Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 0


Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers/Archive 1

Supporters of this rule include

  • Koyaanis Qatsi (but please include some plot description above the spoiler warning. Update: June 7, 2003: this spoiler warning is so universally abused that I'm leaning away from it altogether, and beginning to dislike it intensely. There's no reason to have a spoiler warning before a brief plot description such as one would find on the back of a VHS cover or paperback book, yet I keep finding them there.),
  • Larry Sanger,
  • tbc, Robert Merkel,
  • maveric149 (yes for works of popular culture, no for more academic, old or historical works—this will change as time goes by)
  • Martin
  • KF (especially as far as unexpected twists and turns of the plot are concerned; as to crime fiction and whodunnits in particular, the spoiler warning should be placed at the very beginning of the article or at least immediately after the introductory paragraph)
  • Smack
  • Card I would prefer articles which avoided spoilers altogether, but sometimes this isn't practical or feasible. Giving the warning when necessary is a Good Thing.
  • User:Nathanlarson32767 I think it's a useful service to the reader to let them know not to read any further if they don't want to spoil the experience of watching the movie.

Opponents include

  • The Cunctator,
  • Josh Grosse (not that we should tell people the butler did it, but in historical and mythological materials the audience might as well know—thinking of the Odyssey here),
  • 24 (let's give 'em the answers to the test on Friday too),
  • Eclecticology (If they know the conclusion, the time they save from watching the movie can be used to write a Wikipedia article)
  • Tristanb, I'm not strongly opposed... but when I don't want to know the American Idol result before it's on TV here, I don't look it up on the net.
  • Fonzy The word synopsis in a heading is enough for me to know that i will get the storyline.
  • stewacide — highly unencyclopedic.
  • Goatherd — It's lame and I'm tired of seeing it. No need to "warn" about the presence of information. Perhaps not as bad as the stub message though.
  • Jie — Placing a spoiler warning smacks of a celebrity fan site and not of a serious encyclopedia. What encyclopedia you've seen has spoiler warnings? If we want Wikipedia to be treated seriously as an encylopedia and not as some sort of movie or book database, then we should get rid of spoiler warnings altogether.
  • Zosodada - I'm in agreement with the above; this nasty "netiquette" habit reeks of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Not only is it unencyclopedic, it is un-literate. It is also "netiquette" to use shorthand in casual communications (e.g. "LOL"), but one certainly wouldn't expect to find "LOL" in a formal document that attempts to attain the highest standards. While this affectation might be more acceptable in articles about Agathie Christie mysteries or films with shocking twist-endings, the suggestion that every film article needs a spoiler is shortsighted and naieve. Does an article Mel Gibson's "the Passion" need a spoiler to discuss the crucifiction scene? I think we all already know the ending to that one at least. Moreover, the enjoyment of a film is in the journey, not the destination. Why else would great films be deserving of multiple viewings? Knowing, for instance, that Alex is rehabilitated and back during the course of A Clockwork Orange doesn't spoil it for me.
  • Cjnm - Strongly agree with Jie. For the new Wikipedia reader, it undermines the image of the encyclopedia by making professionally-written articles look like some kind of amateur internet site. For the regular reader, it's irritating and tiresome. As a bare minimum avoid the word "spoiler" which is internet culture not general use.

I think that the current text is effective—it says "Warning" after all—but I know it's not the best. Anyone want to make up a better one?

I suggest changing the text to "Warning: Plot details follow". Since the spoiler warning is typically used directly within the text of the article and not at the top, it makes sense to use a text that is more specific. Furthermore, I am mildly concerned about the text "Wikipedia contains spoilers." Wikipedia should avoid referencing itself in articles, so that it is easy to re-use its material elsewhere. --Eloquence 05:12 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can buy the deletion of "Wikipedia", but "spoiler" is more succinct and accurate than "plot details"—book jackets offer plot details too, just not enough to spoil the suspense. How about just "Warning: spoilers follow"? Stan 05:35 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I would like to see some context markup that lets you put the warning and the spoiling material inside some kind of box, so that
  • The warning can go where the spoiling material is,
  • The spoiling material can go at its 'natural' location in the article,
  • People who don't want to see the spoilers can see at-a-glance how far to skip. (I.e., to the end of the spoilerbox.)
Presumably that could be done with some kind of table to create the box. At any rate, the warning itself needs to be both local and preemptory ("Spoilers Follow!") or it will not do readers any good. The traditional "Wikipedia contains spoilers" will not do newbies any good regardless of where it appears.
--- B.Bryant 05:44 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I don't like complicated boxes, but I think the warning could be indented with a ":". --Eloquence
It would be nice to just get everyone to use <spoiler></spoiler> tags around spoiling material. Then as a consensus emerges or changes re what the message should say and how the spoiling material should be separated from the text, the Wiki engine could be modified to render the tagged material appropriately and you'd get instant global conformance to the consensus. `--- B.Bryant 06:37 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Some people (especially avid moviegoers like myself) would consider nearly any plot detail to be a spoiler. The term "spoiler" is subjective, and that is why it needs to be used before the plot synopsis is given. -- goatasaur
That's true, but you still need to clearly mark how far a reader needs to skip to miss the spoilers. Also, sometimes an informed discussion of a book or movie will need to make spoilish statements in places other than the plot synopsis. --- B.Bryant 06:37 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is "spoilers" a term that is generally used and understood in English, or only on the Internet? --Eloquence 05:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't quite believe we decided the photograph of a clitoris was perfectly ok, but that people should be protected from the ending of Ernie Goes to the Beach. CGS 06:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC).

Maybe it's a bad ending. --Eloquence
Warning: Wikipedia contains spoilers
He goes to the beach. CGS 06:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't like the new spoiler warning, and I'm changing it to a new, non-self-referential form. It's not true that all plot details are spoilers; it is apparent in describing a movie you've seen where the spoilers are. Reviewers know that and typically work around them, though if it's a movie they hate emphatically, they may deliberately spoil it for the readers. A second point I emphatically dislike, which I guess follows from the first, is when the spoiler warning appears in articles before any plot description. If people are that averse to reading about a movie's plot, they shouldn't read about movies at all. And, again, if I had known some Wikipedians would take the "policy" to such extremes, I wouldn't have lobbied for it to begin with. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:33 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hm, OK, I can agree with what you said,[sic] I just don't like the text "Spoiler warning: Spoilers follow", because it sounds like something approved by the Department of Redundancy Department. I would like this to be a catchy phrase. "Wikipedia contains spoilers" is catchy, but unfortunately self-referential. How about something tongue-in-cheek like "Spoiler warning: The following details may adversely affect your enjoyment"? Well, I won't change it until I have any good ideas. --Eloquence 23:05 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What was wrong with "Warning: Wikipedia contains spoilers"? If the self ref needs to be removed then just say "Spoilers follow" or "Warning: spoilers follow." --mav

I'm fond of "Wikipedia contains spoilers", self-reference be damned. It reminds users that other articles they come across may be spoilery, and it just has a nice ring to it. Phil Bordelon 06:00 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I guess the word "Wikipedia" is something of an impediment to our sub-licensees, so non-ideal. Not important, though. Martin
I don't like it because it's not too clear. To reduce awkwardness, it would be better to use "Warning: Contains spoilers", so that it's fully clear that it means "this article contains spoilers", rather than "Wikipedia as a whole contains spoliers". Although it's obvious, when you're reading an article about a movie or a book, you're looking for info about the movie or book, not about Wikipedia. – Olathe November 30, 2003

I changed back (unfortunately before checking this discussion) to the "Wikipedia contains spoilers" text, as that's what's on Wikipedia:Boilerplate text. If there is a consensus to change to a new warning format, please update both simultaneously so things are consistent. --Delirium 09:07, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

I plan on changing all uses to "Warning: Contains spoilers" fairly soon, unless there are objections – Olathe November 30, 2003
What do you mean all uses??? --KF 21:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious, just look at what I replied to ("please update both simultaneously so things are consistent.").
Also, after reading the boilerplate article, and noting the useless argument about whether to prepend "Warning" or "Note" to the thing, I have now decided to change it to "Spoilers follow". This will have three benefits: it will make it readily apparent where the spoilers are (which was a point by B.Bryant above), it clarifies that the comment is about the article, rather than some off-the-cuff comment about Wikipedia in general (which is bad style), and it eliminates the pointless argument about whether to call it a warning or a note.
And, now that I think about it, why have the argument in the first place. Who says there has to be a consistent (boilerplate) snippet of text to begin with ? So that we can have endless quarrels over nothing ? – Olathe November 30, 2003
Thanks for explaining things to people like myself who are a bit slow on the uptake. If it had been obvious to me, I wouldn't have asked: I was afraid you were going to run some bot changing all spoiler warnings in already existing articles, which I wouldn't have liked at all. --KF 22:07, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm sometimes a bit slow in getting things also (especially technical things). Sorry for the abruptness. – Olathe December 1, 2003

Added No Way Out as (to my mind) the supreme example of a movie with a plot twist. Unfortunately I don't remember the movie as a whole well enough to write the article for it :p

I've gone ahead and changed the boilerplate in this article and Wikipedia:Boilerplate text (see reasoning above in a few different threads). I haven't changed any actual articles yet, in case there are objections from people who haven't gotten on Wikipedia recently.

I'm thinking of archiving the whole discussion in a few weeks or so (to allow new discussion topics without a lot of clutter) if there aren't any major objections (to the new boilerplate or the archiving). – Olathe December 1, 2003