Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:51, 24 December 2007

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

This is, on occasion, a very busy discussion page. Newcomers are encouraged to read the copious archives.

Archives

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

Archive index Archive debate Misplaced Pages talk:Warn readers about spoilers/Archive 1 Misplaced Pages talk:Warn readers about spoilers Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Archive Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Archive2 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2 Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning/RfC Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive3 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive4 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive5 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive6 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive7 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive8 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive9 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive10 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive11 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive12 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive13 Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/archive14

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Time for action

Well, we can keep talking here until the cows come home, but that is ultimately going to be ineffective, given the success everybody has had so far at convincing the other party. So, briefly and concisely, here is what the "pro-spoiler" people can effectively do. Note that none of this will be effective unless there is some modicum of consensus supporting that particular viewpoint.

1. By our editing policy, you can edit any article that you believe contains spoilers, for instance to move perceived spoilers away from the lede, to warn people, or to otherwise change layout. People who disagree with such changes can likewise edit those pages to counter them, or find compromises or other solutions. As with any edit dispute, discussion on any particular article should be held on that article's talk page.
2. {{Spoiler}} was deleted via our TFD process, a decision which can be appealed at deletion review. This has already been tried once, but it can be tried again if need be - noting that you are unlikely to get a different outcome unless you bring new arguments to the table. Since the ArbCom doesn't deal with content decisions, and deletion review deals only with content decisions, a deletion review has no further appeal other than to Jimbo.
3. You can create a new template, provided it is fundamentally different from those templates that have been deleted so far, and see if people like it and want to use it. I have not seen any feasible suggestions for such a template so far, but that shouldn't stop people from trying. Templates that are not fundamentally different will be summarily deleted per deletion policy (which can be appealed as above).
4. You can discuss the particulars of {{Current fiction}} on that particular talk page. For instance, you can edit it to change its wording, or discuss on what manner of articles it should be placed, and for how long, or suggest that certain users be less quick in removing them.

Realistically speaking, that's pretty much it. Since this guideline reflects what people do (rather than the other way around), attempting to change its wording is going to be futile, unless one of the above actions is succesful first. To put it differently, product and process both trump policy, so changing policy is only effective through changing product or process first. Or, of course, people can choose to continue discussing it here for another megabyte or two, but that does not strike me as particularly worthwhile. >Radiant< 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note:Additional discussion between Radiant and Wandering Ghost moved to Radiant's talk page. Chaz 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I am very interested in the prospect of this page being under discussion. My assumption is that discussion differs from the previous state, and will not be marked by accusations of malfeasance, the throwing around of terms like "spoiler police," and the misrepresentation of editors and their bots' actions. My assumption is that it will result in a way forward - a proposal that can be shopped to wider policy forums like the mailing list and the village pump for community approval, given that the community has, at this point, endorsed the deletion of the spoiler template via a pretty uncontestable DRV (as "overturn" failed to achieve a majority, which is the basic numerical standard for undeletion).

In the hopes that it will help this discussion, here is what I would like to see out of a replacement for the previous spoiler system:

1. Evidence for broad and stable consensus. This is not impossible - to my knowledge nobody arguing against spoiler tags has not been confronted with some articles they have supported spoiler warnings on, at least temporarily.
2. Compliance with larger policy. That is, a new spoiler policy cannot be a policy that overrides more important policies - WP:WAF and WP:NPOV are both ones that were being egregiously damaged by spoiler tags in the past, and WP:NOR was occasionally a problem when things that were rather tenuously considerable as spoilers were tagged.
3. Compliance in spirit with WP:NDT. Previously spoilers existed as an exception to this policy for reasons that seemed to amount to "well that's the way we've always done it." That thinking has been, at this point, unsettled, and with good reason - the page contains no logic as to why spoiler tags would be an exception, and by all appearances spoiler tags suffer from the same six problems as other disclaimer templates (listed in NDT). If a new version of spoiler warnings is to be implemented, these warnings should either not be redundant with the general disclaimer on the site, or should have a clear consensus for a non-pragmatic change to NDT that allows some class of disclaimer templates.

I invite people to propose additional goals for a new spoiler policy, or to begin thinking about how these goals could be met, as opposed to engaging in personal attacks and other sniping. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1) is just a restatement of the anti-spoiler faction's veto power. Can you imagine a situation in which a spoiler tag could be kept regardless of your opposition? At best, it would allow a return to the 'no more than ten' attitude, in which spoiler tags are added to admin-favourite fiction for a couple of days, and then removed.

2) WP:NPOV has already been decisively trashed, given the vocal opposition to a worldwide view from you and others.

3) There's no problem with exceptions to policies. It can encourage more exceptions, which is not a problem as long as they are adequately discussed.

What I would like to see is a commitment to a worldwide view and a retreat from the user-blaming which often characterises open-source projects.--Nydas 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "current fiction" is better suited to a worldwide view. Though, notably, we seem to be consistent in our narrow view - tags are removed about as quickly from British shows as from American ones, and so it's not like we're using an American view as such. We're not even firmly on an English-speaking view - our anime and manga articles are untagged as well. So our view does seem worldwide, if routinely unsympathetic to spoiler concerns. I do resent the "admin-favourite fiction" attack, however - I sincerely do not see, looking at articles where I have vocally supported and vocally opposed spoiler tags, any bias towards spoiler tags in articles on texts I like. As for exceptions to policies, indeed - I have no problems with exceptions. What I object to is unprincipled exceptions. Why, of all the things that could offend or upset somebody that we cover in the general disclaimer, should we separately disclaim spoilers? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not take a 'out in the UK = out in the world' viewpoint any more than the US version. Two kinds of parochial don't add up to a worldwide view. In the early stages of this debate, Doctor Who (a big admin favourite) was taken as typical fiction, and spoiler warnings on it were given much more serious thought than on Bionicle or Le Carre novels. The exception is justified by the accessibility gain and the minimal nature of spoiler warnings.--Nydas 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it is not two kinds of parochial - we favor initial market of release in all cases regardless of market. We are consistent in this regard. That is not a parochial view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the very definition of parochial, consistent though it is. Given the difficulty even featured articles have with including worldwide reception info, whether it will be really be applied consistently is dubious.--Nydas 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that {{current fiction}} is being woefully mis-used and under-used. I would favor a fairly lengthy retention—a year or more—and not tied to the time of release in any particular market. This would address Nydas's concern about Misplaced Pages's parochial US/UK-centric view. Obviously it wouldn't address the concern of people who want spoiler warnings to be perpetual, but I think it would solve a good deal of the problem. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The current fiction template is excessively bureaucratic, so it's never going to be heavily used. Scrap the parameters and reduce the size of it and it might get easier to use.--Nydas 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A template is an inanimate object, and is not capable of being bureaucratic. The parameters are seldom used anyway, so I doubt they are an obstacle to adoption. I could hardly imagine its size getting any smaller. Assuming one wants it used at all, the obstacles are as follows:

• It tends to get quickly removed, so there is little incentive to use it.
• It doesn't have critical mass.
• It is poorly worded, and doesn't really convey any useful information.

At this point, {{current fiction}} needs to be overhauled or deleted. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am a bit surprised that {{current fiction}} didn't take off. I thought it could serve as a generic spoiler warning for recent works, answering to the demand for spoiler warnings that is strongest in the case of new releases. It was widely used on Harry Potter-related articles after the Harry Potter 7 book came out, but it was worded as a spoiler warning at that time, not a "poor writing may lie ahead" maybe-cleanup tag. I agree that it is completely useless in its current form: if it is a cleanup tag, it should describe problems the article has, not might have, and if it is a spoiler warning, it should not address potential problems of article quality at all. Kusma (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move this comment to Template talk:Current fiction if you believe it to be offtopic. Kusma (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's a spoiler warning then I think there's a questionable consensus for its existence. My understanding of what it is is that it's the equivalent of the current events tag for fiction articles - documenting things where we're kind of jumping the gun on inclusion and don't have all of the information that makes an encyclopedia article yet. Its essential meaning is "It's a bit too soon for this to be an article yet, but here's what we've got." Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I do think the discussion of {{current fiction}} is appropriate here, since the spoiler guideline refers to it.

The existence of a suitable substitute was one of the reasons given—though not the only reason—for deleting the former spoiler template. Yet, as soon as the spoiler template met its demise, the {{current fiction}} template was revised, crucially changing its emphasis.

It's true that most new articles about works of fiction lack critical commentary and real-world perspective. But those attributes often take years to develop. There are some Misplaced Pages articles on extremely old works for which critical commentary is lacking. If we need a template to flag articles that lack real-world commentary, it shouldn't be a template that is usually removed within a few weeks after the work's release.

I also think that the hair-trigger criteria for removing {{current fiction}} have worked to its disadvantage. Why bother adding it if it is going to be so quickly deleted? Also, editors tend to work by analogy: they see something in one article, and they apply it in other articles. If it were allowed to last a bit longer, it would start to get a toe-hold.

And finally, I think there should be customized versions for the major genres, e.g., {{current film}}, {{current video game}}, and so forth. Editors don't naturally think of video games as "works of fiction" (though they technically are). A template that automatically puts the right wording at the top of the page will gain wider acceptance. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

When I created the current fiction tag, my goal was to find a spoiler warning tag that could be the focus of a compromise on spoiler warnings. Its purpose was intended to be a spoiler warning, phrased neutrally, and not interfering with article structure or quality. I thought that the recent changes degraded that function. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, that was never my sense of what the tag was or should be - essentially an article-top spoiler warning that is mildly discrete and avoids the word "spoiler." I think the issue is not so much the lack of critical commentary in the article, but the lack of existent critical perspective - an article that, by necessity, is only about plot information. Which is distinct from Template:Cleanup fiction-as-fact - the version of the tag for works where a real-world perspective is readily available. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have to say that after a brief read of the linked discussion I'm not sure how much support there was to use the template as a pseudo-spoiler warning. I guess I agree the most with Phil, in thinking that the template is similar to the current events tag, informing the reader that the article is still in its infant stage and may have a few issues. Chaz 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there was little support initially. Some editors wanted spoiler tags on all spoilers (which is no longer possible) and others wanted no spoiler warnings at all (which the current fiction tag fails, but it was intended as a compromise). There was more support at the deletion discussion for the spoiler template, where people cited current fiction as a possible alternative. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Phil nor Chaz has addressed my main concern. If you're worried about articles that lack critical perspective, then {{current fiction}} isn't getting the job done, and won't get the job done, because that type of perspective usually takes years to develop. For example, in the article on Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, the plot synopsis is the longest section, and the section on "Themes and Motifs" is just two skimpy paragraphs with just one footnote. In the article on Timon of Athens, the "Critical Response" section has an original research tag, and it has been there for more than six months. Both plays are about 400 years old.

So if you're concerned about articles lacking real-world perspective, your time frame generally needs to be far, far longer than the typical longevity of the {{current fiction}} tag. That tag, on the other hand, has often been cited as a suitable substitute for in-line spoiler tags, and this guideline mentions it in that context. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference is that current fiction describes a lack of possible real-world information, whereas other tags describe a failure to put the information into the article. In the first case, real-world information is not merely omitted buy not readily available. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to this guideline, 2007-12-08

I think this part of the current guideline:

Misplaced Pages contains revealing plot details of fictional works; this is expected. Concerns about spoilers must not interfere with article quality.

..should be changed to:

Articles often contain spoilers. Editors are free to add spoiler warnings to articles. Editors should be prepared to explain why they consider the information a spoiler if the spoiler warning is challenged. This should be discussed on an article's talk page.

I think this part of the current guideline:

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists.

..should be changed to:

A spoiler is a piece of information that may spoil a surprise. Someone telling you that other people are planning a surprise birthday party for you is one example of a spoiler. Spoilers typically refer to events in fictional works, although other kinds of information are often called spoilers. Information commonly referred to as spoilers are plot twists, the endings of films, results of sporting events, methods to perform magic tricks, secrets, surprises, etc. Readers should avoid reading the articles for films they have not seen yet if they wish to be surprised when watching the film. Spoiler warnings may not appear before every spoiler on Misplaced Pages, so readers should keep that in mind.

Spoiler warnings are not disclaimers. A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally-recognized relationship.

I think this part of the current guideline:

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning. In Misplaced Pages, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Misplaced Pages carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer.

..should be changed to:

Spoilers on the Internet are often preceded by a spoiler warning. On the Internet, spoilers are sometimes made invisible by making text the same color as the background — this is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. On Usenet, spoilers are often encrypted with ROT13 encryption — this is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. On the Internet, spoilers are often preceded by multiple blank lines called "spoiler space" — this is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Many Internet users expect to see spoiler warnings before they read spoilers. Editors are free to put spoiler warnings before any material they consider to be a spoiler.

Editors should not remove spoiler warnings if another editor considers it a courtesy — this would be like editing a user's talk page and removing all instances of "please", "thank you", and "your welcome." If an editor is bothered by spoiler warnings, they are advised to realize that other readers consider them a courtesy and removing them may be construed as incivil. Removing a spoiler warning can create a atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. If a reader thinks spoiler warnings are unnecessary, they are advised to realize that they are not the only person who reads Misplaced Pages. If an article about a book contains a spoiler warning, it accommodates readers who don't want the book spoiled for them, and it accommodates readers who want to know everything that happened in the book. Spoiler warnings do not censor information.

Disputes over whether certain information is a spoiler can be supported by references to external sources. When a reliable source (such as a newspaper or magazine) uses a spoiler warning in a review of a fictional work (such as a film, book, video game, comic book, etc), editors can mention who gave the spoiler warning and cite the review and place it at the beginning of a plot summary.

I think this part of the current guideline:

As an exception, some recently released work of fiction may carry a {{current fiction}} tag, which is usually removed a certain period of time after the work has been published — typically between a week and a month or two, though this is a matter for editorial judgement. You should consult the relevant WikiProject for a given subject for more details. See similar templates in Category:Temporal templates.

..should be changed to:

Articles for recently released works of fiction (such as films, television episodes, video games, etc) may carry a {{current fiction}} tag. If an editor considers a fictional work to be no longer recent, removal of the tag should be discussed on an article's talk page.

I think this part of the current guideline:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, WP:LEAD).

..should be changed to:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Spoiler warnings should be used instead. If information in a plot summary does not have an inline citation, it is acceptable to ask for inline citations with the {{missing citations}} tag in order to give other editors time to provide them. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Misplaced Pages: avoid original research." If material is left unsourced for a long period of time, it is acceptable to remove it per the policy on verifiability.

Those are my proposals. Any comments or criticisms are welcome. --Pixelface (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors are not free to add spoiler warnings to articles. If they were, we wouldn't have deleted the spoiler template. Editors are, in fact, discouraged from doing so. The definition of disclaimer does not make sense - disclaimer enjoys a more casual meaning as well. And, furthermore, the general site disclaimer warns about spoilers, so it seems clear that we consider spoiler warnings a disclaimer. Your suggestion of not removing spoiler warnings is both silly (as it would have led to an inability to remove the stupidest of stupid spoiler warnings) and unsupported by current consensus and practice. The analogy to removing "please" and "thank you" on a talk page makes no sense. No consensus exists for your proposed version of how plot summaries should be written. Those are my problems. In short, your proposal is flawed in fundamental regards, and deeply unsuited to being enshrined as a policy or guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you suggest some alternative wording than the wording I proposed? --Pixelface (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The current wording of the guideline seems adequate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you unwilling to come to a compromise? --Pixelface (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Far from it. But I still think the current wording of the guideline works, is backed by practical consensus, and is good. If you want to change it, the onus is on you to come up with a proposal to do so. The one you floated here was not a good proposal. If you want to come up with another one, I will be eager to look at it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made multiple proposals. Could you please address each one? --Pixelface (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I did above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this proposal is too flawed for serious consideration, mainly for the reasons already enumerated by Phil. I'd suggest that any future proposal focus more on being descriptive and concise rather than proscriptive and wordy. Chaz 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made multiple proposals. Could you please address each one? --Pixelface (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll address them. Individually, each of your proposed changes contradicts an element of current practice. Together, your proposals represent the replacement of the written guideline with one that is unrecognisable as any reasonable description of how we handle spoilers on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 09:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please describe current practice? Could you describe how you personally handle spoiler warnings on Misplaced Pages? --Pixelface (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on PixelFace, you know the current practice. The guideline should read something to the effect of "Any good faith attempt to add spoiler warnings to wikipedia will be ruthlessly suppressed by a few people who monitor all attempts to add them, who have redefined consensus to be 'whatever we can enforce, by means fair or foul'". Because that's the only descriptive guideline we can have at this point. If the anti-warning people were truly interested in descriptive policy over prescriptive policy, they wouldn't have changed it from what it was 6 months ago, because that policy was descriptive of what went on. But don't expect them to put it in, they don't usually like to admit it in public. Wandering Ghost (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface's proposal is full of problems. But the main problem is that it's 'aspirational'. It describes, not how the encyclopedia is, but how Pixelface would like it to be. We don't write guidelines that are 180 degrees opposite to current practice. The proposal is worse than the May 2007 version because now there is no template for consistency. It encourages editors to add spoiler warnings, without telling them how. It only tells them how not to do it (ROT13, "spoiler space").

The proposal trots out a few ideas that have already been "shopped" on numerous talk pages, without success. This includes the idea of putting "critic-sourced" spoiler warnings at the front of a plot summary. It also includes Pixelface's recently-minted insistence on citations within a plot summary, which isn't even germane to the spoiler guideline.

Radiant! has admirably summarized the current options

• If you have an issue with a particular article, you can boldly edit that article, or raise the issue on its talk page.
• If you have an issue with the {{current fiction}} template, you can boldly edit that template, or raise the issue on its talk page.
• If you think that the {{spoiler}} template was wrongly deleted, you can take it to deletion review or attempt to recreate the template. Neither has high odds of success. Deletion review was already tried, and prompt re-creation of a deleted page is subject to speedy re-deletion.
• If you think that the deletion of the template was achieved by nefarious means, you can take it to ArbCom or any other dispute-resolution forum you can find.
• If you think that it is unacceptable for editors to use search tools to find spoiler warnings, and delete them wherever they appear, you can also take that accusation to ArbCom or any other dispute-resolution forum you can find.
• You can continue to try to reach consensus on this page, but unless you have new ideas, you're probably going to continue to face opposition.

I think the time has come to aggressively delete accusations of misconduct whenever they appear on this page. Allegations of editor/admin misconduct poison the discussion. The time has come to either prove them (if you can) or drop the subject. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Marc. This is clearly red herring which distracts from productivity. It appears that a few editors are vindictive over the loss of a TfD and are in their presentations losing credibility. I see some merit in warning about a plot spoilage, but the proponents are poisoning the audience against themselves. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been accused of making personal attacks on this page. No evidence has been presented to me, but I will be voluntarily disengaging from this talk page and this issue for 2 weeks during the time this guideline is protected. Radiant! requested this guideline be protected. Apparently this guideline was protected because there was an edit war that has previously occurred on this guideline, and it was mentioned on Lamest edit wars by Random832. I will be back here when the 2 week protection time expires. --Pixelface (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to oppose these changes because it encourages and sanctions editors to engage in original research and place their point of view on an article. Declaring a plot detail is something that would "spoil" the viewer's/reader's enjoyment is an analytic, interpretive, and evaluative claim. There should also be absolutely no prohibition or restrictions on other editors removing the spoiler warnings.

Ultimately, this guideline should discourage the use of spoiler warnings; not to encourage or sanction their use. If you look at the previous RfC on the subject of spoiler warning placement, you can see that three brightline conditions were brought up. None of those conditions achieved a consensus in support of spoiler warnings. In fact, the majority of editors opposed the use of spoiler warnings in those three cases with one, fairy tales, achieving a clear consensus against the use of spoiler warnings. Under the proposed guideline, this consensus would be completely ignored. --Farix (Talk) 12:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moot points

After the TfD removing the spoiler template much of the discussion above seems moot; lamenting over spilled milk. We have a new tag which seems adequate when it is clearly written; however, the template seems unstable and thus not always very clear. It seems to me that we should stop bickering over the nuances of the guideline and focus on an agreeable and stable template. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note we may want to take a closer look at the content of so many of these plot summaries, where we seem to have conceded the concept of NPOV and original research in allowing WP to become a forum for amateur reviewers of literature. So many are just poorly composed high school level book reports. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of text in Misplaced Pages—not just plot summaries—is written at the high school level. That's because we don't require anyone to prove their abilities before they write here. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people bring good information without the polish to meet our standards. It seems that we need a group of editors willing to provide the polish and help to demonstrate. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of wrongdoing

Moved to WP:AN/I#Allegations of wrongdoing. This is dragging the discussion off topic and AN/I or one of the dispute resolution channels is the proper place to hold this discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot information vs Production information

I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I've come to realize that more important than tagging spoilers is distinguishing between plot and production information. The way I see it, articles on fiction contain two types of information: information about the story, and information about the production.

Take this (very likely untrue) information about The Empire Strikes Back.

• ... where Vader announces he is Luke's father.

This would likely go into a plot section. Plot sections contain spoilers, that's fine.

• ... the Cloud City sets were built in a soundstage in England.

When placed in a section about the movie's production, this is fine.

• ... the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father used the largest green screen ever made.

This is a mix of production and plot information (a p/pmix), and that's where all the problems seem to lie. It's out of place in the plot section, but it contains information about the plot that is inappropriate in the production section.

Users may view an article about a work of fiction when looking for information about the plot, the production, or both. The encyclopedia is more useful if a user can find information about the production without being exposed to information about the plot.

I'll define plot information as information that is revealed over the course of a work. So the existence of Cloud City isn't really a p/pmix ... it existed at the start of the work, and there isn't any sense of revelation to its introduction. Vader telling Luke he is his father, on the other hand, is a p/pmix.

There are several ways to deal with this. The most important one, I think, is that we should state somewhere that it is generally a good idea to keep production information and plot information separate, as much as is reasonably possible. Trying for this separation, as a matter of style, makes articles more encyclopedic, not less. Even without spoiler tags, it makes sense to keep plot information is clearly-marked sections.

That being said, there are cases where a p/pmix is unavoidable. I think the (made up) green screen example is one. So the question is what do we do?

Nothing. This is the current, post {{spoiler}} deletion approach to things. While this is a workable approach, it doesn't allow us to indicate a p/pmix, making the encyclopedia less useful, at least in my opinion. Perhaps you don't believe production/plot mixes to be a problem... why not? (As opposed to a problem for which there is no good solution.)

Tag. This is basically the immediate, pre-deletion spoiler policy, but improved. I think that the definitions of "plot information" and "mix of production and plot information" give the basis for an objective tagging policy. We also replace the word "spoiler" with something else, which hopefully would help editors put aside their preconceived notions of spoilerishness in favor of policy-based tagging.

I'd suggest that if p/pmix tagging will be used, it should be made subtle. I think one of the major objections to the spoiler tag was that it was a huge three-line monstrosity, made to stand out. I have a suggestion on how to do this, but I'll save that for later.

Something else. Is there another solution to the p/pmix problem? I can't think of one, but I'm just one guy.

Anyway, thanks for reading this. Hopefully, by changing how we all frame the problem, we can have a more productive discussion. Oh, and if you would, please don't even talk about the spoiler tag deletion debate... that won't help us move forward much. — PyTom (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best solution is to drop the assumption that some information in an article on a fictional subject is toxic and must be flagged, tagged, or marked in some manner that will enable readers to not read it. If they don't want to know about a fictional subject, they can avoid reading encyclopedia articles on the subject. This gives complete control over to the reader. How about that? --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True, and outside of the plot summary section, it's possible to use wording that doesn't reveal as much of the plot. For instance, instead of "the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father...", how about "the scene where Luke battles Vader...". Readers will still know what scene is being referred to, but the major plot twist isn't revealed. I'm sure there are situations where re-wording isn't practical, but it's still a useful strategy, IMO. Chaz 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I think that the proposed distinction is so subtle that there is very little hope of seeing it widely understood and adopted in a website edited by thousands of people. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• And there are times when plot & production are intrinsically interwoven, as when production demands drive rewrites and script changes, or edits affect the apparent backstory or plot, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it's not that the information is toxic. It's just that a failing to include a distinction between plot and production information makes wikipedia less useful to readers, who may be interested in one or the other. Sure one thing we can do is to tell the user to not read our article on the subject... but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to?

Chaz, I think rewording can often be a good strategy, especially when the added specificity does nothing to clarify the point being made.

Marc, I'm not sure the distinction is that hard to understand. There are other concepts that are more hard to understand (like distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one), that we ask editors to abide by in every article.

Lquilter, I think you're right... and the open question is what is the best way of dealing with that case. — PyTom (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Having now re-read the discussion, I think we're dealing with a non-existent problem. Most Misplaced Pages articles already discuss the plot in a clearly marked section. If plot details are mentioned in any other section, there are two cases to consider:

1. It is relevant and well organized
2. It is irrelevant and/or poorly organized

In the first case, the article is doing its job. In the second case, the offending material should be re-written or re-organized, not specifically because plot and production information are mixed, but because that's what we would do about any poorly structured article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Work with Internet Movie Database

I just came up with an idea.

Internet Movie Database now has a feature called "Synopsis", which is designed to contain detailed information, including spoilers, about that particular movie. Synopses can be added and edited by anybody who is a registered and verified member of the Internet Movie Database. It is located under the movie's entry in the subentry "/synopsis". For example, I myself have written a synopsis there for the movie SpaceCamp.

For movies and television at least, why couldn't Misplaced Pages entries contain a summary of the work, then a template with a link to that movie's synopsis page on IMDb for more detailed plot information? --Kitch 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we could do that (most plot summaries are too detailed), but any important plot information also has to be in the Misplaced Pages article. Encyclopedic coverage of The Empire Strikes Back necessarily has to include that the film's big surprise was that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Misplaced Pages's articles should stand on their own as much as possible (think printed versions or DVD editions etc.), and so we can't substitute IMDB's plot summaries for our own. Kusma (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If for no other reason than licensing -- IMDB is a commercial enterprise and is not licensed on the same terms as Misplaced Pages. So any sort of "incorporation by reference" is inappropriate (although referral to IMDB is as legitimate as any other referral). --Lquilter (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Current fiction

Template:Current fiction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. The log page is here. --Pixelface (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Inside the info box?

Just a suggestion, but what if a spoiler note could be put inside the info box for films. Would that be less intrusive? I'm talking tiny. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not about intrusiveness but about avoiding violating core policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. There is also issues with redundancy that the pro-spoiler side completely ignores and why this in-article disclaimer should be given an exception when we don't permit other in-article disclaimers. --Farix (Talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are disclaimers all over this site. The current events and recently deceased tags are just two examples. The policies you just cited have nothing to do it. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But perhaps those templates should be taken to TfD if they are truely disclaimers. --Farix (Talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The current events tag is a notice to readers that information on the subject is changing so rapidly that the article may be inaccurate or outdated. For example, during a natural disaster or election the corresponding article may experience multiple edits per minute. The recently deceased tag is a little less useful (IMO), but it's essentially a subset of current events, where information regarding a person's death is changing rapidly. It's not widely used, which is probably appropriate, since few people's deaths are notable enough at any given time to require such a tag.

In contrast to current events, information on fictional works changes at a slow rate, with details emerging over days, months or even years. Occasionally there will be fictional works that will rise to the level of a current event (Harry Potter 7 release, blockbuster movie), in which case the current event tag may apply. As opposed to the dynamic nature of a current event, fictional works are quite static, especially once released. This makes a current fiction tag more a disclaimer and less of a helpful notice to readers. Chaz 13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If Current Fiction is deleted

If CF is deleted it will leave us with no templates to mark spoilers. At that point, is it worth it to maintain this page separate from WP:NDT considering that the effective text of this page will be "Misplaced Pages does not warn about spoilers beyond the general site disclaimer?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SPOIL is useful even if technically redundant, and serves better than a redirect to one line in a long page would - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this page findable?

Is it worth noting that this page is pretty much hidden from anyone looking for it? Try doing a search for it; there's no link anywhere. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the first hit in a search for the word "spoiler" or "spoilers", so it's really not hidden at all. --Farix (Talk) 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Actually try doing a search instead of trying to make me look stupid. There is no link on the page that comes up and there is no link on spoiler (media). --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Enter "spoiler" and then hit "search". But it isn't my fault that you can't properly search for something. --Farix (Talk) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be a dick. That's exactly what I did and there is no link to it. Try it yourself. I looked back on the disambiguation page and it appears that Tony Sidaway removed the link. Interesting. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do remember to remain civil, and I did do a search just before posting. Or do I need to take a screen shoot before you will believe me? --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reminding you to be civil, actually. You're either mistaken or your screwing with me. Ten seconds ago, I searched for "spoiler" and here's what comes up:

Spoiler could refer to

Spoiler (aeronautics), a device to reduce lift in aeronautics Spoiler (automotive), a device to modify air flow in order to increase fuel efficiency or improve handling in automobiles Spoiler (sports), a team that has been eliminated from the playoffs, and beats a team that required that win to advance Spoiler (media), a comment which discloses plot details of a book, play, video game, or film or is intended to distract attention from a rival Spoiler (comics), a secondary character in the DC comic book Robin SPOILER (film), a comedy film project in New York City Spoiler effect, an individual unable to win an election or game for him- or herself, but with the power to determine which player among two or more others will win Spoiler (politician), a candidate for election, who, while having little chance of winning, draws votes from another candidate with similar positions on major issues, thus allowing the election of someone with contrary positions Mighty Spoiler, a popular calypso singer Don Jardine, a professional wrestler also known as the Spoiler.

--YellowTapedR (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are one who is being uncivil by first accusing me of making you look bad, then calling me a dick when I restated that you weren't using the search function properly, and now claiming that I must be screwing with you. But here is the screen shot: Image:Spoiler screenshot.png --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a difference in which namespaces are selected in user preferences (Search tab). I'm guessing that TheFarix has the Misplaced Pages namespace selected and YellowTapedR doesn't. I think the default setting is that only mainspace is searched, but editors often add other namespaces. Chaz 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. So, I'll revise my statement: The guideline is hidden from anyone who has their search preferences set to the default. Should that be the case? What's the point of having a guideline if most editors can't find it? --YellowTapedR (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, what happened was YellowTapedR made the mistake of using /go/ instead of /search/. The later is what brings up this page first. I do believe you can change those preferences, true, but hidden? Not in the least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'm the moron here. Moving on. But for morons, like myself, who hit enter instead of clicking on //search//, all that comes up is the disambiguation page. Why isn't it there?--YellowTapedR (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Because unless you specifically try to by entering the "Misplaced Pages:" prefix, all attempts to go to a page assume that you are looking for an article, not a policy page. There are a handful of exceptions - some of our three-letter-acronyms do work without the WP prefix, and a handful of things like No Personal Attacks will take you to the policy page, but even Neutral Point of View when searched for straight-on takes you to an article on journalistic objectivity. This is not a bug - unless you are clearly looking for a policy page, Misplaced Pages does not take you to one. This is true for all policy pages, not just this one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just typed in a few examples --Civil, Personal attack, Original research, Neutral point of view -- and all of them had a link to the policies at the top of the articles. The article for spoiler (media) used to, too, as did the disambiguation page, but one of the editors here removed it. I'm just wondering if there have been attempts to make this page harder to find. I don't know. You would think that you'd want the page found easily, so people don't add makeshift warnings and so they can chime in, right? --YellowTapedR (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There's no reason for it not to be there. Tony Sideway removed it, probably because it was in lumped together with the rest. I put it on top like most of the others. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it specifically because links to policies and the like do not belong on Misplaced Pages. If somebody wants to know about our policies they should look in the correct namespace. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone knows how to do that. Beginners have the same rights as long-time users, you know, including the right to learn how to become better Misplaced Pages editors. I think Melodia's solution is best. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that new editors have the right to learn. That isn't an argument for placing what amounts to unencyclopedic data into the encyclopedia body. An introduction to Misplaced Pages, including its policies, is linked from the Main Page. I will accept what Melodia has done but I don't think it's at all necessary. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a link on a disambiguation page. Surely it is understandable that new users (and even some veteran users) will find there to be some ambiguity between Spoiler and WP:SPOILER, yes? A single link on the Main Page isn't necessarily enough (just as a discrete disclaimer on a page no one would normally visit is not necessarily enough). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably already been mentioned, but...

A Misplaced Pages article is usually one of the first Google hits for a movie title. A lot of people Google for more information about the overall plot of a movie, but don't want to read critical plot details. The "Disclaimers" link is at the bottom of the page; there's no way a typical user is going to see that before reading the unwanted information. I submit that out of courtesy to readers, it would be good to have spoiler warnings in Misplaced Pages articles about movies, TV shows, and books.

Proposal for when/where to use a spoiler warning

• when unexpected plot elements (not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material) are revealed
• have one template to use if the entire section contains spoilers, and another to use if only the latter part of a section contains them ("The remaining part of this section contains spoilers...")

It's not possible to remove all subjectiveness out of the decision to include a spoiler warning, but that is the case with most Misplaced Pages guidelines, many of which deal with much more important or divisive content disputes. Thanks for your consideration. Eseymour (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this has been mentioned and rejected. Kusma (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kusma doesn't tell the whole story. People are divided on the issue. Historically, there have been probably more spoiler warning proponents than opponents, but the proponents have less political power and came in several generations, so the opponents win. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether there are "more spoiler warning proponents than opponents" is questionable. There is anecdotal evidence both supporting and refuting that statement. It depends whose anecdotes you believe. In either case, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Misplaced Pages is _unfortunately_ not a democracy, thus a minority can enforce power over a majority, even in the case of subjective issues, such as spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I honestly don't understand what the big drawback is to having some kind of minimally-intrusive spoiler warning, but as with so many topics on Misplaced Pages, it appears that a very motivated minority is able to enforce its will over a majority which has other things they'd rather do. Sigh. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to the substance of the proposal, just for the heck of it. "Unexpected plot elements" is subjective. "Not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material" appears arbitrary. Moreover, specifying "trailers promotional material" is about as artificial as anything I've seen, subjecting any critical inquiry to the whims of what a promotional media department has decided to try to generate buzz about. ... Finally, as has been pointed out before, if people do not want to learn about a subject they shouldn't go to an encyclopedia on that subject. If all they want is what they could see in promotional materials then they should go to the promotional material itself. And while Google links are too arbitrary and bizarre for us to use as a criteria for anything here in Misplaced Pages, the statement that WP is the first link is not always true: for popular films with a large "promotional" budget, at least, a film website is more often than not the first google link. And they will include all the promotional buzz and plot mystification that any anti-spoiler person could wish. --Lquilter (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's subjective, but so is just about every other Misplaced Pages guideline. FWIW, I didn't mean that everything not in promotional materials would be a spoiler, only things that significantly affect the plot and aren't revealed by the studio. Oh well. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with this. First determining what "significantly affects the plot" is highly analytical and subjective and would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR without clear secondary sourcing. There is also the problem with how do you determine what information is not reveled by the studio or publisher. If I really want to get cranky, I could state that once the work has been released or published, then its plot details has been "reviled" by the studio or publisher and are no longer spoilers. And you can't make a distinction between what is released through promotional materials and the release of the work itself as is completely arbitrary and a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Not an ideal position if you are a supporter of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So you say, but I've never seen a good argument that this is actually the case. To me a spoiler warning violates NPOV or NOR in the same way almost any organizational element does... what counts as "Early Life", in a biography article, to use the classic example.

For that matter, determining whether information is important enough to be included in an article or is meaningless trivia is often in the same category. Once you have a working definition of what you're going to count as a warning-merited spoiler, you'd probably have 90% agreement on where the spoilers are in any given article, any more than, once you have a working definition of a baker, you probably have 90% agreement about whether any particular character in a tv series or movie is a baker, or is involved in a love triangle, regardless as to whether the words were actually used in the fiction. It doesn't count as something requiring a secondary source, The primary source itself is sufficient. Or you'd have 90% agreement on whether a particular event counts as being in somebody's early history. Wandering Ghost (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be broad to consider spoilers everything not in promotional materials. I think warnings should only be used if they are in unexpected places, especially the lead. For example, the intro for I Know Who Killed Me:

'I Know Who Killed Me' is a 2007 erotic thriller film starring Lindsay Lohan, Julia Ormond, and Neal McDonough. The film was directed by Chris Sivertson. Based on the Screenplay by Jeff Hammon. Filming began on December 16, 2006 and finished in late February 2007. It was released on July 27, 2007. This is Lohan's second film starring as both twins, the first being The Parent Trap.

Granted, it's a sucky movie, but the bit about the twins is revealed at the end and is the whole mystery. Readers probably expect to see that kind of thing in the plot summary, but not in the intro. --YellowTapedR (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, that detail is just trivia and doesn't belong in the intro. Chaz 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think cases like that could be handled editorially. The triva about Lohan playing twins should follow the mention of that information in the plot summary section. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

future template

I noticed today that some articles were using the {{future}} template as a standing for the {{spoiler}} template. That strikes me as very strange - {{future}} is for real-world future events, not things in a fictional storyline. It only has an appearance of acceptability in these articles because of their in-universe prose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is strange, but is it possible that whoever did it meant to use the Template:Futurefiction template?--YellowTapedR (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be the action of one Bionicle editor who still thinks that article information should be made "safe" for those who don't want to be "spoiled". He is calling it a compromise of some sort. But my impression of the Bionicle articles is that they almost all violate WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is strange then. I think we could probably do without all those LEGO and Bionical (Is there a difference? I don't know) character articles, but that's another debate. I think it's hard to spoil fans of that sort of thing, since most of them are probably too young to read anyway. --YellowTapedR (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag wording

I can't believe the spoiler tags were deleted. I wish I'd been here for that discussion and I think they should be brought back.

If I ask my friend to tell me the plot of a movie, I'm not necessarily asking for a rundown of the entire story from beginning to end. Take this example a step further towards online uses of the word -- movie reviews that claim to describe the plot will of course not reveal spoilers, and people searching for information about a movie will similarly usually not be looking for spoilers.

When people used to complain about the use of spoiler tags, they were often complaining about something that's the result of the tag's wording. The tag used the words "the following reveals significant plot details" (not an exact quote), which when placed in a section entitled "Plot", seemed redundant -- so the tags were usually deleted, and eventually became unused. The problem is, the tag was named SPOILER and not PLOT DETAILS for a freakin' reason! "Plot" does not necessarily mean "Synopsis", and certainly not necessarily "ending" or "surprises". The wording of the tag should never have been "...plot details...". It should have been "...spoliers...". OBVIOUSLY the Plot section will contain Plot details -- but it is anything but obvious that a Plot section of an article will contain spoilers -- unless of course you're familiar with this debate on Misplaced Pages, which many readers of course are not.

So, change the wording of the tag to what it was meant to say, and problem solved.

Yuck Foey

I just same to be aware of how wikipedia has been robbed of the spoiler template by a silly maneuver by some senior admin. The story of how it was done is such a sad indictment of the way wikipeida has lost its way. Anally retentive misanthropy is now the order of the day. Shame and humbug to all of yo;u who were involved! Lobojo (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)