Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Do you really think this policy has some kind of logic?

"However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are largely considered unnecessary." Please, when you write the article of a book, write all the book... this will be enough detail. Why I'm going to read wikipedia articles if I have to fear what I'm reading? This policy only makes that the article only has usage for the writer or the people that already knows the topic, not for people that whant some kind of info... you make with this your enciclopedia meaningles, because it is better not to read it than read it. Don't read this as an user comment, read this as someone that is telling you that you are forbiding the use of an enciclopedia: The search of not known information (Anonym) 23:32, 19 Octuber 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.192.191 (talk)

No logic... This policy as it is written now makes me think I'll never look up a book or movie until after I've seen it ever ever ever again. Whereas I might want to know what kind of genre it is, or who directed it, or what languages are in it. Ditto for books. 198.144.209.8 (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a fan site. It is assumed that when you visit an article it is because you want to know about the subject. If you want to remain ignorant, avoid information sources such as encyclopedias. --TS 11:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is no logic. It takes away from Wikipedia's uses as a reference. Wikipedia is not meant to teach people. It is primarily a reference, and a brief overview. Anyone who thinks reading a Wikipedia article means they are no longer ignorant on the subject... well, there's a problem here. 206.225.143.51 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Second try ...

A more moderate proposal now. Of course, I wouldn't want Teeth to state that "Teeth is a film about a girl with teeth". Darren's other examples are equally valid. However, I have seen some utterly careless spoilers on Wikipedia. I would like editors to think twice before including spoilers. Everything else being equal from an encyclopedic perspective, a version without a spoiler should be preferred. As I understand WP:PLOT, complete coverage of the plot is not that high of an encyclopedic priority to warrant a completely careless attitude towards spoilers. Vesal (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If everything else is equal from an encyclopedic perspective, it doesn't matter which version we use. If the version with spoiler beats the version without spoiler by a tiny fraction of a percent, it should be preferred. Editors should not be careful about whether or not to include spoilers, but should check carefully whether or not to include unencyclopedic plit information (independet of the question of spoiling things for others). Kusma (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I like your shortening. While I still believe that avoiding irrelevant spoilers is an encyclopedic consideration, framing the whole issue in terms of avoiding unncyclopedic plot information is much much better. Also, it doesn't let anyone abuse this guideline to remove encyclopedic and relevant spoilers. Thank you! Vesal (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fully agree with Vesal's edit and Kusma's tweak. Well done. Everyme 11:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been around in a while, but add me to the list of those who agree with the latest tweak. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Do spoiler tags do harm?

The debate about whether wikipedia should have spoiler tags has been raging for quite a while. Just look at this page. The fact that its still raging after all this time and there are 15 archived pages clearly indicates its a heated topic. Lots of people seem upset that there are no spoiler tags, we see the same arguments over and over that despite wikipedia being an encyclopedia that strives for completeness, people expect to be warned before a story is spoiled.

I understand that some people think that it should be obvious that an encyclopedia will have spoilers well clearly its not obvious or this debate wouldn't still be going. Furthermore I see putting spoiler tags into an article a matter of politeness. It says "hey, just in case you didn't realize, here comes a spoiler." and seems to me like its just a nice thing to do.

I'm just curious: Who is harmed by spoiler tags? Why are some people so against them? Not having spoiler tags is doing harm. People expect them and they aren't there so they accidentally get plots spoiled. If we had them what would be the draw back? What harm would they do? Mloren (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The debate has stopped quite some time ago (no discussion at all in the last two months). Kusma (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact it's been over a year now since the template was deleted, and over a year and a half since the mass removal of most of the instances of it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When information on an article violates Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research, the read is always harmed. The spoiler tags does just that. Also no one has explained why more serious legal and medical disclaimers should be kept off of articles while the minor spoiler disclaimer should be an exception to WP:DISCLAIM. --Farix (Talk) 13:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The spoiler tags used to detract from our mission to inform, because they fostered the false impression that part of our mission was to protect readers from unwanted knowledge. There are plenty of fan sites around that fulfil the needs of fans who sometimes want to avoid learning some crucial fact. Wikipedia isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopedia that is sometimes mistaken for a fan site. --TS 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be balanced against the fact that the lack of spoiler sensitivity in Wikipedia detracts from our mission to inform, because people will avoid articles that are inconsiderate about spoilers. This is not a black-and-white issue as our current policy seems to indicate. The policy is far too lopsided now, and should be reworded to leave more power in the hands of the individual article editors to settle on a compromise for each article. --Doradus (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd really wish we still had the spoiler tag. case in point, not even ten minutes ago from the writing of this comment, I was looking up an article about a tv show that airs in both the USA and Canada. I completely forgot the that episodes air first in Canada and then in the US, so I went to the entry to see something and found about three different things that will be happening in the next couple of episodes, which has kind of ruined my enjoyment somewhat now. As for TS's comment about how a spoiler tag detracts from our mission to inform, by having the tag, you are informing the reader that there is information that they may not know about in the article, which allows for the reader to be more informed. Perhaps a spoiler tag could only be used in media entries (TV, Movies, Books)? Granted that Wikipedia is not a fansite, nonetheless, a lot of people come here to get information about their favorite shows/movies/books/etc, and would it really "hurt" to have some sort of spoiler tag. Our job should be to inform people about subjects, and certain subjects warrant spoiler tags.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure anybody would care to listen any more after so long, but...

- I'm still completely baffled by wikipedia's policy on spoilers. Technically speaking, yes, spoilers are often necessary for many articles on popular culture. But what harm does such a *tag* do? The "driving away readers" argument makes absolutely no sense. It ignores a very basic idea of how users operate, both the reader and the editor. First, spoilers are problems primarily (only?) in popular culture-related articles. Nobody needs a spoiler for Napoleon losing the battle of Waterloo, or the current population of China, these information don't hurt people. Surprising plot points, twists and turns of fiction, *do* harm people's experience. Put it simply, wikipedia is being irresponsible to its readers.

- This leads to a second point: in my experience with wikipedia articles, the articles about more "serious," traditionally encyclopedic subjects often have very different tones compared to the articles of popular works. The editors of popular culture articles are more often than not the fans, and they seem to have a near-universal compulsion to explain the plot, characters, etc. in details. In a traditional encyclopedia this is almost entirely irrelevant information (unless the subject gains a notoriety of its own), hence, there is no such thing as a spoiler warning in them. A Britannica article is not going to be telling how some guy in War and Peace will die. Guess what? A wikipedia article does. By all means I do not mind this development -- despite all its pretensions otherwise, wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. The articles on recent popular works that have no place in Britannica actually distinguishes wikipedia as a useful resource, even an integral part of the Internet landscape. That, however, also means a need for different policies regarding them. Why? As I said, fans like explaining plots. They like telling you the whole story. And they're the ones editing the articles. Few make serious attempts to purge wikipedia of "encyclopedically irrelevant plot information" so to pretend that people actually follow these guidelines is dishonest.

- And then there's the third point, reader behavior. I don't have any serious data, so I can offer only my anecdote, my own changing attitudes towards reading wikipedia articles about fictional works. Nowadays I find myself unconsciously ignoring the entire parts of articles (the usual: "Plot," "Characters," etc.) that would most likely spoil me. Even the introductions are not always safe. I might be trying to find information about who's the author of some work and stumble upon the Unexpected Twist Behind the Masquerade. Not cool. And this is after I've changed my own behavior, to intentionally *ignore* parts of an *encyclopedia* articles. Not exactly normal user behavior for encyclopedias, repositories of information. And I used to read these articles differently, the same way as I would read an article about the City of Milan or the Number Theory. I was screwed over repeatedly until I wised up.

- The problem could be solved very easily by, yes, reintroducing the tag. It's a gentle, simple warning. Not even bandwidth heavy, just a slight caution. Someone above argued that this discourages people from being informed. *I* find that this gives people a choice of what to be informed about, and the lack of it discourages *me* from reading. Some other argument is that it makes the tone too forbidding. I find it a polite courtesy. Some find it inherent, I didn't. Lowest common denominator isn't always bad. Sometimes you can really accommodate them all and harming none. And as an encyclopedia, you should. This isn't "the article is in a neutrality dispute [of some kind]," an unfortunately very prevalent bunch of tags that just warns me that what's coming next is going to be full of it (and require an immediate click to the discussion page to get the whole idea). This is a simple spoiler tag.

- my worthless 2 units of minor currency.70.189.182.16 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a spoiler? How long to keep things hidden? Fine for films released this week, but do I need to keep Dumbeldore's death secret in his article, 7 book articles and 8 film articles? And for how long? The notion of a "spoiler" is not part on an encyclopedia. Bruce Willis is dead in the Sixth Sense, that's a ten year old spoiler but also a plot point in 50 First Dates and countless TV episodes, when are where so spoilers apply? Should 50 First Dates have a spoiler tag on the DVD box for The Sixth Sense? The real world doesn't have spoilers tags, and an encyclopedia doesn't. Know this everything on Wikipedia can be seen as a spoiler, you read the whole site at your own risk. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself if you don't believe in spoiler tags since why would it be OK for films released this week .

And let's get rid of this everything on Wikipedia can be a spoiler argument .I've yet to see anyone explain how an article on a Country , Park , Building etc have spoilers .Garda40 (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant everything media related, books, films and TV are likely to have spoilers. Every book, every film and every TV program will contain spoilers. For the time thing I was trying to quantify how long a spoiler tag would be valid, for most pushing for spoiler tags they have this week's films/TVs/books in mind, the argument being that most people haven't seen them, for example GI Joe (out today) may have only been seen by a few thousand people, so for 99.9% of Wikipedia users the plot is a spoiler for the next six weeks or so. So when does the tag come off, what is a spoiler (in the cast section for the GI Joe article a character identity is revealed which could be considered a spoiler) and when is something no longer a spoiler. The Mousetrap (the play) is notorious for having the cast ask that the audience not reveal the ending (the detective did it), but Paul Merton did as much on TV in the nineties, so do we spoiler tag that article or the Have I Got News For You article or the Paul Merton article, and what harm is there in revealing a 75 year old spoiler? The reveal in Frankenstein of the monster takes places a few chapters in, do we tag the novel page? The problem is that there are no parameters for what and when to warn about spoilers, so making it clear that everything is spoiled is simpler. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SW shortcut

In November, somebody quietly switched WP:SW from this guideline to Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars. However a look at "What links here" shows that the shortcut has little if any currency in that WikiProject, and that on the contrary WP:SW has frequent use as a pointer to this guideline. I've reverted the shortcut to point here. The WikiProject page lists the following Shortcuts:WP:WPSTAR, WP:SWARS, WP:STARW and WP:STARWARS. --TS 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

It is totally inappropriate to include spoilers in the lead section of an article. Readers have the expectation that they can read the lead of an article to learn general information without having the plot spoiled. By including major spoilers in the lead, Wikipedia would only drive away readers, instilling in them the fear that they cannot even look at an article about a film or book which they are interested in but have not yet watched or read. Readers should be able to read an article read with the same comfort they read a review or a summary on the back of a novel - expecting an overview of the story without serious spoilers. Some guy (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The back of the book is trying to sell you something. WP is trying to give you information. Sometimes the main reason for notoriety of a work is the large spoiler (for instance The Crying Game) and thus it needs to be in the lead to be encyclopedic; that said, it's really not too often that it should be in the lead, but there's really nothing anyone can do to prevent it from /ever/ happening. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be written without consideration of what plot details may be considered "spoiler". If a work's notoriety is based on a particular plot detail, then that plot detail should be included in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we put spoilers in the lede (or every single plot detail in the second section) regardless of whether it is part of the work's notoriety or not. This diminishes Wikipedia's value as an information resource -- like Some guy complained, our current structural conventions compel readers to avoid looking at articles about works they have not yet read or seen.

It isn't necessary to "spoil" readers in the majority of cases. We could adopt a convention to put the "full plot details" section further down in the article. We could make Wikipedia a useful information resource for both those who have seen a work and those who haven't.

I'm not arguing the "spoiler tag" issue. I'm arguing the "why do spoilers automatically go at the top of the article?" issue. Why is our collective will so resistant to making a structural change that would better serve our readers?--Father Goose (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I feel there must be a solid reason for including a spoiler in the lead, and if nobody can provide a logical reason why the article actually needs the spoiler (using "the spoiler page says you can't delete spoilers" isn't a reason) the spoiler should be removed. Right now this guideline creates a blanket excuse for people to intentionally spoil the plot; this guideline LITERALLY allows people to just throw in spoilers for their own amusement and then say the spoilers cannot ever be removed because they are protected by this vague and poorly considered policy. Some guy (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I still do not feel lead spoilers are appropriate. I would like to add that, even if the noteriety of the subject is based on a particular plot detail or twist, users coming to look at the page because they have no familiarity with the subject might not be prepared for the explanation of the major twist. If for example you went to the Fight Club (film)' article because you knew nothing about the film, you would be satisfied reading the lead because you know there is an important twist, and you know the themes of the film, but you haven't had the twist spoiled. What if you went there knowing nothing about the film, unprepared for a twist, and found the twist in the second paragraph, without warning, ruining the experience of watching the film for the first time? Some guy (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this guideline LITERALLY allows people to just throw in spoilers for their own amusement -- not at all. Articles need to be written encyclopediclly, and most of the time, this means the lead likely won't have any significant spoiler. It it does, it needs to be changed, just like various parts of the majority of articles on WP. Basically the rule isn't "spoilers are allowed to do whatever", the rule is "write it so the info is presented in the best way" - which means that spoilers are of no concern. It's just like putting a penis into an article not about a penis -- it doesn't belong there, even though the software and our policies allows it abstractly. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We should not consider whether a plot detail will "spoil" the work for the reader, only conciseness should be a consideration. If the work's notoriety is based on a particular plot detail (ie. it is a detail that critics mention when discussing or describing the work) or the plot detail is iconic (the revelation that Vader is Luke's father), then the detail should be explained in the lead. That's because the lead is suppose to be an article unto itself. Also, labeling a plot detail as a spoiler is considered original research by many editors, and generally unverifiable and based on one's point of view. Finally, removing a plot detail because you believe it to be a "spoiler" on the bases that it is a spoiler is prohibited by this guideline. --Farix (Talk) 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Finally, removing a plot detail because you believe it to be a "spoiler" on the bases that it is a spoiler is prohibited by this guideline" THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. That is exactly what allows contributors to act like children and go throwing spoilers in an article not to improve the article, but to ruin the story for others. I could go to the Fight Club article and add a new first sentence that reveals the major twist in the story. Then when people tried to remove that sentence, I could say "removing a plot detail because you believe it to be a 'spoiler' is prohibited by Wikipedia:Guideline", which is exactly what some juvenille editors are doing. You are citing a rule as the reason for its own existence; this is the height of foolishness, so outlandish in its very idea that there is an entire philosophy on how it is wrong, I suggest you look at Begging the question. As further evidence of your illogical 'reasoning', The Empire Strikes Back does not spoil Luke's father in the lead, only saying there is a "shocking revelation".

Melodia, I am currently embroiled in a difficult editorial dispute over a major plot spoiler in the lead of an article which serves absolutely no encyclopedic purpose. A particular editor is tirelessly reinserting the spoiler, only using this guideline as his justification. He has given not the slightest actual justification on how the article is improved or why the information should exist in the lead; he only cites this guideline, over and over, completely inappropriately. Some guy (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers in lead

I'd like to voice my agreement that a spoiler in the lead should require considerable justification. I think a policy such as the following would be reasonable:

Spoilers should not be included in the article title, section names, or lead section unless the spoiler's omission would make the lead confusing or misleading.

Any opinions on this wording? --Doradus (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is a spoiler? How does one determine that a plot detail is a spoiler? When does a spoiler no longer become a spoiler? What objective tests will be implemented? Over all, this seems to be a way to sneak in some WP:CENSORSHIP into article contents and organization. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One can answer these questions in the same way every other organizational choice is made on Wikipedia: through editorial judgment and consensus. None of the examples of "must have spoilers in the lede" that have been given so far -- The Crying Game, The Empire Strikes Back, Fight Club, and while we're at it, Citizen Kane -- have spoilers in the lede. The editors of each of those articles understand how to describe their subjects in a way entirely befitting an encyclopedia without going "pbtttht, fuck you, Vader is Luke's daddy".

The wording Doradus suggested isn't quite right, though... I'll mull on it for a while.--Father Goose (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because the lead to Darth Vader indirectly reveals that bit of information. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We're allowed to not be idiots. Not only is there a statute of limitations (that revelation having been public knowledge for thirty-odd years and the line itself a prominent fixture in American popular culture that almost every kid knows from birth), but with the prequel series' release such information is now vital to a person's understanding of the character. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, Father Goose. I look forward to your revised wording. I also strongly disagree with the accusation of censorship, since I'm not trying to keep anything out of an article; just out of the lead. --Doradus (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute another thought: that Wikipedia's goals would be harmed if potential readers were to start avoiding WP's articles out of fear of encountering spoilers. I think it's fair to assume someone reading the lead wants a quick idea of the gist and significance of a work, but it is not safe to assume that they want important plot twists. I hope we can find a wording of the Spoiler policy that encourages the right balance here. --Doradus (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has yet answered the questions, how does one objectively determine that a plot detail is a spoiler? What one person may see as a mere plot detail, another would consider a major spoiler. That's why we need an objective test. And it is censorship to limit information to certain sections based on flimsy evidence or reasoning. As for how much or which plot details should be included in the lead, that's more in the domain of WP:WAF. But if a work's notoriety is based on a particular plot detail or theme, then that plot detail or theme should be included in the lead, even if some would consider the plot detail or theme a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no objective answer (unless you want to find a third-party source that says "hey, this is a spoilery plot element!"), but I am pretty sure that editors in good faith can determine which revelations of a given work are major spoilers to keep them out of the lede, just as we expect the same editors to summarize a story unbiasedly. The lede should only have one to two sentences to cover the plot, though it's still possible with just a few words (see Watchmen) to reveal a key spoiler. Now, while I do agree that if the work is known widely for something that is otherwise a spoiler as described in the article, it should be included, but I've thought of this, and cannot think of any example where this is the case - the spoiler helps with the work but the work is notable for other more major factors. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mousetrap springs immediately to mind. Introducing an exception of this sort without being able to include a concrete definition of when it might apply is asking for trouble. This guideline is controversial enough already, but it has the strength of being extremely objective to apply. This proposal reopens the whole can of worms that we have (finally) managed to clamp down by being sweeping. Spoilers are not deleted for their own sake; spoilers are not inserted for their own sake. We use spoilers when they serve an encyclopedic purpose, and not when they are merely gratuitous. These guidelines apply as well to the lead as they do to any other section. Why do we need specific guidelines for the section that happens to be at the top of the page? Happy‑melon 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mousetrap springs to mind as an example of a work that might need to be spoiled in the lede? If you'll look at that article, the "twist" is mentioned in the lede but not revealed. A similar thing was done for all the other "notable spoilers" that have been brought up so far. And none of these articles were edited in response to the conversation we're presently having. Les Diaboliques (film) also isn't spoiled in the lede, though it notably contains the sentence "The end credit contains an early example of an "anti-spoiler message", requesting the audience not to disclose the plot to others who have not seen the film."

What this says to me is that it's probably never necessary to spoil a work in the lede -- the existence of a prominent spoiler can be mentioned, and the specifics discussed in a Plot section or elsewhere. Doradus is entirely right that the value of the encyclopedia is lessened whenever we gratuitously spoil works: I learned the hard way long ago to never read a Wikipedia article on a work I had not yet seen or read, because we strew spoilers around the way caged monkeys throw shit.

Now, my position is not that we shouldn't have spoilers in articles, but that we should structure our articles to be of value to both those who have seen a work and those who haven't. This would mean not spoiling it in the lede, and as I suggested at an earlier point, moving our blow-by-blow plot synopses to the end of the article instead of the beginning. A non-spoily overview can go at the top of the article: The Crying Game has just such an overview in addition to a fuller plot description.

What should be done in the rest of the article is less obvious; if there's something encyclopedic to say about a spoiler outside of the plot section, it should be said without restriction. In an ideal world, I'd suggest partitioning all "spoily" material at the bottom of the article, and all non-spoily material at the top, with a discrete "spoilers follow" message in between. Unfortunately, that option was edit-warred out of existence a couple of years ago, but it still strikes me as the most sensible option.--Father Goose (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem: the current policy has chosen to be objective at the expense of being controversial and inflexible. The editor community hasn't reached a consensus on this, so it's not appropriate for the guideline to be as strongly worded as it is. --Doradus (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think this might be a good idea. ViperSnake151 14:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers definitely shouldn't be in the lead, and most of the time they shouldn't be there at all. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that they shouldn't be there at all. There's no harm in putting spoilers in a plot summary, for example. I disagree with Jimbo:

If people are that uptight about learning plot details, they should [not] be reading an encyclopedia!--Jimbo Wales 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This ill-conceived and cavalier attitude toward readers can be fixed by the following minor rewording:

If people are that uptight about learning plot details, they should not be reading a plot summary!--Doradus (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — I oppose putting spoilers into our lead sections, for two reasons. Firstly, the lead section of the article should exist as an introduction and as a short summary of the important points of the article, so that a reader can understand the topic without having to read through the in-depth coverage of the subject below. Most of our readers don't read much beyond the summary section, therefore they should be considered the most important part of the article. To include more than the summarizing details of the article in a lead section would make it sound prolix, which could frustrate our readers when they want to get basic information on a given topic. Another thing is that our readers often turn to Wikiperia as a guide. It would be a ridiculous assumption that our readers don't sometimes read Wikipedia for what movies they may want to watch, or what video games they may want to play, or what books they may be interested in reading, etc. While it may seem contrary to our "non-spoiler" approach, many of those readers would not like their movie to be spoiled for them prior to watching it; if Wikipedia garners a reputation for doing this, we might end up with fewer readers. Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 18:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How come anyone hasn't come forward with examples where they ARE in the lead, and have been kept upon changing that? It seems as if this whole discussion is about some theoretical practice that isn't happening in the first place otherwise. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth not only has a spoiler in the lede, it's in the infobox as well, as a caption and picture. I'm not convinced that degree of plot exposition needs to be in the lede. In fact, featured article or no, I think the lede in that article is a mass of links and minutiae, about two paragraphs too long.--Father Goose (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the lead of that article leaves much to be desired, I can find no fault with the image, or the caption apart from length. Why should this information be treated differently in an encyclopedic treatment of a topic purely because it is a spoiler? Happy‑melon 19:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For the general reason that our encyclopedia could be more useful if it were designed for readers who want introductory information before they see the work as well as for those who want more detailed information after they've seen the work. (Or for those who want to know everything about the work without an intention to see or read it.) I don't think we should flip the bird at the first group if we can structure our content in a way that serves all of our readers well. I belong to all three groups of readers, at different times; I would like to be given the opportunity to use Wikipedia as each type of reader. Right now, whenever I belong to the first group, Wikipedia is basically acting like a dick toward me.

We should never remove spoilers if doing so would be a disservice to the second/third group of readers. But I think with some minor structural changes, we could do a lot better in serving the first group, without in any way compromising what we offer to the other groups.--Father Goose (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that, in the new series of Doctor Who, the most notable aspect of the twelfth episode of each series is the spoiler. For example, the Daleks appearing at the end of "Army of Ghosts", the Master appearing at the end of "Utopia", or the Doctor getting shot by a Dalek at the end of "The Stolen Earth". It's the thing that gets both fans and reviewers squeeing their pants, as well as being something RTD takes a verifiable pleasure in doing. To leave that fact out would not be comprehensive. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is a good point. This issue seems to be a non-sequitur: spoilers are not included in lead sections, not because they are spoilers, but because our other relevant guidelines (WP:LEAD etc) suggest that spoilers are usually too trivial to include. If a situation were to occur where a spoiler was notable enough to appear in the lead, then it should appear in the lead per WP:NOTCENSORED etc etc. Spoilers should be treated like any other piece of information, and the guidelines we currently have regarding information in the lead seem to cover all the scenarios suggested in a proper fashion, which makes this proposal rather WP:CREEPy. Happy‑melon 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, for each of the cases we've examined so far of "notable spoilers", the actual spoiler isn't in the lede: the articles mention that there is "a" notable spoiler associated with the work, and discuss the actual spoiler in more suitable places. WP:LEAD doesn't give any advice that covers this issue; if anything, it has a sentence that is somewhat misleading in this regard: "...the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." That sentence fails to make a distinction between facts that are important to the subject ("there's a really notorious twist") as opposed to being important to the plot of the work ("the butler did it").

NOTCENSORED is a distracting argument in cases like these, because it's not a question of whether the spoiler should be in the article, but whether it should be mentioned in a "gotcha" sort of manner. "Not censored" doesn't apply to editorial and structural choices; you can't use NOTCENSORED to insist that any particular information belongs in the lede, spoilers or otherwise.

This isn't a question of "unnecessary instructions"; it's a question of whether adopting an "avoid 'gotcha' spoilers" convention would improve our content for (all of) our readers.--Father Goose (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But if people aren't doing it (except in the one or two cases noted) then why is it an issue? If you think the lead should be changed, FIX IT. Again, it just seems like you're bring up a potential problem that has a simple solution that you don't want to employ. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an issue because there has been massive contention over "how to handle spoilers" in the past, and I don't expect that contention to have magically disappeared. And it's more than just the lede: a bigger offender is our convention of placing an exhaustive plot recap in the section following the lede. It's my hope that I can discuss with others, here, ways of improving how we present our content for the sake of our readership. If you feel you've discussed it to the extent of your interest, that's fine.--Father Goose (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The reason we have this guideline is to focus on creating informative articles without restrictions; we're here to inform, not to beat around the bush. If you want to read an article that covers a story comprehensively, of course there's going to be spoilers. Also, as others have said, what a spoiler can be is highly subjective. I mean, technically the lead section to Milk (film) has tons of spoilers (including a major one about the end), but it's based on a true story. Also, there seems to be an assumption that including spoilers in the lead of an article "ruins" the subject for others, which also implies some sort of malice in conveying this information. I highly doubt that's what goes through most people's minds when writing lead sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Milk (film)'s the first example I've seen where there's a very decent reason to include in the lede something that could be considered a spoiler. You couldn't omit it because Milk's assassination is a major component of his fame and a driving reason for the making of the film. In cases like that, we could probably employ an objective standard: reviews -- even blurbs -- describe such "spoiling" historical details openly (example).

I don't think it's a question of malice, but there is still a question of harm; we make our content of less value to readers when we fail to present it in a way that serves their needs. That doesn't mean one type of reader should be served to the detriment of another: if it is possible to make the encyclopedia useful to both those who have seen a work and those who haven't, we should be thinking about how to do so. Presently we're only serving the "seen it already/don't care to see it" readers, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to do better.--Father Goose (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it only benefits "seen it already/don't care to see it" readers. Personally I'm not even thinking of readers in those terms when I write articles; I'm approaching these things from the perspective of "what is the topic, how do we introduce that in a simple way, and how do we then shift to a more detailed discussion of the topic". My concern when writing an article is ultimately "Is it informative?" The main reason I disagree is this: what about those who simply want to learn about a topic from a historical and critical context? Personally, I read a lot of history books, ranging from 19th century Europe to the histories of comics, and that means I run into a lot of "spoilers" when reading. Then again, if I wanted to avoid "spoilers", I'd read or watch the story first. If I want to learn about historical context and criticism, then I'm going in knowing that various aspects of given stories will be discussed and explained, be it a history book or an encyclopedia I'm reading, or a documentary I'm watching. We're dealing with more than just stories themselves here. We're dealing with the conception, reception, criticism, financial success, and historical and artistic impact of works of art. We're an encyclopedia, not storytellers; obscuring information for dramatic reveals later is not what we do. Leave that to the original piece of art itself. And that's not even getting into the fact that people can hear about plot details of a story before actually reading/watching the story and can still enjoy it; it's happened to me more than once, and I bet it's happened to all sorts of people here. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• With uncommon (but not rare) exception, the LEDE of an article shouldn't be detailed enough to give away what a reasonable person would consider a "spoiler". We should probably include a mention of the ending of The Crying Game (as that was the subject of some discussion in RS and should figure prominently in the article), and it may be worthwhile to note the fact that Aieris dies in FFVII or bringing up the ambiguity surrounding Deckard in Blade Runner, but for most cases, the elde should just be summarizing the plot section which should only be a portion of the article. For character articles, this may be impossible, but that might be a sign that the character article is better merged into the parent. As for going out of our way to avoid them: no. Wikipedia contains spoilers and doesn't have disclaimers. If some spoiler is important enough to get mentioned in the lede, some style guideline shouldn't keep it out. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Our Crying Game article doesn't spoil the ending in the lede; it doesn't need to. I'd be willing to stipulate that character articles are by nature plot articles, and as such a reader should expect spoilers left and right (Darth Vader and Palpatine -- an FA -- certainly fit this bill). Overall, I'm not saying we should go "out of our way" to avoid spoilers: rather, I think we all too often go out of our way to include them in parts of articles where they're not needed.--Father Goose (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Arguably, if crying game were an FA w/ a 4 paragraph lede, the ending would be spoiled. Protonk (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Well, Blade Runner is an FA, and it doesn't give out any spoilers in the lede. Deckard's ambiguity is discussed extensively elsewhere in the article. With the exception of Milk (film), I have yet to see a compelling instance where spoilers should be in the lede. I think we could use film reviews as an objective yardstick for what plot details (if any) are appropriate to include in the lede.--Father Goose (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Fiction FAs and GAs with "spoilers" in the lead (your mileage may vary): Romeo and Juliet, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Palpatine, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, "Sinestro Corps War", Michael Tritter. It's quite common and often done quite elegantly. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call either Batman movie having any significant spoiler in the lede; certain not BB, maybe a touch with TDK, but here, it's impossible to not include the fact about Two-face being in the movie since a significant portion of the article is about that. The "spoilers" though in the other cases all seem both truly to be spoilers but at the same time truly to be necessary to establish in that blurb what the work is about - the death aspect of R&J is a core legacy of it, it's necessary to explain that Spock's death sets up a trilogy with ST2, etc. The way I'd put it: we should not go out of the way to put spoilers in the lede - if there's not a lot of discussion of whatever twist or the like in the article compared to other information, then it probably shouldn't be in the lede. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Both Batman movies have "spoilers" about the identities of certain characters, twists that are not revealed until the third act of each film. Michael Tritter gives a brief rundown of the character's entire arc; if you haven't seen all the relevant episodes of House, you may or may not feel they have been "spoiled" for you. This further indicates how subjective the idea of "spoilers" is. What is a spoiler? Is it even appropriate to call them "spoilers"? It's all based on the assumption that the mention of one or more aspects of a story "ruins" the enjoyment of said story for someone who hasn't read or watched it yet. That's not what people who write historical studies of stories think about when writing their books. Ultimately the rationale for keeping out certain plot details is that it might upset some readers. Well, Wikipedia is not censored, and I can think of all sorts of articles that have details that might upset people, but we still cover them in a frank and informative way, because that's our remit. Stories shouldn't be an exception. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  In RE: Romeo and Juliet, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on that stuff? :) Protonk (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Point of order: the supposed spoiler of Romeo and Juliet is in the prologue. Just sayin'... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• The premise of a film/TV series/episode definately belongs in the lead, but for my articles, I have so far avoided adding plot information of the last few acts to the lead, or have at least been intentionally vague there. That's also what I'd expect to find as a reader (not a writer). So I support to discourage spoilers in leads, but I'd not support the ban of spoilers there (too many variables to consider). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as the one who started this section, I'd like to revise my opinion based on the discussion above. Given WP:LEAD indicates that a summary should stand on its own, and should include important points (even if they are spoilers), I'd say what is needed here is not a stricter prohibition on spoilers, but rather more editor leeway. WP:SPOILER is pretty uncompromising on this, and I think it could stand to be reworded so that it gives the article's editors more freedom to weigh the importance of informing readers against the risk of alienating them. --Doradus (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean more leeway? As far as I can see, this is an editorial decision. No one requires that spoilers be placed in the lede. For most works of fiction, the lede in the main article shouldn't have a spoiler because the "twist" usually isn't important enough to the film itself to figure prominently in the lede. There are (as I said above) uncommon but not rare exceptions to this and WP:SPOILER helps protect those ledes from spurious changes. But most of the time spoilers shouldn't be in the lede because plot details shouldn't be in the lede. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a point. I just noticed the following wording: "However, when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." I think this is a crucial point that's missed in the spoiler arguments I've seen. It puts the onus on those who want the spoiler to justify its inclusion. Contrary to some people's interpretation, WP:SPOILER does not say you can't delete spoilers. It says you can't delete spoilers that are serving an encyclopedic purpose. Perhaps it's fine as it stands? --Doradus (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think this is a prudent proposal. Our articles will not be any worse by having a general guideline that spoilers do not appear in the lead. If I have not read the book or seen the movie, but still want to learn about it, I avoid the sections I believe will contain information about the plot. If information were to appear regularly in the lead of articles, Wikipedia would become much less useful for articles on works of fiction readers had not read/seen. The proposed wording (Spoilers should not be included in the article title, section names, or lead section unless the spoiler's omission would make the lead confusing or misleading.) balances the need to write good encyclopedia articles with the need to provide a useful resource for all our readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. It's broad enough to give us wiggle room and allow us to determine on a case-by-case basis the merits of a spoiler's inclusion or exclusion from the intro, but it's also firm enough to establish the principle that overall spoilers should be avoided in intros. The Stolen Earth is a fantastic example of how NOT to treat a spoiler. For example, instead of writing "OMG X dies/leaves the show/has a baby/kidnaps the President's daughter/is Canadian, OH NOES", making reference to some sort of "dramatic cliffhanger" or "unexpected finale" would be more appropriate. My DVD cover for Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back says that Luke Skywalker has a "shocking confrontation" with Darth Vader. Not only does that not reveal what happened in the confrontation, but it also provides better writing than "Luke Skywalker goes to Bespin and finds out Darth Vader is his father". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • But a DVD cover is trying to sell you the movie. Wikipedia isn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I concur. Ours is a mission of free information, research, and facts. We're not trying to tease people to read more. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd say our mission is to try to provide the best possible information in the best possible way to the broadest possible audience. What we're discussing now is if there are ways to adjust how we present our content to make it more useful to a broader audience -- those who want to know something about a work without having it "spoiled". If we can adjust our presentation to better serve that audience -- without compromising what we offer to the spoiler-indifferent audience -- then we should seek to do so. So what we're doing right now is trying to work out what changes could benefit the spoiler-avoiding audience without harming the spoiler-indifferent audience.--Father Goose (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • "Those who want to know something about a work without having it 'spoiled'." Why would you read a comprehensive encyclopedia article yet hope not to be "spoiled"? "Comprehensive" means you're going to to be given a thorough overview of the subject, whether you are familiar with it or not. The idea is if a reader is unfamiliar with any topic on Wikipedia, a well-written article will give them comprehensive coverage of it, be it about a person or a law of physics or a sports team or a story. It's ridiculous to make fiction an exception to that, and our guidelines and policies don't support doing that. Imagine if "spoilers" were kept out of the lead sections of military campaign or sports match articles. I'm sure there are plenty of sports fans who would be just as upset if you told them the ending of a game before they had a chance to see it on TiVo as someone who's been told which character will die in a given Harry Potter book. That begs the question: if you don't want to be "spoiled", hen why are you reading what is supposed to be a comprehensive study of a subject in the first place? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • The lead is not supposed to be comprehensive. That's the goal of the article body. The lead is a "concise overview". --Doradus (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
            • To give a concise overview of a work of art you need to describe what it is. The article itself still needs to be comprehensive. Basically, having guidelines about spoilers in the lead would be tailoring articles to suit those who only want to read the lead sections of articles to decide whethe ror not they want to raead a book or watch a movie or TV show. Which is pretty silly, because we're not a viewing guide; we're an encyclopedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Basically, I agree with Father Goose. Being comprehensive and tailoring to spoiler-avoiding people don't have to be mutually exclusive. We won't compromise on quality by moving such information to a less visible spot in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, but that's also not a rationale to say "no spoilers". WesleyDodds (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • My aim is not to say "no spoilers", but to try to promote practices that allow us to serve both spoiler-averse and spoiler-seeking readers equally well. The bottom line is that we should not be unwilling to serve the first type of reader if we can do so in a way that does not negatively impact the second. With that in mind, I'll start working on the specifics of how this might be accomplished.--Father Goose (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
            • The thing is trying to serve spoiler-averse people is missing some of the fundamental points of what we're trying to do here. The point of this guideline is that spoilers don't figure into consideration at all when constructing Wikipedia articles, for reasons that range from our guidelines that deal with censorhip to those that deal with original research, as mentioned by Farix way at the top of this section. Utimately, our goal is to provide pages for "people who want to know things", not "people who want to find out things for themselves elsewhere so please don't ruin the surprises". If people come here for information, by god we're going to give them information. Information that some might consider "spoilers" may or may not show up anywhere in the article, where appropriate. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the Wikipedia's content disclaimer says outright "Wikipedia contains spoilers". People visiting the site and any of its pages should know that going in. Frankly, out of all the things that Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED covers, this is the least upsetting thing that people can come across here. I still don't dare to click links leading to the article on Cannibal Holocaust, and spoilers won't give you seizures. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither NOTCENSORED nor NOR apply to decisions over how to structure article content. No censorship is being proposed, and NOR does not govern how content is arranged. Wikipedia will continue to contain spoilers, we just won't turkey slap our users with them. They will continue to be found in all the appropriate places.--Father Goose (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously some leads will be more "spoilery" than others, but that's based on each article on a case by case basis. I'm saying it's pointless to try and accomodate people who want to avoid spoilers. We don't need a guideline saying "hey, here's how to write a lead to avoid spoilers" which is still what you are saying. "They will continue to be found in all the appropriate places". Yes, in the articles wherever they need to be mentioned, including the lead. It's not like swear words will only appear in the article body but not the lead because they might turn people off from reading the rest of the article if they show up in the intro. That's how NOTCENSORED applies to article content. As for NOR, what is a spoiler for a particular article? It really depends on what upsets a given person once they learn about it, which is impossible to determine for everyone, and ultimately pointless when writing about the subject is of greater import. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To me this guideline is clear, do not remove spoilers from an article just because they are "spoilers". This is to stop those who will remove or rewrite fiction plot entries to hide any spoilers, or to insert spoiler (or in some cases spioler) alerts. However if a spoiler is unavoidable in the lead (see: Teeth, or don't if you don't want to be spoiled) then the view is that they should not be removed as a matter of course. As a bad example all three (terrible) adaptations of the Punisher comic book would need at least one spoiler in the lead, namely that the lead character's wife and family are killed and he seeks revenge, to not include that point would be unencyclopaedic. But we do not need to reveal the full plot in the lead, and we do not need to hide the full plot in the plot section, just achieve balance. We also need to assume if you are reading about a film or book or any other fictional media then you want to know, and that the general warning which covers all of Wikipedia (here be spoilers) will apply. The guidelines (much as applies to nudity on Wikipedia) are to prevent wholesale removal of items which some deem offensive. I think that always spoilers in the plot is an easy guide, no spoilers in the lead may be harder to quantify. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In just about every review of Teeth, the spoiler to which you refer is spoken of openly: http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/teeth . So that kind of spoiler should, yes, absolutely be at or near the top of the article. Likewise the assassination of Harvey Milk is no secret relative to Milk (film) -- a detail also mentioned openly by reviews. But we have plenty of articles where the "twist" or the final scene or the like is spelled out right at the top of the article, and I see nothing to suggest that that makes the encyclopedia better.

As for "We need to assume if you are reading about a film... then you want to know" [the entire plot] -- I don't think that assumption is correct. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the majority of our readers affirmed otherwise (i.e., "sometimes I want to know something about the work but don't want to be told how it ends in the first paragraph of the article").

You're right that we need to achieve a balance. We do need to offer spoilers without reservation. There's just no reason we have to be a dick in how we present them. We need a spoiler guideline that neither provides ammunition for removing spoilers where they're needed nor provides ammunition for including them where they're not needed.--Father Goose (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this is even being discussed. Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable. If a spoiler is notable, it shouldn't be banned from the lead section. And if you want to find out something about a film or television episode before you see it, go to the official website, not Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Or turn the question on its head. Instead of asking why we're banning spoilers from one particular area (the lead), ask "why are we banning spoilers in particular from the lead?" What is special about spoilers that we need to explicitly declare whether they are acceptable in the lead section? The reason that the "NOTCENSORED doesn't apply" claims above are simply wrong is because NOTCENSORED explicitly decrees that spoilers are in no way special. So why are we making them special when they happen to be in the lead? The proponents are quite right that in most cases spoilers don't belong in the lead, but for completely the wrong reasons; they should be judged purely on encyclopedic merit (and often found wanting), not on any half-baked attempt to prejudge what the reader does or does not want to see. Happy‑melon 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"WP:NOTCENSORED explicitly decrees that spoilers are in no way special" -- in fact, it does not. It doesn't mention spoilers at all. And Notcensored in general does not compel us to retain "offensive" content that simply isn't in the right place.

You are right about "prejudging what the reader does or does not want to see" -- there is plenty of apparent prejudgment that "readers want to be told the ending of a film in the lede" by a number of commentators here. I've seen no evidence to support that.

I also note, to Sceptre, that the present proposal specifically excludes television episodes.--Father Goose (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're missing, is that just because a reader might expect something from Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's designed to cater to that. In a sense, it doesn't matter what a reader does or doesn't want to see, it matters what WP, being a comprehensive but general encyclopedia, is constructed to show them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." How much more explicit do you want it? To paraphrase directly to this situation, discussion on removing a particular spoiler (or on establishing a guideline to blanket-ban such) should not focus on the 'offensiveness' of the material because it is a spoiler, but on whether it is appropriate (according to other relevant guidelines and general considerations of encyclopedic merit) to include that material in the lead section of an article. In this respect a spoiler is no different to any other content that could potentially appear in the lead section, and so should be adequately covered by WP:LEAD. 'Being a spoiler' is not sufficient grounds for moving or removing material; we do not treat particular phrases differently just because they're spoilers.

I generally agree with the philosophy that a perfect article would rarely contain spoilers in the lead, but the proponents of this viewpoint are approaching the issue in completely the wrong way. WP:SPOILER is a behavioural guideline: it governs how we change (or don't change, in this case) pages. By proposing the "spoilers should not usually occur in the lead" concept here, you make it a behavioural issue: it is 'wrong' to add spoilers to the lead, and 'right' to remove them. Then you have the whole messy issue of what to do on the (not unknown) situation where it is right to have spoilers in the lead; how can it be ok for spoilers to exist in the lead of article X, when there is a blanket ban on editors actually adding them? Suddenly you've got a confusing paradox that just makes a mockery of the situation.

What you actually want (and the only version that's defensible in the face of NOTCENSORED) is a contentstyle guideline which highlights the legitimate encyclopedic reasons why spoilers are usually not appropriate in the lead, in the same way as various other pieces of content are generally not appropriate. Now you're not making spoilers a specific case, so they're not being made 'special'; and the "unless they're notable" exception is implied. Editors are not 'right' or 'wrong' to change spoilers in one direction or the other, they're 'right' to move articles towards the contentstyle guideline and wrong to move articles away from compliance. Much more straightforward, less confusing all-round and, most importantly, doesn't reopen this hornets' nest. We don't need to treat spoilers specially to minimise their use in the lead; we just need to be more rigorous in enforcing the contentstyle guidelines we already have, and clarifying them if necessary. But I maintain that trying to hack in a contentstyle exception into a behavioural guideline, is asking for trouble. Happy‑melon 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is -- gasp -- not about removal of content. It's about organization of content. Which is what makes it a style issue. Which is why WP:SPOILER is a style guideline. (It's not a behavioral guideline -- where did you get that from?) You think discussions about what belongs in the lede of an article qualify as censorship? Seriously? How can you say that with a straight face?--Father Goose (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And while we're at it, WP:LEAD is a style guideline, not a content guideline. If you're going to argue things on the basis of policy, you should at least know what the policies say.--Father Goose (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct to note that it would be more accurate to replace "content" with "style" throughout my post above; I've made some amendments. This error is probably the source of your misunderstanding: I fully agree with the first three sentences of your reply. Discussion about how the lead section of an article should be styled are not censorship, indeed, they are legitimate stylistic issues.

I must take exception, however, to your assertion that WP:SPOILER is a style guideline, despite it being marked as such. It's short enough to analyse line-by-line; the first paragraph is a mere explanation of terminology, and the second is entirely historical background. In the third paragraph, all three sentences describe editing actions: "It is not acceptable [for editors] to delete [spoilers]...", "Such concerns must not [be allowed to] interfere with...", and "when including spoilers, editors should make sure..." This language is in direct contrast to a genuine style guideline such as WP:LEAD, which is phrased completely differently: "The lead section should briefly summarize...", "The subject should be placed...", etc etc.

Essentially my contention is that this proposal is largely redundant to the sentence "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources" from WP:LEAD, and that if it is considered necessary to strengthen that concept to cover spoilers more explicitly, then the appropriate place to make such an addition to policy is at WP:LEAD. Happy‑melon 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And now, the rewrite

In response to the points and counter-points in the sections above, I am proposing the following rewrite of the page: link diff. Let me know if you think it's good, needs work, or is an absolute freaking abomination -- though please be specific about your concerns, so that I and others have a chance to address them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

At first sight, it seems unnecessary. On looking closer, one specific aspect seems alarmingly wrong. The propposed wording says

If a specific plot twist is part of what makes the work notable, it should be mentioned in the lead that the work has a notable twist; the specifics of the twist should be left to later sections.'

This, it seems to me, is missing the point of having a lead section in the first place. if the thing that makes Sixth Sense a notable film is that Malcolm is dead, we should state that in the lead, not some ridiculous nonsense about how the film is notable for having a twist ending (it's the nature of the twist, not the fact of the twist).

The wording seems to be an attempt to restore the damaging habit of distorting Wikipedia's content to suit the reader's supposed obsession with spoilers. No, that is not acceptable as it stands. --TS 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, that particular sentence can be removed. Any other complaints?--Father Goose (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I'm now leaning toward leaving it alone. I like the phrase "when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" because it puts the onus on those including spoilers to explain the encyclopedic purpose. --Doradus (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a back and forth at the The Sixth Sense article about including the spoiler in the lead. Edits such as this[1] seem pretty silly. It is convoluted grammar, Crowe finding out he is dead had no bearing on his ability to help Cole, and it is not a very encyclopedic way to summarize the film any more than stating in the lead that "ghosts make rooms cold". The version before the edit is a more correct summary since "Crowe trying to help Cole" is what 99% of the film plot is about. The fact that Crowe is dead really does not need to be stated in the lead since it (and other plot details) belong in the "Plot" section. So we fall under the "encyclopedic purpose" reason not to add it to the lead. And since the current version of this guideline suggest a section sub heading called "Plot" and especially "Ending" as a form of warning, it trumps "encyclopedic purpose" as far as lead paragraphs go since it defines where spoilers belong, below the lead.

I would also note that the Wikipedia "content disclaimer" is not a spoiler warning (or any other kind of warning). No one comes to Wikipedia and immediately reads the Content Disclaimer. In fact they probably don't read anything about Wikipedia at all, they just go to, say the Sixth Sense article, because it is the second Google hit they get. Stating that "somewhere in Wikipedia's 2.8 million in the English pages is the "Content disclaimer" the spoiled reader should have read is following the "ignorance of (Wikipedia's) law is no excuse" argument. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this getting so much discussion. Spoilers don't belong in the lead. It is no more difficult to figure out what's a spoiler than it is it to figure out any other area of copyright, notability or fair use. Levalley (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What about spoilers to films in articles not about the film itself?

This post contains...er...spoilers (don't read if you intend to watch Knowing!)

I don't know if this has come up before, but I'm posting this here anyway to save having to sift through tons and tons of archives; What is the policy on revealing spoilers to films on articles that aren't for the film itself?
Here's an example: I was reading the solar flare article when near the end of the article it reveals that a solar flare has a hand in destroying all life on Earth at the end of the film Knowing. I was reading the article because I saw the film, but suppose I hadn't? What if someone who is planning on watching the film is reading the solar flare article for unrelated reasons and has the movie ruined for them right then and there? Ouch.

Would such an instance warrant a spoiler tag? What is Wikipedia's policy on this? If there isn't an official policy, what do you suggest is the best thing to do? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It not appropriate. Not because it is a "spoiler", but because it is irrelevant trivia. I've removed it as such. That's one of the biggest problems with "In popular culture" sections. They are entirely trivia and usually irrelevant to the subject. In the case of a scientific topic, it shouldn't contain any such section. --Farix (Talk) 03:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Makes complete sense to me. I've seen "in pop culture" sections before (and have removed them, with good reason) but rarely have I seen one that revealed such a big spoiler, and I guess seeing this one sidetracked my brain so that I didn't initially consider it as being non-essential to the article. Thanks for the response, and thanks for fixing the article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warning discussion at the Village Pump

Surprisingly, this notice hasn't been posted here. But there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) about the restoration of spoiler warnings on articles about fictional subjects. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers. —Farix (t | c) 14:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Placement of spoilers

The current style guideline wording that article "wording carries spoiler warnings", such as "section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending")" gives a placement guideline of placing spoilers below "Plot" or "Ending" headings, and not in other places, such as the Lead. This contradicts the next paragraph since it could interfere with with Wikipedia:Lead section. Should it be more formally stated where spoilers are to be placed such as "Plot" or "Ending" sections? SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers should be allowed

I think spoiler warnings are a good idea, and I remember them

I would also propose these spoiler alerts to be clickable; when you click on it, it would take you just after the end of the spoiler so that the viewer could avoid seeing it.

98.221.181.197 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a spoiler? When does a spoiler stop spoiling? The term is too fuzzy and would lead to too many edit wars over plot details that it is easier to give everything and say caveat emptor. The word 'Plot' is clue as to what will be there. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Darren's right. A great example is in Futurama: Fry is his own grandpa because he travelled back in time and did... um... something naughty with his grandma. This was the climax in the episode and some may believe this should be hidden. If is was hidden, other episodes make no sense whatsoever. Fry is chosen to do various tasks (fighting flying brains) by Nibbler, who turns out to be (secretly) the most intelligent creature in the universe (oops, now you know). He is chosen because he is some kind of mutant and lacks a vital brainwave because he is inbred. The entire article is a spoiler to both past and future episodes. Also the end of this episode is a spoiler to the begining. How would the article look it it was: SPOILER, the most SPOILER SPOILER in the universe, chooses SPOILER to attach the flying brains because SPOILER. This is because SPOILER had SPOILER'd his SPOILER.
You also have a point too. Dr Evil, born Douglas "Douggie" Powers, is kind of a giveaway, yet if he fought together with Austin in the second movie, Austin Powers 4 would just be titled SPOILER!!! --Michael SumanIpfreely555 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My. Don't we have a high opinion of ourselves

"Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. . . " So, we are to assume that everyone on the planet is so thoroughly familiar with this site that they just know we'll have spoilers in articles about films and such. Too many editors forget that we are not writing for other Wikieditors, but for the general public. --Nricardo (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We are for those who wish to read an encyclopedia. If the 'general public' doesn't understand what that means, it's not our fault. If that makes us have 'a high opinion of ourselves' then so be it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They'll know it after they've been burned enough times. But it's not like we can or should omit spoilers: a film's ending, plot twist, or whatever can be pretty important, in terms of being able to talk about the film encyclopedically.

I do wish however we were more willing to structure our articles in a way that allowed us to serve both those who want a non-spoily introduction to a work before seeing it, and those who want every gory detail. I'm sure it would be possible for Wikipedia to serve both audiences well, but I've suggested doing as much in the past, it met with a fair amount of ideological resistance.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the original author and Father Goose. Wikipedia is becoming ubiquitous as a reference and when someone would like to learn some new information. While the user recognizes that they are at their own discretion, professionals and esteemed scholars still check in with Wikipedia. A spoiler can be quite costly. Perhaps an excited person who just learned about something would like to learn about it. They may be always alert for spoilers. (i.e. I just read about Final Fantasy 13. I was interested in learning about the setting and the story set-up. I didn't realize that "Story" would have the ending in it.)

As for "Plot" or "Story" being enough, I don't think that is fair. I don't see what cost there is to adding one line, perhaps underlined or bolded, as a subtitle to "Plot" or "Story". It seems like an easy addition. Why the communal averseness? (Anonymous)171.66.82.53 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have disclaimers. A "spoiler warning" is no different from any other disclaimer-type text. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A valid and understandable point considering the fuzzy boundaries issue. Thank you. One more difficult question this leads me to is the way stories are written. In the article that prompted me to get into this issue, under the subsection "Story", it contains three paragraphs. The first two do seem to lend to any spoilers, but seem to develop some of the background. By this time, a reader could be invested in finishing this section. In the third and final paragraph, the beginning still has tinges of background and suddenly, in the final two sentences reveal the whole plot. Perhaps this is a dangerous form of writing? Thank you for your time. 171.66.82.53 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "dangerous" form of writing, however it is an example of a poor plot summary. The issue is not so much that it has the ending is that is lacking the middle. To have the beginning, then jump to the ending, not only does it not tell the plot properly, but that would seem to be revealing the ending to just reveal it. I suspect if the plot section were redone properly, with the beginning, major plot points, then the ending, that anyone reading the section who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia would quickly realize that "oh, this is the plot not just a teaser" and stop reading if they don't want to know more. (note, I have not actually read the summary in question, as I do not want to be spoiled to that game myself). I would suggest that rather than asking for some kind of disclaimer, it might be better to encourage the proper completion of the plot section to add the missing meat. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you determine that a particular plot detail is a spoiler? It's not something that can be verified through reliable sources. And using our own opinions is a violation of Wikipedia's policies of no original research and maintaining a neutral point of view. Also, many so-called spoilers have a lifespan where they are no longer considered spoilers (ex. Snape kills Dumbledore, and Darth Vader is Luke's father). But in the end, each person's opinion of what is and is not a spoiler is their own and no two people will have the same opinion.

As I've mentioned previously, spoiler warnings are a product of a knee-jerk paranoia that has equated any and all plot details as "spoiler". Using this paranoia, several editors have attempted to justify why spoiler warnings should be an exception to Wikipedia's guidelines to not include disclaimers in articles, even when we doesn't make exceptions for more serious issues that could benefit from a disclaimer. Hiding plot details creates usability issues as well as issues with WP:NOTCENSORED. Hiding content, no matter what the justification, is just bad form and not very encyclopedic.

And finally, knowing a plot detail before reading, watching, or playing a fictional story doesn't do any real harm. So let's stop treating it as if were some grave danger that could bring down civilization if people unexpectedly learn about it. —Farix (t | c) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning: This discussion of spoilers contains plot spoilers. Varlaam (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What would any reader expect to read about under the heading "Plot"? How do you discuss an article such as The Empire Strikes Back without discussing the major plot twist of Darth Vader being Luke's father (though this twist applies less after Revenge of the Sith)? You make the assumption that editors are not readers, though it is true that reader may not be editors. I started editing because I was a frequent reader, and as far as fiction articles go the plot is the part that most readers are looking for. Film reviewers have to be coy and say "this film has a twist", we cannot be coy, and the reader will learn quickly that 'encyclopaedic' means 'everything is here'. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing not being coy and another thing being a dick .And I've seen some editors placement of certain information about some books,films in certain places especially in edit summaries as examples of them showing they are dicks and being able to get away with it .Garda40 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar to my agreement with Father Goose and the original poster, while I recognize that we not treating reader's like children, I'm advocating for a warning because people may be in a hurry, they may be only looking for the plot set-up or story set-up, or etc. Wikipedia's quite ubiquitous and spoiler's hurt and dampen excitement. To me, it doesn't seem like a costly addition. (Anonymous) 171.66.82.53 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See reply above to same general statement. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I personally don't see the problem with having plot sections divided into summary / details, or using show/hide boxes for plots, but on the other hand it really is silly to say, "I came to Wikipedia for information, and my complaint is that I got too much information". There's plenty of other sites that do spoiler-free reviews and summaries. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original author. I have just come across an article about the recently concluded BBC drama series Ashes to Ashes which gives very little information about the plot other than to describe the denouement in the series finale, thus effectively spoiling the two-year series for a casual visitor who hasn't already seen this episode. I think that providing this level of detail without warning is unjustified and destructive of people's enjoyment, but the editorial policy prevents me exercising my judgement. Also, in my view, some of the comments above taking the opposing view are dismissive to the point of arrogance. As Nricardo says, "Too many editors forget that we are not writing for other Wikieditors, but for the general public." Rubywine (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case I think it would make more sense to write a more comprensehive plot summary that covers to series overall than to add a spoiler warning. It would be more useful as well. As mentioed earlier in the discussion this seems to be more of a problem of bad writting than a case for spoiler warnings.--76.66.181.30 (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not every editor is in a position to provide a comprehensive plot summary. However, any editor could quickly and easily place plot details inside a simple collapsible table under the heading (wait for it) Plot Details. Rubywine (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible tables have a usability problem, (i.e. they don't always work and mess up the layout of the article). And hiding content is considered a form of censorship by the wider Wikipedia community. —Farix (t | c) 20:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope?

Were spoiler warnings abolished officially throughout all projects of WP, or just in English?

I just found this spoiler warning in French Wikipedia plain as day:
Ce qui suit dévoile des moments clés de l’intrigue.

Varlaam (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is an English Wikipedia policy. Each of the language policies have their own policies and guidelines that are often not in line with each other. Most do not have anywhere near the sourcing and verification requirements we have either. That said, according to fr:Wikipédia:Dévoile l'intrigue du récit (the French spoiler guideline) which states that spoiler warnings should be used and they have spoiler templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise

Can we not come to a policy that suits a broad a majority as we can. I appreciate wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and needs to fully cover the subject in an article. I also appreciate the use of disclaimers would become somewhat of a minefield. But we are also here to serve wikipedia users, and narkiness for the sake of it really is ruining people's enjoyment of things. Could we at least try to keep out critical information that happens deep into books/movies/tv shows from the lead section and infoboxes? I don't see why this can't keep (almost) everyone happy: The information is there if it's wanted, there's no disclaimers, but we don't shove spoilers in peoples faces. 23:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.89.55 (talk)

Please examine the extensive discussion of this very point in the archives. --TS 23:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to where this discussion is - the archives are very large. Wikipedia is an ongoing effort, and I don't think its reasonable that because people come late to a discussion, it should never be allowed to be re-opened. 93.97.89.55 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of threads in the archive index with titles referring to adding spoiler warnings. The settled consensus is that we cannot judge what a spoiler is, not how long it would be considered a spoiler, nor when to stop spoiling so the simple policy of reader beware is the easiest to enforce. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view this is analogous to saying that since we haven't the resources to remove all landmines safely, we should not bother to clear any landmines at all, but instead we should continue to strew them about the landscape. Rubywine (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A false analogy, because the incorporation of spoilers is an essential component of our encyclopedic goal, while landmines are widely regarded as evil. We have no intention of ever 'clearing spoilers from our landscape', because they are in many cases constructive to our goals. The question is simply whether they should be universally marked, which raises all the usual questions of what qualifies as being worthy of being marked. Happy‑melon 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As Happy-melon pointed out, we actually don't want to avoid plot details without our articles, and discussion plot details as part of the overall. Plot details are not landmines and nothing is harmed by learning about them. The problem with so-called spoilers is, how does one determine that a plot detail is a spoiler without engaging in original research or advocating a particular point of view. For some people any plot detail is a spoiler. So we have to apply the most general disclaimer possible to all plot details. And if you have to resort to that, then the disclaimer is worthless and it's best not to have any disclaimer at all. Second, using spoiler disclaimers would violate the disclaimer policy. There are several more important issues than plot details that would benefit from an in-article disclaimer (medical, legal, adult content, etc.), however, it was decided that disclaimers do not have a place in an encyclopedia article. In large part because you don't see disclaimers in any traditional encyclopedia articles. —Farix (t | c) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I was referring to unmarked and unmasked spoilers. If there's a great big arrow saying "This way to the landmines" then people won't walk on them, will they. There is a very simple solution: just place all plot details inside a simple collapsible table. All this takes is the good will not to ruin other people's enjoyment. It really is not one thousandth as complicated as you are making out. But of course, now that I have read your replies and looked at the semantically confused and misconceived implementation of the disclaimer policy I can see there is no further point in discussing this. Rubywine (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's changed forever and no amount of reasonable discourse is going to get it changed back. This is how Wikipedia operates. 71.131.198.92 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove this from the MOS

On going discussion about removing this page from the MOS. See here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Ain.27t_got_no_style Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding spoilers?

A lot of articles on fiction omit the ending or write it in a "suspense-building" trailer-like style, e.g. "it's now up to [character] to do something...", "things are not what they seem..." These tend to be articles on films or books that are not that well known and the article is written that way based on a misconception that there should be no spoilers. Such a tone is not encyclopedic, and often knowing the ending is useful in cases where it is difficult to obtain the actual movie or book. Most websites will also not include spoilers thus it is hard to find a source for the plot ending. Is there any concerted attempt to remove this style of writing from articles and attempt to get the full plot summarized? 219.73.48.124 (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It usually means that someone has not got around to writing the plot. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding spoiler warnings?

The spoilers policy page says: "Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." Anecdotal evidence (based on (1) the discussion page associated with Agatha Christie's play The Mousetrap and (2) personal knowledge of at least two people who were upset to learn the ending of that play from the Wikipedia article) suggests that the assertion that "such warnings are unnecessary" may well be incorrect. I understand and support the policy to incorporate spoilers that have encyclopedic value. I do not understand the dogmatic reluctance to explicitly warn readers that spoilers are present. I do not think a generic heading like "Plot" adequately alerts readers to the incipient presence of spoilers. In the context of The Mousetrap (where audience members are explicitly asked NOT to reveal the ending), I find the lack of an explicit spoiler warning a serious deficiency in the article. Perhaps it would be useful to develop a more detailed policy that enumerates circumstances where the inclusion of spoiler warnings would be preferable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.170.70 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. Spoiler warnings are both useful and necessary. Where was this "decision" to remove all of them made, anyway? It could not have been a consensus. PenguiN42 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, people. When you read an encyclopedia article on a topic, you expect to learn all the essentials about that topic. If you are too dense to understand that, that's a problem that all the juvenile "spoiler warnings" in the world can't adequately address. If you want just a little taste, just a little teaser of something you plan to see or read or hear, then—if you are even a semi-intelligent person—you choose to peruse something other than an encyclopedia article. It's embarrassing that these points even need to be made.—DCGeist (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of intense emotional content in your reply and not much actual substantive argument. You may want to step back and remember that people can have valid opinions that differ from yours, your point of view does not solely define what Wikipedia is all about, and consensus-building is about finding a solution that is acceptable to all, not dogmatically stuffing one answer down everyone's throat. Spoiler warnings are a service to readers that help them avoid content they may not want to casually glance over while seeking other content they may want to find. It's embarrassing that this point even has to be made. BTW I did my own research about this "decision" and it was a raging debate with nothing even close to a consensus [2] which concluded when a group of editors decided to take it upon themselves to remove spoiler tags from every article and otherwise enforce this non-policy themselves [3]. PenguiN42 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (edited for wrong link)

A joke. You are joking, right? "A service to readers that help them avoid content they may not want to casually glance over while seeking other content they may want to find." It is difficult enough for encyclopedia writers to determine what elements of a topic it is appropriate to focus and provide details on. Now you tell us that we should cater to readers who (a) don't understand what an encyclopedia is and then (b) mind-read exactly what material those befuddled readers "may not want to casually glance over"? That's...amazing. I suggest that your distinctive emotional profile suggests you would be best equipped contributing to informational projects other than a serious encyclopedia.—DCGeist (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For those wonderig where this decision was made, feel free to familiarize yourselves with the 7 years of discussion in the archives of this talk page, as well as the RFCs that have been on this topic, also linked from the archivebox at the topright. This was not a decision made lightly at all. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And also the mediation case and its talk page. --88.12.231.158 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-released works and WP:V and Spoilers

There's been some discussion at Toy Story 3 (yet unreleased as I type this) where one editor, possibly with a screening/movie review cut of the film has been able to fully describe the film's ending. Because there's no other source to compare against, it is generally been said that the parts of the plot summary that cannot be inferred from trailers, pre-release articles, and other facets, should not be included not because they are spoilers, but because they fail WP:V; no reader can easily verify that information because the work has not been publicly and legally released. This needs to be noted as different from hiding spoilers.

We should have a warning that SPOILER only applies when the work has been publicly released. If the work has yet to be realized in what most would consider an acceptably wide format (eg: despite only being in a limited # of theaters, The Hurt Locker was released even if it wasn't a universally wide release), then any material as part of the plot summary or the like must be easily inferred from existing published materials about it and cited statements elsewhere; this may seem like SPOILER protection, but in actually is mandating our commitment to verifiability of information. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem; the accuracy or the spoilers? If the plot is accurate then removing it to avoid spoiling would not be acceptable. However if the editor adding the plot cannot prove the accuracy then wait until it goes into wide release. Either way, any spoiling would not be the issue. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the accuracy: the only claim that can be made to parts not yet revealed in reliable sources or the work itself (trailers) is based on the viewing of one editor that acquired a copy by questionable means. I realize what I'm commenting about doesn't require any change to any language because it does fall out of that, but I think better advice as to the concepts of unverifiability of future works which have yet to been published are not the same as spoilers though certainly mimics the idea of spoilers. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit it was so badly written that it could be removed as jibberish. I would be inclined to remove it until the film has been on general release, technically all plots are unverifiable until the DVD release. We only keep the plots in film with cinema releases because enough people agree on the basics of the plot. As it is if any editor restores it behind claims of censor (which is the large part spoiler falls under) then ask them to prove they have seen the film, if they can't then remove it. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A film is "published" when it has been released publicly in the theaters. However, I have not seen anyone attempt to get around WP:V by citing WP:SPOILER before. So I really don't see think it is necessary to make such a clarification.

The plot summary should only contain the information that has been published so far. For a pre-release summary, it needs to be cited. However, a post-release summary does not need a citation as it is assumed to be cited by the film itself. After release, anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the plot summary can watch the movie themselves, either while it is in the theaters or on DVD. —Farix (t | c) 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of preview summaries, I personally despise them as they do have verifiability problems that are almost never addressed. The are also obviously incomplete and their inclusion in articles, especially on episode lists, often discourages editors from writing a fuller summary. In such cases, I would prefer no summary at all over a preview summary. —Farix (t | c) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not really an issue for this page, rather one for the TV, Film and Book projects. Most pre-release summaries come from press releases, and are more verifiable than plot summaries (until a DVD comes out). For episode lists they are usually taken from TV.com, but as I said, nothing to so with this page, one for the respective projects. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

TV show episode guides

Usually on episode lists, the ending and full plot details are not given due to the nature of the article (i.e. basic summaries, not in depth descriptions). I ran across a spoiler of an ending in the episode list of Flashpoint, where no other episode description contained such a spoiler, so I deleted the particular sentence. However, it was reverted and this article was cited. I understand that completeness is a goal of this site, but episode listings almost never include end spoilers. Is there some way this can be addressed in the spoilers article? --99.38.96.87 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, episode lists are one of the places where so-called "spoilers" should abound. If an episode summary does not summaries the entire episode, than it is incomplete and needs to be expanded or rewritten. While there are limits on how long the episode summary may be—thus keeping them brief, the summaries should always cover the major plot points. —Farix (t | c) 20:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Spoilers.

Mad Men
Starring	Jon Hamm Elisabeth Moss Vincent Kartheiser January Jones Christina Hendricks Maggie Siff (Season 1) Bryan Batt (Season 1-3) Michael Gladis (Season 1-3) Jared Harris (Season 3-present) Aaron Staton Rich Sommer Kiernan Shipka Robert Morse John Slattery

Recently, I've been on a quest of fixing infoboxes, particularly for TV shows that omit previous season cast members. (Ridiculous, since a cast member could only be in the final season and somehow be included over more important characters.)

What I also did was include tags to indicate what seasons said cast members were part of the main opening credits. Now, things vary in some cases--i.e. being considered a "guest star" initially in season 3, then being bumped up to the regular cast cluster for season 4--but it would include all previous seasons they were around.

For example (see right, truncated infobox):

But some IPs will occasionally swing by and remove this, because "it could unnecessarily spoil someone who is just looking up the show for interest". And to their credit, they do have a point.

I initially introduced this measure as a means of deterring people from removing former cast members, since it's the whole show's page, not the current season's page. However, since sometimes the infobox is all readers view, just to get the basic info, they could simply see this in the Characters section. But I think it would be beneficial to all editors if this was alluded to in the main Wikipedia:Spoiler article, so that we can substantiate any such issues as these in the future.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 07:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors should never be removing cast members on the bases of "spoilers" and previous cast members are no exception. In fact, I do not see how listing former cast members would be a spoiler, while current cast members would not. Now whether it is appropriate to list the whole cast in the infobox is a matter for WP:TV and not this guideline. There are probably some space concerns depending on how large the cast is. —Farix (t | c) 11:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't so much the previous cast members, as the mention of what seasons they were on. One editor, for example, first removed Siff/Batt/Gladis, then I reverted it. Then, they returned, but this time only removed the "Season __ - __", which I decided to allow. But thanks for your reply and I will go bring up this issue at WP:TV.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how somebody genuinely interested in finding about a show can reasonably complain if he's correctly informed about the main characters and casting details.

If being exposed to such information "spoils" his experience in some way, he should probably stop consulting encyclopedias. Fan sites are more accommodating to such concerns. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP should look after its readers and offer spoiler warnings

Wikipedia is different to an ordinary encyclopaedia in that it's a lot more convenient to find entries, so plenty of people use it even if they only want a tiny bit of information. I'm sure plenty of people would come to Wikipedia looking for a quick overview of a film or book, then become interested, read more and accidentally end up reading a spoiler. There should indeed be a spoiler alert. This has happened to me because I didn't expect Wikipedia to provide what's best described as course notes for any book. At the very least, there should be a warning that says something like "Wikipedia covers books in detail and does not issue specific spoiler warnings". I was going to read Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, but Wikipedia's questionable policies have spoilt it for me now. Owen214 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is already the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer that takes care of this. But the problem is, what is a "spoiler"? And how do you verify, through reliable sources, that a plot detail is a "spoiler"? And when does a plot detail no longer a "spoiler"? Because if you base such a judgment on "I know a spoiler when I see one", then you are engaging in original research as well as applying your own point of view of what is or is not a "spoiler". The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was originally published in 1886 and everyone already knows the fundamental plot twist of the novel, so much so that it has become a meme in our modern culture. So there is nothing to be "spoiled" about.

But why should spoilers be an exception to the no disclaimers in articles policy? We prohibit disclaimers about medical practices, controversial subjects, objectionable content, and etc., which are far more useful than a disclaimer about so-called "spoilers". —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The content disclaimer is not sufficient. The purpose of a spoiler disclaimer is to provide a physical break in the flow of the document to prevent readers from accidentally scanning over information they don't want to know. Generally, certain sections of a document will be marked, while others will be left as benign, and the general content disclaimer doesn't do this either. Finally, the needs for a spoiler warning for specific works can be hashed out by the editors of each page on a case-by-case basis, instead of providing the iron fist of a system-wide policy justifying auto-reverts. PenguiN42 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Spoilers used to be a specifically-listed exception to "no disclaimers," just like warnings about npov, current events, etc are allowed. The real question you should be asking is, why are disclaimers prohibited in the first place; what is the justification for disallowing each kind of disclaimer individually? PenguiN42 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's extremely rude to put. Second, on one could justify why spoiler disclaimers were an exception to WP:NDA when more useful disclaimers (medical and legal warnings, offensive or disturbing content, etc.) were prohibited. Third, how do you prove that a plot detail is a "spoilers". The simple fact is that you can't identify a spoiler through the use of verifiable sources, and most editors have to resort to original research and their own personal opinions of what details may "spoil" the work.

Warnings about bias, current events, and other cleanup tags, are only meant to be temporary and there until the article either matures, or the problem is fixed. So what editorial issue is a "spoiler tag" suppose to indicate? How long can it be left on the article before it ca be removed, like the {{current}} tag. And if you look at the usage of that template, it is on less than a dozen articles.

So just how long should a "spoiler waring" remain on an article? A month? a year? 2 years? At some point, the plot detail can no longer be considered a "spoiler". In fact, I'm reading the first book of a light novel series right now that makes huge references to No Longer Human and The Great Gatsby. In fact, the former is a central element of the plot. Should this novel have "spoiler warnings" about any of the other books and stories the author makes a reference to? —Farix (t | c) 11:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a slightly different way of looking at this. Look, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are supposed to tell you stuff. A website that doesn't tell you stuff isn't an encyclopedia. Fan sites know that fans really don't want to know stuff and they do a good job of not telling fans stuff that fans don't want to know. The rest of us do want to know stuff. For instance if somebody mentioned a film such as Dressed to Kill (1980 film) to me I might remember that I didn't actually see that film and so I don't know what it's actually about. Going to the article I find that the psychiatrist (played by Michael Caine) dunnit. Now I understand what my colleague was talking about, which is why I consulted the encyclopedia in the first place. If we made it harder for this kind of simple look-up to be performed then we would be doing it wrong.

Oh look, I just spoiled a film for myself. And I'm not sad. That's because I want to know stuff and I come to an encyclopedia to find it out. --TS 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it really have been so much harder to perform this look-up if you had to skim past a couple lines of "spoiler warning" boilerplate? PenguiN42 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and as far as I can tell the "no spoiler warnings" policy is more a result of those supporting it being louder and more aggressive rather than any sort of consensus. Appeals to being "encyclopedic" are circular -- you're defining what encyclopedias do by what encyclopedias have done, rather than any reason why to do things one way or the other. Saying "people come here for information and should expect all of it" is ignoring the fact that people come here for a service and want to easily find the information that's useful to them, and may also want to avoid information that they don't want to know. Since when is it bad to serve your users' needs? PenguiN42 (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If that were true, we should also have articles on every individual character in video games or TV programs (I'm not talking about, say, Mario or Captain Kirk, I mean ones such as Ashe (FFXII) or Tom Tucker (Family Guy)). Or articles on every episode of every show. Or every single reference to Poe's The Raven made in every game, TV show, film, webcomic, comic book, and so forth. Or articles on every webcomic for that matter. Etc etc etc. Many readers want these to be in WP...but they aren't appropriate for it. Neither are spoiler warnings. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop spoilers once and for all

There is absolutely no reason to spoil novels, plays and other works of art - especially those of the 'whodunit' genre - and the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia is simply no defense.

It was recently reported that Wikipedia is directly responsible for the ending on 'The Mousetrap', Agatha Christie's longest play. This is a very sad state of affairs. It is perfectly possible to be encyclopedic without spoilers. Let's stop this practice NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.81.10 (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you objectively identify a "spoiler" though reliable sources? While it may seem like identifying a plot detail as a spoiler is a simple and strait forward matter, when you take into account Wikipedia's polices on verifiability and original research, which require that all information be verified against a reliable source without applying an editor's interpretation, it becomes anything but simple. —Farix (t | c) 11:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah and Amen. This is a frequent issue for me. On several occasions I have used Wikipedia to research a creative work I was interested in, only to accidentally stumble across the ending. This happened to me for Dead Man, Cool Hand Luke, several other times. There is no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to reveal in extreme detail all the plot twists and endings of every work of fiction ever created. Leave that to the likes of Readers Digest or Cliff's Notes. Plot summaries should be no more than one paragraph and should not reveal the ending. Spoilers don't belong in an encyclopedia or Wikipedia. --N1ywb (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. True encyclopedic coverage of a narrative work requires examination of all significant elements of the narrative, which obviously includes the ending. If you don't want to find out the ending of a creative work before you experience it as a reader or an audience member for the first time, simply don't research it in an encyclopedia before you read it or see it for the first time.

Wikipedia is, indeed, here for research purposes. It is crucial that people understand what the word research means. As a verb, it means "to search or investigate exhaustively." As a noun, it means "careful or diligent search" or "studious inquiry or examination." Are things becoming clearer now? Wikipedia didn't spoil your experience—you did it yourself. Over and over again, it would seem. Hard to feel any sympathy for such behavior. Read/watch, then come here to research. Simple.—DCGeist (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If you're looking to see if a narritive work may be in your interest to read/watch/experience, then read a review. That's what they are for and usually won't spoil. Wikipedia is NOT for that, despite some people using it for that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a promise, we will end all spoilers in Wikipedia once someone defines when a spoiler stops being a spoiler. In 50 First Dates the plot twist at the end of The Sixth Sense is used as a punchline to a joke, so do we assume now that everyone knows that twist and it is no longer a spoiler. The posters for the sequels to Saw III, Saw IV and Saw V give away plot twists from the previous film, and all trailers since assume the viewers know the main twist from the last two minutes of the first film, so do we assume everyone knows that? There are "spoilers" in life, and so for Wikipedia to be encyclopaedic then we need to make assumptions; the film Valkyrie is spoiled by anyone who knows the basic history of WWII, so why leave out the final plot points? If a section is called "plot" then what do we want our readers to read in that section? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated work A spoilers in article B

On Limbo (video game), a third-party source has compared the game's ending to the ending of Inception (film). Understanding that that film is rather new - and myself having not seen it year, I wrote out the comparison as so: ...and has been suggested to be similar to the movie Inception, released just before Limbo's debut, where the ending begs the viewer to come up with their own conclusion of what they have seen, which seems completely benign and reveals nothing that I couldn't already guess straight up from the movie's previews, the people making it, and so forth.

However, an IP (now registered) thinks this is a huge spoiler and has been removing the statement several times, only now explaining out their believe there is a spoiler here. I can appreciate the example: were I in an article completely unrelated to The Sixth Sense and spelled out the twist there, there might be an issue (but again, WP does not hide spoilers). But again, I'm having difficulties trying to understand what is believed to be the spoiler for Inception above here.

Should I be concerned here, or is this editor just barking up a wrong tree? --MASEM (t) 13:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the comparison has been sourced to a reliable publication, then it should not be removed. Removing information from articles on the bases of "spoilers" is not permitted. —Farix (t | c) 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what the rules currently are, insofar as we wish to have a discussion of what the rules ought to be, this topic area constitutes the strongest argument for some sort of anti-spoiler consideration. The article on dissociative identity disorder will contain spoilers for works that use the presence of the disorder as a twist. We're almost all willing to accept (someone grudgingly, in some cases) telling readers that if they want to avoid spoilers for a work of fiction, they should avoid the article for the work in question. But unless you take the hardline approach that by going on Wikipedia you are consenting to having any story spoiled for you, even if you make a conscientious attempt to avoid spoilers for it, it is reasonable to discussion some protection against spoilers in completely unrelated articles, daunting a task as that may be. Asasa64 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The main problem here, it seems to me, is the proliferation of "popular culture" references on articles outside the field of entertainment. It is generally not much use to an article on psychopathology to refer to films and books in which the pathology is featured--not least because films and books use artistic licence and don't go out of their way to present an accurate portrayal.

On the particular case here, where one entertainment has been compared to another, there's no real problem. Honestly if someone regards it as a "spoiler" that a film has an open ending or "mystery ending", they're far too sensitive. It's hardly "the butler did it". --TS 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But I agree with the idea this might need a change in policy: the Article states == Plot == is equivalent to a spoiler warning, but that doesn't cover this problem.----occono (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So that's where they all went

Anybody wondering where all English Wikipedia's spoiler alerts went need look no further than the New York City Subway. --TS 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the news

Spoiler Alert: Whodunit? Wikipedia Will Tell You

A New York Times article on Wikipedia's spoiler policy, mostly quoting people from outside Wikipedia unhappy with it. While obviously spoilers are here to stay (and should be), I've never been convinced that spoiler warnings are the terrible evil the original anti-spoiler warning group seemed to believe, especially considering Wikipedia had them for a decent length of time. Yes, there were misuses of the spoiler tag while Wikipedia had them, but that's true of everything. SnowFire (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, I think spoiler warnings are a great thing. I never realized they had been removed until I read that article. Who was in charge of that decision anyway? Gabiteodoru (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On a movie blog or something, spoiler warnings might be expected. But this is an encyclopedia. If we can't include things in articles because they might "spoil" a movie, game, etc, the encyclopedia suffers because articles are less complete. The whole point of having an article is to relate information including plot and unique twists, etc. In other words, if you don't want movies spoiled, don't read Wikipedia articles about them, and understand that in some cases notable plots in movies and books might be mentioned elsewhere. There is already a spoiler alert. It's the big sign written in 30 foot tall letters of fire with blink tags around it saying THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, or, if you like, the name wikipedia.org. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The question that all this comes down to is, "What is a spoiler"? Everyone can likely agree that the identity of the killer in a murder mystery is a spoiler, but is the victim's identity one too? And the other suspects? I've seen people argue that casting choices are spoilers too. That's basically the core of the problem, there is no way to tell what a reader may consider a spoiler. By two means: placing the plot in sections called "Plot" so that readers can skip over that if they want to learn other things, and that our General Disclaimer notes we're cataloging everything, readers should be aware enough they will encounter spoilers if they turn to any fictional work's page here. As to who decided that, that was a large consensus decision about 3-4 years ago. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A very long and involved discussion. Does anyone remember where it's archived? Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious and would like to read it - where is it? A collapsible spoiler box doesn't seem like a big deal. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I found it: Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC is the index, with the main discussion on the talk page. Not going anywhere for a while? Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The debate certainly raged for many years. For some people, the issue was philosophical: a website whose very purpose is to disclose information, shouldn't need to supply an explicit warning whenever it was about to do exactly that. Many people thought that a section heading labeled "Plot" was a sufficiently clear warning that the plot was about to be discussed. (Some, of course, did not think this was sufficent.)

There was also a practical problem: even if you thought spoiler tags were desirable, where should they be used? At one point, even the old fairy tale Three Little Pigs had a spoiler tag. Classics like Romeo and Juliet had them. There never was consensus on a guideline as to whether these were correct. (Plenty of fairy tales and classics did not have warnings; it came down to the unguided predilection of particular editors.)

To say that there were misuses is beside the point; for something to be misused, there needs first to be a guideline on correct usage, and there never was one. There was no shortage of proposals (the old spoiler wars went on passionately for a long time), but none of them stuck. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha. A "large consensus decision"? That's misleading. There wasn't a large consensus in the RfC in 2007 - but about 44,000 spoiler warnings were deleted en masse anyway by activist editors, without any prior consultation with all the affected editors (is that civil?). They then used the comparative lack of reverts as evidence that a "new consensus" had been formed - just like that. Then the template was deleted, so it then became impossible to "create a new consensus" by doing the opposite of what the anti-spoiler-warning people had done! If I or anyone else had tried to recreate the template, I would have been slapped down for contravening a "consensus" community decision, most likely. This, I think, is one of the best single examples of how Wikipedia's use of the word "consensus" can be incredibly misleading.--greenrd (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that, in the case of fictional books, plays, or movies, a spoiler would be defined as the revealing of the climax of the narrative. If the climax of a narrative susceptible to spoiling is not readily apparent to any person of reasonable intelligence, then spoilers are the least of the work's concern. As for the issue of sourcing a spoiler, it would not be difficult to track down reviews which explicitly state 'I will not give away X, but I will point out Y' - in other words, if reviews and critical commentaries refrain from offering a specific but critical detail of a story en masse, deducing what the spoiler might be should not require a tremendous leap of logic.

All that being said, we do have an intellectual responsibility to disclose all the facts. But we also have a social responsibility to let folks know they may be treading into discourse that could ruin their experience of how a fictional* narrative resolves itself. I agree with other editors that tags would not be a reasonable way of resolving the matter. However, we could do something simple like change the section header for Plot to something along the lines of Plot and Resolution (or just have a standalone Resolution section).

*It's worth noting that, because the new movie Catfish has been touting itself as a documentary and work of nonfiction, there is no social irresponsibility on wikipedia's part in disclosing its conclusion without warning (although there may very well be on the part of the filmmaker's/producers in declaring it a documentary)
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That might seem a reasonable line, but what do you do with a story like Memento? Technically there are two dramatic climaxes but the first comes right at the start of the movie. What about works where there is no dramatric climax, like Waiting for Godot? What happens when people think the dramatic climax starts much earlier in a film, particularly in heist/crime films where there is some type of betrayal which the rest of the movie revolves around? The problem is that as soon as you try to draw a line, it is immediately shattered by all hypothetical cases.

Again, I'll reiterate arguments from before: We have a general disclaimer that all details may be revealed, and we do try to keep plot in Plot sections, and that at worst any single reader will be mis-spoiled once before they realize there's *gasp* plot details on WP. It avoids any issues with our purpose as an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I propose rewriting the guideline to allow spoilers to be hidden in a collapsed box in exceptional cases. A collapsed box should not be necessary in a case like Star Wars (most everybody knows by now about Darth Vader), but it does make sense in cases like The Mousetrap, or the NYT example of a film that had not actually had its general release yet. (To view an example of a collapsed box, see this version of the Mousetrap article. The reader has to click "Show" to see the spoiler.) I think this much flexibility would be desirable. --JN466 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  You're suggesting a "case-by-case discussion", which amounts to an argument on every single page that contains what could conceivably be thought of as "spoiler" material. Your assumption that Star Wars (1977–1983) is less spoilable than The Mousetrap (1952), is a personal opinion. Everybody has a personal opinion. Case-by-case didn't work, which is why they were removed previously.

  For example: I haven't seen Inception yet, and might not do so for many years - and until I do, I will not read a single thing about it. (but the longer I take to see the film, the more likely it is that some other piece of culture (film, newspaper article, etc) will refer to its plot details thereby spoiling part of the surprise). I haven't seen many older movies (books, plays, poems, etc), and I hope to not have them spoiled before I do so. To that end, I will avoid reading all about them in an encyclopedia. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I could say something like "well maybe the spinner will never drop" and if you've never seen Inception you can either see that as a teasing reference to an event, the occurrence of which is neither ruled in nor ruled out in the film or you can see it as a devastating "spoiler". Actually it says nothing of significance, or at least nothing that cannot be inferred from the fact that it's a film about the manipulation of dreams (which, heaven help us, might actually be the real spoiler, and yes I really do know people who are that anal about spoilers). --TS 01:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  That is exactly the kind of information I was trying to avoid. All I knew was that it was convoluted, and potentially well-written, and a name of one of the actors (LDC). (Though I did realize I was potentially setting myself up for someone to tell me a detail or two, either on purpose or accidentally, by using it as an example. That's the danger of being truthful and using honest examples!) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  As somebody who has actually seen the film from beginning to end I can assure you that you will not extract a milligram of spoil from what I have written. And that's the point. --TS 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I see that collapse box on The Mouse Trap as an obscenity. We should not cave in to commercial interests in this way. --TS 01:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a cave in to commercial interests, just as taking on board some feedback -- not from Christie's heir, but from members of the general public. We are trying to satisfy the readership, not ourselves here, and the collapse box arguably gives us the capability to satisfy more readers. I suggested as much on the Mousetrap talk page, and lost the argument (badly); but the most common counterargument I encountered in the discussion was that WP:SPOILER forbade spoiler warnings. I don't like Wikipedia becoming that rule-bound that we become blind and deaf to reasonable requests from the public. YMMV. --JN466 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, we're serving the foundation's mission, to build an encyclopedia. We consider reader considerations, but at the same if they are in the way of constructive works, that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In my book, you have that the wrong way round. This isn't a vanity project; it is an educational service to the public, and the quality of that service is determined by how satisfied the public is with what they are getting. --JN466 03:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I've never seen an education work "hide" information because it is a spoiler. There's a difference of serving our readers along the lines of what the Foundation set out to do, and following readers that want something that is at odds with writing a useable educational work. If we went by what readers "wanted", we've have to dump the NFC policy, we'd have endless pages about contemporary works of fiction, and the like. There's a balance, but it is on the encyclopedic side of things. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A collapsed box is perfectly useable, and not in any way in conflict with the Foundation's mission. Just say you don't like the idea; I have no problem with that. --JN466 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I'm looking at this issue through the eyes of somebody who had to argue on talk:Romeo and Juliet that putting a spoiler tag at the top of the plot section was perhaps a bit much. [4]. In case anybody doesn't know, Shakespeare "spoils" the plot in the middle of the Prologue, less than sixty seconds after curtain up.

And anybody who thinks we're joking about the spoiler tags at Goldilocks should see this edit.

Exit, pursued by a <<spoiler deleted>>. --TS 01:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought a collapsible box was no big deal but I'm beginning to have second thoughts. I guess every piece of fiction has spoiler potential and almost everything in that piece could be considered a spoiler. No, I'll go with what the first letter writer here believes! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favour of a collapsible box in every plot synopsis, nor in favour of making a change to this guideline that will start up a million arguments at Romeo and Juliet and Hansel and Gretel. I am in favour of allowing rare exceptions, when there are good reasons for making one. --JN466 04:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, as soon as you make rare exceptions, people will abuse that. Spoiler the Mousetrap, someone will argue every Agatha mystery should be spoiled. And then someone will argue that every murder mystery should be spoiled. And it goes from there. The point is here that by not using spoilers, no work is given any special "consideration" over others of how sacred it is treated. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope argument. --JN466 04:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing this in real-life, with my non-editor friends, and a couple of them opined that "Wikipedia should make an exception for all whodunits". Everybody (everybody) has an opinion on where-the-fine-line-should-be-drawn (if they believe a line is needed). It's not objectively decidable, so we don't. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Coverage of The Mousetrap spoiler wasn't just in the New York Times, by the way. There were articles in all the UK dailies, as well as coverage in India, France, Germany, Spain and God knows where. [5] But I'll leave this subject to you guys now. Cheers, --JN466 04:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  We know :) There were threads discussing it here, in a few places (village pump, article talkpages, jimbo's talkpage, the mailing list, etc). Last year, it was the Dispute over Rorschach test images. So it goes. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with greenrd -- no EVIDENCE of a consensus exists anywhere on Wikipedia, as MASEM said earlier. As both an editor of Wikipedia and donor to Wikipedia, I would like to see those warnings reinstated. Again, as JN mentioned earlier, there is the whole issue of educational service to the public. Gabiteodoru (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is that the warnings are not present. To add them, as with any other addition, would require consensus, and good luck trying to get it. Many others have tried. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The status quo was that they were present. No consensus was formed. Then they were removed without consensus. So the only conclusion is that I should just go ahead and change all of Wikipedia and add those warnings, and then that will be the new status quo ... ? Gabiteodoru (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Status quo is a dictionary term, which you can look up. It refers to the state of things right now, not a state in the past. You are, of course, welcome to try to put spoiler warnings on any article, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is also an encyclopedia that anyone can revert. Given the present state of this guideline (the status quo, as it were), there is very little doubt about what would happen next. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also commonly used as short for "Status quo ante (bellum)" "The state of things as they were before (the war)" hence "to restore the Status Quo" by replacing the drummer. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

Proposal

Having thought about this some more, I propose adding the following sentence (or principle -- the wording can be tweaked):

... When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. In the case of works that have not yet been publicly released, or works whose secondary-source literature demonstrably and overwhelmingly chooses to avoid mentioning the work's ending or plot twists, so as not to spoil enjoyment of the work, it is permissible to place spoilers in a collapsible box, allowing the reader to reveal the spoiler at their discretion. ...

This would resolve the problem of identifying "where to draw the line", by using verifiable criteria (released or not?, do reliable sources avoid discussing the ending?). It would also prevent silly discussions about whether we need a spoiler warning for Romeo and Juliet. Views? --JN466 05:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree and support it Gabiteodoru (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose due to forum shopping I do not see any issue with spoilers and that this is something that ain't broken so why fix it? People come to an encyclopedia for information about books, films etc and part of that is the plot. We should not cater for those stupid enough to read through the whole plot and complain when they get told the ending. The heading PLOT is a fairly obvious clue as to what information is being reveiled.

A similar proposal for this was resoundingly opposed at this talk page HERE Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I referred to the Mousetrap talk page discussion, and my having lost the debate there, here on this page, 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC). --JN466 21:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is called forum shopping. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose If you do not want to read about the ending of a work do not search for it on Wikipedia. Sort of like if you do not wish to see sexually explicit content do not search for them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(Please don't do the vote thing. Don't do that bold thing. Let's discuss. See meta:Polls are evil)

I also oppose the proposal, because we cannot normally write anything about the content of works that are not already released. That's because there is no verifiable information about their content. If you see a plot summary for a film that hasn't been released, just delete it unless the information given is completely verifiable. --TS 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The NYT article gave an example of a film whose ending was revealed prior to release ("The documentary “Catfish” had its surprise ending revealed by Wikipedia before it even played in movie theaters — the brief plot summary and its spoiler were based on a screening at this year’s Sundance Film Festival."). Editors are permitted to access the primary source for plot synopses, and are not required to cite sources. Hence, if you see an advance screening, you are good to go by our policies. --JN466 21:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if a film is screened, especially at a prominent festival, then obviously its content becomes public. If I don't want to a fact to be broadcast I avoid broadcasting it. --TS 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I am saying is that we could consider hiding the spoiler in such a case, given that the vast majority of our readers won't have had a chance to see the film yet. I am merely offering it for your consideration. --JN466 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, where do you draw the line? The same argument could be made about a film that debuts in Europe and hasn't been seen in the US, or the other way around. Or a Japanese game yet to be translated, etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Japanese game yet to be translated is a good example. But I think the problem of where to draw the line can be solved. I would say once the work has had an English-language release in any country, the cat is out of the bag, and a collapsed spoiler box should no longer be an option. Let me add that what is proposed would here would make the box a permissible option according to the guideline – any actual implementation of such a box would still be subject to talk page consensus. It is just that article talk page arguments for or against the box would have to be based on the merits of the case, rather than on a categorical wording of WP:SPOILER.

So, for example, if all the English secondary sources on an as yet untranslated game avoid mentioning the spoiler, then including the spoiler in a collapsed box, rather than having it in plain view, as we do now, would become an option that editors of that article could pursue, subject to talk page agreement, without falling foul of this guideline. --JN466 22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreleased works are a very tiny part of the problem. When spoiler warnings were prevalent on Wikipedia, 99 percent of them were on released works. Most of the arguments are around released works (e.g., The Mousetrap). Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this idea, and especially oppose any official enshrining of English-language sources — I've been seeing far too much cultural bias on Wikipedia already. I should note, however, that unreleased works not covered by secondary sources may be subject to other policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While I strongly feel works like Mousetrap that have been out for awhile should have the ending posted I agree that unreleased works should not. Not only is it unfair to the creator(s) of the work, readers often will read the whole section of unreleased works not expecting any spoilers. JDDJS (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you be happy to have the ending of an unreleased work in a collapsed box? --JN466 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it will definitely be better than having it normally but if it is something with a big twist at the ending, then I think it's unfair to the creator(s) to have easily view to the ending. JDDJS (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Where would one obtain a verifiable synopsis for an unreleased work? In practice I think this is unlikely to be a significant problem. --TS 07:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there are reliable sources of contemporary works that publish, with some air of authority, rumors on the content and conclusions of major works or the like. Now, of course, this throws reliability on its side, and likely in the first place those types of references shouldn't be included - yet they end up being done (I remember this frequently a problem on Toy Story 3, for example). There's also cases where people have seen closed screenings of the movie and write out the plot; technically no different from other released works but there is the fact that implicit with most plot summaries is that anyone can go verify them; if the movie's not out for the public, then this is impossible to do and such summaries should be removed until the movie is released. --MASEM (t) 12:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There was that whole thing with Catfish that I read about in an article. It was revealed based on an early screening in a film festival. If I look up an article about a movie that hasn't been in theaters yet, I don't expect the ending to be there. JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Completely opposed to this. Any line we draw will be completely arbitrary and hard to enforced. Many editors will be more unsatisfied with where the line is drawn. If the information has been published, either via the work itself or through third-party sources, is verifiable and can be included in Wikipeida without any special consideration. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an entertainment guide, despite whether some use it for the latter. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It is neither our job nor our remit to put roadblocks between readers and information. People don't read Wikipedia expecting to have to understand our collapsing system or find the right place to click on a page to reveal hidden information, and please don't doubt that a large portion of our readers are naive enough to not be able to figure out how to reveal such hidden information. We are an encyclopedia, not an advertising vehicle, not a servant of playwrights or authors, and not a parent who is qualified to make judgments about what people can and can't be allowed know. It is not our place to be coy; it is our place to provide complete, accessible information.

This is also why we can't take our cues from by secondary-source literature being coy. It's their job to be coy. They are, often, acting as advertising. When they're not acting as advertising, they're providing intentionally-limited information for those who want to decide whether to see/read something. That's not us. We're not here to help movies put butts in seats, and we're not here to help those butts decide whether to go to a movie or not. We're here to provide information to the owners of those butts, to do with what they please, with the expectation that we will provide all germane, verifiable, notable information on a work. Any restriction on "spoilers," because "zomg someone might find out full information on a topic! and that would be terrible!" is...so wrong that I have a very hard time seeing how anyone could think that and still want to participate in an encyclopedia-building project. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Service to the public and Respect for the audience are two key principles. As a reader of Wikipedia, I have always appreciated the spoiler warnings. I think it is not hard to find a lot of readers unsatisfied or offended by the lack of spoiler warnings (the NYT would be a source); I have to say I do not know much about readers unsatisfied or offended by their presence.

All the arguments against the spoilers completely ignore those two principles above.

Earlier I wasn't doing a straw poll, I was stating my lack of disagreement. However, I can see why some people might think the collapsible box is a bad idea. Fine. Let's just put a normal text warning like it was before. That way no information is hidden.

Please take into account the two principles above in your arguments: Service to the public and Respect for the audience Gabiteodoru (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If we followed these above our purpose of being an encyclopedia, we would be full of trivia, pop culture references, non-free content, and thousands of articles for every minor fictional element ever. Just because it may be apparent that readers want spoiler warnings, they harm the encyclopedic purpose we serve first and foremost. We do consider readers by warning them via the general disclaimer, and keeping all the plot information to one section. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, there is currently a discussion on meta about implementing a facility enabling individual users to define preferences for the content that shows on their computers (e.g. surf WP with NSFW pictures greyed). Spoilers could be dealt with in the same way -- they could be tagged, and users who don't want to see them could set up their account in such a way that the text is greyed. This might be the best solution long-term, but would clearly be some months or years down the line. --JN466 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Gabiteodoru, to my mind "Respect for the public" is exemplified by not making judgments on what the public should be allowed to see. By not being paternalistic and not subverting our purpose as an encyclopedia because "someone think of the CHILDREN/Harry Potter readers/Londoners who haven't seen The Mousetrap!" Are you arguing that "respect for the public" is better exemplified by censoring our information or, failing that, inserting quite-possibly-condescending "hey, this encyclopedia includes information" warnings? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Albeit with some different people involved, I would remark that this discussion seems to be going in exactly the same direction as the last umpteen times and with pretty much the same kinds of argument. I do not at this stage see signs that consensus might be emerging for change to the guideline--or even consensus that a change of some sort might be desirable.

Perhaps what we need is for somebody to focus on what has changed since last time. --TS 17:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an absurd idea. We are an encyclopedia. We serve our readers by providing information. Asking us to do this, under the justification of 'serving our readers' is like saying a restaurant needs to start offering fluffy puppies with meals to serve their customers. At the end of the day its not what we do by our very function and if that's what would serve a particular reader, they'd be better served by using the actual tool they need (a pet store, a fan guide) then trying to shoehorn that use out of us. -- ۩ Mask 22:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I could quote word by word the excellent AKMask comment. The proposal is patronizing, it detracts from our encyclopedic purpose and it implicitly misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tool to collect and structure notable, public information, not a tool to help the enjoyment of works of art. It also would make articles more difficult to read and distracting. No. Just no. --Cyclopia^talk 22:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposed addition seems a long-winded way of saying that it is permissible to use collapsible boxes in an article sometimes. If there's a good use for it, if it makes an article more readable in a way that improves the experience for our readers of using WP as an online encyclopedia with occasionally dynamic or otherwise well-formatted content, would that currently not be permitted? Seems as if it ought to be, even if only rarely used to "hide" a specific spoiler that may in some way justify it. Why complicate policy just to "unforbid" something that should not be "forbidden" in the first place? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An opportunity to talk to you without either being defensive! Im actually pretty happy for that :) It actually would. We have two big things to think about in terms of the boxes and dynamic content. One is accessibility. How do these work with screenreaders and braile displays and the like? The other is our reusers. We are a project, providing an encyclopedia. One form, the one we use, is online, but downstream reusers may not take that form. If it degrades gracefully (a wikilink doesnt hide the word if its not a link anymore for example) its fine. If not, it has to pass a much higher bar before being included. -- ۩ Mask 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that seems reasonable. I'm completely new to this discussion, but I've been pretty happy with the application of WP:SPOILER as it stands when I have come across it. If the sparing use of collapsible boxes to "hide" certain qualifying spoilers would result in the kinds of problems you mention, or others of equally valid concern, then perhaps it would be best to policy-forbid that. I suppose I really should read the background on all this before commenting further on it though... :S Regards :), WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We do have a lot of collapsed content in our articles already. This includes tens of thousands of collapsed navboxes at the bottom of articles; it includes infoboxes like the one in Aristotle, which has two collapsed fields with a "Show" link and is used in well over a thousand articles. This would be no different. --JN466 02:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some accepted uses of collapsed content, navigation elements being one of them; but per WP:ACCESS and MOS:COLLAPSE, we avoid hiding useful article content with these. (And this is ignoring the specific callout to Spoilers in the latter). --MASEM (t) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That callout to spoilers is relevant; I wasn't aware the proposal would violate MOS:COLLAPSE as presently written. --JN466 02:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to imply it wasn't relevant, only that even without the specific callout to Spoilers, the advice there about accessibility and collapsed sections still apply. As it calls it out, it likely is even more important here. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Another arbitrary section break

These were originally published at the Mousetrap discussion, but most are still relevant here, so I'm going to include them anyway. (I edited a bit for relevance). elektrikSHOOS 00:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Danger of a slippery slope if we begin to allow this, we open the doors to throw the WP:SPOILER guideline in the rubbish. After all, in Muhammad we piss off a lot of Muslims by showing the pictures without a collapsing table; in many sexuality articles we show images and videos that can be deemed "offensive" by many people. What constitutes a "reasonable exception" and what not? WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean only that we include information which is controversial or potentially offensive, but also that we take no steps to hide it from the reader.
2. Doing a technical disservice to the readers: By collapsing information we make a disservice to the reader by making the article harder to read, harder to print and in general less polished.
3. Consideration of the intelligence of the readers: Our readers merit more respect than being treated like braindead children that do not understand that an encyclopedic article about a work of fiction can contain spoilers on that work of fiction. By collapsing the information, we somewhat behave like nannies that tell our readers "see, we know better than you, we know what you should read first and what not". This is insulting to our public.
4. We already have enough warnings: We expect every normal reader to understand what is going to be found in a section named "Plot" and as such we have already warned enough the reader, without having to add collapsible boxes.
   — Cyclopia (talk · contribs)

Respect for the readers doesn't mean being paternalistic. It means giving them what they want. I am a reader. Sometimes I get distracted reading. I believe I am not the only one. Sometimes the word 'plot' is not enough. And I don't know how many people have ever read this general 'disclaimer' that every one is talking about. I am hereby stating that, as a Wikipedia reader, I would like extra warnings when it comes to plot spoilers. I am not asking for a collapsible box, or hiding information any other way. I am asking for EXTRA information (or to be more exact, particular information EARLIER, in case any information theorist decides to be a wiseguy). How many readers must beg for extra information to be added to an encyclopedia before the powers that be, right now blinded by dogma, concede? Tell me. I will bring them to you. Gabiteodoru (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the adage "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" applies. Wikipedia is not a tool to casually read about fictional works; it is a research tool and as such will expose all necessary details to complete the encyclopedic comprehension of the work. If you wander into an article and get spoiled, you should quickly learn that lesson. Compare this to where spoiler warnings originated, on USENET forums and teh like where you could be reading a standard post and someone drops a spoiler in the middle of it. There, USENET is a tool for discussion and spoilers would be unexpected in some cases. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think it all boils down to the issue of how Wikipedia was intended to be used vs how Wikipedia is actually used today. While it was intended to be an encyclopedia and nothing more, today many people read out of pleasure, are sucked up into it by accident (see http://xkcd.com/214/ ), or even play the Wikipedia game http://thewikigame.com/ . Wikipedia is, to people, more than an encyclopedia, and that's a reality.

Yes, the primary goal of Wikipedia was just to be an encyclopedia. It came with a series of principles. What I am saying is this: creating an enjoyable experience for the reader should be a secondary goal of Wikipedia. If this second goal is ever in conflict with the first or any of the primary principles, then the latter should prevail. However, when there is no conflict, I see no reason whatsoever not do it.

In conclusion, if editors refuse to give readers what they want even if it doesn't cost them anything (cost in terms of sacrificing the principles of Wikipedia), and some editors, just because they want to build something in particular, destroy everything else in their path even if it doesn't affect them (I'm speaking here of those that erased the warnings without a consensus being present), then there's nothing else I can say. I do wish that more editors did not fail to be more open minded about the potential of Wikipedia.

All that I'm asking is: "Why not?". I hope the answer will be more than "Because".Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should plot details be given a special exception to the "no disclaimers in articles" policy while more useful disclaimers, such as those for medical, legal, or offensive material, are not allowed? Just because some people on the Internet have developed a form of paranoia about any level of plot detail doesn't justify the exception. A spoiler, after all, is an arbitrary label applied to plot details which has no bases in literary or film study and critique. And without reliable sources, we cannot label any plot detail as a "spoiler." Adding a disclaimer that an article about a work of fiction contains plot details not only is stating the obvious, will do nothing to stop people complaining about certain plot details in articles. The only reason to add the disclaimer into articles is to effectively cover our asses, but that is all that it will do. And the community has largely agreed that if an action is only to cover our asses, then it is an action we should avoid. Thence why we don't have in article disclaimers for other topics. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When I go to a Wikipedia page about a book or a film, I expect it to tell me the whole story, without qualification. I don't want anything in my way when I'm seeking that. OK, that might seem an extreme view, but is it really any worse than demanding no spoilers? I would argue very strongly that it's what an encyclopaedia must do. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites out there that already guard you from reading 'spoilers'. Use them if you don't want to be spoiled. Wikipedia gives it all, and personally I have grown to like it. If I want a review, I go to rottentomatoes, if i want to know about guest roles in tv series i go to imdb and if i want an explenation of what I just saw I go to Wikipedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that, again, not censoring anything is one of Wikipedia's core policies. We are an encyclopedia, and we have no blocks to convey information to the reader regardless of personal preference. If you came to read Wikipedia, you (hopefully) came for a neutral and concise description of what you want information. Expecting Wikipedia to do anything else is a severe misunderstanding of our intent as a site. elektrikSHOOS 23:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The correlation between Wikipedia and spoilers

Every article that has anything do to with a fictional plot would be incomplete without a plot summary, look at how many "stubs" there are on wikipedia because they do not have summary's AKA "spoilers" included in the article, wikipedia's purpose has to do with providing accurate information, regardless if is spoils your adventure into whatever is being "spoiled". Uncle Soprano (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And every article with such content should have a warning. --IceHunter (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The main spoilers in Gospel of Matthew are in the introduction, without a warning (Jesus dies and is resurrected). This is how it should be in an encyclopedia. —Кузьма^討論 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers Within Episode Short Summaries

Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers says "when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." No encyclopedic purpose is being served by spoiling the plot of a television show within the context of the shows episode summary. The purpose of Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers is to protect the rights of users who would choose to post content of a story of fiction, e.g., Star Wars, where it is "generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail". There are no general expectations of spoilers to be found within a short summary of an episode. If any individual should believe it necessary to post content that would entail detailed summaries of a shows episodes they should create such an article.The Dazs (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All episode summaries should be complete and included all important details, such as plot twists and especially the conclusion. The point of this guideline is to prevent editors from removing plot details form any summary on the bases that they are possible "spoilers." Secondary to that is to explain why spoiler disclaimers are not permitted in articles. We don't differentiate between "short" and "long", though all plot summaries should be relativity short. A "long" plot summary is one that needs to be trimmed to remove the non-essential details from. —Farix (t | c) 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, people come here to get information. By censoring information because you feel it spoils the plot you effectively destroy the purpose of an encyclopedia. The encyclopedic purpose being served is to provide information. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I suggested that any user who believes it necessary should add such content. However, such spoilers are not appropriate within a short summary of an article as it is not generally expected of viewers to be exposed to spoilers within the context of an episodes short summary. There are areas within an article that one should expect the exposure of spoilers; the short summary of an episode is not one of those areas and any spoiler within this area should be either removed or moved to a more appropriate section of content within the article. Create content within the article, and outside an episodes short summary, to include spoilers. The Dazs (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? People don't expect to have a summary of the episode in the episode summary box… Short does not imply incomplete, it implies removed all excessive details, major plot points are not details. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in fact suggesting that, generally, viewers would prefer these episode summaries being void of spoilers. I am not implying that editors should attempt to write a short summary without providing details of an episode that will always have some degree of spoilers. Rather, I'm saying that there is a certain expectation of the general viewer to not receive an extensive nor an unnecessary exposure to spoilers. It is possible to briefly summarize an episode without revealing in excess that which makes the show worth watching.

As well, as I previously stated there are content within an article that may contain spoilers with such an expectation from the general audience, but the summary of an episode within the List_of_Dazs_episodes is not an appropriate place for said spoilers; create a separate content box for elaborate summaries with spoilers that will meet the expectation of the general audience. The Dazs (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a fan site, we provide information. If the general audience doesn't expect information, they misinterpret the purpose of this website. And no we're not going to make two episode list one without proper summaries and one with. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is your choice not to make an additional page that explores episodes deeper, but as you said this is an encyclopedia, if you don't want to do it let someone else. Besides, I don't believe you've actually made a direct argument against my initial entry. Regarding why I am misinformed of the terms of the guideline. I used references directly from the guideline to back-up my statement. Yet it seems to me that you refuse to look further into the guideline than your preconceived notion. The Dazs (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) Your entire argument is based on you view that plot information isn't encyclopedic, that's wrong. The fact that individual articles aren't created is because there isn't enough information for notability and would be deleted as such. Even with separate articles the plot in the episode article should contain the entire plot, just void of addition details and unessential information. The main plot is not unencyclopedic. Individual articles as you propose are in violation of WP:PLOT. Here's a quote for you "This page in a nutshell: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When referring to spoilers I am meaning, as you said, any "addition[al] details and unessential information" aside from the main plot of an episode. As well, when referring to an article I did not mean to create an actual separate article, rather a separate section of content within the article for which spoilers may reside.

On a side note, what I am purposing is not unreasonable. It benefits the viewers (who we do this for) and only inconveniences editors with a poor concept of what a stories plot is, and those who are too lazy to take their spoilers to a different content section within the article. The Dazs (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We are writing this work as a research work. It needs to be complete. There are plenty of other resources that viewer who may be looking for a specific actor or the air date of an episode can use without seeing all the details of the work. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean. The Dazs (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Removing an entire episodes summary is not removing addition details and unessential information, removing the end of an episode is also not removing additional details and unessential information. The ending is part of the main plot, and often one of the most important parts. Creating two separate lists is not beneficial to users. If you don't want information, you shouldn't be reading an encyclopedia. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, spoilers within a List_of_Dazs_episodes is not an appropriate location for spoilers. The information the general viewership wants when viewing this page are brief plot summaries. The summary area is better left blank than with content that viewers are not expecting to see on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dazs (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no individaul episode articles for the show, then the list entry is the only place where such plot summaries can be included. They will generally be shorter than what you see in a full episode article, but they will not be lacking.

On the other hand, if it is a TV show where every episode does have its own article, a shorter teaser summary in the episode list is article as long as it is complete enough to explain the concept of the show for someone trying to figure out which episode it was. For example, Lost (season 4)'s short summary of "The Constant" doesn't fully reveal how the plot resolves but does reveal what could be considered a spoiler about time travel, but that's a key element of that episode. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, an episode list is a place where spoilers are to be expected, along with the "Plot" section of any article about a work of fiction. Removing plot details on the bases that they may be spoilers is explicitly prohibited by this guideline. A "spoiler free" plot summary is an incomplete plot summary. —Farix (t | c) 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers that are necessary to introduce the element of the plot differs from spoilers that are excessive in information and unnecessary to understanding the plot of an episode. These spoilers that go into excessive one or two paragraphs worth of content and that, although are part of the story, are not an element of the main plot of an episode is what I'm against. The Dazs (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is not part of the main plot, then we should trim that away, spoiler or not. Often times this is done by moving details that affect only one character or so off to a character description, but still doesn't validate pruning for spoilers. Maybe a minor character dies in an episode but it's not a significant event so it won't be mentioned there, but is definitely mentioned as part of the character's description. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence that you keep quoting has to do with overly detailed plot summaries and plot details in "In popular culture" sections in articles about non-fictional topics as opposed to "spoilers". "In popular culture" sections are often considered trivia and has little to any encyclopedic purposes. The sentance, however, is not intended to be used to limit plot details that some may consider "spoilers". —Farix (t | c) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) The ending of an episode is most definitely part of the main plot, it is often even the most important event of the episode. If a main character dies at the end of an episode, you would most definitely include this as it is a major event in the show. Removing entire episode summaries, unless a copyright violation, is most definitely unacceptable. In the specific case of The Event this was removed, "Sean boards a plane and attempts to deter the pilot and Leila's father Michael (Scott Patterson) not to crash it into the President's press conference in Florida. As the plane approaches the press conference site, it flies into a vortex in mid-air and vanishes." This is half the episode, a major plot point and cliffhanger. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The second episode summary of The Event is an example of the "excessive" elaboration of an episode that strays from the core elements of the episode plots. The spoiler you mentioned is, in itself, not what I'm combating. The Dazs (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But that wasn't the reason you were giving when completely removing the plot summery for episode 2 or removing plot details from episode 1. No, you were complaining about so-called "spoiler". So exactly what are the "excessive" details for episode 2? And have you attempted to copyedit the summary to make it more brief while retaining the significant details? —Farix (t | c) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The spoilers I was referring to where the excessive details themselves; if you cannot see the excessive details within that episode summary, i dont think me critiquing it further would help in realizing my view. I have been working on an alternative proposal to that specific episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dazs (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question about what are the "excessive" details for episode 2. The summary doesn't flow very well and appears to jump around a bit, but I don't see any "excessive" details, unless you're referring to the actor's names mentioned after the character's names. A little bit of copyediting can fix that. But at 183 words, it is within the limits for the length of an episode summary given the episode's apparent complexity. —Farix (t | c) 01:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers in the lead paragraph?

I'm well aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that to be encyclopedic, articles need to be covered with full, complete information, including "spoilers" of plot details in works of media. However, I feel that it's reasonable to assume that there shouldn't be any spoiler (major or minor) in the lead paragraph of an article, unless it's generally applicable to the whole of the medium.

For instance, one wouldn't expect to see "Harry encounters Lord Voldemort who is possessing Professor Quirell and ends up defeating him in battle." in the opening paragraph of an article about Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Or, "Goku is really an alien from an endangered species called Saya-Jins and dies several times throughout his life." in the lead paragraph of a Dragon Ball Z article.

More acceptable entries like, "Harry has many strange experiences while learning about magic, some of them dangerous in nature." And, "Goku is inadvertently tasked with saving the world many times from bad guys seeking power." These are just examples of giving a clear, concise picture about the fiction without revealing major plot points should one, at this point, now be interested in the work and want to experience it first-hand.

I think it's reasonable that plot details that are not general should not be placed in the lead paragraph. The "Plot" section is the most natural and obvious area for information like this. Being in other places "just to be there" (especially in the lead paragraph) doesn't add anything to the article at all and could disrupt the flow of the content. RufioUniverse (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Harry has many strange experiences while learning about magic, some of them dangerous in nature" has one serious problem. It's waffle, fit only for a book jacket. --TS 23:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what this is about at all. This is about improper placement of critical plot details and spoilers. Don't focus on the example, and don't forget the core of the subject. RufioUniverse (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Think of it this way -- leads are supposed to summerize the entire article. Extra detail shouldn't go in just to go in, but at the same time a detail that really belongs in the lead shouldn't be left out 'because it's a spoiler'. Darth Vader is a good example (though perhaps not the most well written one). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For a work of fiction (book, film, comic, etc.), if it is a plot detail that the work is best known for, then it should be mentioned in the lead regardless of whether some consider it a "spoiler" or not. The simple fact is that we should not be making distinctions between spoilers and non-spoilers when dealing with plot details. However, we should not summarize the entire plot in the lead because that is the job of the "Plot" section. —Farix (t | c) 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To me it is clear that spoilers should never be in the lead. No exceptions. I learned quickly not to read the plot section of films I hadn't yet seen. In the unlikely event people conclude they have to avoid the lead paragraph as well then WP will lose a lot of readers, and deservedly so. Even if a spoiler is well known, like the ending of Psycho, you can find a way to not put it in the lead. Gothicfilm (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A lead section, per WP:LEAD, "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." This includes spoilers. If a spoiler is integral to outside reaction to the work—such as Darth Vader, Soylent Green or Psycho—and reaction to the said spoiler is already documented extensively in the article, it would be foolish to not include this in the lead. It is an issue which is ultimately decided on a case-by-case basis, based on the particular spoiler's relation to the impact of the work as a whole. Setting any sort of policy on this is silly, as it would directly lead to a decrease in quality of leads of said articles such as the ones above because they wouldn't be allowed to mention one of the most important aspects of that subject. Not to mention that, at least in this case, deciding where spoilers are and are not allowed in an article feels a lot like instruction creep, and is unnecessary. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If a spoiler is "integral to outside reaction to the work" - such as Psycho or Soylent Green, the most you might do in the lead is mention that the ending has become well known. That would be enough to spark the reader's curiosity about the ending, and then they can decide for themselves whether or not they now want to read on before seeing the work at hand. If it's in the lead it's spoiled with no warning, and that's completely unnecessary. Gothicfilm (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

One could also make the argument that if a spoiler has already been widely reported on, then it is also probably already well-known, and thus would probably not "ruin" much of anything for most people if it was mentioned in the lead. (See Darth Vader for a perfect example of this.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The basic point is, when handling plot details in articles, whether it is a "spoiler" or not should not be a consideration. Prohibiting certain plot details from being mentioned in the lead because someone considers them a "spoiler" would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, the very label of "spoiler" is usually based on one's personal opinion and can rarely be verified by reliable sources, thus violating WP:NOR in the process. —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am obviously not calling for censorship, but self-restraint and common sense. But you'd rather demand sources to identify spoilers which are self-evident. Gothicfilm (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A "spoiler" is not self-evident. Two people can look at the same plot detail. One may consider the plot detail a "spoiler", the other may not. But saying that something is "self-evident" is the very reason why we have a policies about verifiability and original research. Also, saying that such spoilers should not be mentioned in the lead is calling for censorship. —Farix (t | c) 03:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, the fallacy in your thought is that self-restraint and common sense are really subjective. What may be considered a spoiler for you may not be for someone else. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is self-evident that giving away the ending of Psycho or Soylent Green is a spoiler. The majority of people on here would agree with that in a landslide, and I suspect you know it. And if asking for self-restraint is censorship, than any policy, rule or guideline is censorship. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, revealing the ending might be commonly considered a spoiler, but there exist people who believe that giving away any information about a work's plot constitutes a spoiler. What would you say to them? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that debating such a non-issue is a waste of time. I've now discovered by my first click on this page's archive - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Archive_16 - that some of you guys have been on here for at least two years making the same arguments against other people who earlier brought up the same issues I did, some in far greater detail, sometimes in well thought-out debate - which you then try to rebut with circular logic, strawmen like the above, and cries of censorship. I don't know why you're so in favor of putting spoilers in the lead, (or where you get the time), but I've made my point. I'm done. Gothicfilm (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We're obsessed with keeping encyclopedia articles as encyclopedia articles. If that means a 'spoiler' needs to go in the lead -- which is pretty rare - then so be it. Usually there's no reason for it to. Have you found any where it's not a very well known example? You have to understand, back when there were actual warning on pages, people were putting spoiler warnings on Romeo and Juliet (despite the fact the very first page describes their fate), on Biblical stuff, on /Fairy Tales/. You see how silly it can get? When you stop letting "we need to protect the readers ZOMG!" get it in the way, articles automatically start becoming so much better. This is not, of course, to say people who go putting 'spoilers' in everything because it's allowed, because they shouldn't do that either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No one on this page (at least, no one to my knowledge) is "in favor" of putting spoilers in lead paragraphs. We're in favor of exercising common sense and seeing if an encyclopedic purpose is being served. At least in this case, it's not something that can be decided universally. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the arguments used in the past was that Sight and Sound, the magazine of the BFI, didn't use spoiler tags so why should Wikipedia and while that may have been true at the time it definitely isn't true now.

Of course they don't use the word spoiler on their pages but when you enclose the plot entirely within it's own box and don't mention the spoilers in the review of the movie then you may fool yourself that you don't use spoiler tags when your actions have the same effect .Garda40 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)