deviates from NPOV in that you're making some kind of editorial/critique decision.

Re: Hypothesis: Editors were using spoiler warnings to distinguish plot sections which contained spoilers from those which did not ... not so with umpteen zillion (joke) film articles in which {{spoiler}} appeared for every Plot section, and entire sections, regardless of the content. I don't condone the massive, rapid removal of so many, that was reckless and controversial, but in a lot of cases, appropriate in some sense. I'm converted, I believe that a Plot or Storyline section will contain plot details, period, end quote. If a reader doesn't want to know that X dies in the last reel, don't read the Plot section. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kieran is correct. There is no way to tell for certain if a section contains spoilers, and there are some cases, for example, plot summaries for unreleased films, where one would not expect to find them. The 'they shouldn't read them at all' attitude sacrifices usability in favour of Brittanica-led notions of what is encyclopedic. The idea that we shouldn't try to guess what readers know or want doesn't square with the numerous arguments that 'everyone knows this' or 'only fans will look at this article', used to justify the removal of spoiler tags. Phil said that the Halo novels were available in 'any bookshop', when in fact it would be more accurate to say they're available in 'any large or specialist sci-fi bookshop in the English-speaking developed world'.--Nydas 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you weren't ignorant, Nydas, you would know the Halo novels are bestsellers and I could easily expect to go to any bookshop, even small ones near me, and find at least one. So pick a better example. David Fuchs 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{ahem} Please remain calm David. And note that the larger point being made by Nydas was that the novels wouldn't be easily found in, say, a Hungarian bookshop. He was asking for precision, which is not a bad goal for an encyclopedia. Postmodern Beatnik 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem yourself. I haven't seen you around here before, which means you have not had to endure the endless bickering, fighting, and crap thrown around. If not for Nydas's and one or two other's refusal to compromise, this would have been over a week ago. So you can see why I'm a little peeved. David Fuchs 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Without returning your charge of ignorance, I will simply inform you that I have been a frequent contributor to this debate (both here and at the related RfC) and am in the process of writing an essay on the matter. That you have not seen me does not mean that I was not there. Postmodern Beatnik 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's 'cause the RfC lost its usefulness a while ago, with the aforementioned bickering, et al (although to my knowledge that wasn't Nydas, mostly random IPs). I'm not saying Nydas is a "retard", I'm simply saying that he's ignorant about what he's talking about in this case. The Halo novels made the NY Times lists, they are hardly obscure writings. They've also been translated into at least three languages, so they're arent' exactly unknown. David Fuchs 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

...to Americans interested in sci-fi and video games. In other words, your typical Misplaced Pages editor.--Nydas 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David, read it again: I have been active both here and at the RfC. That you haven't seen me doesn't mean I wasn't here, either. Second, Nydas doesn't seem to be saying that the Halo novels are obscure or unknown (though I must confess I had no idea that there even were Halo novels), but that the scope of their fame is less than what was implied. Postmodern Beatnik 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to tell for certain whether throwing baseballs at a sleeping tiger's head will cause the tiger to wake up and bite you. But if you do it, you're probably aware of the risk. Similarly, if you read a section titled "Plot," you should be aware that the plot is likely to be revealed.zadignose 10:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when were we an obstacle course for non-Americans and non-fans?--Nydas 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Circa May 23th, 2007. I have to say that Phil is simply completely wrong in his mentioned statement, since the majority of en.wiki's users are not American or British. --Kizor 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to repost a comment I made at Spoiler RfC, which I shamelessly stole from an earlier anonymous comment and seems along the lines of what others here are saying.

I don't buy the argument that "plot" implies spoilers. The plot of Citizen Kane could be described as "a rich newspaperman's life is remembered" or "a rich newspaperman desires Rosebud, his sled." One spoils, the other does not. Conflating "plot" and "spoiler," then, is fallacious. Next argument, please. Postmodern Beatnik 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedic explanation of the plot of Citizen Kane is going to include the ending. As is the case for, well, any encyclopedic explanation of a plot - it's going to contain major plot elements. Phil Sandifer 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that conflating "plot" and "spoiler" is fallacious. Insofar as an argument relies on such a rhetorical device, that argument is flawed. That's all I'm pointing out. Postmodern Beatnik 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For each statement at least one person will eventually come forward and say it's a spoiler. The same problem is true for images that are possibly obscene - there is no absolute standard. The only reasonable way to predict which facts might be considered spoilers to to accept that all plot details might be considered spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

False dilemma. There are several ways out of the Sorites paradox, including some not discussed on the Misplaced Pages entry. Postmodern Beatnik 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't buy the argument that "plot" implies spoilers. The plot of Citizen Kane could be described as "a rich newspaperman's life is remembered" or "a rich newspaperman desires Rosebud, his sled." One spoils, the other does not. Conflating "plot" and "spoiler," then, is fallacious. Next argument, please." I disagree. In my training, Story would be "a fictional representation of the life, loves, triumphs, and losses of an ambitious, flamboyant tycoon." The Plot synopsis would be far more detailed, and include narrative events and progression. The "story" of (for example) The Usual Suspects, American Beauty, The Prestige, and The Crying Game can be written without any plot details. The Plot summary of such films can and likely does have details. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Plot/Story distinction is an interesting point, and I would be willing to concede that it is correct from certain technical standpoints. An author or a literary expert, for instance, might find the distinction professionally useful. That said, I do not find it compelling within the context of Misplaced Pages. After all, even a cursory glance at various entries on fictional subjects reveals that there is little to no uniformity in what term is used to mark out the section we are discussing. Some say "plot," others say "story" or "plot summary" or what have you. But even if this were addressed, I do not think that a profession-specific distinction applies to an encyclopedia that is not targeted at the relevant group. After all, you don't expect to have to use the words "intentional," "phenomenal," "analytic," or "absurd" solely in their specialized philosophical senses for my sake, correct? Postmodern Beatnik 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I concede your point of view, but my own perspective is specific to the WP Film Project, in which our style guidelines are pretty specific about Plot sections. Take a look.... YMMV in other areas of WP. :P David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am restarting the indentations. I figure we aren't trying to inscribe the columns of Rome here. Second, I think I need to clarify my point, as the style guide you linked to does not (to my mind) contradict anything I've said. I agree that—regardless of what they are called in any particularly entry—Plot/Summary/Story sections are actually Plot sections in the technical usage. I do not disagree that spoilers should be included in such sections. Nor am I making a specific claim that spoiler tags should or should not be included when spoilers are present. I am neutral on the issue of spoiler tags (which is why I have not done any voting on the issue), but I am suspicious of the logic of some of the arguments here—logic I fear will seep into other policy decisions.

While some might point out—correctly, in my opinion—that the use of the professional sense of the word "plot" by WikiProject Film et al. is not necessarily understood by our readers, and thus is prone to a perfectly understandable sort of misinterpretation qua equivocation, the logical problem I see is a different one. What I see happening is a conflation of "plot" and "spoiler" in a very pure way. A plot section, even if it contains a full summary of the plot (and not just the story) does not necessarily spoil. The ending to Full Metal Alchemist episode 5 (everyone lives!) is not a spoiler; the events of Full Metal Alchemist episode 25 (someone dies!) are. Similarly, the ending to Bridget Jones' Diary (they fall in love!) is not a spoiler; the events of Fight Club post-car crash (Soylent Green is people! oops... wrong film) are. Not all plot summaries spoil. Some do. Thus, "Plot" does not necessarily mean "spoilers." Does this complicate things? You bet. Are we (by which I mean local editors) up to the task? We better be. Otherwise, we're not doing our jobs. Postmodern Beatnik 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My last message was edited to include a "citation needed" tag. Although it was an effective argument, I would like to remind whoever did that that changing another person's posts is considered misrepresentation and strongly forbidden vandalism. Please do not do it again. --Kizor 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusive proof that native English speakers do not constitute a majority

A whopper of a title, but whatever works. I've been asked to prove that the English Misplaced Pages's users are predominantly not native English-speakers. Alexa's traffic statistics are reliable enough to be used as a source in the Misplaced Pages article, and to be linked to in Misplaced Pages:Statistics. It states that 52% of all wikipedia.org traffic goes to en, and a grand total of 24.7% of all traffic is from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. Assuming that no traffic whatsoever from these countries goes to non-English Wikipedias (a tall statement indeed, given the 'melting pot' nature of the States with Spanish being in particular prominence, and with Canada having circa eight million people with a non-English first language and several million who do not speak English at all , etc.) the percentage is still comfortably short of a majority, and I believe this to be an uncontroversial fact. Its implications are not, and I believe they should be covered separately. --Kizor 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Implications?

Can't think of any. Sorry.

Does this have something to do with a line of argument that goes something like the following?

1. Some of our readers do not know what the word "plot" means.
2. The same readers do know what the word "sled", "father" and "dead" mean.
3. Therefore we must have a tag that says "Note: plot details follow" between the heading "plot" and the words "sled", "father" "dead" and so on in the articles in which it is conceivable that somebody might learn something about the plot by reading those words in the plot section.

Or is there some reasoning that makes more sense than that? --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is and isn't a spoiler?

Phil raises a good point, and one that is somewhat separate from our other discussions: How do we judge what is and is not a spoiler? Certainly the editors inserting the warnings must have been doing this, but if this is not to be entirely a POV thing, we should probably provide guidelines as to what does and does not constitute a spoiler. -Kieran 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't judge what are spoilers, we judge whether to include spoiler warning tags. Not everything that is a spoiler needs a spoiler tag, so the real question is where to put the tags. For example, "plot" sections don't need spoiler tags whether or not they contain spoilers. Also, judging "what is a spoiler" is quite close to original research, whereas judging where to put a tag is a style judgement similar to deciding whether to place a {{fact}} tag. As an analogy: we don't decide whether unreferenced statements are "true", we decide whether they need a {{fact}} tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is that the spoiler notice could be put on a section Monday, and the Plot section rewritten Friday, but the notice remains. The editor who placed the notice can't know via precognition that the synopsis will always have what could be judged as a "spoiler." Hence, we're not judging the quality of the synopsis, only placing a notice on a section is likely to provide a plot detail that diminishes the reader's enjoyment. Make sense? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Which brings up a good question I've somewhat asked before but got no answer -- are there ANY other metatags designed for the body of the article that are made to be permanent? Fact tags, cleanup, etc. are supposed to be temporary. Everything else that I can think of (other wikis, templates, catagories, etc) are navigational. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Such templates are not used per the reasoning of WP:NDA. To my knowledge, the spoiler tag is the only content warning tag on Misplaced Pages, which is one of its problems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think so. There are a number of content (maybe we'd call them cleanup) tags that indicate that an article's NPOV is in dispute, etc. Spoiler just isn't a cleanup tag. But ... you raise a good issue.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. Cleanup tags are supposed to be there temporarily. They are there to get people to make the article better, and aren't really inherent to the content itself -- an FA will have none of them, AFAIK. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Whether (or not) to include spoiler warning tags" clearly depends on whether there is a spoiler to warn about. It is essential that we provide guidance in this area. We can't simply write it off, when in fact it's central to the judgements editors need to make, and it's precisely what they will turn to this guideline for advice on.zadignose 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It simply won't be possible to make a general decision about what might be spoilers - for any given plot detail, somebody will think it's a spoiler. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that's an incomplete answer. We can't delineate how to handle every case, but we can at least offer some guidance. Even if "for any given plot detail, somebody will think it's a spoiler," they won't always be right to apply a spoiler tag to every plot detail, or necessarily to omit the tag from every detail. Certainly anyone who would claim "Star Wars is a movie set in outer space" as a spoiler would be way out in left field, whereas "In the end of The Lost Treasure of Axum, the 'treasure' turns out to be a biological weapon that wipes out all life on Earth" is a bit more of a spoiler by most people's estimation. We can try to suggest how to approach such distinctions, as a sort of measuring stick for editors to consider what qualifies as a spoiler and what doesn't.zadignose 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples are a good idea. Examples that are selected across a range of possibilities are used to fairly judge the grading of school essays. I suggest five real examples. Say that #1 and #5 are the Star Wars (don't-tag) and The Lost Treasure of Axum (do-tag) extremes. #2 would be a less obvious don't-tag and #4 would be a less obvious do-tag. #3 would be an example of a plot twist that about half of editors think is a spoiler and about half don't, which should be decided by local consensus. Phil Sandifer is well aware of the essay grading method I'm describing, and hopefully will support it. Milo 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Please.

I would like to see summaries of arguments on both sides of this debate. So far, they seem pretty one-sided. Could an anti-spoiler person please inform me of how I am wrong?

Removal of spoiler warnings Pros

• Misplaced Pages emulates Britannica better. After all, when did Britannica ever use the word "spoiler"? Therefore, Misplaced Pages cannot.

Cons

• People become unhappy or angry about having plots ruined. They lose faith in Misplaced Pages, or they avoid it so that they don't get plots spoiled. Misplaced Pages becomes less popular. Fewer people have access to the information it offers.

So far, the only arguments against that con that I've seen are ones along the lines of, "people who are stupid enough to read in the plot section deserve to be spoiled," as though being stupid makes misfortune a good thing. And anyway, most people skim through articles for what they want, so they can easily miss the Plot heading.

Now, I know this incomplete, at least for the cons. As I said, could others offer additional pros and cons? Twilight Realm 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should read through the various archives available at the top right side of the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which editor ever claimed that Misplaced Pages should emulate Britannica, or said that we cannot do what Britannica doesn't do. It sounds like the above is a repeat of how those who support the use of browser tags disingenuously tried to frame the argument.zadignose 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From the most recent archive, archive six, from a whole sectoin about it:

I don't think you understand. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the anti-spoiler crowd brings bringing up this "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia" nonsense without supporting their statements. Tell me, what does a real encyclopedia, such as the encyclopedia Britannica say about, say Star Wars. Or what does Microsoft Encarta say about it? Samboy 21:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, you should read the archives. Kuronue 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From archive 4, Phil Sandifer:

Well, the first problem with it is that it's inaccurate - we've found no instances of spoiler warnings in other encyclopedias or serious reference works, which is the problem. This is one of the major problems with spoiler warnings - ostensibly our competition is serious reference works like Britannica, and yet we have editorial practices associated with Internet forums. I've tried to tighten this sentence a bit, but I agree - it still needs something.

--Nydas 15:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of the above is supposed to be an example of a person opposed to the use of spoiler tags claiming that Misplaced Pages should emulate Britannica, or that we can't do what they don't do? Because I don't see it.zadignose 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this person is serious, but here's a summary of some arguments against spoiler tags:

• Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles
• The tags can, and in the past have, lead to problems with neutral point of view, with editors keeping relevant information out of content except between the tags.
• The tags were massively abused in the past, with tags in Roger Bacon and the like.
• They're usually placed in areas where plot detail is to be expected
• They can usually be removed after making section labelling clearer
• Like all warning tags they interrupt the flow of text.

--Tony Sidaway 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On the "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia" argument, yes that's a very good one too. One argument proposed to defend the placing of spoiler tags is that people might learn something they didn't want to know. Misplaced Pages doesn't connive with the reader in his quest for ignorance, because Misplaced Pages isn't that kind of work. It isn't a fan site, it isn't a game guide or a review site or a forum. It's an encyclopedia. If the reader does not want to know something he should not come to an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, your notable bon mot "Conniving for ignorance" is an unlikely use of street smarts, though maybe it has something to do with copping solvent intoxicants. But no reader can "quest for ignorance" — those two words are rhetorically antonymical. Unless, of course, you are speaking of what the spoiler reveals to be an Alice-in-universe hookah fantasy :) Milo 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler tag in Roger Bacon was in the 'in fiction' section. Probably unneeded, but hardly 'massive abuse'.--Nydas 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Had it been the only case, I would have written it off as just a bit of silliness. There were many cases like this. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? You don't like it, but it's not 'massive abuse' to put spoiler tags over spoilers.--Nydas 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, Tony, your point in a way summarizes the whole problem. From what I've seen, there's a lot of disjunct on exactly HOW people see WP. Many see it as some ideal libre information repository and cringe at the thought of even perfectly legit fair use images, while others simply see it as 'that neat website where you can look up anything'. I think that's what's causing this disjunct -- a lot of people simply equate "Misplaced Pages = website", and further more a "my say is as relevant as anyone else's", without thinking of the implications of just what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. I'm not saying "WP is an encyclopedia" is necessarily the be all and end all statement, but it's something to think about - for people on both sides. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope creep has long been a problem with Misplaced Pages. It's so well recognised that we have long had a policy dedicated to saying what Misplaced Pages is not. There is a guideline, which is the complement of that, called Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Midnight, I'll try to take a stab at the opposing side of Tony's fine summary above:

Arguments for spoiler tags (or alternatives)

Pro

• WP is an Internet encyclopedia, striving for the comprehensive nature of traditional tomes, as well as the scholarly format and tone as well. WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:NOT#IINFO + WP:NOT#DIR, etc. We do not censor or hide information, even that which the fictional work keeps the reader in suspense.
• WP has a no-disclaimer guideline (read for more explanation), but the spoiler practice is a reasonable exception.
• We have no control over what readers (with what interests or intentions) land on this site from web searches, so we can't presume if 'dear reader' wants to have complete plot details divulged or some kept marked as with popular review sites.
• Plot sections generally have all details, but some believe that those with significant twists should be identified where they occur. (E.g. THE STING, THE PRESTIGE, SLEUTH, THE CRYING GAME, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, CROUPIER, THE SPANISH PRISONER, DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS).
• A fictional work doesn't have to be newly released for readers to be unfamiliar with it. A reader may never have seen THE USUAL SUSPECTS, and is reading the article as a prelude to renting the video.
• Some readers may not be fluent in English, and so Plot may not adequately identify that a surprise disclosure is in the section.
• So as to protect readers from stumbling upon significant reveals ("he's gay," "the gun wasn't loaded," "it was character x in disguise," "the butler did it"), they should be marked with a discreet (yes, discreet) spoiler notice.
• Fictional character articles may also have surprises disclosed, which a reader might not expect as s/he would in a synopsis, so those instances should be marked.

Con

• Plot sections are presumed to have all plot details (because, like an encyclopedia, we're comprehensive), not hide anything, so the reader should expect to have spoilers inline with the synopsis. Notices are redundant in synopses.
• Character histories for fictional characters will have plot details included, otherwise they wouldn't be comprehensive. Notices are redundant there. (Hotly debated.)
• Explicit "Spoiler notices" are a mainstream review-site tactic used to prevent readers from having diminished enjoyment of the work by having significant disclosures beforehand. A comprehensive, serious reference work has no business hiding or disguising such information, and can structure articles so that the explicit disclosure is not described in the lead paragraph, only referred to. (E.g., "This film is well known and highly regarded for its surprising plot twist in the third reel. See Synopsis for details.")
  • In keeping with WP:NDT, there are other ways of identifying significant plot disclosures, say in a subsection of the synopsis, e.g. "Twist ending," "Disclosure of real identity," "How the trick was done."
  • Fictional character articles can have "plot details" or surprises contained in a "History" or Plot subsection, not in the lead. (E.g. "This female character is actually the transgender male former lover of the main character's mother, and hence could be his dad.")

I'm sure I'm leaving something out, but this is my understanding of the principle complaints at the moment. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel a need to add the "pro" argument that spoiler tags aren't especially disruptive, and that railing against them even in borderline cases is being kind of petty. Philip Reuben 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence "discreet spoiler notice." ;) As for the "railing," that's a civility issue and wholly separate from the concerns about the notices. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel I need to be a bit plainer to some of you. Please read what I wrote a while ago, to be found here. I really can't see any argument against spoiler warnings except that 1) the pros, like those at Britannica, don't do it, and 2) people should be more careful (which really is a non-sequitur of an argument, because you know they won't be). Again, I will ask: what harm does the warning do? Twilight Realm 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What harm would putting a warning on breast that there's pictures that might offend some or some might not want their kids to see? Yet, there is none, and there hasn't ever been one at least as long as I've been reading and editting this place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The best reason is that right-wing censorship extremists can't be satisfied until Western culture once again has the Christian equivalent of Islamic law. The U.S. already went through all this in previous centuries. (Having said that, I think self-censorship is ok, so I've worked out a technical system of competing hidden tags that would throw them a few crumbs without letting them take over.) Milo 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You really think that children won't read something that says it's not suitable for them? In this case, the warning will serve to people who want to prevent other people from seeing it (such as parents to censor from children). But the spoiler warnings only serve to censor people from themselves. That's the actual difference here. Samohyl Jan 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But we have no other tags to help people censor things from themselves. We don't have "not safe for work" tags, which are also for self-censorship. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be "not censored". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We all know Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be censored, but do we at least agree on the definition of censorship? Spoiler tags do not remove infromation or prevent willing access to it in any way. --Kizor 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about this "what harm does the warning do?" issue, which I believe is indirect as Melodia suggested, having to do with a varied vision of what Misplaced Pages is or is not.

"what harm does the warning do?" In a retail-level impression, spoiler tags 'cry wolf' since they not a warning — they get editors stirred up about disclaimers policy when there aren't any actual disclaimers, just a content notice like the hideable contents box and non-temporary disambig notices (non-contents). Adapting another term like 'unencyclopedic', using "warning" in this guideline is 'undictionaric' (previously said by two other editors at WP). The word "warning" should removed and replaced by "notice", except once at the top where this point is explained. This would be my unsatisfied issue with the current guideline, and apparently I consider it more important than do other editors.

I philosophically believe that misuse of that fiction-promotional hyperbole word has led to a lot of the discord in this debate via speculative NLP pathways, because editors vaguely sense that "warning" is a trivial lie, cheaply excused by a not-quite fictional context. That goes on to stir up classic "philosophical objections to the theater and acting", i.e., that acting is a form of lying and people ought not to lie. Via societal NLP, this concept has been encultured even in people who've never heard the college-level formal lecture on "objections to the theater".

"what harm does the warning do?" For a wholesale-level understanding of the anti-spoiler group, I think spoiler tags make them feel bad when, um, 'their' (say, short of WP:Own) Britannica-modeled encyclopedia is 'dirtied up' with things from 'internet culture'. Really, until this debate, I had no idea that 'internet culture' was considered such a bad thing. I don't understand exactly what it is, but I think 'creeping internet culture' is inevitable since that's where Misplaced Pages is located. Nonetheless, they feel the way that they do.

I have proposed for a long time in this debate that the tags be optionally hideable so everyone can win-win, but the anti-spoiler group has framed this issue as win-lose. Why?

There are some ways to do hidden tags now that aren't yet technically perfect, but so what, when the entire encyclopedia is a work in progress? There have been weakly argued oppositions to hidden tags (e.g., drop-ins from the web won't know how to use them), but they can be either fixed or lived with. Because the feelings backing the weak arguments are so strong, this suggests to me that the anti-spoiler tag group has bad feelings simply because they know hidden tags are there, and that this device might attract 'the wrong kind of readers' (i.e., 'ignorant people with whom we would have to connive'). As a culture we teach teenagers to delay gratification for greater long-term pleasure, so I don't think such people are genuinely ignorant. However, the real issue is that they probably are people of 'internet culture', whatever that is (l33t-speakers maybe?).

If 'internet culture' people are really so odious that Misplaced Pages should discriminate against them, perhaps I and other editors who may not understand the concept should be educated as to why the anti-spoiler group thinks they are so bad for Misplaced Pages. I don't have to agree, but if I understand, maybe there are as yet unknown ways to accommodate and compromise that will allow the hidden tag solution to be implemented with no more than grumbling by the anti-spoiler group. Milo 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole thread is a beautiful example of the disaster that's bound to occur when you encourage people to frame their opponents arguments for them. It's also a case of reviving old blood feuds. Have fun, folks.zadignose 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

-- Who was that directed at? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

nah, that's why liberals are better suited to running the world than conservatives. According to Victor Navasky, Publisher and Editorial Director of The Nation magazine when he appeared on the PBS Newshour (August 18, 2005):

"To have a serious opinion, you've got to have -- first of all, you've got to be able to state your opposition's point of view better than he or she states it him or herself."

Everyone likes being understood exactly, and successful negotiating requires it. Liberals as a group tend to care about what other people think, exactly, even when they don't agree. Conservatives as a group tend to think few opinions are important except those who are above them in their own or some rival hierarchy. That's why they tend to muck up foreign policy when they ideologically exclude liberal advisors. That's also why the U.S. State Department is mostly liberals.

David Spalding did a good job of stating the frequently mentioned positions. Milo 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(bows) Thank you. :) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Nobody has said that we should emulate Britannica, and that we can't do what they don't do. There has been the statement that Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia, which refers to the fact that we have editorial standards, and that the fundamental purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. Disclaimers go against that purpose. We have some things in common with Britannica, as each aspires to be a valuable encyclopedia, informative on a wide variety of topics. So did Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, and many other encyclopedias. Another thing we have in common is that, generally, we prefer for words to be spelled correctly. That doesn't mean we have to emulate Britannica, or that we can't do what they don't do, which is an absurd way to frame the discussion. But then, maybe Britannica got a few things right with regards to how one writes an encyclopedia.

No one has said that spoiler tags "make them feel bad when 'their' Britannica-modeled encyclopedia is 'dirtied up' with things from 'internet culture,'" and no one has said that internet culture is 'bad.' But that's an interesting way to frame a position that one has not really attempted to understand.

I haven't signed on to a membership list for the "anti-spoiler group," or "anti-spoiler crowd," and I'm pretty sure such a membership list doesn't exist. But if ever one person makes a questionable or disagreeable comment, it is reframed as representative of the entire debate, and often taken out of context and misrepresented without consideration of the actual intent of the comment.

And now, somehow, a Liberal vs. Conservative dichotomy has been introduced, as if one could ever deduce the political views of any party to this debate, and as if it was even marginally relevant to the discussion.

It's interesting, Milo, that you have managed to "exactly" understand the views of Conservatives, and have managed to achieve this by boiling their beliefs down to "Conservatives as a group tend to think few opinions are important except those who are above them in their own or some rival hierarchy." Umm, yeah, highly credible attempt to understand and fairly represent what they think! About as credible as "the terrorists hate us because they are evil and hate everything that's good." (the last is not an actual quote)zadignose 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Nobody has said" things refer to my syntheses, which you may directly attribute to me. They are the product of the psychological perception exercise called "I-hear-you-saying" of the group, as opposed to what they literally wrote as individuals. My hear-saying perception isn't the only one; I encourage anyone else to do that exercise if they wish.

The liberal-conservative mention applies not to spoilers or tags, but solely to your comment "...encourage people to frame their opponents arguments for them." Navasky is one of the world's most famous liberals, and I stand on his insight.

My own insight into the core nature of philosophical conservatism as hierarchical is too obvious to be original, but I figured this out partly by observing the beliefs of William F. Buckley, Jr., whom I admire as an honest man, and who is a devout Catholic believer with God at the top level of his hierarchy. He considers himself to be "A Conservative" which he believes is importantly different from being merely "conservative". The latter is a label possibly associated with dozens of complex political positions, to which I was not referring. Milo 06:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. This arguing back and forth is getting nowhere. We've got to organize this debate, because what we're doing now--having others pop in, offer their opinion, then completely forget about the whole debate while the rest of us argue the same old arguments about their opinion. Can anyone come up with any way of making this debate less chaotic?

Stepping aside from what I just said, I'd like to mention something that hasn't gotten much attention. Most Misplaced Pages editors are not admins. Most Misplaced Pages users are readers, not editors. In general, admins seem to be more anti-spoiler-tag than editors, and I can guarantee that non-editors will be more pro-spoiler-tag than editors (though, unfortunately, I have no proof of that). Since editor opinion seems split down the middle, but leaning towards pro-tag, and since any reasonable guess would put the standard opinion of readers at pro-tag, we really should use the tag. After all, Misplaced Pages is not about making a free version of Britannica, it's about providing as much information as possible to the world. And to do that, we should do what the readers want.

For those who would disagree that readers would be pro-tag, let me explain myself. Readers have little or no loyalty to Misplaced Pages. They don't care if it's dignified. They don't care if it imitates dead-tree encyclopedias. They won't be distracted by the tag (though someone above mentioned that it interrupts the flow of the text). They want to know about what they entered into the search box. They do not want to know that Harry is a Horcrux (or otherwise), they do not want to know that Dumbledore dies. A year and a half ago, I used the article on Lord of the Flies a lot before reading the book, but I was careful to use the spoiler warnings to navigate to sections about the critical reaction and so on, so I didn't learn that Jack turns evil and that Piggy dies. Removing spoiler tags completely eliminates that use for Misplaced Pages. You are actually making the encyclopedia less useful, less accessible, for reasons such as "the word spoiler is a neologism" and "it is not what the other encyclopedias do." I will say this again: Misplaced Pages lets any random idiot edit it. We've already broken the most important rule, that an encyclopedia is written by authorities on the subjects. And yet we're worried about spoiler warnings, because it's never been done before? Be bold!

And here is a chance to prove what I said in the first paragraph: anti-tag people aren't even going to read what I just wrote, because there's too much here for them to read. Only people who already agree will read it. If this is untrue, and you, the reader, are anti-tag, don't hesitate to say hi. And please counter my argument, while you're at it. Twilight Realm 03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it all, and I'm pretty anti-tag. One counter argument is simple -- as much as "any idiot can edit WP", we ALSO don't want it to become a mess. Otherwise, why would cleanup tags exist? Why care that words are properly interlinked, why care about pictures being used right, why care about breaking up the articles into sections in the first place? Because we want the articles to read well. We want people to be able to find information, and have easy access to more information as it comes up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is exactly why spoiler warnings are helpful. They help readers organize information, decide what they want to read and what not to read, more easily than without. I know because I've done it. I've skipped to the 'Note: Significant Plot Details Ahead' part when the information I wanted was the spoiler, and I didn't want to read the rest. I've also read information that _wasn't_ spoilers when I wanted to learn more about a work but not the major twists. This use is hampered by global "spoiler warnings" over the entire plot, but it's made MUCH easier by targetted spoiler warnings in plot sections. This isn't about 'we don't want people to come to WP if they don't want information', this is about giving choice to what parts of an article we're interested in. People come to WP all the time when they don't want to learn everything, and WP conspires WITH them to that goal: I've come to WP to see the cast list of a movie, because it's easier to navigate from search engines than sites like IMDB. I go to the WP movie page and, rather than navigate a whole block of text in which the cast is gradually revealed along with the plot, it's organized in a nice little sidebar. Oh noes! WP is conspiring in my desire to remain ignorant of everything but the cast! Well, no. It's just being helpful. Likewise, if I just want to know the release date, I can just look at that easily, and skip the rest. If I've come to see how a movie was received, I can skip everything up to Critical Reception (or if I specifically don't care how a movie was received, I could skip that section entirely). But when I want to do this with Spoilers, I'm now thwarted, and a few people insist that if I don't want to learn everything, I shouldn't come to WP.

One of the purposes of Organization is not to make it 'look nice' but to help people find the information they want quickly, and to not read the information they don't (whether the reason is "I don't want to know this because it might spoil my enjoyment" or "I don't have time for that"). Spoiler notices aid in this organization. I personally don't think a small notice makes an article 'messy' any more than several subdivisions of a section does. They make it easier to use, which should be one of the goals of the Encyclopedia. Wandering Ghost 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. When that conflicts with "what readers want", we don't do what readers want. There are plenty of other things that readers might want to be warned about that we don't warn them about, and plenty of things that readers might want to see included that we don't include.

There has already been a significant shift in spoiler tag usage; what we are discussing here is when to use the tags in a limited way, not whether to use them at all (we will) or whether to return to the way things were (we won't). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for treating me like an idiot who can't read, Twilight! Good way to BE BOLD! Oh yeah, 'Hi!' Though I'm not sure I'm a member of the dreaded "anti-tag" group you refer to, so maybe you don't want to hear from me. As for countering your argument, that's been done effectively above.zadignose 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather have a perfect encyclopedia that nobody wants to read, or a reference work that people actually find interesting and enjoyable but that isn't perfectly scholarly or totally organized? Not that spoiler tags are the be-all end-all to create this ultimatum, I'm just curious as to which goal is more important to wikipedia: being user-friendly or being prestigious? Kuronue 04:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are in a position to answer one of my questions. Let's see if this 'you'd be better off over there' argument holds any water. The rhetorical argumentum ad baculum aside (i.e., be smart, don't get punished),

what's your answer to the frequently-heard claim that as a spoiler-avoiding reader you logically should go to IMDB, fan sites, etc., for your spoiler-free fiction information, where they actually want you?

To be helpful to understanding the general case, please try to avoid the special case argument that you consider yourself to be an offended Wikipedian editor, and let's momentarily assume that the anti-spoiler group has the power to make life indefinitely unpleasant for spoiler-avoiding readers at WP.

The inverse of the same question is, what has Misplaced Pages got that the other spoiler-friendly sites don't have, that would cause you to persist in coming here for non-spoiling fiction information, even though you have to pick through the new Misplaced Pages: Spoiler minefield? Milo 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Take virtually any significant movie and compare its page here with its page on IMDB and you will see what we have that IMDB does not: encyclopedic coverage of both the film and its cultural significance. And while our goal is for the articles to become more comprehensive over time, IMDB has no such plans. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Happily, we're not forced to choose between having "a perfect encyclopedia that nobody wants to read," and "a reference work that people actually find interesting and enjoyable but that isn't perfectly scholarly or totally organized." How about "a really good encyclopedia that many people want to read?" That sounds like a good goal! Personally, I came to Misplaced Pages as a reader long before thinking about editing anything. I largely came because I could find the information I wanted. I found the style appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it helped form a positive impression that caused me to return often. However, perhaps we can compare two more realistic options. Would your rather have everything2 or Misplaced Pages? Personally I'd prefer Misplaced Pages, and I've pretty much abandoned everything2 years ago. But happily, even here, we don't have to choose, as both of them continue to exist on the internet. So if you prefer a less restrictive environment, with looser editorial standards, you know where you can find it. But it should also be noted what is implied when we suggest that those who want things done another way should look elsewhere. I have the faith that, even if a few people really do go elsewhere, so long as we can create a quality encyclopedia, a great many people will want to come here.zadignose 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have the idea that spoiler warnings will drive people away, and that the real thing that will attract people is emulating a published encylopedia. Someone raised a good point above: sidebars don't appear in other encyclopedias, but there's no talk about them being eliminated. Is this simply because they are over to the right and "interrupt the flow of the text" less? That seems like a weak excuse to me.

And you seem to have the idea that Misplaced Pages is only out to attract people in a massive web popularity contest. I'm sure if Wikipedians could put whatever they liked on Misplaced Pages, from How-tos and tutorials to phone directories and shopping lists, not only would Misplaced Pages's popularity and use increase, but it would even become more useful. But that doesn't mean we're going to do that now or ever. Just because you think Misplaced Pages should be able to do this or because its not like all the other encyclopedias doesn't change what Misplaced Pages was founded on, and what its policies are. David Fuchs 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points, and I'm not claiming that spoiler tags are going to drive away masses of readers, or that they'll attact them. However, my general view is that upholding good editorial policies has had a good overall effect on Misplaced Pages and it's apparent success.

But the main point that I thought should be addressed is that no one is trying to create "a perfect encyclopedia that no one wants to read," which is in itself an absurd concept. Perfection is a good thing to aspire to, though it's unlikely to be fully achieved. But if anyone somehow did create a perfect encyclopedia, I'm pretty damn sure a lot of people would want to read it. Particularly those people who are looking to read a good encyclopedia.

Another point to consider is, I'm not getting paid for this. So perfection seems a more attractive goal than popularity. You know, volunteers tend to be idealists. What can I possibly get as a reward for pandering?zadignose 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for going to Misplaced Pages instead of IMDB for non-spoiler information are these: 1) I read about books too, you know, 2) I want more than the cast and release date; I want information about the book--just not the plot. What about 1984? The importance of that book is not in its plot, but rather its cultural impact. Where can I get that but Misplaced Pages? 3) Misplaced Pages is my source of information for everything. I'm sure you know what I mean. I want to know about something, and I go to Misplaced Pages. Twilight Realm 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think spoiler warnings should be included, whether or not spoilers are "implied." I believe this because it is impossible to be sure whether information is like what one would find on the back of the book/movie, or the entire plot. It just makes things simpler.S II 087 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But a treatment of the plot isn't SUPPOSED to be "like what would find on the back of the book". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've found that when it is like what we would find on the back of a book, it's usually copyvio because it was just taken from the back of the book. Phil Sandifer 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The back of the book is generally for promotional purposes, something WP most decidedly is not. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words in intro

The intro makes extensive use of weasel words. These include 'truly unexpected', 'style and clarity', 'damaging effect', 'local consensus' and 'demonstrates need for their use'. The last one is a rewording of 'compelling reason'. All these should be scrapped and replaced with concrete examples. Either that, or just leave the examples up to the main body and shorten the intro.--Nydas 14:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not weasel words. We don't use spoiler tags in plot sections. Why? because plot details are expected in such sections. Where do we use tags? In places plot details aren't expected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about telling editors what those places are, rather than forcing them to waste their time trying to accomodate the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade?--Nydas 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm very glad that the introduction invites subtlety and judgment based on clearly articulated principles. It's the mark of a good guideline. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're defending weasel words with weasel words.--Nydas 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree, Nydas. Firstly, are you sure you're using "weasel words" correctly?
  
  Secondly, judgement and reasoning are more important editing tools than precise and all-encompassing policies and guidelines that leave little margin for interpretation. This is not an SSAT test, this is a collaborative writing project. "How about telling editors what those places are,..." For one, because a guideline cannot predict section headings that are not yet used, and you can't realistically charge someone (who is that?) to keep watch over WP to update this guideline. The guideline, in legal terms, can contemplate unspecified uses outside of Plot sections. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words hide information behind meaningless generalities. For example 'damaging effect'. Who decides what this is supposed to mean? The only 'damaging effect' (blown out of all proportion) was the contradiction with WP:LEAD. This is already mentioned later in the article, so the 'damaging effect' serves no purpose other than to confuse people.

If judgement and reasoning are so important, why is the guideline festooned with increasingly arcane hard rules about when not to use spoiler tags? The simple answer is that this benefits the anti-spoiler brigade. They demand 'flexibility' when it suits them. This can be seen in the section titles; one says 'when spoiler warnings should not be used', the other says 'when spoiler warnings may be used.'

That the guideline is so slanted when there was never any consensus for it is bad. What is worse is that more than a few unfortunate editors have been fooled into thinking that there is any hope of attaching a spoiler tag to an article when the anti-spoiler brigade is opposed.--Nydas 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You are looking for a guideline that can be applied robotically and thoughtlessly. You are not going to get one. Phil Sandifer 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the most robotically and thoughtlessly enforced 'guideline' that has probably ever existed on Misplaced Pages. Instead of misrepresenting my arguments, try to address them.--Nydas 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the use of AWB, which is what I'm assuming you refer to. On the other hand, I sympathize with the idea that spoiler warnings had become so virulent on Misplaced Pages that a clean slate was needed for their use. I see and saw the AWB use less as enforcement of this guideline and more as a necessary precondition for the guideline's enforcability. What you propose is an attempt to make the guideline rigorous and wholly predictable. With two million articles, what an editor encounters on Misplaced Pages is not wholly predictable. Our guidelines should be set to adapt. Phil Sandifer 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is entirely predictable; a spoiler tag cannot exist without the consent of half a dozen editors. You might as well replace the guideline with a list of names. Your attitude that this guideline needs to be 'enforced' with more draconian measures than anything else in Misplaced Pages (including WP:BLP) contradicts your own rhetoric about the need for flexibility.--Nydas 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above replies are enough to refute the abuse of the term "weasel words." I too, would like to see the body of the article include some more specific guidance on how and where tags are to be used, if they are to be used at all, but the general guidance given here is quite reasonable, and is about as specific as anything we've been able to agree to so far. But, to another point Nydas, your constant refrain of "anti-spoiler brigade, anti-spoiler brigade" just might win you this debate, because it's precisely the kind of thing that makes me want to toss my computer out the window and never look at Misplaced Pages again. I'm not a part of any brigade. If you could avoid labling those who disagree with your opinion, and stop supposing a conspiracy, it might help keep this discussion civil.zadignose 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

95% or more of spoiler tags were removed by half a dozen editors, overruling hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary people. If that is not a group, or faction, or brigade, then what is it? As it stands, it is impossible to add a spoiler tag without their consent. Even if you do attempt to apply the guideline as written, they'll just come out with stuff like 'consensus means you need our agreement', 'a violation of WP:POINT' or 'simply and plainly moronic and disruptive'.--Nydas 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Surprising to find such weak writing in this Britannia-modeled encyclopedia that somehow thinks sidebar boxes are ok. (Alice-in-universe muses: '...a bunch of WP editors could become "shocked, shocked", go change the sidebar box guideline, rev up AWB... ah, no one at WP would be obsessed enough to do that.')

I agree with Phil and David about the importance of using principles as implemented by judgment and reasoning to account for unknown future conditions. However, the art and skill of rulecrafting is a balancing act requiring sufficient specificity to avoid a drift of centering, excessive vagueness, or overly broad interpretations. Good rulecrafting should typically use both principles and examples.

I think "local consensus" is reasonably understood as the local consensus of the article's talk page, but it would be possible to insert "local talk page consensus" to be sure. There are four references to consensus without a link to WP:Consensus. Why link to NPOV which is rarely if ever a problem, and not link to WP:Consensus which is a constant spoiler tag issue?

To avoid slant or bias, "when spoiler warnings should not be used" should be changed to "when spoiler warnings should be avoided" to match "when spoiler warnings may be used".

As for the weak writing, "truly unexpected" should just become "unexpected". "style and clarity" - "clarity" is ok, but "style" is too subjective unless it's "manual of style". "damaging effect" strikes me as a bogosity; better would be "can disorganize the article". "demonstrates need for their use" - consensus doesn't demonstrate, consensus "concurs on" or simply "agrees on".

Other bad writing: The continued multiple uses of "warning" are rhetorically incorrect to mean a content notice; there is no danger, so it's not a warning. Since it's not a warning all the disclaimer sentences go away. The word "warn" should be replaced by "notify". Furthermore the tag itself no longer refers to "warning". However, use of the word "spoiler" is correct, not a neologism, has been located in the American Heritage dictionary, and should now be restored in the tag text, as well as retained in the guideline.

As I've detailed at the current end of #What is and isn't a spoiler?, Milo 19:12, there should be five real examples. Milo 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sidebars aren't part of the articles any more than talk page are, so it's a very invalid point. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote you to help me win some future sidebar debate :) Milo 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your grammatical and synctactical suggestions. The last week or so, when not wringing my hands over IRL legal and major purchase issues, I've wondered if what this issue needs is for someone (yours truly) to take a few film articles where there is overwhelming consensus that a major plot twist exists ... and start to find a way, IF one exists, to utilize the spoiler notice in a way that is consistent with the few contingencies that most parties agree to. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the articles I have seen spoiler notices in have the problem that the notices are in the "plot" section. It's not just the existence of a plot twist that warrants a spoiler tag, but the combination of a plot twist mentioned in a location that wouldn't ordinarily mention plot twists. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the real issue now for valid spoiler notices — this is with the caveat that I'm now a moderate whose view is not shared by those further out on the poles of this issue — ... is for the few articles (I can think of some films) in which a spoiler is necessary to discuss themes and parallel motifs in the story. The Prestige and Blade Runner are likely candidates. Those who want to wrangle with WP:POINT might want to investigate those films in which such an opportunity exists. One such example is Dead of Night, a 1945 film with a twist ending. Tehre's a story I heard back in 1977 that some astrophysicists saw the film together, then subsequently concocted a revolutionary theory of time-space continuity inspired by the twist ending. Discussion of this would not be in the Plot section (maybe after). And ... well, no one's yet broached the contingency in which a spoiler occurs lower down in an article below the Plot section. Is a spoiler notice warranted? >:) (I'd vote YES, as the section layout of film articles offers readers hypertext abilities to read out of sequence.) - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say pop it into a section called something like "Real life theory derived from the twist ending." Then everybody's happy, including anybody who might happen to have heard of such a theory and can now find it by scanning the contents list. Much better a big fat section heading than a weedy little notice. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume you're being facetious. Better a discreet spoiler notice than a section heading which infers, "Here be a section which doth contain spoilers." I think some film articles already have sections titled Influences or "Derivations" or such, a section to discuss remakes, homages, etc. Dead of Night certainly influenced a number of "omnibus" type films later, and there have been "remakes" of some of the stories. But! In the case of the twist ending, a spoiler notice would be valid in an Influence section if discussing the surprise and how it inspired something else. Anyone who can't see this compromise might be "rule-making" just to support a personal bias against spoiler notices OF ANY KIND. Personally, I prefer Template:spoiler as it is, than a big section heading as proposed above. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very serious, but I think you've completely misunderstood what I've said. My proposed section heading says "Real life theory derived from the twist ending." This is informative and useful because it will appear in the contents list and precisely describe the contents of the section. There is no spoiler warning there. I'm not saying we can't have another section called something like "Scenes in other films inspired by the twist ending". In fact I think that would be an excellent thing to have. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but at least as Wikiproject Films is concerned, I think we're trying to have consistent section headings. Proposing an ad hoc section which deals with the spoiler (e.g. "Issues raised by the twist ending," "Public response to the plot surprise") sounds too much like the renegade habit of making hand-crafted spoiler warnings. Or at least, could be seen as encouragement. Frankly, if you want WP to seem "scholarly," like oh so many Britannicas, section headings like that seem out of place. Just my own reaction, I might feel differently if/when I see it in practice. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The False-Comfort Argument Against Spoiler Warnings

I have had the morbid pleasure of being involved in this discussion, on and of, for quite a while now. One of the major difficulties I see with the debate is that the anti-spoiler camp has pro-spoiler camp has a very easy

I want to encapsulate what I, personally, see as the major argument against spoilers. And I want to name it, arbitrarily, so I can refer back to it later. This, then, is what I call the false-comfort line of reasoning.

The presence of spoiler warnings anywhere in wikipedia provides an assurance to the reader that wikipedia is a “safe place” as far as information is concerned. Any information that might upset them is going to be carefully labeled and put in a little cabinet, like a chemical they may, perhaps, be allergic to. In fact, however, these warning labels are only used in one specific way: to protect people who suffer when they get advance information about plot twists in popular fictional media.

We have, in past versions of this discussion, argued extensively about this boundary: should their be spoiler warnings in articles like Romeo and Juliet, or in The Bible, or in Bowling for Columbine? Generally, we are agreed that their shouldn’t be. Moreover, we are emphatic about the fact that the text and graphic content of certain other kinds of articles should not be compromised in any way to protect the reader’s sensibilities. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and contains numerous articles that can easily discomfit people who have been victims of abuse, survivors of genocide, recovering addicts, ideologues of any stripe, etc. etc. We have an elaborate intellectual justification for these policies.

The problem we face is that the boundary between these two kinds of articles is very fluid and above all very complicated. We can imagine, for instance, that two readers both go to the Nightmare on Elm Street page, neither one having seen the movie before. Reader A complains that the page has no spoiler warnings. Reader B, a rape survivor, complains that the page has a series of triggering images: Nancy Thompson trapped and in fear, Nancy being fondled in her sleep by Freddy Krueger’s knives, etc. It is prima facie absurd—or worse—for wikipedia to say that A has a legitimate complaint to be “shielded” from the content on the page, while B ought to know better than to go around looking at wikipedia. I believe it is this absurdity that people reduce to the straw-man phrase “real encyclopedias don’t have spoilers.”

We can and should sell the argument that it is not wikipedia’s job to protect people with PTSD or narrow-minded ideological sensitivities. We can (and are) also selling the argument that it is wikipedia’s job to protect Harry Potter fans. But it is inherently confusing and counter-intuitive to make both claims. Moreover, there’s a matter of demographics. The user editing the fictional-media pages that spoiler warnings are designed to “make safe” is often much younger and newer than many other wikipedians. Two years down the road, when they have lost interest editing the minor characters in the Fruits Basket universe and has started editing pages on geopolitics, we somehow need to convey that there is a complex, counter-intuitive, and somewhat arbitrary distinction between the way you edit Yuki Sohma’s page and the way you edit Bill O’Reilly’s page. In fact, what we are trying to convey at that point is the Big News that information is not safe, and never can be entirely safe, and the entire sense of comfort we have provided for them with spoiler warnings was a mirage. So…why provide that illusion of safety in the first place? Ethan Mitchell 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, though I wonder why you mention you've been involved, but don't seem to be a recognizable name. Still, I can't find much fault with the above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice though it is to imagine Misplaced Pages as a paradigm-busting brew that's too harsh for simpering sensitives, it is totally wrong. Misplaced Pages is censored. There's official censorship in the form of WP:BLP. How long before that is extended to cover other things? There's religious censorship on Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh (facial images shunted downwards to avoid offence). Virtually none of our articles on sex have photos, using drawings, wood carvings, pottery or other 'safe' alternatives. Ethan's comment about addiction tweaked my interest, so it of little surprise to see that our articles on Cocaine, Heroin and Cannabis have no photos of anyone using them.--Nydas 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In the cases of drugs, it's most likely illegal to have such pics, unless they were taken from a movie or something, in which case they likely would be against the rules for other reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If films can depict it, why can't we?--Nydas 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)