Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 21 October 2020

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 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

Other archives: Archive 0 Archive debate Guidelines Guideline status Guideline status 2 RfC · RfC talk · RfC 2 · RfC 2 talk old template talk Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

Reader poll

I was wondering whether there has ever been a poll of readers (not editors) of Misplaced Pages's articles on fiction, not just regular readers but including those coming from Google, on whether they would prefer spoiler warnings. I cannot find one in the archives of this discussion page. If a significant majority of readers would prefer there to be spoiler warnings, would editors agree to include them, since presumably an encyclopedia is written for its readers and not for its editors? Highflyer Hank (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we've done a poll, but I would not be surprised if there was a overwhelming response to want spoiler warnings. But while are writing for readers, we're writing for all readers, not just a general swath of them, which is why there is some content we simply do not include (per WP:NOT), and including spoiler warnings just because some do want it would not be an appropriate step, plus all the editing nightmares that would come from that. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This principle seems to be aimed at using discussion to arrive at a reasoned consensus rather than blindly following the first intuitions of a majority of editors by voting and then ending up with incoherent policies. However, if it would turn out that after reasoned engagement with Misplaced Pages's readers, they still clearly prefer the inclusion of spoiler warnings, I don't see how the guideline would provide a reason to write the encyclopaedia in a way which editors prefer rather than how a much larger group of readers (who are the ones for whom the encyclopaedia is written) prefers it. Highflyer Hank (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

They prefer not to be spoiled. This has been made clear on article talk pages countless times. So I concur with Masem on that. But if they read a Plot section, they should expect to be spoiled; it's similar to a viewer reading the comments section of a video before watching the video and then complaining that the comments section has spoilers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits

I'm not saying that the policy on spoilers should be changed, but the text is currently worded too strongly, presents contentious opinions as facts, and contains factual falsehoods:

"There was no strong basis to exclude disclaimers for potential spoilers from the "No disclaimers in articles" guideline when many other disclaimers—such as warnings about offensive images or content and medical and legal disclaimers—would be of greater benefit to the reader."

This is highly subjective and unsupported by evidence. No surveys or other indications are cited to support the claim that warnings about offensive images would be of greater benefit to readers than warnings about spoilers, for instance, and I suspect that for many people, reading spoilers has more long-lasting negative implications than viewing an offensive image (both annoying or shocking them in the moment and affecting the enjoyment of several hours of consuming a fictional work later, rather than only the former).

"# No other academic, scholarly, or other professional publications that describe or analyze works of fiction, such as other encyclopedias, include disclaimers about spoilers when discussing said works."

This is factually false, since other language Wikipedias include spoiler warnings (e.g. the Dutch one). This wording therefore has to be changed for sure.

"# Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. Therefore, further disclaimers would be redundant and unnecessary."

This is again too strongly worded and incorrect. A section heading of "episode list" does not 'clearly' indicate that it contains crucial details about the ending of these episodes, for instance. Better would be "were already named to indicate that they may contain plot details".

"Labeling a plot detail as a spoiler would require editors to use their own subjective opinions to interpret the significance of a plot detail and its likelihood of altering the enjoyment of the work of fiction. This would be a violation of Misplaced Pages's core policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view."

The process of writing an encyclopaedia always involves interpretation, and not every form of interpretation is biased or a violation of a prohibition on original research. Take for instance the article "Liberalism", which states that liberalism "became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world" during the Age of Enlightenment. What is the threshold for 'popularity'? Even if a source says that it became popular, this is still a subjective statement, since other sources may only consider something to be 'popular' when the majority of a group likes it, etc.

Furthermore, it would be possible in certain cases to cite sources to establish that a certain plot detail is widely considered significant and is in fact likely to alter the enjoyment of a work of fiction. One conclusive example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/23/books.harrypotter . This alone makes the statement that labeling a plot detail as a spoiler would always be a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability factually wrong.

Could we please change the wording to make it more accurate? I tried boldly to do this but it was reverted by someone who considered it 'weasel wording'. However, the guideline against weasel wording is aimed at claims such as 'some people think X', which should be replaced by 'person Y thinks X' with a citation, not by making the claim seem even less contentious by presenting controversial opinions as facts by writing 'X is true' without a citation.

Highflyer Hank (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I note you also provide no evidence for your assertion that readers would get more benefit from spoiler warnings than from medical warnings, legal warnings, and warnings about potentially-offensive content. Anecdotally, I note that a recent TFD about a template warning that articles contain names of recently-deceased Austrailian aboriginals received many more comments in support than I've seen on this page in the years that I've been watching it.

Further, the page is very probably correct in stating that there was no strong basis for excluding spoiler warnings from WP:NDA, regardless of any lack of sources for the claim that readers would find other types of disclaimers more beneficial.

I also note that other-language Wikipedias are no more "academic, scholarly, or other professional publications" than the English Misplaced Pages is, as much as we aspire to that level of quality.

I could agree with you that an "Episode list" section perhaps doesn't clearly indicate that it contains spoilers, although once you look at the first entry and see that it contains a brief plot summary it should be obvious that you shouldn't read further if you want to avoid spoilers. But your attempt to change it from "would be redundant" to "could be considered partially redundant" was very weasely.

I could also agree with you that it might be a bit of a stretch to claim that editorial judgment over whether something is a spoiler or not falls under WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. However, your attempted change in that area did not help that point. I also note that citing an article from 2005 to claim something is a spoiler may not apply in 2017, since as time passes things that were once spoilers tend to become common knowledge, and then we get well into territory where the arguing over whether something is or is not still a spoiler X years later is going to be a waste of everyone's time. At least this way we keep the time-wasting confined to this talk page. Anomie⚔ 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For the watchers

Despite the fact that it's a guaranteed way to spoil at least some elements, it's common practice for horror fans to read the Misplaced Pages page for movies before they watch them—just in case the film really is too scary or horrific to bear.

I have no idea how true that is, but it was an interesting comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Given the mess over the film over "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" (see ) I would propose something like: However, despite the lack of spoiler notices, content that would be considered as a spoiler must remain verifiable, meaning that the work in question should have been reasonably published to the public so that its plot summary can be verified by anyone reading or viewing the work (see WP:WAF). For examples, in film, a single showing at a film festival would not be sufficiently public, while a limited "sneak peak" at multiple theaters prior to wide release would be. Wording is only suggested but this would be at the end of the lede. --Masem (t) 19:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unclear necessary - if the "spoiler" is mentioned in WP:RSes, it's out there, and if it isn't, what would we have to cite? - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a case where the spoiler was added by an IP on claim they saw it at Cannes. There was no sourcing for it, based on the principle that the film itself serves as the primary source for the film, but there was no way for anyone to verify that at the time the IP posted their plot summary. This is not a case where an RS published the plot summary that we could use. --Masem (t) 21:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the clear problem there is allowing a work to be cited about itself - something that's led to articles with a few paragraphs from RSes and a great big slab of plot summary that's functionally OR - and not something a spoiler guideline can patch effectively, or should try to - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

That is currently how practice is with plot summaries, and wholly separate material. It's been a WP:PEREN to try to change that - though per WP:NOT#PLOT articles that consider of only plot summaries are generally not appropriate.

To stress, the case above was for a film notable before its plot was known, due to the star power behind it. This wasn't a question of adding a plot summary and overwhelming the article with it. It was just that the plot summary was claimed to be based on a Cannes showing when in fact it was made up entirely, but there was no verifyable way to check (by seeing the actual film). --Masem (t) 02:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully disagreeing with Mr. Gerard's concerns above. A primary source, like the film itself, can absolutely be used to verify uncontroversial information. Cast lists, for example. Plot points. Anything that can be observed, but that doesn't require interpretation. If a scene is shot at the Heathrow airport, we don't have to dig through libraries to find supporting information if the sign on terminal overhang says "Heathrow". But to Masem's point, I don't think this is a Spoiler issue so much as it is a MOS:FILM issue. Plot summaries must be verifiable, so they should only be included if there is significant coverage by reliable sources prior to a film's release, or if the film has been released to the general public. So I agree with Masem in principle, but not because of the spoiler potential, instead because of the bullshit potential. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have concern that the situation is more than just in the film industry. For example, television critics often get pilot/season premiere episodes to review before airing, video game journalists get prerelease copies, neither of which is a "public publication", but all you need is one person to claim they had gotten such a copy and are vouching for it. Yes, there's more a concern with film because of the existence of film festivals where these showings are common, so the problem is more visible there, but it does extent to other media. --Masem (t) 05:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that this is still attempting to patch problems with media coverage by the back door, and the spoiler guideline is a particularly bad place to try to do that - David Gerard (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That sort of text would be better added to WP:RS or WP:V, IMO, as it's not really relevant here (WP:PUBLISHED may be a good place for it). And let's not succumb to David Gerard's primary source paranoia either. Anomie⚔ 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the only connection of the issue of a fabricated plot summary to the spoiler guideline is that people used WP:SPOILER to justify re-including the wrong plot summary. WP:SPOILER should not be used to keep unverifiable material in the article. A possible addition:

If material in an article is unverifiable, it can be removed whether it is considered a spoiler or not, and this guideline should not be used to justify inclusion of anything that fails the core content policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

Any comments on that? —Kusma (t·c) 08:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say no - and the spoiler guideline should be shorter. Look at the history of this talk page for people attempting to twist the wording here to justify blocking their least-favourite spoilers. If people aren't following basic sourcing guidelines, this is not a place to try to fix that - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The guideline's point is "don't worry about spoilers, just write a good article following good encyclopaedic practices". My point is just to make that more explicit, maybe in a "What this guideline is not" section. —Kusma (t·c) 09:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This too seems unnecessary to me. At most, maybe adjust the existing wording to something like editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served and content policies are followed. Anomie⚔ 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Going along Kusma's wordings, I still think the need to stress that the verifyability of material that is considered a spoiler must be there, and for most contemporary works, that requires the work to be publicly published, and not simply released in a very limited/restricted fashion as in film festivals or from screener copies or online leaks - just not in as many words. Its gets past the issue that had been claimed that SPOILER prevented removal, and that we're talking the different of timing before mass publication, rather than something where it has been been published but things like PAYWALL block quick and free access. --Masem (t) 13:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The error here is that you're giving spoiler-ness or not any attention, and that's not something that should be modified in WP:SPOILER. You're trying to fix a sourcing problem in a guideline that is not about sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's the problem that sourcing is not mentioned here, which is still probably important to understand why SPOILER exists. We have general allowance that plot summaries and similar content are verifiable by the primary source itself. (Some editors don't like that, but that's generally consensus). So as long as the primary source is publicly available, we're not going to play around with spoiler warnings or the like. If the primary source is not out yet, then there should be no summary outside of what has been reported in secondary sources, which we are not going to play spoiler games with , either. Stemming specifically from the poor arguments used to try to retain a claimed plot summary in absence of a public release of a film, SPOILER should not be silent on the sourcing issue: we will publish spoilers but those spoilers must meet WP:V, which for new works, means that there must be some type of public release to justify an unsourced summary, or sourced to secondary reliable sources. Yes, SPOILER mentions WP:V but I think we need to be very explicit here to avoid the bad argument that came up before. --Masem (t) 17:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as an isolated case where one IP made a bad argument and a few others got confused between "remove the unverifiable plot summary" and "this article should never have a plot summary". Are there other cases where people have made the same bad argument, that shows this is more than just WP:AJRULE? Anomie⚔ 18:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Anomie here. This is not materially different from random kids making predictions about series finales in animation articles claiming "my uncle is an executive producer on the series and the preview I saw had Mickey kill Goofy by accident." We see this all the time. We usually just revert and demand they provide proof, and that seems good enough. I don't know all of the details of how our regulars got snookered with the Once Upon a Time hoax, but if something is complete bullshit, it is not a spoiler, it is just complete bullshit. We don't need new rules that say "do not add bullshit". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just so we're not having this discussion in two places, which would present complications for establishing consensus, there appears to be a parallel discussion happening at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film#Revising the guidance on plot sourcing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like the correct place to be having this discussion on plot sourcing, and not here - and I concur, this sounds like trying to make a WP:AJRULE, and this really isn't the place for one of those - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree generally with David and Anomie here. Paul August ☎ 09:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Spoilers in article titles

What should we do if a fictional character's real name is a spoiler itself? See Talk:Rey (Star Wars)#Requested move 18 December 2019 (but please don't, if you don't want to spoil The Rise of Skywalker for yourself!); I'm trying to decide whether to move that article to the character's changed name.

On other wikis, such as Bulbapedia, there is a soft redirect template for such characters; for example, see the Bulbapedia article about the Masked Man from Pokémon Adventures. The top of the article contains the template "Softredirect", with a note reading: "This soft redirect exists to avoid revealing a critical plot twist without warning."

Could such a template be used in instances like the Rey article to avoid spoilers, or is that WP:FANCRUFT? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't do that. Anakin Skywalker is a simple redirect to Darth Vader, no warnings. The title should follow Misplaced Pages:Article titles, which doesn't consider whether a title is a spoiler. —Kusma (t·c) 15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, early in the days of WP before the huge discussions/wars about the spoiler policy there actually WAS a soft redirect, for instance here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

More to Kusma's point, WP:COMMONNAME should apply, which is going to work in nicely with the idea of spoilers. Right now, the bulk of the world's population knows Rey as Rey, not the proposed name based on the last film. Maybe in 3-5 years, when the film has been seen by most that Rey becomes to be more commonly referred to as that other name, then we could shift that, but by that point, the SPOILER concern is long since over. (And that's a hypothetical - as the example Kusma gives, just because a more canonical name is given doesn't mean the common name disappears). --Masem (t) 15:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly right; the WP:COMMONNAME for this character is the same one that has been used in numerous sources for the last several years, not one that is used once in the final moments of a new film. Moreover, given that many reliable sources try to avoid giving spoilers, the old name will probably continue to be the one primarily used for quite a while. We don't need any change to existing guidelines to avoid this spoiler. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Spoilers where you wouldn't expect to come across them

The logic behind getting rid of spoiler warnings was that anyone reading an article about a work of fiction should already expect to find information about the plot there. However, that doesn't mean that an article about a tangentially-related subject should include a gratuitous spoiler where there isn't a particular reason to mention it, and I think this article should say so. (For example, the article about Emil Jannings mentions that he appears in a cameo in a fictional setting in the film Inglourious Basterds, which is fair enough, but then it went on to describe how the film ends, which doesn't really belong in an article about a real person, and nobody reading his article would expect to stumble across that information there.) Richard75 (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)