| Revision as of 15:16, 24 April 2015 editFrietjes (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors1,002,017 editsm Clean up duplicate template arguments using findargdups← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:52, 23 November 2024 edit undoMelodia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,917 edits →Spoilers on ongoing or very recent media: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (585 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| | archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | | archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 200K | | maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 18 | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 7 | | minthreadsleft = 7 | ||
| | algo = old(14d) | | algo = old(14d) | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| | indexhere = yes | | indexhere = yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes|age=14|index=/Archive index|bot=MiszaBot II| | {{archives|search=yes|age=14|index=/Archive index|bot=MiszaBot II|auto=long| | ||
| Other archives: | Other archives: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Spoiling in lead sections about fictional characters and episodes == | |||
| == Proposal == | |||
| I have been working on ''Cheers''-related articles. I read that spoilers are normally discouraged in lead sections. How would the general discouragement affect character pages, like ], ], ], and ]? I already spoiled their last appearances to readers. Also, I am doing my best to not put too much in intros of episode pages, like ], ], ], and ]. --] (]) 04:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I propose that for movies and television shows that there should be a basic information summary outlining the plot or episode in question. It is no fun having your show ruined reading the episodes list, when it gives you the whole show wrapped up in a a couple of sentences. If someone wants to create a special page for individual episodes, they are free to do so and there they may provide as much information as they want. | |||
| This way there is BOTH a shortened summary for people who do not want their shows spoiled and a page for people who want detailed information. | |||
| We are not removing information from Misplaced Pages but providing more of it, in a better viewing environment. | |||
| ] (]) 03:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :If the spoilers significantly aid readers in understanding the topic, you shouldn't worry about the spoilers being in the lead. As long as the spoilers are not unnecessary or gratuitous and are covered lower in the article, there's not a solid Misplaced Pages rationale for keeping them out of the lead. ] (]) 10:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Most episodes do not have the ] to substantiate a stand-alone article nor should plot summaries be split off of the main article. This is a form of censorship as you are attempting to "hide" the plot summaries. Plot sections are already clearly labeled and so are episode lists (so its your own fault for reading them). And finally, we only need one summary for a television show or film. There is no reason to have two different summaries and would come into conflict with ], which states that plot summaries must be concise. I would suggest that we add an explanation of why the spoiler guideline is the way it is similar to what I've ]. —''']''' (] | ]) 03:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Principle of least astonishment. If I google a character, I'm likely just interested in figuring out who is the actor or something. Thus if you place a 'spoiler' before mentioning who plays the role, than that might be annoying for people. When you start discussing the origins of a character, I can expect that next in the discussion will follow what happened to the character, and thus I can choose to stop reading. If you place the demise of the character before the origin, than you didn't really give me a chance. Just create a little bit of contextual separation. All within reason of course, this is quite different for characters known just for their demise. For instance ]. —] (] • ]) 11:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Spoilers ''per say'' are not discouraged from the lead. Quoting from the quideline: "Spoilers are no different from any other content..." So you should be guided solely by whether the content serves an appropriate encyclopedic purpose. For example If the content is central, or important to understanding the subject of the article, then it probably should go in the lead, otherwise not. That it might in someone's opinion be a "spoiler" should not enter into it. ] ] 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are some shows which already have both an episode list, and individual pages for individual episodes. In fact, there are even some which have a master episode list (with no plot summaries), per-season lists (with brief summaries) and per-episode pages (with detailed summaries). In such cases, I would argue (and have argued) that there is room for sensitivity in the brief summaries without compromising encyclopaedic standards - in the brief summary it may be more relevant to the episode's significance to describe the nature of the spoiler than to detail it. For example, the brief summary of a certain episode of the '80s series Dallas might include that "Bobby returns", leaving it to the episode's page to describe how he returns. Obviously, in the case of Dallas, there aren't pages for individual episodes, so the details of Bobby's return can only go in that brief summary. I'm not arguing that episode pages should be created to house spoilers, but that where episode pages already exist, it is a small annoyance to people looking for that detail (and any other details of the plot not found in the brief summary) to have to follow a link from the episode list, and avoids a large annoyance to people who, for example, wish to look up the previous episode and are unaware that the newest episode has aired. | |||
| I expanded and reworked the leads in , , and . I hope my spoiling the details in the ledes help readers adequately understand the characters without ruining their enjoyments (or anticipation). ] (]) 04:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::In essence, I'm arguing for spoilers to be included as a specific example of the general principle that the brief summary of an episode which has its own page should be more selective in what to include than that of an episode where the only place for notable information is that summary. ] (]) 15:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::that sounds to me to be more of an issue regarding ] that a spoiler issue since it is entirely possible that a event in a episode could be important for the individual episode but but not for the overall work.--] (]) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| My question is along these lines. For most TV shows, there are short "episode summaries" on pages for each season - should these summaries for active TV shows include "spoilers", especially when such spoilers aren't yet certain? One example is when a major character is apparently killed at the very end of an episode, yet that apparent death isn't itself the focal point of the episode - yet the show has shown in the past that "dead doesn't always mean dead". I'm not talking Game of Thrones "Snow is stabbed several times by mutineers, including Thorne and Olly" or Dallas "J.R. while working late at the office, is shot." But more Battlestar Galactica "Col. Tigh poisons his wife Ellen" (which is *NOT* in the season-page episode summary.) In the instance I am really curious about, the latest episode has a major-but-not-the-main character apparently killed in the final shot of the episode. Yet this series has shown the ability to "bring back from the dead" characters. Yet the summary for that episode specifically calls out "...fatally injured..." We don't actually know for certain, and it would be a *HELL* of a spoiler for an active TV show for someone who hasn't watched that episode yet. (All the other details are fairly obvious details one could deduce simply from the "preview" shown at the end of the previous episode.) ] (]) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :In my opinion these kinds of spoilers are OK: All spoilers on the general article of a certain movie, trilogy, book, tv series etc. and Season X spoilers on the season X page etc. However it is not OK to put spoilers about season X+n on the article of season X. For example, it is OK to write that a character dies in season 3 on the general page of that series (as long as it is written for example under heading "Season 3") and on the season 3 page but NOT on the pages for season 1 and 2. I think this should be clarified in the guidelines.] (]) 23:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see that as being more of a case relevance than a spoiler issue. The reason being the fact character dies in a future season has nothing to do with particular episodes that predates the death. The death should only be covered regarding the episode that it occured, or possibly a plot summary on the main page for the series (if the death is significant to the overall story). In other words we don' need in a section of a hypothetical episodes summary in a season 1 article with Jake robs the bank (he will later die in the second to last episode of season 5) since it would be irrelevant to the actions in that episode and I doubt that anyone would complain with that removal.--] (]) 00:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As has been repeated several times now, whether a plot detail is a "spoiler" or not should onto be taken into consideration about what plot details to include in a summary. If future information changes the ''interpretation'' of a plot detail, then change the detail so that it remains descriptive of the events that occurred at that particular time in the plot. —''']''' (] | ]) 11:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) == | |||
| :Addressing a more specific aspect of your post, we write about fiction in unfolding present tense, describing events as they happen. So it would seem to me that if a character "died" in an episode, we would write from the perspective of the present and indicate that the character was poisoned to death. A later summary would reveal our discovery of the twist, that the character was not actually dead. Similarly, if a character underwent gender reassignment, we would probably not retroactively change names and pronouns, because at any point prior to the event, we see the character as gender A, not B. This approach doesn't require consideration about whether the reassignment is a spoiler or not. Rather, we don't mention the reassignment until the in-universe reality occurs. Hope that helps. ] (]) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| While the argument that a section titled plot should be expected to include possible spoilers may be proper, it is also contrary to general use on the Internet and subverts the expectation of many readers. It seems to me one need not compromise either: create a template which splits a plot section into "premise" (or "blurb") and "synopsis" (or "details" or "plot"). The premise would be a brief outline of the subject without revealing spoilers, the synopsis delves into detail. Premise might contain unobtrusive green cues and synopsis red ones. This avoids censorship, improves readability and meets general reader expectation.--] (]) 10:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would consider, in the first case, saying that the character is "seemingly" poisoned to death if I had the awareness the character was returning later. If that apparent death was that notable in reactions (I'm thinking the case of the end of ] with Glenn's fate a matter of major discusison on the Internet), then the article on the episode 1) likely can be created if it doesn't and 2) more context can be given there, knowing what will happen in the future. --] (]) 13:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :However, Misplaced Pages is not intended to be like most other websites. After all, Misplaced Pages doesn't have spoiler warnings in the first place. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to give information that is as complete as possible, no matter how offending it may be (well, except for BLPs, we have high standards for their articles, but that's another story). Separating the sections could potentially cause technical problems, but also is a form of censorship in itself, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. Misplaced Pages isn't IMDb either. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : I just looked at ] article and there way too many spoilers before the "Episode Summaries". For instance in the "cast description" section. Tommy Shelby has an OBE, there was no need to give that away, he's introduced in series one as a having a KGM, even that's too much; decorated would have done. Then next are Polly's children, in a breath two series of plot are given away. A summary of her character was all that was required here. I'm scared to read the rest of the article, I've only started watching it. The projects goal as I understand it is to enhance the topic, not blow away the plot right from the start. A quick scan suggests to me there is little or nothing there about the many liberties the programme has taken with history. OK it's a fine line to draw between information and spoilers, but I thought the spirit of the Wiki policy is not give plot away until at least the Episode summaries. --] (]) 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Reference works (''e.g.'' ]) on fiction don't contain spoilers either - ] (]) 11:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::No that is not the "spirit of the Wiki policy". Wiki policy makes no distinction between "Spoilers" and any other content. As this page says: "'''Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers.'''" ] ] 17:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yet the guideline states "''A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves.''" and "''When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.''" The guideline knows what spoilers are and that there are cases where they should not be included. ] (]) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::With ''any'' content, an encyclopaedic purpose should be served when including it. "SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!" is just as inappropriate in the lead section of ] as "Irn Bru is popular in Scotland". That one of them is considered a "spoiler" makes no essential difference. —''']''' (]·]) 09:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That one of them is considered a spoiler does make a difference. It is a spoiler that is not needed whatsoever. If it (some mention of it) was needed in the lead (because it was career-defining for Rowling) and was de-capitalized (since capitalization is part of the inappropriateness there), that would be a different story. But the guideline specifically notes that spoilers should not be included unless needed, although its use of "unless needed" is currently conveyed with "an encyclopedic purpose," which, as past discussion has shown, is vague and abused on this site. ] (]) 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::They aren't encyclopedias. An encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages is all about complete information. For more information on this guideline, read the section ]. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, speaking of Dumbledore's death (which I personally don't mind being spoiled on, mainly because I already knew that he dies), I see that the lead of the ] article does not mention that aspect. Good. It's too often that people plop character deaths in the lead of Misplaced Pages articles as if the deaths are actually needed there. ] (]) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course there is a rationale to the current policy. That doesn't mean it is beyond examination. What I am proposing isn't an attempt at censorship, but an approach to accommodate the various arguments into a coherent model. Dividing plot into premise and synopsis does not pre-empt authorship, but guides it into established expectations. If the opposing argument rests upon proper adherence to the conventions, it follows the same applies to divide plot into premise and synopsis with their assigned function. ] (]) 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Beyond the philosophical arguments, excluding "spoilers" is absurdly complicated. There are numerous topics which cannot be discussed independent of their conclusions. The broad impact of, for instance, the Christian gospels depends, in large part, on the final act. Not thrilled with the example? Fine, how about ''The Crying Game''? Isn't "Nothing happens. Twice." a spoiler for ''Waiting for Godot''? Discuss the plots of Star Wars V and VI without "spoiling" IV? Can't be done. Discuss "Gilligan's Island" without giving away that they don't get off the island in episodes 1, 2, 3, 4... Doesn't ] "spoil" ]? How much knowledge of a plot "spoils" it? While there are some plots that hinge on one element for the meaningful ending, more complex stories have numerous elements that exist throughout the story. - ] (]) 02:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The fundamental issue is conflicts between conventions of Misplaced Pages and usage on the Internet in general. Most are barely noted, with "spoilers" an oft discussed exception. The topics you raise fall outside this category, as the scope of a section on discussion and analysis are generally understood. It is mostly in plot, though there are others, in which usage diverges. Plot can be formatted to align conventions, but, you are right, it does not address other conflicts.] (]) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. The majority of the Internet is not. ] (]) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. The discussion is indeed about the difference. ] (]) 17:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The fundamental assumption of this proposal is that spoiling may be prevented by presenting the information in (sub)sections with titles which mean the same on Misplaced Pages as elsewhere. While the original proposal was limited to dividing plot into premise and synopsis, the same aproach may limit spoiling for articles as a whole. That said, while an examination of jargon as a solution is an interesting idea to me, I doubt whether articles could be (sub)sectioned unambiguously either in theory or in practice. | |||
| How can we get a policy change for spoilers to not be in the cast list section? Stranger Things 4 is getting spoiled, a giant huge character reveal. I see no reason behind spoiling in the cast list and it's so frustrating for those in control to see absolutely no issue with it. Yet, many viewers of all types of shows are expressing their displeasure about that. In Stranger Things case, the character was given a fake name to not give away the spoiler. The own network hides it. And just the idea of spoiling something in a cast list. I can not tell you how frustrated I am. We should be able to glance at articles and not see huge spoilers unless we click on the episode summaries. This would save so many headaches. ] (]) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| While I will not pursue this proposal further, I would like to note the defense of the existing policy on grounds of non-censorship, or unlimited information. As you value freedom of expression, you should value the informed choice of the audience. | |||
| :Our policy is that once something has wide public availability, such as availability of episodes on a streaming service, then Misplaced Pages treats it as verified information, and we are not going to mark or hide spoilers. --] (]) 16:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| The proper thing would be a visible but forgetable icon along the top. Perhaps a red jigsaw with an exclamation mark in the Misplaced Pages globe, linking to the a summery of its policy. ] (]) 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :To readers, the issues of spoilers is the case of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Once they understand that information at WP is unbridled, they shouldn't go there on works that have been released to try to learn more if they are completely trying to be spoiler free. Too many people come here trying to consider WP as a replacement for Google when it is never our intent. There are tons better sites for most of these works to learn about the topic that are dedicate to those types of works and can avoid spoilers. --] (]) 18:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::This page is filled with what this site is and is not, but little explanation as to what the downside is to pointing out the difference to readers who are unaware of it or its implications. ] (]) 12:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Spoilers of works in biographies of real-life persons == | |||
| The issue here is that by quoting this page people seem to justify spoilers all over a page, I will use the ] as example: where are we "serving encyclopedic purpose" by putting major spoilers in a section, the cast one, that is usually as neutral as possible? The encyclpodic purpose of some section should be to give just some basic information, especially if it's marked with an innocent title like "cast". ] (]) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I think the issue is too general to describe. Therefore, I'll provide two specific scenarios. In Scenario A, a biography of a novelist contains spoilers about non-notable works that s/he wrote. How much spoilers can the biography appropriately contain, especially if a work may not garner enough notable reviews for a stand-alone article? For example, ]. | |||
| :I do see your point, of just wanting to look up the cast list and having the show spoilt, and how annoying that is. It's hard to avoid that, given an important function of Misplaced Pages ''as an encyclopedia'' is to be a Cliff's Notes - something that really has to precis for you everything relevant that there is to know about a given work. One way to look at it that may be useful: it's an encyclopedia - a complete compendium of everything - so treat it like it's '']'' - what would you expect to see in the article if House of Cards was 500 years old? Write it up in those terms - ] (]) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also dislike when people use the Spoiler guideline to try to justify putting spoilers any and everywhere. Like the guideline states, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." It can be encyclopedic not to include spoilers just for the sake of including them, especially in the case of works where the brilliance of that work hangs on it not being spoiled; '']'' immediately comes to my mind in such a case (and its Misplaced Pages article is currently careful not to spoil the ending, except for in the Plot section and Production section), and some aspects of the '']'' series quickly come to my mind as well in such a case. Time and again, we get readers who complain about Misplaced Pages having ruined a story for them because of spoilers; often times, these people are not only spoiled by the Plot section, where they should expect spoilers, but needlessly by the lead or a random place in the article. ] (]) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| In scenario B, a biography of a novelist contains some spoilers of notable novels that the person wrote. What if both a biography and an article about the notable novel exist? How much a biography can contain spoilers about a notable work? For example, ] and ]; ] and ]. --] (]) 01:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == The guideline was getting fat == | |||
| :Generally, we shouldn't be going into too much detail on the plot of a book in the author's bio page, even if the book is non-notable. However, if it is necessary to mention the "spoiler" in a one or two-sentence paragraph/summary (which may be reasonable to include), then it's probably okay. --] (]) 01:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| This happens. I've removed a lot of superfluous baggage from the page. --] 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :+1 - ] (]) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Whether a plot detail is a "spoiler" or not should not be taken into consideration when determining if said plot details should be in an author's biography. Instead, retaining or removing plot details should be based on whether it is part of the sourced critical commentary relating to the author and serves an encyclopedic purpose. —''']''' (] | ]) 01:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Editorial "courtesy" == | |||
| ::Indeed, quoting from the quideline: "Spoilers are no different from any other content..." ] ] 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :The correct answer is: whether it's a spoiler or not should absolutely be given no consideration whatsoever, and by 2017 this shouldn't even be a question that needs asking - ] (]) 12:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I'm perfectly OK with no spoiler warning, but I do wonder if there's some recommendations to avoid "giving away more information than needed", at least in the opening section. Basically, using "John Fender is a character from McExample who appears as a supporting character introduced in the second season..." instead of "John Fender is a is a character from McExample who is the previously unknown father of Protagonia", "...who appears in seasons two to three and returns in the ninth", or "... who kills Madame Evil in the finale". There are some cases where the spoilers are inevitable in explaining the importance of the character (such as the lead of a movie whose first rule prohibits me from discussing it). On the other hand, discussing John McClane doesn't need a mention of the Gruber brothers unless when discussing their specific films. | |||
| :Do we really want spoilers to occur any time, any where? I just got head-butted by a big spoiler in a biography of an actress who is starring in a currently running series. This article focuses on the use of spoilers in articles about works of fiction, and I think by now we users are getting trained to be on guard when consulting Misplaced Pages about works of fiction. Double that for Wikia, which gives the "status" of a character right up front. But biographies of actors or writers? C'mon!--] (]) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Of course, such recommendations are not to be taken with a grain of salt, as there are several "nonstrictly plot-related" sections where spoilers may be necessary (for example, discussing the actors who portray a character, critic commentary, etc.). | |||
| ::As suggested above, it's possible that a plot twist related to a particular part is unnecessary detail in the biography of a performer. But that isn't always the case. I don't think we could have a reasonable article about ], for example, without giving away the plot twist in his debut role. Either way, the general point is that whether a piece of information belongs in an article or not is decided based on other factors, not based on whether or not that information is a spoiler. --] (]) 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Summary: it's OK to include spoilers when discussing fiction, but a bit of consideration should be put into '''where''' they're appropriate. | |||
| ::Of course it's fully plausible someone wrote in what spoiled you with malicious intent or even innocent that just shouldn't be there. But again, if the information is pertinent (such as something about the person that very relevant to their notability and is a spoiler) than yes, it SHOULD be there. As for Wikia, that has zero to do with Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| And yeah, I do realize a well-written page implicitly structures itself as this. But a note won't hurt anyone. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :: I have been looking up actors. Specifically, since I am watching old Perry Mason shows, and looking up the actors (familiar faces), I often run across the statement "So-and-so played the murderer (murderer's name) in the Perry Mason episode Such-and-such." We do not yet have articles for each Perry Mason episode as we do for "Star Trek" and "The Outer Limits" and it is fine with me if that kind of article contains the surprise ending or other spoilers in the "Plot" section. However, I think they have no place in biographical articles about actors. It is sufficient to note that the actor appeared on that show, and perhaps the name of his character. The spoiler is not part of his biography. It does not serve an encyclopedic purpose, unless he made a career of playing murderers, which should definitely be part of his bio. I think that doesn't address this directly. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Eric | |||
| :IP, I'm generally against spoilers in the lead, and I noted so in the ] section above. I generally don't see any benefit to it at all, unless it's minimal spoiler information...such as a general summary that does not give away major spoilers (especially any plot twists), or unless the major spoiler is such a defining moment for the character that it should be mentioned in the lead. Having worked on various television and film articles, with some of them being ] or ] articles, I have never, or perhaps hardly (to be more precise), seen the benefit of including a major spoiler in the lead. Including that material only serves to anger our readers; I've seen such anger time and time again. And we should be thinking about our readers on such matters, not ourselves. So I completely understand where you are coming from on your above post, and I believe that the WP:Spoiler guideline should state something along the lines that care should be taken when deciding on whether or not to include a major spoiler in the lead. But with as little traffic as this WP:Spoiler talk page gets, the only way to get sufficient change regarding the "Yes, yes, to spoilers. Don't delete information simply because it's spoilerish." crowd is to start a ] here on this talk page, preferably a wide-scale WP:RfC. As stated in the aforementioned section above, people including spoilers everywhere in a Misplaced Pages article and pointing to the WP:Spoiler guideline as justification for that is ridiculous. Anyway, I decided to pop back up at this talk page after a recent comment I made in at ]. For the character articles of that series, editors (me included) have generally been keeping the "this character died" aspect out of the lead, and I think that's the right thing to do. ] (]) 05:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This page does address it, in that it states that such information should serve an encyclopedic purpose and is not required to be included if it does not. Further discussion on the topic belongs on the articles' talk pages or some other project page, and you'd do best to focus on the "does not serve an encyclopedic purpose" argument rather than that it's a spoiler. ]] 11:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :If the information is relevant, then we include it whether it's a spoiler or not. If it's not relevant, we don't include it, whether it's a spoiler or not. ] (]) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Spoilers in crime detective synopses == | |||
| == Spoiler Alert/Warning for WP readers (not Editors) == | |||
| I would like to see the policy regarding spoilers in tv episode synopeses updated. Including spoilers in tv show episodes ruins any enjoyment for viewers of the show. By example, ] includes a spoiler, while the other episodes do not, and that one description cannot be changed due to the policy of not making edits to remove spoilers. As was pointed out earlier in this talk page, " the guideline states "A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves."" ] (]) 18:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :That is clearly against the intent of "Misplaced Pages does not hide spoilers". Readers coming to episode articles on a detective/procedural drama show before having viewed it themselves are reading at their own risk, as once the episode has aired, we consider all parts of it fair game. (It would be different if there was a leak that only few had access to) --] (]) 19:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :That a piece of information may or may not be a "spoiler" is irrelevant for our encyclopedia's purpose. The only relevant issue is whether the information is or is not encyclopedic. So a piece of information which serves ''only'' to "spoil" is inappropriate. While a piece of information which is encyclopedic ''is'' appropriate, whether or not it is a "spoiler". ] ] 00:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-free content, like images, spoiling plot points == | |||
| its stated that "''Please do not read the following plot summary if you have not seen the film as it has major spoilers, especially since the film is a crime thriller''." | |||
| I've been wondering. Are images and other non-free content spoiling a plot appropriate as lead images, or must they be pushed down into body, like either Plot section or Reception section? E.g. a non-free screenshot in ], which I uploaded. --] (]) 06:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| is given here also. | |||
| :My comment immediately above, applies here as well. ] ] 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Spoilers damage the usefulness of an encyclopaedia. == | |||
| As We know movies come in different genre , so every movie genre should have different rules.Some editors told me that WP actively rejected spoiler warning claims . I think WP should reconsider. '''I am not against writing full movie plots''' , But some warning must be given to the readers . Every movie page don't need warning for spoilers . ''But there must be a scope for the editors to reach a consensus whether spoiler warning is required for a particular movie or not''.My first question on Tea House was about movie spoilers , and i was told to come here . | |||
| An encyclopedia at its most fundamental is not simply a receptacle of facts. It is a useful collection of facts categorised and arranged in a way that is most convenient and helpful to a reader. The current stance of Misplaced Pages with regards to spoilers is essentially caveat emptor, the reader is not safe to look up basic information about a person or character or even tangentially related subjects. If the reader does not feel safe to use Misplaced Pages then what is it good for? The encyclopedia should strive to present the information in a way that allows the reader to choose what information they wish to access. It should be properly labelled and arranged into sections. It should also do no harm so as to be safe to use. Information that can serve as a spoiler should be restricted to well earmarked sections. For example, an article about Darth Vader should not include the characters birth name in the opening paragraph. If there is feasibly one person who does not have that knowledge, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to reveal a plot element in a work of fiction. It is the job of an encyclopedia to present pertinent information such as the fact that the character is mysterious and that his identity is a mystery. That is who Darth Vader is at the start of the original movie and the user has not requested information of 'character name', they requested information on Darth Vader. This was just an example. The point of an encyclopedia is to be useful, not to contain all facts regardless of how damaging those facts could be. ] (]) 14:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| If I read the plot of ] and] , then it won't affect the pleasure of watching the movie :: but if I read the wiki plot of ] , ] , it gives away the entire movie itself and spoils the fun of watching the movie . | |||
| :Useful to who, exactly? Describing the site's approach to spoilers as "damaging" seems way too harsh, and generally the spoilers are always included in places you'd expect to see them. Reading a plot summary or a character's biography and being annoyed that the plot was spoiled is more on you than it is on the site for not giving a proper heads-up. For that matter it only applies to readers who are sensitive to spoilers, which isn't everyone. With out long spoiler headings haven't existed on the site, by now every reader going to Misplaced Pages will know to watch out for certain sections of articles, or just not to visit certain pages before they've seen a work. ] (]) 15:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| And movies like ] and ] can be grouped in the middle where knowing the story can spoil half the entertainment (as they are Sci-Fi or fantasy genre).I know why "Why spoiler warnings are no longer used". But I am asking only for those movies belonging to Mystery Genre and which has some twist in the story ('''Mostly importantly a new movie''' ) | |||
| ::Also, Misplaced Pages has removed spoiler warnings form article over fifteen years ago so if there was going to be significant damage we would have seen obvious signs of this years ago.--] (]) 01:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Democracy? == | |||
| i am not asking for spoiler alert in case of classic thrillers like ] or for ] novels.] (]) 18:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Looking at the talk page archives it seems that the majority of contributors were in favor of retaining the templates? Or are there aspects I don't understand? ] (]) 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :We're an encyclopedia and meant to comprehensively cover a topic. That includes the plot and revealing the ending even if is commonly considered a spoiler. You shouldn't be using an encyclopedia to learn about a work if you are trying to stay away from spoilers about the work itself. --] (]) 18:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : For one thing, ]. After a very large amount of discussion, it seems consensus settled on not having spoiler warnings. ]] 11:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Help me understand == | |||
| :: All Wiki readers are not editors . 99% of those who read WP don't edit. In a zeal they might read the full plot in case of new releases and later on regret . '''I am talking about teens or kids also . Internet access is easy . Teenagers don't have patience''' . Why should we spoil their fun. If we google search a movie name , first the IMDb page appears at the top followed by Wiki page or the Wiki page comes at the top followed by IMDB page.I am mentioning this once again that I am not against writing of full plot including twist ending '''but some warning must be given for the readers if the story is full of twist and turns'''. I don't want spoiler warning for Jurassik Park type movies ] (]) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The warning is implicit that they are on a comprehensive encyclopedia which is going to go into all details about the work. They should be aware that there will be spoilers here without any warnings, and thus if they only want to learn a brief summary, to go to another site. Further, what is a spoiler to one may not be a spoiler to another, so it is a very subjective thing, hence why we got rid of them. --] (]) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Proclaiming any specific plot detail as a spoiler is, frankly, ]. We also have a strict guideline of ], of which a "spoiler warning" would be such a disclaimer. —''']''' (] | ]) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I am an editor who has for a long time opposed the removal of "spoiler warnings". I do however respect the policy. What I see often is non-reliably sourced material written as original research to define character arcs/episode summaries. I just encountered entire character arc sections (with spoilers of course) on a very well known tv show where not one of the character sections had a single citation. Should I just tag the whole character section as needing better citations? What policies are protecting these sections from being entirely deleted? I imagine there is an over-arcing policy that allows for tv shows to be defined without citations? There just seems to be way to many non cited summaries in the entertainment sphere of Misplaced Pages. I do find myself wanting to branch out into editing more entertainment articles but I would like clarification on this issue first. ] (]) 16:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: So —''']''' (] | ]) , if it becomes original research , then if anyone can find a reliable source that which part of the movie is plot spoiler it can be included . --] (]) , it's a subjective thing but that's what i wrote at the beginning and gave examples of movies. I started this discussion only for those movies whose genre is '''Mystery and Suspense''' according to Rotten Tomatoes. If we visit the Rottentomatoes page of a movie and find Mystery and Suspense is included as a genre then either we should give a spoiler warning or there must be restriction on editors to write the plot for at least six months after the release date. As after that the movie won't be running in theatres.] (]) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Roughly, anything purely descriptive is ok without citations per ], but any interpretation would need secondary sources. (Some editors would prefer citations also for the plot, but that is not the current policy). —] (]) 17:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If several reliable source discuss a specific plot point being a "spoiler", that is something that may be included in the reception section, but it is not something that will justify a disclaimer in the plot section (which is a descriptive summary only) or in the lead. It doesn't matter what genre the work is. —''']''' (] | ]) 02:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Interesting, I appreciate the explanations. I had a feeling something like MOS:PLOTSOURCE must be driving the entertainment articles. ] (]) 14:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) The issue you raise: {{tq|non-reliably sourced material written as original research to define character arcs/episode summaries}} has nothing really do with "spoiler warnings". Any "non-reliably sourced" content ''may'' be removed (See ]). However the general practice for questionable content is to first add a ] tag. ] ] 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] I don't think it would be disruptive editing if we include it in the sub-heading like this : | |||
| ::'''Plot''' {Warning- Contain spoilers} . | |||
| ::If we can find reliable reference about which part of the movie has twist in the story.] (]) 08:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Spoilers on ongoing or very recent media == | |||
| :::It would still be contrary to Misplaced Pages's "no disclaimer in articles" guideline. Also, you have yet to provided a justification as to why a disclaimer will improve or help maintain Misplaced Pages. We don't provide disclaimers on articles with medical information. We don't provide disclaimers on article with content some may find offensive. Those would be more useful a disclaimer about spoilers. On top of that, we cannot be selective of which articles gets spoilers. Mystery and suspense are no more "special" genres than fantasy, science fiction, comedy, drama, etc. No top of that, the done on spoilers how affect people enjoyment of a story has shown that they do not lessen someone's enjoyment, instead they have the exact opposite affect. And finally, if you are reading a section titled "Plot", it is because you want to know what the plot is, including its spoiler. A disclaimer isn't going to be of any help except be a sign yelling "READ ME" (which is the whole point of why media uses spoiler disclaimers in the first place). —''']''' (] | ]) 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'm in agreement with other posters that spoilers, especially those in lead sections and/or episode summaries spoils the viewing for other people. In any case, what is the policy for these spoilers? Just like other information, doesn't this information need to be independently verified and have a source? ] (]) 22:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:The policy is that the age of the info isn't relevant. ] (]) 05:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::] (])Most people who visit WP don't know what it is(Encyclopedia) and most don't know about five pillars of WP . Lets say a 12 year old boy reads the plot of The Sixth Sense before watching the movie . And when he will watch the movie , he won't find any thrill as he already knows the plot twist. ] (]) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::CosmicEmperor, I know how you feel. I noted in the ] and ] sections above that Misplaced Pages should do better about not spoiling its readers, especially as far as the lead goes and with works that have twists that will significantly affect the readers' experience if spoiled on them. ] (]) 02:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::So then maybe what we need to do is post at the top of every article a description of what an encyclopedia is, rather than a spoiler alert? Look, I get your arguments, {{ping|CosmicEmperor}}, but they're entirely emotional. Misplaced Pages is not a babysitter. Promoting ignorance is the exact opposite of what an encyclopedia does. If a parent took objection that our article on Santa Claus spoilt his daughter's Christmas, would you argue that any content about Santa being a myth should be removed or disclaimed? There is a greater academic purpose that is intended here. ] (]) 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] I am not asking for every page . Only for those movies which come under "Mystery and Suspense" according to ] (or any other reliable source where the genre is Mystery). In ] only at the end it was revealed who is the half blood prince. Let kids and teens read the full plot. Before reading the plot they should be aware that they will read the plot twist .Even after that warning if they read the full plot then I don't have objection.] (]) 08:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Cyphoidbomb}} I think ] came with a logical conclusion that spoiler warning might force people to read the spoiler . But in that case I suggest ,we should not write the full plot summary of Fiction Novels/Stories for six months after the publication of the novel :: And the same goes for all movies (excluding documentary movies). Only small plot synopsis should be allowed . After six months of the book/movie release , one can write the full plot summary . This is not the right place to disquss that , I have to move somewhere else] (]) 04:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This may be surprising, but there are students in the world who might benefit from understanding the entire plot of a recent work. Students of film, television and literature, for example. And even people working in these industries would benefit from the knowledge, as it is presumably difficult to see every new movie, watch every new TV series, read every new book. Understanding the rough structure of the work would be critical for them. Misplaced Pages is not an entertainment site, it's an encyclopedia. It's where people go for ''information'', not for the ''lack'' of it. And your six month argument isn't going to help anything. TV shows, for example, are often released at different times across the world. Though you might "save" one demographic, you'll "spoil" another. I've seen lots of spoiler removals at '']'' because people who just got the series in their countries feel that some of the content spoils their experience. It's been more than six months since the series was released. What's the difference? Waste of time, this. ] (]) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == What about just moving possible Spoilers at the Very End for Recent Released Movies? == | |||
| I understand Misplaced Pages policy on being as "complete" as possible and that is understandable. | |||
| But, putting spoilers at the very top of articles for recently released Movies in my opinion would not benefit some users. | |||
| All I am asking is to just move all spoilers to the very end of the article, no special sections or warnings needed. | |||
| Most people read a webpage from top to bottom. | |||
| Once they have all of the information they need would normally stop. | |||
| So in these cases if a user does not want to know any spoilers they would stop reading once they have all of the information they needed. | |||
| Maybe for Movies list first information that a "Movie" goer would want to know before seeing the movie. | |||
| Like cast members, over all plot and things that were contain in trailers and etc. | |||
| Then after a "Before Seeing" the movie information, include additional information afterwards. | |||
| Keeping spoilers at the very end and that is it. | |||
| Nothing special or additional steps for editors :) | |||
| We need to provide usefulness for all different users intent. | |||
| 1. Information to decide whither to see the movie or not. | |||
| 2. Information about the entire movie | |||
| Both intents can be provided useful information with out "Censorship" just by having "Before seeing Movie" information listed first at the top and then additional information about the movie listed below towards the bottom. | |||
| Don't see why that is so hard to do? | |||
| Can anyone else explain any issues with this? | |||
| ] (]) 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No, once something is available for a reasonable size of the public, its material that should be covered in the article. We're not here to help people decide to see a movie or not (that's not the purpose of an encyclopdia), we're here to discuss a movie in comprehensive nature, so we don't use spoilers for this. --] (]) 05:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Masem, | |||
| I understand your point. | |||
| I guess my question would be more specific to movies then. | |||
| Take a look at this: | |||
| ] | |||
| In the cast section is it correct to include events that happen in the movie in the cast section? | |||
| ''Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of an assassin killed by Bond.'' | |||
| Should that be in another section then? | |||
| Being "killed" is an event, that happens during the movie and not specifically describes who that person is? | |||
| Who a person is: "Alessandro Cremona as Marco Sciarra, an assassin and husband of Lucia Sciarra." | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| Brian Davis | |||
| ] (]) 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :If someone doesn't want to know the plot, then they should be reading the plot section, which is always clearly labeled. If they don't want to know details about the characters, they shouldn't be reading the character/cast section either. We don't change the organization of an article because of so-called "spoilers". Instead, we should write articles without concerning ourselves about what is and is not a "spoiler". As for the specific detail you are complaining about, it isn't even a spoiler. It is a description about a specific character is in the film. —''']''' (] | ]) 09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Spoilers are Needed == | |||
| I encourage you to follow this simple line of logic: | |||
| *1. Spoilers can ruin a media experience. | |||
| *2. Misplaced Pages's goal is to inform about media. | |||
| *3. Misplaced Pages cannot inform about media if it spoils media. | |||
| *4. Misplaced Pages spoils some media in its articles. | |||
| *5. Spoiler warnings would prevent spoiling of media, and therefore allow Misplaced Pages to inform about media. | |||
| *6. Therefore, spoiler warnings should be used. | |||
| A simple small font warning is a very simple solution to this problem. The community did not have a problem with what the admins perceived as "too many spoiler warnings." A poll would show this. | |||
| As of now, Misplaced Pages spoils multiple media, and continues to do so as long as there are no spoiler warnings. I was made aware of this silly debate after I myself was spoiled by an article. | |||
| '''This is a problem, and it needs to be fixed.''' <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : I completely agree with the following above ] (]) 03:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|74.100.90.194}} Your logic is flawed for many reasons. Point #3 is an unsupported assertion based on a garbage premise that an encyclopedia exists to preserve enjoyment. An encyclopedia exists to provide the academic service of delivering information about a topic, not to obscure it or to hide this information. A much simpler line of logic involves one step: 1) If you don't want your enjoyment spoiled, don't go to an encyclopedia to learn about the subject. ] (]) 05:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Using that logic, perhaps I should follow your advice and not access Misplaced Pages to see how good a movie is, how much it got at the box office, who the actors are, what the budget was, where the film is made, or any of the other hundreds of pieces of information, because "I don't want my enjoyment spoiled" as you said. | |||
| ::That's hilariously incorrect. People have a right to see relevant movie information without having the movie ruined for them. It's the same reason Quentin Tarantino tore up his script and started over when it leaked online. It's the same reason why no one wants you to talk about the storyline of a movie if they haven't seen it. And it's the same reason every movie company on Earth forces all employees to sign waivers to not discuss anything about what they are working on. | |||
| ::Whoever decided against spoilers made a poor decision, one that constantly affects hundreds each day. Spoilers are necessary to have on Misplaced Pages. Period. They should be implemented as soon as possible.] (]) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, first of all, you're all over the map. You're arguing for the ''inclusion'' of spoilers, but what you actually mean is that you ''don't'' want spoilers, '''or''' that you want "spoiler alerts". You should probably get your own position clear if you're going to try lecturing people about logic. Secondly, the logic is only hilarious if you know nothing about logic. You snuck in a statement that is a ] ], because one of your arguments is basically just another form of your conclusion. Your argument is "We need spoiler alerts because Misplaced Pages cannot inform about media if it spoils media." But when was it established as a fact that that Misplaced Pages cannot convey information about media if it spoils media? You need to first support the "Misplaced Pages can't do X if it spoils media" part of your argument before you build your entire argument around it. Not even sure what your point is about Tarantino's script. That was ''stolen'' before it even became a movie. That's not even close to the same thing as writing a general plot summary for a published work that's already out for consumption. ] (]) 04:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree, no one is suggesting that we should be stealing unpublished scrips and placing them on Misplaced Pages so the Tarantino issue is irrelevant. I also don't see how placing spoilers means that we can't inform about media since that would literally be a case of informing people about certain aspects of media.--] (]) 00:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Disagree''' Misplaced Pages isn't censored, if you want to avoid spoilers why are you looking up a article about the topic? all the spoilers will typically be in a section for "plot" or "Synopsis" and if you're too dumb to avoid that you're likely able to suspend your disbelief no matter what and any movie will entertain you :P I don't mean to sound rude but I don't see a need for spoilers at all. ] (]) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It appears as though Misplaced Pages is not, as I had initially anticipated, a true source of unbiased and properly structured information. If the policy truly is that no one should look up ANY information about ANY topic whatsoever if they simply do not want to have that topic spoiled, even if the information being looked up is something as innocuous as how well the movie did so as to determine whether or not one should SEE the movie, and if such a policy cannot be changed through clear logic due to a few members' fear of change (adding a tiny warning or simply not including possible spoilers), Misplaced Pages is not suitable as an information source. I hope that this is wrong and that a higher-rank moderator observes the obvious need for such a simple system and is able to make such a change. But so far, even with multiple users in agreement, nothing has happened. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :We're not here as a consumer guide, which is what you're trying to get at; our goal on movie articles, for example, is not to give information for a reader to determine if they should see a movie or not. Instead, our goal is to established contextually what the relative importance of that movie is within the entertainment industry and to the rest of the world, if it should have that type of impact. That's what being a comprehensive educational resource is all about. You're asking for something far different than WP's main purpose. --] (]) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|74.100.90.194}} You continue to make unrealistic, overly-simplified emotional arguments, your previous claims of "logic" have been fundamentally flawed. Obviously you haven't processed any of that, since you haven't acknowledged any of it. Bias has nothing to do with including plot summaries in articles. Nobody has said that you shouldn't look up ANY information, and anybody with a shred of sense knows that an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you ''don't'' want information. That's like opening a phone book and getting upset that there are phone numbers in it. Encyclopedias are where you go when you ''do'' want information. If you're on a quest to suppress spoilers, ask your local libraries if they're willing to post spoiler warnings so that people who haven't yet learned how the US Civil War turned out, or that Tupac and Eazy are dead, won't have their experience "spoiled". Maybe this is indicative of problems in the Internet age--people of your age have never seen a paper encyclopedia? I don't know. Lastly, you've been at this for 2 weeks. Either participate more regularly in the discussion, or drop the stick. Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox, and we're not here to help you perpetuate a months-long complaint. This topic should be quickly closed if you don't have anything more constructive to add than a complaint you've already espoused several times. ] (]) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The specific "spoiler" that the IP was originally trying to remove form Misplaced Pages was such a minor plot detail, most reasonable people wouldn't even call it a spoiler. In fact, the IP was even going so far as to change the context of a quote in order to remove the specific plot detail. Which exemplifies the problem with labeling plot details as spoiler. Each person's view of what plot details "spoil" the work is different, and to cover all bases, all plot details would have to be considered spoiler. But that is just as silly on its face, like labeling all people who drink alcohol are drunkard or alcoholics. On top of that, the one study conducted on spoiler demonstrated that knowing key plot details ahead of time does not actually decrees the enjoyment of the work. On the contrary, it had the exact opposite effect as the participants payed more attention to clues and foreshadowing. —''']''' (] | ]) 11:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow. That is not a "spoiler". That is the '''premise'''; her sneezes cause problems. That's like not mentioning in the article on '']'' that the crew was shipwrecked on a desert isle. ] (]) 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: A whole new level of ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Spoilers are only necessary on racing cars. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This is my final attempt to ensure Misplaced Pages's policies do not fall into disrepair. This forum is designed (or appears to be designed) to allow each person to speak equally. If not even this can change things, I don't know what else will. I will go over every single point. Please take the time to understand what I am saying, as I am attempting to be very clear here. | |||
| :We're not here as a consumer guide, which is what you're trying to get at; our goal on movie articles, for example, is not to give information for a reader to determine if they should see a movie or not. Instead, our goal is to established contextually what the relative importance of that movie is within the entertainment industry and to the rest of the world, if it should have that type of impact. That's what being a comprehensive educational resource is all about. You're asking for something far different than WP's main purpose. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A comprehensive educational resource is a great goal, Masem, however there are limits to everything. You have certain contraints in place. Quotes are avoided if there are frequent swear words. Gory details are withheld or only briefly summarized, when they would otherwise provide more information to the topic. By doing these things Misplaced Pages is indeed catering to a specific audience. Perhaps if I was asking for something incredibly specific that only affected a very small minority, I would need a much stronger argument to change the status quo, but spoilers affect everyone. | |||
| :@74.100.90.194: You continue to make unrealistic, overly-simplified emotional arguments, your previous claims of "logic" have been fundamentally flawed. Obviously you haven't processed any of that, since you haven't acknowledged any of it. Bias has nothing to do with including plot summaries in articles. Nobody has said that you shouldn't look up ANY information, and anybody with a shred of sense knows that an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information. That's like opening a phone book and getting upset that there are phone numbers in it. Encyclopedias are where you go when you do want information. If you're on a quest to suppress spoilers, ask your local libraries if they're willing to post spoiler warnings so that people who haven't yet learned how the US Civil War turned out, or that Tupac and Eazy are dead, won't have their experience "spoiled". Maybe this is indicative of problems in the Internet age--people of your age have never seen a paper encyclopedia? I don't know. Lastly, you've been at this for 2 weeks. Either participate more regularly in the discussion, or drop the stick. Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox, and we're not here to help you perpetuate a months-long complaint. This topic should be quickly closed if you don't have anything more constructive to add than a complaint you've already espoused several times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I will look past the intense aggression and negativity to answer the small argument you have made. You have still not addressed my refutal of your argument if no one should look up any information, then to naturally avoid spoilers (as anyone would want to do before watching something) they should restrict themselves access to all of Misplaced Pages, not just the Plot sections (which would obviously have spoilers). Think about what this means. You’re saying they shouldn’t look up the “Reception” section on Misplaced Pages because they don’t want to be spoiled. Why else would they look at the Reception section but to see whether or not the media is good enough to enjoy? Spoilers are fine in Plot because they are obviously going to be present, but in a section someone would read before watching media, spoilers are wrong. | |||
| :The specific "spoiler" that the IP was originally trying to remove form Misplaced Pages was such a minor plot detail, most reasonable people wouldn't even call it a spoiler. In fact, the IP was even going so far as to change the context of a quote in order to remove the specific plot detail. Which exemplifies the problem with labeling plot details as spoiler. Each person's view of what plot details "spoil" the work is different, and to cover all bases, all plot details would have to be considered spoiler. But that is just as silly on its face, like labeling all people who drink alcohol are drunkard or alcoholics. On top of that, the one study conducted on spoiler demonstrated that knowing key plot details ahead of time does not actually decrees the enjoyment of the work. On the contrary, it had the exact opposite effect as the participants payed more attention to clues and foreshadowing. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A study does not mean that spoilers should be pushed into people’s faces. That indeed breaks the rules of Misplaced Pages’s concept of neutrality. Additionally, my edits are not part of the discussion. In terms of what can be thought of as a spoiler, it is a simple “Would it ruin a viewer’s experience knowing this information before watching it?” | |||
| Wow. That is not a "spoiler". That is the premise; her sneezes cause problems. That's like not mentioning in the article on Gilligan's Island that the crew was shipwrecked on a desert isle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A whole new level of WP:LAME. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Spoilers are only necessary on racing cars. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Your argument is directly attacking me, not refuting the argument. Please review my previous texts. I would have liked to continue this argument, however I cannot put more time into what may just be an exercise in futility. | |||
| :I’m not sure how much clearer I can state this. Spoilers are bad. Almost everyone would agree with that. That is a fact. If you somehow don’t believe that, look it up for yourself. Misplaced Pages has spoilers and, given the current policy and arguments, it is completely acceptable that you should never look at a movie, book, or other media page if you do not want to have your experience ruined, even if it something as innocent as the release date (“an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information”). If you are truly too uneasy to do a poll that would reveal that the majority of users do not want Misplaced Pages spoilers WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY EXPECTED (that is, not in the Plot section etc.), perhaps you do indeed realize that I am speaking the truth. In which case, are you merely unwilling to accept change? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| ::I can understand why you're feeling attacked, though I'm doing my best to focus on your arguments. I'm sure you're a swell person, but I don't see any merit to anything you've argued so far. Here's my simple response: | |||
| ::* Your first post was a list of "logic" steps that wasn't a logical progression at all, because your third point was based on a false assumption. | |||
| ::* You have an opinion that spoilers are bad, we get it. That doesn't make it a fact, and that doesn't mean that everything is a spoiler, or that Misplaced Pages must preserve your enjoyment of any fictional work. | |||
| ::* Your opinion is not consistent with consensus. And consensus isn't determined through voting, so your poll suggestion isn't really relevant. | |||
| ::* Your last comment suggests you don't even understand the spoiler guidelines. You wrote "the majority of users do not want Misplaced Pages spoilers WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY EXPECTED (that is, not in the Plot section etc.)" But the Plot section is absolutely the place where you'd expect spoilers. And potentially in the character section too. Maybe this was a simple case of you accidentally using a double-negative? I don't know, but if you think spoilers don't belong in Plot sections, that is the exact opposite of what is expected. | |||
| ::* You haven't provided any specific examples of content you found to be spoilers, thus {{u|TheFarix}} provided some diffs. In those examples, you were absolutely wrong to remove information that a character's sneezes cause a complication in the storyline. That's not a spoiler, that's a key plot point, and should reasonably appear in a review of the film as well as a plot description, provided it wasn't a trivial joke. That's like criticizing a movie trailer for "spoiling" a battle between The Avengers and the Chitauri by showing action-packed scenes. It's absolutely not the same thing as saying in a review, "Audiences will be surprised to learn that the kid in ''The Sixth Sense'' can see dead people" or "Audiences will be surprised to learn that Darth Vader is Luke's father". | |||
| ::* If you have a problem with this content appearing in reviews of the film, take it up with the reviewers who generated the content. Why should it somehow be the Misplaced Pages community's concern that you don't like how Ket Smith revealed a plot point in a review of the movie? And under what existing guideline or policy should the content be removed, in your opinion? | |||
| ::Again, unless you have a more substantive argument to present, this topic should probably be closed. ] (]) 01:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:52, 23 November 2024
 | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||
Index
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
Other archives: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Spoiling in lead sections about fictional characters and episodes
I have been working on Cheers-related articles. I read that spoilers are normally discouraged in lead sections. How would the general discouragement affect character pages, like Diane Chambers, Rebecca Howe, Sam Malone, and Frasier Crane? I already spoiled their last appearances to readers. Also, I am doing my best to not put too much in intros of episode pages, like I Do, Adieu, Home Is the Sailor (Cheers), One for the Road (Cheers), and The Show Where Sam Shows Up. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- If the spoilers significantly aid readers in understanding the topic, you shouldn't worry about the spoilers being in the lead. As long as the spoilers are not unnecessary or gratuitous and are covered lower in the article, there's not a solid Misplaced Pages rationale for keeping them out of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Principle of least astonishment. If I google a character, I'm likely just interested in figuring out who is the actor or something. Thus if you place a 'spoiler' before mentioning who plays the role, than that might be annoying for people. When you start discussing the origins of a character, I can expect that next in the discussion will follow what happened to the character, and thus I can choose to stop reading. If you place the demise of the character before the origin, than you didn't really give me a chance. Just create a little bit of contextual separation. All within reason of course, this is quite different for characters known just for their demise. For instance redshirts. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Spoilers per say are not discouraged from the lead. Quoting from the quideline: "Spoilers are no different from any other content..." So you should be guided solely by whether the content serves an appropriate encyclopedic purpose. For example If the content is central, or important to understanding the subject of the article, then it probably should go in the lead, otherwise not. That it might in someone's opinion be a "spoiler" should not enter into it. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I expanded and reworked the leads in Sam Malone, Diane Chambers, and Rebecca Howe. I hope my spoiling the details in the ledes help readers adequately understand the characters without ruining their enjoyments (or anticipation). George Ho (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
My question is along these lines. For most TV shows, there are short "episode summaries" on pages for each season - should these summaries for active TV shows include "spoilers", especially when such spoilers aren't yet certain? One example is when a major character is apparently killed at the very end of an episode, yet that apparent death isn't itself the focal point of the episode - yet the show has shown in the past that "dead doesn't always mean dead". I'm not talking Game of Thrones "Snow is stabbed several times by mutineers, including Thorne and Olly" or Dallas "J.R. while working late at the office, is shot." But more Battlestar Galactica "Col. Tigh poisons his wife Ellen" (which is *NOT* in the season-page episode summary.) In the instance I am really curious about, the latest episode has a major-but-not-the-main character apparently killed in the final shot of the episode. Yet this series has shown the ability to "bring back from the dead" characters. Yet the summary for that episode specifically calls out "...fatally injured..." We don't actually know for certain, and it would be a *HELL* of a spoiler for an active TV show for someone who hasn't watched that episode yet. (All the other details are fairly obvious details one could deduce simply from the "preview" shown at the end of the previous episode.) 71.193.197.92 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- As has been repeated several times now, whether a plot detail is a "spoiler" or not should onto be taken into consideration about what plot details to include in a summary. If future information changes the interpretation of a plot detail, then change the detail so that it remains descriptive of the events that occurred at that particular time in the plot. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Addressing a more specific aspect of your post, we write about fiction in unfolding present tense, describing events as they happen. So it would seem to me that if a character "died" in an episode, we would write from the perspective of the present and indicate that the character was poisoned to death. A later summary would reveal our discovery of the twist, that the character was not actually dead. Similarly, if a character underwent gender reassignment, we would probably not retroactively change names and pronouns, because at any point prior to the event, we see the character as gender A, not B. This approach doesn't require consideration about whether the reassignment is a spoiler or not. Rather, we don't mention the reassignment until the in-universe reality occurs. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would consider, in the first case, saying that the character is "seemingly" poisoned to death if I had the awareness the character was returning later. If that apparent death was that notable in reactions (I'm thinking the case of the end of Thank You (The Walking Dead) with Glenn's fate a matter of major discusison on the Internet), then the article on the episode 1) likely can be created if it doesn't and 2) more context can be given there, knowing what will happen in the future. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just looked at Peaky Blinders (TV series) article and there way too many spoilers before the "Episode Summaries". For instance in the "cast description" section. Tommy Shelby has an OBE, there was no need to give that away, he's introduced in series one as a having a KGM, even that's too much; decorated would have done. Then next are Polly's children, in a breath two series of plot are given away. A summary of her character was all that was required here. I'm scared to read the rest of the article, I've only started watching it. The projects goal as I understand it is to enhance the topic, not blow away the plot right from the start. A quick scan suggests to me there is little or nothing there about the many liberties the programme has taken with history. OK it's a fine line to draw between information and spoilers, but I thought the spirit of the Wiki policy is not give plot away until at least the Episode summaries. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- No that is not the "spirit of the Wiki policy". Wiki policy makes no distinction between "Spoilers" and any other content. As this page says: "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." Paul August ☎ 17:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- And yet the guideline states "A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves." and "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." The guideline knows what spoilers are and that there are cases where they should not be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- With any content, an encyclopaedic purpose should be served when including it. "SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!" is just as inappropriate in the lead section of J. K. Rowling as "Irn Bru is popular in Scotland". That one of them is considered a "spoiler" makes no essential difference. —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- And yet the guideline states "A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves." and "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." The guideline knows what spoilers are and that there are cases where they should not be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- No that is not the "spirit of the Wiki policy". Wiki policy makes no distinction between "Spoilers" and any other content. As this page says: "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." Paul August ☎ 17:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- That one of them is considered a spoiler does make a difference. It is a spoiler that is not needed whatsoever. If it (some mention of it) was needed in the lead (because it was career-defining for Rowling) and was de-capitalized (since capitalization is part of the inappropriateness there), that would be a different story. But the guideline specifically notes that spoilers should not be included unless needed, although its use of "unless needed" is currently conveyed with "an encyclopedic purpose," which, as past discussion has shown, is vague and abused on this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Also, speaking of Dumbledore's death (which I personally don't mind being spoiled on, mainly because I already knew that he dies), I see that the lead of the Albus Dumbledore article currently does not mention that aspect. Good. It's too often that people plop character deaths in the lead of Misplaced Pages articles as if the deaths are actually needed there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
How can we get a policy change for spoilers to not be in the cast list section? Stranger Things 4 is getting spoiled, a giant huge character reveal. I see no reason behind spoiling in the cast list and it's so frustrating for those in control to see absolutely no issue with it. Yet, many viewers of all types of shows are expressing their displeasure about that. In Stranger Things case, the character was given a fake name to not give away the spoiler. The own network hides it. And just the idea of spoiling something in a cast list. I can not tell you how frustrated I am. We should be able to glance at articles and not see huge spoilers unless we click on the episode summaries. This would save so many headaches. Daleylife (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Our policy is that once something has wide public availability, such as availability of episodes on a streaming service, then Misplaced Pages treats it as verified information, and we are not going to mark or hide spoilers. --Masem (t) 16:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Spoilers of works in biographies of real-life persons
I think the issue is too general to describe. Therefore, I'll provide two specific scenarios. In Scenario A, a biography of a novelist contains spoilers about non-notable works that s/he wrote. How much spoilers can the biography appropriately contain, especially if a work may not garner enough notable reviews for a stand-alone article? For example, Sheila Walsh (novelist).
In scenario B, a biography of a novelist contains some spoilers of notable novels that the person wrote. What if both a biography and an article about the notable novel exist? How much a biography can contain spoilers about a notable work? For example, Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice; J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter. --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Generally, we shouldn't be going into too much detail on the plot of a book in the author's bio page, even if the book is non-notable. However, if it is necessary to mention the "spoiler" in a one or two-sentence paragraph/summary (which may be reasonable to include), then it's probably okay. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Whether a plot detail is a "spoiler" or not should not be taken into consideration when determining if said plot details should be in an author's biography. Instead, retaining or removing plot details should be based on whether it is part of the sourced critical commentary relating to the author and serves an encyclopedic purpose. —Farix (t | c) 01:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, quoting from the quideline: "Spoilers are no different from any other content..." Paul August ☎ 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The correct answer is: whether it's a spoiler or not should absolutely be given no consideration whatsoever, and by 2017 this shouldn't even be a question that needs asking - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do we really want spoilers to occur any time, any where? I just got head-butted by a big spoiler in a biography of an actress who is starring in a currently running series. This article focuses on the use of spoilers in articles about works of fiction, and I think by now we users are getting trained to be on guard when consulting Misplaced Pages about works of fiction. Double that for Wikia, which gives the "status" of a character right up front. But biographies of actors or writers? C'mon!--Bluepost22 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- As suggested above, it's possible that a plot twist related to a particular part is unnecessary detail in the biography of a performer. But that isn't always the case. I don't think we could have a reasonable article about Jaye Davidson, for example, without giving away the plot twist in his debut role. Either way, the general point is that whether a piece of information belongs in an article or not is decided based on other factors, not based on whether or not that information is a spoiler. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Of course it's fully plausible someone wrote in what spoiled you with malicious intent or even innocent that just shouldn't be there. But again, if the information is pertinent (such as something about the person that very relevant to their notability and is a spoiler) than yes, it SHOULD be there. As for Wikia, that has zero to do with Misplaced Pages. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have been looking up actors. Specifically, since I am watching old Perry Mason shows, and looking up the actors (familiar faces), I often run across the statement "So-and-so played the murderer (murderer's name) in the Perry Mason episode Such-and-such." We do not yet have articles for each Perry Mason episode as we do for "Star Trek" and "The Outer Limits" and it is fine with me if that kind of article contains the surprise ending or other spoilers in the "Plot" section. However, I think they have no place in biographical articles about actors. It is sufficient to note that the actor appeared on that show, and perhaps the name of his character. The spoiler is not part of his biography. It does not serve an encyclopedic purpose, unless he made a career of playing murderers, which should definitely be part of his bio. I think that doesn't address this directly. Thoughts? Wastrel Way (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Eric
- This page does address it, in that it states that such information should serve an encyclopedic purpose and is not required to be included if it does not. Further discussion on the topic belongs on the articles' talk pages or some other project page, and you'd do best to focus on the "does not serve an encyclopedic purpose" argument rather than that it's a spoiler. Anomie⚔ 11:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have been looking up actors. Specifically, since I am watching old Perry Mason shows, and looking up the actors (familiar faces), I often run across the statement "So-and-so played the murderer (murderer's name) in the Perry Mason episode Such-and-such." We do not yet have articles for each Perry Mason episode as we do for "Star Trek" and "The Outer Limits" and it is fine with me if that kind of article contains the surprise ending or other spoilers in the "Plot" section. However, I think they have no place in biographical articles about actors. It is sufficient to note that the actor appeared on that show, and perhaps the name of his character. The spoiler is not part of his biography. It does not serve an encyclopedic purpose, unless he made a career of playing murderers, which should definitely be part of his bio. I think that doesn't address this directly. Thoughts? Wastrel Way (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Eric
- If the information is relevant, then we include it whether it's a spoiler or not. If it's not relevant, we don't include it, whether it's a spoiler or not. Popcornfud (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Spoilers in crime detective synopses
I would like to see the policy regarding spoilers in tv episode synopeses updated. Including spoilers in tv show episodes ruins any enjoyment for viewers of the show. By example, includes a spoiler, while the other episodes do not, and that one description cannot be changed due to the policy of not making edits to remove spoilers. As was pointed out earlier in this talk page, " the guideline states "A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves."" Sideriver84 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is clearly against the intent of "Misplaced Pages does not hide spoilers". Readers coming to episode articles on a detective/procedural drama show before having viewed it themselves are reading at their own risk, as once the episode has aired, we consider all parts of it fair game. (It would be different if there was a leak that only few had access to) --Masem (t) 19:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- That a piece of information may or may not be a "spoiler" is irrelevant for our encyclopedia's purpose. The only relevant issue is whether the information is or is not encyclopedic. So a piece of information which serves only to "spoil" is inappropriate. While a piece of information which is encyclopedic is appropriate, whether or not it is a "spoiler". Paul August ☎ 00:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-free content, like images, spoiling plot points
I've been wondering. Are images and other non-free content spoiling a plot appropriate as lead images, or must they be pushed down into body, like either Plot section or Reception section? E.g. a non-free screenshot in The Boys in the Bar, which I uploaded. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- My comment immediately above, applies here as well. Paul August ☎ 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Spoilers damage the usefulness of an encyclopaedia.
An encyclopedia at its most fundamental is not simply a receptacle of facts. It is a useful collection of facts categorised and arranged in a way that is most convenient and helpful to a reader. The current stance of Misplaced Pages with regards to spoilers is essentially caveat emptor, the reader is not safe to look up basic information about a person or character or even tangentially related subjects. If the reader does not feel safe to use Misplaced Pages then what is it good for? The encyclopedia should strive to present the information in a way that allows the reader to choose what information they wish to access. It should be properly labelled and arranged into sections. It should also do no harm so as to be safe to use. Information that can serve as a spoiler should be restricted to well earmarked sections. For example, an article about Darth Vader should not include the characters birth name in the opening paragraph. If there is feasibly one person who does not have that knowledge, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to reveal a plot element in a work of fiction. It is the job of an encyclopedia to present pertinent information such as the fact that the character is mysterious and that his identity is a mystery. That is who Darth Vader is at the start of the original movie and the user has not requested information of 'character name', they requested information on Darth Vader. This was just an example. The point of an encyclopedia is to be useful, not to contain all facts regardless of how damaging those facts could be. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:66E9:323D:C307:F271 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Useful to who, exactly? Describing the site's approach to spoilers as "damaging" seems way too harsh, and generally the spoilers are always included in places you'd expect to see them. Reading a plot summary or a character's biography and being annoyed that the plot was spoiled is more on you than it is on the site for not giving a proper heads-up. For that matter it only applies to readers who are sensitive to spoilers, which isn't everyone. With out long spoiler headings haven't existed on the site, by now every reader going to Misplaced Pages will know to watch out for certain sections of articles, or just not to visit certain pages before they've seen a work. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, Misplaced Pages has removed spoiler warnings form article over fifteen years ago so if there was going to be significant damage we would have seen obvious signs of this years ago.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Democracy?
Looking at the talk page archives it seems that the majority of contributors were in favor of retaining the templates? Or are there aspects I don't understand? Shoshin000 (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- For one thing, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. After a very large amount of discussion, it seems consensus settled on not having spoiler warnings. Anomie⚔ 11:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Help me understand
I am an editor who has for a long time opposed the removal of "spoiler warnings". I do however respect the policy. What I see often is non-reliably sourced material written as original research to define character arcs/episode summaries. I just encountered entire character arc sections (with spoilers of course) on a very well known tv show where not one of the character sections had a single citation. Should I just tag the whole character section as needing better citations? What policies are protecting these sections from being entirely deleted? I imagine there is an over-arcing policy that allows for tv shows to be defined without citations? There just seems to be way to many non cited summaries in the entertainment sphere of Misplaced Pages. I do find myself wanting to branch out into editing more entertainment articles but I would like clarification on this issue first. Eruditess (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Roughly, anything purely descriptive is ok without citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, but any interpretation would need secondary sources. (Some editors would prefer citations also for the plot, but that is not the current policy). —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, I appreciate the explanations. I had a feeling something like MOS:PLOTSOURCE must be driving the entertainment articles. Eruditess (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) The issue you raise:
non-reliably sourced material written as original research to define character arcs/episode summaries
has nothing really do with "spoiler warnings". Any "non-reliably sourced" content may be removed (See WP:UNSOURCED). However the general practice for questionable content is to first add a citation needed tag. Paul August ☎ 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Spoilers on ongoing or very recent media
I'm in agreement with other posters that spoilers, especially those in lead sections and/or episode summaries spoils the viewing for other people. In any case, what is the policy for these spoilers? Just like other information, doesn't this information need to be independently verified and have a source? Sideriver84 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- The policy is that the age of the info isn't relevant. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)