Wikipedia talk:Spoiler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
This is, on occasion, a very busy discussion page. Newcomers are encouraged to read the copious archives. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here. |
 |
|||||||||||||||
| Archives (Index) | |||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
| About archives |
Contents |
[edit] Thank you, Wikipedia.
So now every article for every film, book, game, and show I look up on this horrible site will divulge every last detail of plot and character development without using a single spoiler warning. (Sometimes even in the introductory paragraph.) I've had enough of this. It's bad enough when a single article completely and nonchalantly ruins an entire thing for me when all I want to know is a character's name, but this is so commonplace that I'd swear it had become official policy. It's laziness, not bothering to place a spoiler warning, is what it is. Pure laziness. (Momus (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC))
- We deliberately removed all existing spoiler warnings, which took quite some effort. Kusma (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- *evil cackle*--Father Goose (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is it not true that all the spoiler warnings were removed *before* any police was agreed upon, as a means of justifying the policy of not having spoilers? Dirty tactics if you ask me. . . At any rate, this talk page should have a complete list of everyone who has ever voiced a Yes or No on spoilers, for the record.--Carterhawk (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The archives are there. You're free to complied it. Of course, that won't say people who've only voiced on the issue elsewhere in WP, or on external places on the web... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Blah blah blah. So is it actually worse to have no warnings -- and thus any time you read about something you know in advance there MIGHT be info about the topic -- that is, is it really better to have SOME articles with warnings, thus you NEVER know, you expect them but don't get them (which is how it was before this all went down, after all). I'm curious at to your answer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Melodia, we've been over this before. Policies and guidelines are about ideal conditions, not actual conditions. As such, the state of an ideal Wikipedia that included spoiler warnings would have them in all the places that they are appropriate and none of the places where they aren't. After all, we don't throw out WP:NOR just because some articles have original research and we don't know which are which prior to reading the articles. That would be (and is in this case) a bad argument. An illogical argument, as it were. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- But with OR there's no stigma about "now I'll never have the surprise", etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Non sequitur, Melodia. The issue is with the form of the argument. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- But with OR there's no stigma about "now I'll never have the surprise", etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Melodia, we've been over this before. Policies and guidelines are about ideal conditions, not actual conditions. As such, the state of an ideal Wikipedia that included spoiler warnings would have them in all the places that they are appropriate and none of the places where they aren't. After all, we don't throw out WP:NOR just because some articles have original research and we don't know which are which prior to reading the articles. That would be (and is in this case) a bad argument. An illogical argument, as it were. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to state it as diplomatically as possible: the purpose of Wikipedia is to expand the scope of human knowledge, and sometimes that is incompatible with some people's privately-conceived purpose of remaining in a state of selective ignorance. If you are one of those people who need to remain ignorant about certain facts, it's best to stay away from the products of projects whose avowed purpose is to disseminate information widely, and it's unrealistic to expect such projects to take steps to promote your private purpose in addition to its own publicly declared one. --TS 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- (ec, to Melodia) Blah blah blah, the responders are just as repetitive as the complainants. In fact more so, since it's the same responders each time, but different complainers. So blah blah blah, say the same shit over and over again, it doesn't change the fact that all these people disagree with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:27, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
-
- And to Momus: I'm too tired of this particular area of Wikipedia to repeat my own thoughts on this when it won't do any practical good, but just so you know, the Wikipedia community is very divided on the subject of spoilers and spoiler warnings. As authoritative and "end-all" as the responses are on this page, rest assured, many many people agree with you -- and the next time this issue is brought before the community, there will be a very lengthy and lively debate about it, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:32, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't use spoiler warnings because nearly 100% of the time, labeling a plot detail as a spoiler is entirely original research. That's because what constitutes a spoiler differs from one person to another. And even then, most plot details aren't considered spoilers forever, or even a few weeks after the work has been published. Also, no one has provides a suitable explanation as to why we should add article disclaimers for spoilers while we forbid all other article disclaimers. Are spoilers really more important then graphic images or other objectionable content? --Farix (Talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Every single word in Wikipedia that isn't a paraphrase of another source is original research. It's shameful.--Father Goose (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It was sarcastic, because it's so frustrating to me to see people throwing the rules around so selectively to justify their POVs. Wikilawyering bites the big one.--Father Goose (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's arguably true that JFK was killed by death rays from Mars. What matters is whether or not it's actually true. No one has yet demonstrated that it would be impossible to create a non-arbitrary standard for what is and is not a spoiler. Indeed, I have given the beginnings of just such a standard before. Hard work and tough decisions are part of being an editor. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yeah. I hate to see rules invoked in a manner divorced from the ideas that underlie them to try to bludgeon away things that are more a matter of opinion than universal principle. The question of what details could be considered "spoilers" could in most cases be handled through editorial discretion without a problem, and resolved through discussion and consensus-forming in the case of disputes.
- Unfortunately, in this instance, that approach has been swept off the table, and the table chopped into kindling. Anybody but Wikipedia's most influential editors engaging in this kind of behavior would have been banned from the site for subverting our most fundamental rules of conduct. That this issue will not go away should evoke no surprise; it is something of a tell-tale heart.--Father Goose (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, said that way you make a very strong case for the removals. These were some very long-standing editors, stepping in to reverse something which might have seemed like a good idea at the time but rapidly spiralled out of control and escalated beyond all sense, as the numerous patently absurd examples amply demonstrate. Sometimes you need someone to come in from essentially outside the situation and point out the blindingly obvious that you couldn't see because it was under your nose. It's my strong belief that that is exactly what happened here. And do bear in mind that I've had stand-up rows with the people concerned about other things, there is no hive mind here, just a case of "what has that got to do with the Five Pillars". Guy (Help!) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Farix, all these things have been discussed before, so please don't say "no one has provides a suitable explanation as to why we should add article disclaimers for spoilers". I have made an argument about this several times; if it isn't suitable for you, it's your problem. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ever hear of an encyclopedia with spoilers? No, neither have I. HalfShadow (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's what we're doing. We're increasing knowledge. Sometimes it's good not to know something. On such occasions, you must learn to avoid knowledge. Wikipedia will not help you in that regard; its mission conflicts with that. --TS 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Memory Alpha, for starters, is an encyclopedia with far more spoilers per content than WP, and just has one general warning. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ever hear of an encyclopedia that publishes all of its content for free online and allows anyone to edit it? No, neither have I. In other words, this kind of argument doesn't work for either side of this debate unless it focuses on attributes that are central to the very concept of being an encyclopedia. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Wikipedia is the only general encyclopedia that contains spoilers (ie. reveals the complete plot to the reader); therefore, it is best of its kind (has more information) and therefore is not comparable to any other encyclopedia. However, you probably meant spoiler warnings, which is indeed true, since there is nothing to be warned about (if they just omit the plot ending). If there would be an example of general encyclopedia that contains spoilers (general means "for general audience, not just specialists"), then we could perhaps take it as an example whether or not there should be spoiler warnings. If you know such an example, I am interested. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Both very good points. I wasn't sure if HalfShadow meant "spoilers" or "spoiler warnings," and so I assumed he meant spoilers, but both your point and mine stand either way. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
← See, Momus? Make one little comment and it triggers a mile-long regurgitation. This is what always happens. It'll happen another 5 times in the next 3 months. One thing we should all be ale to agree on is that the status of this "guideline"(?) is disputed. But this is just me talkin'. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:42, 19 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have seen no new arguments from either side in some months and would be perfectly happy if everyone were to drop it. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I think the fact this isn't even coming up once a week these days says that most people HAVE dropped it, no matter their personally feelings on the issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- ...with the exception of a few editors frequently vocal here it would seem. If most people have indeed dropped the issue you don't seem to be one of them. Not that I agree people have dropped it, and I don't think you think they've dropped it either, or else you wouldn't feel the need to retort, rather harshly I might add, to any comments appearing on this page in support of the templates. Your behavior suggests the opposite of what you claim, in my opinion. Were you actually confident that people have generally dropped the issue you'd be much more calm in your responses, if indeed you would even choose to respond at all. But that's again just my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:11, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- The words are there, but they make no sense. I haven't dropped it, in the sense that I still watch the page, true. But I've been doing that since long before the shit went down, as it were. I decided to not stop doing that, and I contribute my thoughts on the (now pretty rare) times people make comments to the page. Why is that so wrong? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- ...with the exception of a few editors frequently vocal here it would seem. If most people have indeed dropped the issue you don't seem to be one of them. Not that I agree people have dropped it, and I don't think you think they've dropped it either, or else you wouldn't feel the need to retort, rather harshly I might add, to any comments appearing on this page in support of the templates. Your behavior suggests the opposite of what you claim, in my opinion. Were you actually confident that people have generally dropped the issue you'd be much more calm in your responses, if indeed you would even choose to respond at all. But that's again just my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:11, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I think the fact this isn't even coming up once a week these days says that most people HAVE dropped it, no matter their personally feelings on the issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ever hear of an encyclopedia with Template:Fact tags? Me either. And if spoiler tags constitute original research, so do those. 216.15.104.38 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Except that fact tags are meant to help direct editors to what needs to be changed, and improve the encyclopedia. Spoiler tags are meant to tell readers what not to read. Quite a large difference there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Anon's comment aside, please don't make strawman arguments. Spoiler tags are of course not meant to tell readers what not to read. They're meant to tell readers what they might not want to read. You already know this. If your position isn't convincing enough without misrepresenting your opposition then perhaps you should reconsider your stance. What we're proposing in advocating spoiler tags is to do the reader an additional favor, and that, for reasons that, unlike you, I will not attempt to restate, is something many people oppose. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:35, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yeah, whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If you don't want spoilers, don't read sections that will obviously have them. This picture (which I am very fond of) speaks for itself:
-
- This is one of the reasons why we don't have spoiler warnings anymore. You don't want, as you put it, Wikipedia to "divulge every last detail of plot and character development" then don't read the sections labled "Plot", "Plot summary", "Plot synopsis", ect. I mean, honestly, it's ridiculous for people to read plot summaries and not expect spoilers (and on an encyclopedia to boot) isn't it? .:Alex:. 17:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- However the reason I have popped into this talk page is not because I saw something I didn't want to know about while reading sections labeled "Plot summary" or containing the word "Plot" in any way. I was reading the "Cast" section of NCIS, the third section on the page, only after the lead section and "Overview", and I find the character Jenny Shepard listed amongst "Former regular" characters and her occupation noted as "Killed during a gunfight (etc).." and a "†" symbol next to her dates, which the note at the bottom of the table indicates that she is deceased.
- I came here looking for some additional information on an episode that just finished airing here in Australia (which is 8 episodes before the last episode of the season) and while scrolling past the Cast I find out one of the suspenseful parts of the end of the season. I agree with everyone that says this information has a place in on Wikipedia, but I am not convinced it needs to be in the characters section, a single screen's worth of scrolling down the main page of a TV series. Besides, since when is "Killed during a gunfight" an "Occupation", as is listed in the article?
- And please don't send me back to the NCIS talk page to discuss this, as someone already posted about spoilers there, and was directed rather bluntly to this policy we are now discussing. I do not know if there is any amicable kind of solution to this problem, but I still contest that the information was given unnecessary prominence in the article. Perhaps Wikipedia is not suited to my requirements for this kind of information, at least until Australia stop airing new seasons episodes of TV shows 6 months after their initial airing in America. And remember that this is the English Language Wikipedia, and while it is hosted on servers in the United States, it is not American Wikipedia.
- tl;dr Yes this information is important, but why in prominent places like the cast list? --Stozball (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Archived
Since either way the warred-over argument is over, I've actually placed it in the archives rather than merely boxing it. This should be an adequate compromise, as the point of removing or closing arguments is to prevent them from continuing, not to actually make stuff disappear. So this matter should now be settled, since either way, that particular exchange ain't continuing. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:01, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Censor?
I know the whole spoiler debate is over and the tag has been deemed unneeded, but one argument (that I found in a userbox) I just don't get is that the spoiler tag is some sort of censor. Wasn't the whole point of the tag to prevent censorship? I'm not saying bring back the tag, but I find this argument kind of ridiculous, contradictory to itself and contradictory to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -69.158.20.210 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree that it's not a censor, per se. But the whole 'war' bordered on ridiculous at times, so thinking that here isn't anything all that new. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It never was a censor. Censorship involves concealing or editing material to prevent perusers from seeing the censored material. All the tag did was tell people, "if you haven't viewed the subject matter of this page don't read this bit!" and yet Wikipedians - including at least one admin - fought a "war" over it. From there it just got way out of hand, which is why I TFD'd the tag. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's one interpretation. Another was that it was used completely indiscriminately, beyond all sense, that those who supported the tag refused to be discerning in the places where they wanted it, that "plot" sections should be expected to contain plot details, and that in the end the general principle of "no content disclaimers" won out. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unreleased material
Is there any consideration taken for spoilers of unreleased material? It's not uncommon for spoilers to leak before a book/movie/whatever is released - are those treated the same way? I can understand that people clicking on an article of something they haven't seen/read would expect the plot to be described there, but for things that aren't out yet is that a reasonable expectation? --Minderbinder (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Typically the problem with this information is that it cannot be sourced to a verifiable source, and I would expect that if this is information pre-release, that reliability standard needs to be much higher than for other information. For example, for reality TV shows I work on, while there are spoiler lists for who's going win or who's booted, the sites have a very low reliability level. But, take the other example where JK Rowlings admitted a major character would die in Deathly Hollows months before release, that's usable (though arguably not that much of a spoiler). --MASEM 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- My bot picks up explicitly labelled soap opera spoilers every now and then, usually something like "spoilers indicate Meg murders Jim and buries him under the patio". I just remove them citing Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Warning About Spoiler Removal
It would have been nice to have some warning, or announcement for the average Wikipedian to know. In a very brief article with no warning an entirely trilogy I had intended to read was ruined in a few sentences. Is it too late to bother with anything like this so it doesn't happen to others? Assuming not everyone will just skip the Story section for instance, when they've previously known of Spoiler Warnings, plot details may come as a surprise to some.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.34.32 (talk)
- Calling any plot detail a spoiler is generally a violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research and maintaining a neutral point of view. When and if a plot detail is a spoiler is almost entirely someone's opinion and rarely can such labeling be verified using reliable sources. And even then, plot details lose their status as a spoiler over time. Wikipedia also avoids using disclaimers in articles, especially when they duplicated Wikipedia's content disclaimer. --Farix (Talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Translation: Wikipedia permits neither editorial discretion nor common sense.--Father Goose (talk)
- No translation necessary. It's covered by the general disclaimer. If you don't want to know details of plot and so on, please don't read Wikipedia articles on the subject. Also, if you don't want to see pictures of the Prophet, don't view our articles on Mohammed. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- More broadly, if you haven't yet seen or read a given work of fiction, don't read the Wikipedia article on it -- don't even glance at it -- because it will be spoiled for you, usually at the top of the article.
- I really question why we claim this makes for a good encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- No translation necessary. It's covered by the general disclaimer. If you don't want to know details of plot and so on, please don't read Wikipedia articles on the subject. Also, if you don't want to see pictures of the Prophet, don't view our articles on Mohammed. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Translation: Wikipedia permits neither editorial discretion nor common sense.--Father Goose (talk)
-
-
-
-
-
- By that logic there has never been a good encyclopedia, since I'm pretty sure no other one has ever done it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- So you prefer an encyclopedia where the editors add in their point of view and/or engage in original research based on their point of view? --Farix (Talk) 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Bad indentation - that was a reply to Father Goose. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- So you prefer an encyclopedia where the editors add in their point of view and/or engage in original research based on their point of view? --Farix (Talk) 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- We no more rely on outside sources for what a "neutral point of view is" than we need to to determine what counts as a "spoiler". Calling spoiler tags "original research" is an implausible rationale.
- By that logic there has never been a good encyclopedia, since I'm pretty sure no other one has ever done it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Regarding Phil's comment, Wikipedia of course has in many ways a different role, form, and mission from previous encyclopedias. We should take that into account to in trying to fulfill its mission in the best way possible.--Father Goose (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Finished with that WP:STICK yet? Guy (Help!) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to be putting it to good use. I'll let you know when I need it back.--Father Goose (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- But JzG is correct that the conversation is over, regardless of who was "right." I wasn't so sure a month ago, but I am now. I am still going to write my essay, because I think some of the observations (about how bad arguments convince smart people) and questions (about consensus trumping logic) are relevant, but they will have to be relevant to future (read: other) disputes. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to be putting it to good use. I'll let you know when I need it back.--Father Goose (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Finished with that WP:STICK yet? Guy (Help!) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding Phil's comment, Wikipedia of course has in many ways a different role, form, and mission from previous encyclopedias. We should take that into account to in trying to fulfill its mission in the best way possible.--Father Goose (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I don't believe some of the idiotic comments made here. I don't visit for a few months and this happens. It should be patently obvious what constitutes a spoiler. Anything that does not appear on the backcover of a book, DVD/VHS box, videogame's box or in a movie synopsis found on commercial websites, should be classified as a spoiler. If you want you can also count information found in videogame instruction manuals as non-spoilerish.
In essence, a spoiler is any plot-based information about a book, movie, television series or videogame that you can only get if you read, watch or play the book, movie, television episode or videogame respectively. Last time I checked the site's policy on this, it was made very clear that plot sections should not be exhaustive, thus I did not even anticipate the existence of spoilers in The World Ends with You article. I was just thankful I was searching for information, thus I didn't really read the section properly. (I was scrolling up from the reviews section and hit the end of the Plot section without warning).
Wolf ODonnell (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is your definition of what is a spoiler. It is not the same one used by everyone else, and it doesn't even agree with the vague definition given on the spoiler article. That is problem with defining which plot details are spoilers, everyone has a different opinion. And adding your own opinion into an article is a violation of both the policies on neutural point of view and original research. There is simply no accepted standards, much else a scholarly standards, to determine which plot details are spoilers. --Farix (Talk) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fact of the matter is, if you don't want to experience spoilers, don't visit Wikipedia articles on the subject matter. If you want a reviews, try www.Metacritic.com . xenocidic (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- This seems like yet another a case of the ideology vs. usefulness. What you're saying is "don't read WP's entertainment articles until after you've seen/read the movie/book/etc." I really don't get that... then again I see that none of the 5Ps says Wikipedia should be useful to its readers, so your view is justified. This is why I quit editing Wikipedia. 128.237.224.24 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fact of the matter is, if you don't want to experience spoilers, don't visit Wikipedia articles on the subject matter. If you want a reviews, try www.Metacritic.com . xenocidic (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- We really do intend to tell you everything important on a subject, and in the case of a piece of entertainment the "spoiling" of such entertainment, if you're the kind of person for whom knowing about the plot spoils the fun, is implicit. I recommend that such people shun Wikipedia for the same reason as I recommend that people allergic to peanuts avoid commercially produced chocolate confectionery.
-
- When you open a Wikipedia page about a fictional subject, imagine you're putting on flippers and goggles, and diving into the sea of knowledge. Try as you might, you will find it difficult to emerge from this sea without the risk of all that briny knowledge clinging to your lips and worming its way to your tongue. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- We can arrive at consensus on what is and isn't important, by discussion. By its nature, however, a spoiler is likely to be considered important by the very party who proposes its removal or tagging. Knowledge of an unimportant detail about a fictional work is unlikely to spoil one's enjoyment of it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] But Why?
I am just a casual reader of Wikipedia, and at some point noticed these spoiler warnings disappeared; checking here I see a heated debate that must have gone on for months. I have an opinion about this, but it seems pointless to divulge it argue about it. What I do think might be useful, though, is that this guideline article be a bit more informative about the argument/discussion. The article just states the policy, and that is fine; but in light of how divided some of the community is, it might be good to add some of the pro/con arguments and the reached consensus (if there is one). Of course it can all be found in the discussions, but it is rather long and tiresome, and at times one might question whether people argue in good faith.
For people who encounter this policy and wonder about it, I think there should be some unbiased extra information in place (clearly separated from the policy itself, maybe in a different article even). (Anton 20.04.08, added again (after wiki bot removal) 24.201.100.166 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
[edit] External spoiler data
It seems to me that the anti-spoiler folk mainly bristle at the thought of Wikipedia itself being compromised by the indulgent intentional ignorance encouraged by spoiler awareness. I agree with that view, but I also think it's tragic that an entire category of use--casual browsing--has been essentially locked away.
So, what if there was a compromise? It would be entirely possible to have an external database project detailing Wikipedia spoilers that could be overlayed using, for example, a Greasemonkey script that turns them into "click to view" sections. Something as simple as an entry for each section in each article that contains spoilers. That way, people concerned about spoilers could get the script and use it to browse Wikipedia. Actually, I guess the same thing could be accomplished with custom user javascript. Max (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The only problem with this (other than the technical hurdle) is the majority of people who complain about the spoilers are just naive folks who wouldn't have special settings or greased monkeys turned on. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- If this is so, why not make the compromise the other way around - SWs are visible by default and hideable by CSS. As far I can tell, against SWs are mostly editors, no one really asked users about it AFAIK. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
