Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

This is the talk page for addressing revised guidelines for Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, in response to the RfC on Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. A separate talk page has been started to discuss guideline revisions due to the excessive length of the previous RfC page and because of the shift of focus this discussion will cover.

Example articles?

Can anyone point to an article where the tagging is done in an exemplary manner? I assume that would be an article without any "spoilers" outside the begin-end tags and where what's left isn't just a stub, but makes a decent article on it's own. Shanes 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously an article in which all the plot details aren't contained within sections marked "Plot" would be best as an example. So long as I'm here, I might as well try to find one. Ryu Kaze 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Henrick Ibsen is an example of an article with vital plot details not contained within "Plot" sections, as the purpose of the information is to explain the commentary his plays were making on society. While I would think it entirely contrary to the purpose of the article to place spoiler tags in such an article, one like this is probably what you would be looking to as an example. Ryu Kaze 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was more looking for well written articles where the spoiler tags are in place and tagged in such a way that a guideline can point to them as examples of how to do it. I started looking at a few featured articles with spoiler tags, (e.g. Cheers and The Lord of the Rings) but they all seem to contain many "spoilers" outside the tags, so they aren't good examples at all. I assume that if we are to endorse spoiler-tags, they have to be used consistently and in such a way that no plot details that will lessen a reader's experience are revealed outside these tags. When readers see we are using these tags they will expect this website to be of the fan site kind that has these warnings before plot details everywhere.

As to spoiler tagging Henrik Ibsen, I hope that's not ever going to happen. I'm a Norwegian and have seen a fair share of Ibsen plays. I'll be hard pressed to name a play I haven't seen, actually. But never, I repeat never, did I see a play where I didn't know the plot beforehand. And knowing the various plots didn't ruin any of the plays. Of course. Not for me, and not for anyone else in the theatre, most of whom had seen the plays many times before. Same goes for Shakespeare and other such classics where knowing the plot beforehand is very often a prerequisite for enjoing the play. But I believe we are digressing here. Any examples where the tags should be used and where they are used in an exemplary fashion so that we can say "there, that's how articles should be spoiler-tagged"? Examples are always useful when discussing things like this. Shanes 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd hate to see Ibsen's article tagged too. Discussing the man without discussing his works, what they said, and why they were saying it just can't be done in any article worth the paper (electronic or otherwise) it's written on. I also agree that knowing the plot of his works in advance enhances the experience of watching a performance. Hell, the theatre books I used in college summarized plays from beginning to end (his and other people's) before even showing you the script or before the professor showed a video of them or before we were instructed to go see one of the plays. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Firefly (TV series) has spoilers outside the plot (in characters) and uses the spoiler tag. It's in the middle of a peer review with next step FAC plange 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't have spoilers outside the plot area. Characters are a literary tool utilized by a plot to tell its story. They're as much an aspect of the plot as the setting, really. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Normally, yes, but in this instance, in the Guest area, one person in particular is THE whole plot twist to the first show she appears in. Hence why it's inside the spoiler tag plange 15:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Any comment here on if this is a good example? plange 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm still not so sure it's the greatest example, as it's still very much a plot-related section. I realize the potential significance of the plot details in question, but I still think we need something a bit more along the lines of how the Ibsen article has incorporated plot details, but I still can't think of the article of a fictional work that itself serves to set the example as well as what we'd like. Ryu Kaze 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a possible example for discussion purposes: A Wrinkle in Time. It's not that I think the spoiler placement is especially good or especially bad, but it is an example of issues to be resolved. The initial spoiler tag was on this article before I got here, but the end spoiler was added by me today. It currently encloses only the plot section, which by some schools of thought should be considered a potentially spoiler-rich area without tagging. Yet by the same token, many articles' plot sections have nothing that can reasonably be called a spoiler. So what is the consensus? Also, in this particular case, very little in the character and religious content sections could be considered spoilers, in my view, since it's pretty much all revealed in early chapters. Still, people might disagree with respect to the info on who and what Mrs Whatsit and friends are. That leaves me wondering whether to a) leave the article alone, b) move the end spoiler to follow the second paragraph of "Religious Content," or c) remove the spoiler tags, on the grounds that the only real plot ending detail is who Meg rescues and how, and that's in the plot section and can be avoided by spoiler info-averse readers on general principle. The final complicating factor with that kids reading the book for school may look up the ending to avoid reading the rest of the book, but I don't know that there's anything to be done about that. So....thoughts, anyone? Karen | Talk | contribs 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A Wrinkle in Time isn't a very good example of what we're looking for. It's just got a tag in the area where one would expect plot details to be. On the subject of "Yet by the same token, many articles' plot sections have nothing that can reasonably be called a spoiler", we should go with the definition of "plot" here (the beginning-to-end framework of a story), which in principle means that the section's purpose is to detail the beginning-to-end major aspects of the setting, characters and story (the three aspects of a plot). As for kids looking up the ending to try to speed up their school work, how people use the informatio here isn't our concern anyway. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Batman Begins shows a great example in the plot section. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? It's not any different from how A Wrinkle in Time does it. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some proposals for this thing

1. It should be emphasised that this is not an official policy, nor something that has to be used
2. It should be stipulated that spoiler tags within sections specifically about plot details (marked "Story", "Characters" or "Plot") are unnecessary, as they're merely reiterating what the headers already say (that plot details are contained in those sections)

Comments on these proposals

• 1) This is something that definitely needs to be implemented. Several people (including myself at one point) have been confused into thinking that these things are as honored and sacred as Wikipedia:Verifiability. It should be pointed out that they are not a rule which must be followed. 2) In this particular case, they couldn't possibly be more redundant or unnecessary. Example article: Gladiator (film). We have a section entitled "Plot" there, and then right below it, a spoiler warning that says "Plot and/or ending details follow". Given that a plot is the beginning-to-end framework of a story, and given that the header says "Plot", it's quite obvious that this section is going to contain the beginning-to-end plot details of this film. Therefore, it is a grotesque redundancy. Ryu Kaze 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. And may I also add that Gladiator (film) contains many plot details outside the tags, so we are actually fooling the reader by labeling the plot section as the only one that contains spoilers. I believe everyone can agree in this being worse than having no spoiler tags at all. Shanes 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm all for such clarification, being mistaken as a policy is a problem that is faced by almost all guidelines. I don't think it's fair to fault the guideline for a general misconception.

I don't think we can so easily blanket the concepts of Plot and Character headings. The argument that readers should know spoilers are there is not much different than the argument that readers should know there are spoilers in Wikipedia in general. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It at least needs to be worded such that it conveys that it's not a rule that must be followed. It's a style preference that some have while others don't, so it should be detailed in like manner. And, really, readers should know that there are spoilers in Wikipedia in general. Ryu Kaze 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ned. If we make the assumption that users know that "Plot", "Characters", and "Story" contain spoilers and thus do not tag them, the only thing that will be tagged are spoilers outside those areas (duh, I know, but bear with me) which should be few and far between (should, not that this is always the case). In effect, this would be almost the same as removing the tags (in my opinion). I don't support that. As far as "not official policy", I'm not sure where you're going with that. Could you clarify? Darquis 05:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we then to assume that readers are idiots? Or suggest that sections in an encyclopedia article entitled "Plot" are not likely to contain plot details? A section that says "Plot" tells me everything I need to know about that section: it's going to discuss the plot, therefore it will include plot details; therefore, a banner that says "Plot details follow" couldn't possibly be more unnecessary. If we put redundant banners on that, we might as well put a banner at the top of the Gladiator (film) page that says "This article discusses the film, Gladiator". We already know that because of what the header is. I imagine most readers are intelligent enough to understand this.

What I meant about them not being an official policy, by the way, is that some people have been confused in the past about the nature of spoiler tags, and have misunderstood their presence, believing that they were a rule which demanded that every article on works of fiction contain them. Even an administrator on one regrettable occasion believed this, despite there being no such policy, and Wikipedia's founder actually having great disdain for the things. Ryu Kaze 13:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A reader who does not always expect to read spoilers in a "plot" section is not an idiot, so please stop saying that as I am one of those readers. And Randall even made the mistake of calling a guideline a policy. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but assuming that a reader cannot ascertain that a section entitled "Plot" will contain plot details is assuming them to be an idiot. I don't intend to do that, and will assume that everyone who comes here has the intelligence to reason that an article or section will contain exactly what its header says that it does. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the conflation of the concept "plot details" with the concept of "spoilers." One is a subset of the other, and not always present. "Huckleberry Finn travels down the river with Jim, an escaped slave" is a plot detail, but not a spoiler. Many plot sections have plot details that follow the book report / book review convention of saying what the work is about, and some of what happens, while leaving out the Big Surprise at the End. Others have what happens at the end (they all live happily ever after, Tod Stiles gets married), and it's still not a spoiler, because it's not a surprise, or at least, not a surprise that is likely to affect someones enjoyment of the work. If sections like these don't get spoiler tags (and they shouldn't), then it's reasonable to think that many readers will not necessarily expect a spoiler in every Plot Details section. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's really an entirely POV matter in the first place that knowing plot details in advance does spoil works of fiction, and not something we can verify in even the majority of cases. Sure, there's plenty of people paranoid about them, but how many lives are going to be ruined by knowing the plot of The Last Samurai before seeing it? I personally usually read everything I can about a film or game before I get it, and I doubt that I enjoy it any less for knowing its plot. Simply because I have a general idea of what's going to take place doesn't tell me exactly how it will take place, nor what directing or writing methods are used to convey situations, nor how powerfully executed it is. Just knowing what is going to happen doesn't tell me very much, because there's those other aspects still to come.

As an example, in the manner of presentation, Boromir's death in The Lord of the Rings was presented in a far more powerful method in the film trilogy than it was in the books. The wording used was more in line with instigating an emotional response, the music obviously added a complete other angle and the sense of closure to the character's personal story arc was greater.

In any event, we're supposed to be known for comprehensive overviews of each aspect of something. In the case of a fictional work's plot, which is by definition its beginning-to-end details, this means that the purpose of every plot section here is to do that, whether all of them are currently up to that mark or not. There's simply no reason for this tag to be used in such a redundant capacity. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are simply going to debate spoiler tag inclusion then please do so on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC and NOT here. -- Ned Scott 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Ryu was debating the inclusion of spoiler tags in general, rather their inclusion within "plot" sections. At least, that's the way I read "there's simply no reason for this tag to be used in such a redundant capacity." --Daduzi ^talk 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Daduzi is correct. While the opening to the point I was making could certainly be applied to spoiler tags in general, I thought it rather obvious given the context of this discussion that I was further emphasising the pointless nature of their inclusion in a section marked "Plot". Even should the situation itself have not lended to this, closing things up with that last paragraph certainly did.

Honestly, readers are intelligent enough to determine that sections summarizing a fictioanl work's plot will contain details of the story and its characters. Otherwise the section would be blank and would serve no purpose. Ryu Kaze 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with intelligence. This is trying to creep the concept of "we shouldn't have to explain there is a spoiler" into articles themselves. Not only that, but if we use the tag in some places and not others, that just causes confusion, even to someone who would normally assume a plot section contained spoilers. And as many users have pointed out, there are tons of news paper reviews, other websites, entertainment magazines, where sections about plot do not contain spoilers, thus many readers do not expect to read spoilers in "Plot". If we are to limit the tag's usage it should be to do so in a logical way, not simply for the sake of removing it because "It might not be needed". How is this argument any different from the one that says we shouldn't use the tags at all? Why should such an argument be in a guidelines about spoiler tag usage? Ryu has a major conflict of interest here. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

These newspaper reviews, other websites and entertainment magazines aren't trying to do what we're trying to do. Therefore, no, it isn't logical to behave like them. A plot is in itself a summary, because of what it is: the beginning-to-end framework of a story. A plot section is supposed to be comprehensive by the nature of both what we're here to do and what a plot is. If you don't believe me, look at the plot sections in our Featured Articles that are about fictional works.

And explain to me how a stipulation about when spoiler tags have no reason to be used doesn't belong in a discussion for "guidelines about spoiler tag usage"? Ryu Kaze 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This argument is different from the one that says "don't use the tags at all" because... it doesn't say "don't use the tags at all"? It says "Don't use them where it's completely obvious that they're going to be anyway". Ryu Kaze 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: 2 Amen! My biggest beef with spoiler warnings in when they appear in places where it couldn't be more obvious that there's story information (e.g., "Character history"). Those warnings drive me nuts. Doczilla 06:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't avoid spoilers for the sake of not spoiling

I think we should use this guideline to at least mention that editors should not exclude spoilers for the simple sake of not spoiling something or to isolate spoiler information to one part of the article. There are alternatives to this that would "decrease spoiler exposure" and not sacrifice the article. For example, a detail about a character's fate could go under that character's listing, or under a summary heading. One could argue that character sections are about the character rather than a list of things the character has done, and that the information would be better placed elsewhere. This would cover a lot of spoilers, as typically things such as character inspiration by the writers, who was the actor, the basic info and personality of a character fit under a character heading, but things like "Bob found his mom's horrible secret vagina-time machine" doesn't actually tell you about Bob, just what Bob did.

I think such advice should be kept short and sweet, and clearly stated that "even when considering these options, never remove a spoiler simply because it's a spoiler". I know we can all imagine how such advice could go horribly wrong, but I'll try to write up some better examples and think everyone will be pleasantly surprised. But the big thing is to say not to exclude spoilers for the sake of excluding spoilers.-- Ned Scott 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that should definitely be there. However, on the subject of what the character has done, their specific role in the plot is an important aspect of the character, so it should certainly be mentioned within an article about the character. Perhaps not in the "Characters "section of a work that has to detail several characters at once (Final Fantasy X, for instance, where things are kept short and sweet), but within that character's own page. Ryu Kaze 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Simplification of spoiler tags

Another issue I think we should address is the number of spoiler tags we have. Should we "merge" some of them, simplify the templates, maybe use a standard template and a second variable message template?

{{Sgspoiler}} (a "sub" template to {{Spoiler-season}}), is being used by WikiProject Stargate and has even been considered for deletion and survived. I don't think templates like these are a problem, as long as there are some basic guidelines to them and how they should appear. I'm not sure how I feel on the whole image thing yet. On one hand I'd like to reduce the number of templates and make the process more simple, but on the other hand I see the argument for the SG spoiler as reasonable.

I do think we should evaluate all the tags in Category:Spoiler warning templates, but I think it would be acceptable to have such templates as the SG one. ..As long as they have the "notice metadata spoiler" div tag around them, are listed somewhere on WP:SPOILER, and follow some form of basic style guideline for spoiler tags that are unique to a show or other work of fiction. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers on a case by case basis

On the RfC I suggested the idea that the guideline could include methods to help determine what is or is not seen as a spoiler for a work of fiction. A case by case system should be used for gray areas where a discussion is set up on the talk page of that article. Like most things on Wikipedia, the basic concept of consensus would be used to resolve any disagreements in what is or is not to be tagged. In other words, one user with a weak argument wants to use a spoiler tag vs others who have a stronger argument who don't want to tag that section, they wouldn't include the tag. However, in cases of no-consensus the tags should be used, possibly generalized if the dispute is about the location of the tags. Like all things on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be set in stone, and could always be revisited. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While the case-by-case thing might be alright, I think the "spoiler tags win by default" thing is the worst possible suggestion, even more so than a demand that spoiler tags be used everywhere a plot detail dares take breath. I say this because at least that's straightforward in the effect it would render, while this would lead to a horrible loophole that would be abused like nothing else ever had been. By what basis would a weak argument be determined? By what basis would a strong argument be determined? More than likely on the basis of whatever value assumptions the debaters and the observers were bringing to the table.

Even if Wikipedia's policy said in so many words "We do not put readers before our mission. Ever", those who think courtesies are important above all else would never acknowledge an argument against spoiler tags (even in the case of sections clearly marked "Plot") as anything more than blasphemy. Likewise, those who put Wikipedia's indifferent princiciples above all else in constructing Wikipedia would never acknowledge an argument in favor of spoiler tags as anything more than ludicrous. What it would probably come down to is whichever side could rally more people to argue "These guys are right". And, really, how many possible arguments could exist about this subject anyway? There's only a few possible situations that could even arise. Hell, there's only two: "Should spoiler tags be in this section that has a header detailing that it is specifically about the plot or an aspect of the plot?" and "Should spoiler tags be in this section that discusses relevant plot details outside a section marked as being about the plot?" These are the only possible discussions that could come up. All that would vary is the value assumptions being brought to the table (and, really, there's not too many of those either) and how many people were involved.

Not that I have a good suggestion about how arguments over the matter should be resolved either, really, but I know this one would be an experiment in exploitation waiting to happen. Ideally, in the event of case-by-case operation, all regular editors at a page would agree. However, that's not likely to happen in reality, and new editors are joining articles all the time, and it's even more unlikely that -- even if all the editors there before agreed -- that the new additions are going to agree with them every time. At the least, a stipulation that spoiler tags are unnecessary in sections that have headers specifically detailing that they're about the plot would reduce the number of possible arguments about this from two to one (spoilers outside sections marked as being about the plot), so it would bring a little more simplicity to the matter.

Anyway, like I said, I don't necessarily have a solution here either. In all honesty, I can't see how there could be one that would work while recognizing that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Wikipedia is supposed to be self-policing, but if its officers are divided, then what's the basis for wrong or right? Ryu Kaze 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, extreme bad faith right there. The thing about this is that we're only saying what is a normal process here on Wikipedia. Even if we didn't mention dispute resolution, that doesn't change the fact that this is how we operate, by consensus's of strong arguments. Again, your comments here are dripping with extremely bad faith.

The use if no-consensus implies that a spoiler tag could be used since there is a strong argument for them, but no argument against the tag use that is greater than the argument for their inclusion. If they are removed by default then your own argument is used against you, in that any one who hates spoiler tags can just go around talk pages and start disputing things in order to get them removed, without having to do anything more. Considering that spoiler tags are only going to be kept if they are seen as non-harmful, then it's a minor style issue, as such "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues). Thus, in that case where one editor adds a spoiler tag, and another removes it, but a consensus can't be reached and there is a reasonable argument for both sides, the "default" would be to keep the tag. So we don't have to say this in the guideline, but that is the way it is. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the things simply not being here would make the world a whole lot more simple, but given that they are and given that you referenced that MOS principle (being no less a decision of the Arbitration Committee), your argument works against you. Take a page about a fictional work where there isn't currently a spoiler tag and someone tries to add one. According to the Arbitration Committee's ruling, the thing wouldn't stay. Also, given that the Arbitration Committee has already made a decision on this subject, why are you trying to change it to where spoiler tags get to be the exception of staying regardless of whether they were there first or not? If you're going to be accusing others of a conflict of interest, you might want to consider the arguments you yourself present.

Anyway, regardless of whether you feel that what I mentioned above is dripping with bad faith or not, it's a valid inquiry: who determines what is or isn't a strong argument? Do you even think the Arbitration Committee is going to bother with individual cases about this for dispute resolution? They're going to say "This is a matter of one side wanting something to be a policy and another side wanting it to be condemned, and this isn't the place for that. Request for arbitration denied" and/or "We're just going to refer you to our ruling on style disputes as the way to settle this particular issue". How do I know? Because I've been involved in a request for arbitration concerning spoiler tags before, though I was ironically on your side of the fence at the time.

By the way, when did I argue that the default should be that they were removed in the event of a dispute? I didn't. Thank you for taking me pointing out that your suggestion contained a horrible loophole as me arguing for the opposing loophole. That wasn't bad faith (or reading things that weren't there) at all. This is sarcasm, by the way. Ryu Kaze 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"who determines what is or isn't a strong argument?" Alright, how about I change my words to "reasonable argument"? I don't understand what you think you'll gain by arguing this point, as this can be said about ANY DISPUTE ON WIKIPEDIA. When did I suggest that the arbitration committee be used to resolve these disputes? you see that, that's is what a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT looks like. I never suggested something so ridiculous as that, and you know it. I would think that the lack of tag usage would mean that "one side or the other" hasn't been taken yet, and thus removing it would be the secondary action. Such as having color then changing it to colour, I see including the tags as the first time the word is included, as opposed to seeing the tag not included as the first word. It sounds pretty logical to me, but we don't have to mention a "when you are in dispute, do this" advice. I won't push for that part to be included if it means we can just move on. The rest of my suggestion still stands, though. -- Ned Scott 23:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply felt that a guideline directing how disputes were resolved being based on the idea of strong (or reasonable) arguments was a bit of a tricky concept given that guidelines are generally enforced by Wikipedia's own users. As for where I thought you were bringing up arbitration matters, it was where you used "dispute resolution", but I can see how it might have been meant to refer to the concept instead of the process. I apologize. Though the strawman I feel like you put up for me was this: "If they are removed by default then your own argument is used against you". I hadn't made any suggestion like that, so I didn't see where it was coming from. Anyway, we'll just assume we both had a misunderstanding and forget it.

Anyway, as for which is the secondary action, there's some articles containing plot details on fictional works that currently have spoiler tags while there's some that don't, so we can't make an assumption as to which is which. The suggestion of the Arbitration Committee — as I understand it; let me know if I'm wrong — pretty much calls for the status quo remaining what it is, assuming, of course, that discussions that arose were all pretty much the same (which I think is very likely in the case of spoiler tags; our own debates on the issue and those that have been archived would suggest that anyway).

In any event, maybe we can come back to this issue later. At the moment, I agree it's best we just leave it alone too and move on to other things. It seems to me that the Arbitration Commmittee's suggestion would probably cover many cases, anyway, so I'm not too sure how likely a special stipulation on the matter would be needed in the first place. Spoiler tags would still fall under stylistic preferences, no doubt. Ryu Kaze 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How to hide spoiler tags

Even though there currently is a way to turn off spoiler tags, the instructions are not easily found. I think we should provide these instructions on the guideline. Here's the instructions being provided by CWC (from Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2#Problem Solved):

Those who cannot tolerate spoiler warnings should use the following Cascading Style Sheets rule: .spoiler { display: none; } Any web browser which supports CSS (as almost all do) will then hide the spoiler warnings. (You will still see them in the Wikitext when editing.) There are lots of ways of doing this, especially for Firefox users. Here is one way. It has one big disadvantage: it only works if (1) you are logged into your wikipedia account and (2) you use the "monobook" skin (which most of us do — it's the default skin). On the other hand, this method is simple to explain. Log in to wikipedia. Bring up your user page. Click in the "location box", which should now contain "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YourUsername". Press the "End" key on your keyboard. Type in "/monobook.css". The location box should now contain "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YourUsername/monobook.css" Press the "Enter" key. Click on the link to create the page. Enter the line shown above. Save the page. Follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Enjoy your spoiler-warning-free version of Wikipedia! Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This, I definitely agree with (but I'll reiterate, I think the default should be to "spoilers on"). Is there a way for non-logged in users to implement this? Does this apply to all spoiler templates? Darquis 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this can only be used by a user who is logged on. Currently, it will hide all spoilers that are formatted like this: <div class="notice metadata spoiler" id="spoiler"> Template message </div>, which I believe includes all the templates in Category:Spoiler warning templates. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea is fine, but I have a couple of (minor) issues with the text. ""Those who cannot tolerate spoiler warnings should use..." is a wee bit too strong, you don't have to be unable to tolerate spoiler warnings to want to turn them off. Perhaps change to "If you wish to turn spoiler warnings off you can use..." On a really purely subjective note I'm not keen on the final line "Enjoy your spoiler-warning-free version of Wikipedia!", like the "tolerate" line it strikes me (again, purely subjective) as being ever so slightly sarcastic. I'd prefer something simple, such as "Spoiler warnings will now no longer show up in articles". --Daduzi ^talk 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the proposed text to be included, this is just the message that CWC left that had the instructions :) -- Ned Scott 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Use sparingly

I think there's a place for spoiler tags, but I don't think they ought to be put willy-nilly around every plot summary that appears in Wikipedia.

There's a subset of fiction that depends on surprise for its effectiveness; if someone gives away the ending, it substantially detracts from the experience of reading or viewing the work. Mysteries are the obvious example, where much of the fun is trying to figure out the answer before it's revealed.

This is not true of all or even most fiction. Not only does one not need to be in the dark about Oedipus' relationship to his wife in order to appreciate Oedipus Rex, one really ought to be aware of what that relationship is even if you've never seen the play so that you can understand expressions like Oedipus complex. So I would argue that you don't need a spoiler tag for Oedipus; it should be reserved for things like Citizen Kane, and even there it should be confined to protecting the actual revelation upon which the plot depends. Nareek 13:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Something like the new [Hide]/[Show] tag seems worthy for small and important spoilers (magic trick solutions, Citizen Kane, Sixth Sense, etc). The generalized spoilers on every and all fictional articles just seems like overkill these days, though. -- nae'blis 16:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The generalized spoilers on every and all fictional articles just seems like overkill these days, though. Signed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The hide/show things being used on spoilers is borderline exclusion, as -- rather than just suggesting that people might not want to read it -- they hide information. Not to mention that they would be a layout and formatting nightmare. They shouldn't be used except in things like navigation boxes. What do you mean by "overkill", by the way? Ryu Kaze 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are too many spoiler tags. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The show hide option should be considered an unacceptable option to treating spoilers. The hiding of any actual content of the article should have nothing to do with WP:SPOILER, because then it really would be a censorship issue. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One idea to limit over tagging is at least to limit over tagging on the same article. While I think that one article can have multiple open/close spoiler tags, the KISS principle should be used. For example, avoid things like this:

Tommy went to the store to get dinner. {{spoiler}} While at the store, Tommy discovered that a can of beans gives him super powers and something spoilerish. {{endspoiler}} Tommy then went home. {{spoiler}} Tommy used his super powers to save Gus from the train. {{endspoiler}}

Instead, just expand one tag around the two spoilers if there isn't significant "distance" between the two spoilers. This can be a bit of a judgment call, so when in doubt just K.I.S.S.! Something worded like that and with a good and bad example should suffice. The idea is not to dictate every possible usage, but to introduce the KISS principle when using spoiler tags. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that such a suggestion presents dealing with the issue of either forcibly containing spoilers to a single area — or two or three large areas — instead of putting them where they would normally be appropriate, and the issue of having a spoiler tag tornado, both of which are formatting nightmares and hurt an article's quality. Ryu Kaze 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, what I am suggesting is not to move the text of the document, but to move the tags. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Ryu Kaze 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that most plots do not need spoiler warnings, and those that do will generally just need one at the end. In the very rare cases where enjoyment of the story depends on not knowing a surprise that is revealed well before the end of a story, we can put a spoiler warning around the whole surprising plot. The key thing I think is to stress that ordinary plot details--for example, where a superhero gets his or her superpowers--do not need a spoiler warning.

(See "The Whisperer in Darkness" for an example of a spoiler warning that I moved from around the entire plot to just before the final revelation.)Nareek 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like reasonable advice to me. -- Ned Scott 23:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't account for how people might view what is and is not a problem for enjoying something (I'm trying not to say "POV" here, but that's what it would ultimately come down to). Some people might just see the ending that way, while others — I think RobbieG is an example from what I remember — regard anything that you wouldn't read on the back cover as fitting the criteria. Also, given that plot sections are supposed to be written from an out-of-universe perspective (part of which requires that we write about plot details in the order that they are presented), you could very easily have many of the more "twist-like" aspects scattered throughout the section with wide intervals between consisting of what might be considered "less juicy" details. Further complicating the matter is if the tags were only on the "twist-like" aspects, with those who share RobbieG's view then thinking it "safe" to read between the tags, when they would personally still see the "less juicy" details as juicy regardless of the potency.

Long story short, it could end up defeating the purpose that way. Ryu Kaze 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could do a lot of things, but I don't see how that will be a significant problem, if it significantly occurs. This is another example of why discussing what is or is not a spoiler in "gray areas" on the article's talk page is a good idea. Guidelines can't fix every problem in every single possible scenario, and they shouldn't attempt to do so. We only need to express a certain logic with a few examples, to guide the editor. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, there's a hell of a lot of judgement involved in putting together an encyclopedia, and that's unavoidable--NPOV notwithstanding. Editors collectively have to decide what information is important and what is not, what sources are credible and what is not--and, with spoiler tags, what is a crucial surprise and what is not. I'm thinking Crying Game, The Sixth Sense, Citizen Kane--things of that nature should be used as illustrations. The fact that things are going to happen in a book that you didn't know were going to happen before you started reading it is not enough to justify a spoiler tag, I think. Nareek 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Nareek's statements. -- Ned Scott 10:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For once, I can mostly agree with something you agree with in this case. That said, though, I'm pretty sure NPOV only applies in how information's presented, not how it's selected for inclusion. The selectment process is, of course, extremely judgement-based, but it has to be. Ryu Kaze 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Limit tagging to one per article

I it would be best to generally limit the spoiler tags to one per article. It would avoid POV issues. It would avoid censorship issues. I also think that the end spoiler tag is useless and its use should be discouraged. --Kunzite 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I disagree that the end tag is useless. For example, a major twist or plot development (that falls under whatever guidline is eventually decided upon) may occur midway through the article, through a character's description or whatever..and there may be more relevant information after that (particularly if it is an ongoing series, part of a trilogy/series discussed on one page, etc.). The /spoiler tag would indicate it is safe to read for the person skimming to locate the safe point at which they could continue reading.

Secondly, I think that it's certainly possible to have spoilers occur in more than one place as part of an article that progresses naturally. By limiting spoilers to one portion of a page, you force all spoilers to be included in that section (which may make the article poorly constructed, cause the spoilers to be overencompasing, or cause editors to leave out information that can't be readily included within the one section of spoilers, none of which is better than having spoilers appear more than once on a page) Darquis 06:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Kunzite's point might have been that someone who's unwilling to read spoilers is probably going to be done with the page as soon as they see a spoiler tag anyway. To clarify: if they're so concerned as not to read some info anyway, then the chances of them deciding to continue reading are reduced. For that matter, inserting my own opinion here, interspersing these tags throughout an article (giving to the readers the impression that it's okay to warn about information and that plot details are always going to be warned about) is going to bring more harm than good when you're only tagging the "major twist" and not tagging all the other plot details that are equally important in the eyes of many. For that matter, what good does it do them to come to expect spoiler tags when they aren't always going to be used on every article, mustless on every plot detail? That's just misleading conditioning that ultimately defeats its own purpose. Ryu Kaze 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm saying that plot details should ever be tagged under any circumstances. I think we all know my view there. Ryu Kaze 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. --Kunzite 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to only tag the important "twists", so I hope I'm not giving that impression..I just find that those twists, generally, are the details that can most enhance/hinder my enjoyment of a work of fiction (be it written or otherwise). As far as interspersing tags giving readers the impression that major plot details will be warned about (at least in works deemed appropriate for tags), I don't see the problem. That would imply an expectation of consistancy on the part of Wikipedia..which should be exactly what we're striving for here. Nor, I think, would readers come to expect spoilers for every plot detail when only the major ones are being enclsoed within tags. For example, I severely doubt that anyone will be putting the opening text of the first Star Wars trilogy behind a spoiler tag. Thus, readers wouldn't expect something like that to be behind a tag (whereas they might if we just use the tag once, and a large number of minor plot details are enclosed by a tag)Darquis 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not to say limit spoilers to one part of the page. I said one spoiler tag per article. Put one after the lead (like other language projects do) and be done with it. There is no need to tag major twists alone. That's a judgement call and overkill. --Kunzite 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

One tag per article limits spoilers to being in that area after the tag. And if there are character pieces that are spoilers (for example, Star Wars), putting the tag before that seems like a bit much, whereas if that isn't tagged, it certainly could ruin someone's enjoyment of the movies (I recognize that this specific example has ingrained itself into popular culture, but you get the idea). Basically, I think that if we tag early for an early spoiler, it may render a larger portion of the article as unreadable to the spoiler-wary reader, and that if we tag late, we're no longer using the tags for what they should be. Darquis 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with what you're suggesting, though, Darquis, is that spoiler tags won't always be used. As there isn't any agreement on them being used universally, and there isn't any agreement on removing them universally, the best we're going to get is a case-by-case basis. That being the reality of the situation, giving the readers the expectation that plot twists — or even plot details in general — are always going to be tagged is going to end up defeating its purpose.

By the way, regardless of whether or not some readers who rely on the tags come to expect them for every plot detail or not, with only the most "major" of plot details being tagged, other details that are considered just as important to many won't be. In that case, again, the tags will fall short of their purpose.

By the way, Kunzite's suggestion was that the spoiler tag be used once and after the lead to the article, in which case it would fall either before the table of contents or after. I don't think you understood this because of your suggestion that this would limit the placement of the tags. That would, in fact, say "Anywhere after this tag — "anywhere" being everything in the article after the opening — there may be plot details". Not that I'm really sure Kunzite's suggestion is the best answer in the world (of course, I think that would be the complete abolishment of the tags), as it would also be based on a case-by-case basis, but the idea of only tagging "major" plot details (another determination inherently based on the judgement of editors and their expectations about what readers do and don't want to see) is inherently flawed because of how it would condition readers to have unrealistic expectations, while also misleading them into thinking that any details they might think important would be tagged, which inevitably would not be the case.

I really don't see how such an idea is any better than leaving the plot details notice at the one in the universal content disclaimer. This, at least, lets them know that plot details could show up in any section of any article. Tagging only "major" plot details — and only on a case-by-case basis — is going to set readers up for seeing things that they don't want to a lot worse than them knowing they might come across such things anywhere. (Notice: as always, in my capacity as a neutral editor, I don't personally have any concerns about people seeing things they don't want to; if it happens, it happens; the encyclopedia's for conveying knowledge after all; I think it necessary that I continue to supply this disclaimer) Ryu Kaze 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No way, I completely oppose this suggestion. For one, what about spoilers that are used by WikiProject Stargate, where the spoiler tag says which season it spoils? This, again, seems to be nothing more than a way to creep the elimination of spoilers into the guidelines themselves. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in case I wasn't clear before, I don't think this is a great idea either. It presents much the same problem as only tagging major plot elements (though that one has an extra problem with how opinion differs on what is and isn't a major plot element). Ryu Kaze 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If editors can't decide what's a major plot detail, how are they supposed to write a summary in the first place?

Anyway, I think the idea is not to tag "major" plot developments, but developments where surprise is integral to the enjoyment of the work. The fact that Frodo ends up destroying the Ring is a major development in The Lord of the Rings, but you don't have to not know that to enjoy reading the books. Nareek 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How would one determine what is integral to the enjoyment of a work, or even that foreknowledge of such things necessarily impairs enjoyment rather than enhances it? As I've mentioned either here or in a previous level of this discussion, I always study a work of fiction before I read it/watch it/play it. Enjoyment can be different things for different people. For me it's largely knowing what's going to happen and then seeing how it's conveyed. The technique behind presentation is usually as important to me as what is going to happen. I really don't see how we can assume what does or doesn't "ruin" something for people in the first place, in addition to thinking it inappropriate that we concern ourselves with it. Ryu Kaze 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people are concerned about spoilers and some people are not is the reason we have spoiler tags--rather than a rule against spoilers. Nareek 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We could never have a rule against plot details because our purpose is to be comprehensive and we don't censor. Technically, we're not even supposed to consider what readers do or don't want to see.

In any event, as this particular line of discussion is about when and where spoiler tags could reasonably be used, I'll address that issue: I don't have an answer. Even putting any concerns over policy violation aside, and putting aside any concerns over redundancy or the encyclopedia's professional image, I don't have any suggestions as to when they could logically be used without undermining their purpose, as spoiler tags are a stylistic preference and not a requirement. They aren't always going to show up, so readers who think that they're supposed to be everywhere and have become conditioned to them are being set up for an unpleasant realization. Also, when they are used, they're not always going to be used on some plot details that everyone would consider important, so the readers are being set up there too. And even all that aside, there's no reasonable means of determining what does or doesn't impair someone's enjoyment of a work of fiction, as some people — such as myself — are equally concerned with how events are portrayed as they are with what those events are, and can even find enjoyment in knowing what's going to happen so that they can more closely observe how those ideas are presented.

Long story short, things are going to be pretty much the same as they were before there was 1000kb of discussion on the subject. New suggestions concerning the use of the tags (such as "use only once" or "use only on major plot details/major twists/major enjoyment aspects, the identity of which are all subjective") can't even be rigidly implemented without undermining the overall purpose (though, technically, that purpose has probably been undermined all along since spoiler tags haven't been universally used ever). We might as well leave it at "Decide on a case-by-case basis as always" and have done with the matter. There's not really anything else for any of us to say on this subject, is there? Ryu Kaze 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Example

Phoenix_Wright as it existed on 01:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) This is my idea of stupidity being applied to spoiler tags. It's a current game so, perhaps, this article should have a spoiler warning -- and it does have one properly in the first section. But it opens and closes spoiler tags like they're HTML code or something. It's way too much. I see it from time to time and I usually remove 'em. This is why I think that we should suggest that spoiler tages are limited to "Generally one per article" exceptions can always be made, but.. let's get rid of some of the proliferation. --Kunzite 01:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. How about what I suggested above in #Use sparingly? -- Ned Scott 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that example doesn't seem all that bad.. -- Ned Scott 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think pages like this bring out the problems with spoilers much more starkly. It is visually difficult to navigate down the page and figure out what blocks of text you want to look at and which ones you don't. Moreover, the constant editorial decisions about what aspects of a fictional universe are spoilers and which one's aren't provides a lot of room for the kind of biases and issues that we discussed back on the endless-discussion page. Why is it a spoiler to learn that Pheonix has spiky hair, but not a spoiler to learn that he sometimes has to get down and dirty outside the courtroom? (Don't answer that, please God, my point is simply that such decisions are apt to provoke argument). It seems to me to speak heavily for the advantages of a full-page spoiler tag, if any.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining a user who comes to a page like this and begins trying to navigate between the spoiler tags, genuinely not wanting to see the information. If I am worried about learning what Pheonix Wright's hairstyle is, I am not going to google him or go anywhere near his wikipedia page, etc. etc. I think the use of spaghetti spoiler tags, if anything, gives users a false sense that they should expect to be able to read an entire page at no 'risk.' Ethan Mitchell 12:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, believe it. People, such as myself, often look up information on shows and games before spending time and money on them. I've never played that game, so I really don't know what you are talking about with the hair. There are three blocks of "spoilers", and it was fairly easy for me just now to browse through and read parts that were outside and not read things that were inside. I'm sure layouts like this could be improved, depending on the recommended article layout and such. My point is, while this probably is not the best example of spoiler tag usage, I don't see this as a "horrible" example. Nor do I see three spoiler areas as "spaghetti" on a good sized article such as this.

We all know that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and spoiler tags are no exception from that. Just as someone runs the risk of reading bad info, they run the risk of reading a non-tagged spoiler. Are we supposed to stop citing sources simply because we can't cite them all at once? No, of course not, we would still cite sources. So why do you think spoiler tags are any different? -- Ned Scott 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything is a work in progress, yes, but eventually there comes a time where a discussion of how to improve something comes. Theoretically, the time for this was supposed to be now. Or the last two months, depending on how you look at it. Ryu Kaze 12:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Use in articles of people from reality shows needs to be addressed

Should a spoiler template be included in a biography article when details of a person during the course of the show they were in is revealed? i.e. Chris Leben, of which I originally had a spoiler template in the "The Ultimate Fighter" section, but has since been deleted. VegaDark 09:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to strongly urge us not to go this route. The spoiler "policy," such as it is, has always been exclusively concerned with fictional events. On the mega talk page, I asked whether or not this was an arbitrary distinction--I think it is--but I would certainly not wish to see spoiler tags extended beyond their current range. If factual details of an individual's life can be considered spoilers, then there is an argument by consistency that many, many things that are not now spoilers will have to be flagged. For example, if I am a liberal reading and enjoying 1945 it might spoil my enjoyment of that book to know that newt Gingrich is a conservative. So should Newt's biography have a spoiler tag? The argument that it shouldn't because his politics do not reveal a plot detail in the book falls flat. If the point of spoiler tags is to protect people's enjoyment of fiction, and we extend the tags to cover factual information, then it would precious for us to decide what kinds of factual information are bona fide spoilers. Ethan Mitchell 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the argument "falls flat". Spoilers aren't just to protect enjoyment of a work, but to protect said enjoyment through not revealing signifigant plot twists or details. I'm not sure, though, that it merits an inclusion in Leben's (to follow the original example) biography, although it does raise the point of spoilers placed in articles not about the work which they may spoil. Darquis 16:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers are for works of fiction and reality shows (while not always "reality") are not considered fiction. -- Ned Scott 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess what I mean is that--while I don't agree with the premise--it seems self-consistent for us to say "Wikipedia should give people fair warning if an article might upset them." However, we have roundly rejected that idea in a wide range of cases dealing with non-fiction articles. So, slightly less consistently, we can say "Wikipedia should give people fair warning if an article about a fictional subject might upset them." But there are, as it turns out, ways and ways for that to happen, so the spoiler tag restricts itself to an even narrower terrain: "Wikipedia should give people fair warning if an article about a fictional subject might upset them through giving them advance information about plot details."

That could be a consistent policy in and of itself, but it has little bearing on anything else that we're doing here. We don't warn people about factual or thematic or genre information that might upset them in its relationship to a fictional piece, and we don't warn them about non-fictional articles that might upset them a great deal more. My overall objection is that there is not a clear reason for the special sensitivity around fictional plot spoilers, in the context of wikipedia's much broader mission. Until there is some consensus about why we have a special policy in this regard, I think it would be a very bad idea to extend it to non-fictional articles. Ethan Mitchell 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The long and short answer to your inquiry is that we don''t have a special policy for it. That said, I do share your curiosity for why the least "painful" of the "objectional material" here on Wikipedia is the one condemned the most, even in articles, where condemnation shouldn't be. Ryu Kaze 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Since the amount of activity has slowed down on these talk pages, I'm going to close this one so we can just resume using one talk page (Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning). -- Ned Scott 22:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.