Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Tfd

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Keep - In keeping it we won't have anyone whining that the plots are being given away. Still, too many plot summaries are too long to begin with. Tommyt 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think its a good idea and as said so many times here, it dont harm no one Quork 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no idea what grounds you have to remove spoiler templates, particularly Template:endspoiler, Template:spoiler-about and Template:spoiler-other. Hallpriest9 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — It's rather redundant. There's no way to speak of an entertainment property without spoiling it at least a little bit. By searching for a film or an episode, you're implicitly saying, "Hey, I wanna be spoiled". It's not like the spoiler tag stops that from happening. It's too small to prevent you from seeing anything, given the size that most browser windows open to. CzechOut 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Spoiler warnings are not helpful, I have found. They are merely a placebo, with people even moaning about spoilers even with a big honking warning. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it naturally contains spoilers. Matthew 10:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per what I said in here. Common sense should be what is necessary when reading articles about film. Seeing the word "plot" in the table of contents is already an effective spoiler warning.--Kylohk 11:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as I (and others) said here. You look up the entry for a novel in an encyclopaedia; you shouldn't be surprised to find out "what happens". ElinorD (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I've always been a silent supporter of the template, but come to think of it, it is pretty useless. As a very strong (and again, silent) Inclusionist, I agree with Matthew's above statement. (By the way, I have a feeling that this discussion could get pretty large.) Steveo2 11:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I like spoiler templates, but this is a true crime story from 40 years ago and not a current tv show or movie. Spookyadler 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spoiler templates have no place in an encyclopedia. Their very existence means they will be abused. Even now, it's a rare "plot" heading that isn't immediately followed by the spoiler template, which notes that the plot "contains plot details". Absurd. - Nunh-huh 11:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I agree with Steveo2. – ARC Gritt^TALK 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Spoiler warnings tend to be more within the domain of dedicated television/movie sites. I've no doubt that these warnings are useful to some, but they aren't really necessary for an encyclopedia. If readers don't want key plot points to be spoiled, they should tactfully avoid possible spoilers in the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, I think deleting them would be a good idea, although it is a clear indicator of where the spoilers are. Like Matthew, I agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore will have spoilers. Fr⁴zer 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Although I have no official stance either way, I feel a point needs to be raised. If this template, and its counterpart {{endspoiler}} are deleted, editors will go to other lengths to "hide" spoilers, including hidden or background-coloured text, or the dreaded block of whitespace. The spoiler template may be riduculous, but formatting-wise its the better looking kind of ridiculous. As for Nunh-huh's comment, everything on Wikipedia is open to some form of abuse. The answer to this is vigilance. -- saberwyn 11:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• ...your rebuttal to Nunh-huh kind of nullifies the point you made before it. --Teggles 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Striking. Hard to be neutral and see both sides of the issue, while being positive on the template's use but indifferent towards the overall matter, without tripping over one's keyboard. Would like to suggest that this be postponed until the relevant MfD concludes. -- saberwyn 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MfD discussion. Only encourages fancruft from editors. Spoiler tags should not be an excuse to write a plot synopsis that gives away every last detail of the work for no reason except that it can. Actual benefit to the reader is dubious - more often than not, whole sections are tagged, which is a good indicator that section headings themselves already define if a section contains spoilers or not. --Darkbane 11:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do agree with some of the points made above, however the template does serve certain purposes, esp. in the case of inexperienced users of Wikipedia. For example, if someone Googled Spiderman 3 prior to its release to find out general info such as cast, budget, release date, etc (anythin except the plot) and they end up reading the article of the same on Wikipedia, I believe that its only fair to warn the person about the plot. I'm all for it to stay. Ajcfreak 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The same logic can be applied to an article like penis. As it is known, consensus has decided there are no warnings for that. Being courteous only to people who find spoilers objectionable is (for lack of a better word) unfair. --Teggles 11:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my vote in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Kariteh 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely no - Strong Keep The template is used in thousands of articles and looks fine. I have worked on film articles as much as anybody on wikipedia and beleive me it is needed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the points on the MfD page? "They look fine" and "believe me" don't have much/any substance. --Teggles 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Why go out of our way to remove something which is not harming anyone? The spoiler warning serves it’s purpose well. ∆ Algonquin 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Profane, sexual and medically-related text and images are not warned on Wikipedia. This should follow the same idea. We might as well include game cheats, a buyer's guide, oh and don't forget original research! It's not harming anyone! I get fucking sick of hearing the "it's not harming anyone" argument. Notice how I swore there? That does NOT have a warning on Wikipedia (even though it's banned on public television), but somehow they should be warned that [X] does [Y] in [Z]? --Teggles 12:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing morality with simple usefulness, Teggles. Profanity, nudity and medically-related contexts, where censored, are censored for moralistic reasons. We simply warn about a spoiler here.MadMaxDog 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I use this template as a guide all the time when perusing articles about fiction I haven't yet read or seen. The template should at least be kept until a policy decision is finalized. -Fadookie ^Talk 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Read the points on the MfD please, or even those on this page. --Teggles 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure how this warning template managed to slip past for so long. It's redundant, and unneeded. -Panser Born- (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but make less overt. It would be a hassle to remove all the transclusions, but that's beside the point: it's only fair to warn people of spoilers. They may not have a legal/moral right to be warned, but it's just nice.--Rambutan (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• ...and it's "just nice" to be warned of sexual and violent images. --Teggles 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP. Spoilers: they "ain't" just for PLOT any more. OMG, please understand that Wiki film coverage is in it's infancy (childish stage). I have attempted to note "spoiler" in many parts of sophisticated film articles, such as in descriptions of the music or cinematography, which reveal character changes or plot elements. Yes, in the current simplistic film articles, Spoiler=PLOT, but "Wikipedia is NOT paper" so when film articles expand to finally become (and many are) more sophisticated, each cinematic aspect of a film can use the spoiler tag. I do believe that the many articles of "The Da Vinci Code" formally ended the era of naive, one-article-per-film Wiki coverage. Films are a subject not seen in Britannica the last century, so Wikipedia has great potential for film coverage, while also respecting spoiler impacts in literary coverage of films. -Wikid77 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh, more people who haven't even read any arguments in the MfD. I'm going to stop pointlessly fretting and go to bed. --Teggles 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It is useful. That in combination with the 'its not harming anyone' rationale is a perfect reason to keep it.MadMaxDog 12:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because if there is no spoiler warning, there should be no spoilers either. People who visit wikipedia often, might know that there are spoilers in most movie and book descriptions, but others might think it's a superficial description of the plot without spoilers. If people have already received complaints about spoilers when there IS a spoiler tag, I can't imagine the number of complaints there will be if there isn't one.Bib 12:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

STRONG STRONG KEEP, per ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦. Dalejenkins 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per MfD, common sense, and a year of debating where most of the truly established editors of Wikipedia have been pressing delete. Perhaps the !votes here should be combined with those on the MfD for true results? Also, a plot summary is not a summary without spoilers. Have some respect for our readers; they aren't that ignorant. — Deckiller 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I get this feeling there are some people here who think that there are 'true' and 'lesser' editors on Wikipedia. Please keep to the ISSUE. MadMaxDog 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you strayed further off the issue than I did, by forcing me to elaborate on that one point. "True" is not the same as "established", and "established" is not the opposite of "lesser". "Truly established" means the users are really established, not "above" everyone else per se. Experience is important on Wikipedia, and those who can argue with the true concepts of Wikipedia in mind can have stronger arguments than those who are starting out. It doesn't make them "better", it just means their arguments can be stronger in certain scenersios. And then the opposite can be true as well WRT "strategic distance". But enough digressing. — Deckiller 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep ok u outa head guys why not remove the traffic signals. warning signs off the electric grids, poisons, tobaco and cigarette packs. the spoiler sign serves to those who can read and understand the risk. if u remove the spoiler warnings there can't be distinction between casual info and ending details. Danraz 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Personally, I've found the Spoiler template useful in the past when I've wanted to find out some basic facts about a movie (cast, when it was made, cultural significance (if any)) without wanting to have an important part of the story given away Russco 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and request for discussion to be closed based on violation of disruption rule (unless proof can be generated otherwise). I can't see any reason as to why this debate has even begun, let alone continued. The tag is not a means of censorship, but exactly what it is detailed as being--a warning. Readers continue on in their own peril (believe me, I do so many a time). Sorry, this template stays, end of debate. --JB Adder | Talk 12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete of course as inviting violation of core content policies like WP:NPOV (see the MFD). Also redundant with Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which is linked to on every page. Kusma (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• UBER-MAXI-HEAVY DUTY Keep - Just because it's an encyclopedia doesn't mean that no consideration for others is required. People deserve to be warned if they are about to see something that will affect their enjoyment of a work of fiction. Brisvegas 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Take the example of a TV show. Different countries over the world might be in different places. Information under a spoiler banner is kept safe from people who have yet to have the latest episodes transmitted in their area. Definately keep.
• TIME-OUT: Spoiler-Template is not up for deletion. Read the Mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning. -Wikid77 12:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Woohoo per above.--Steven X 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep now this is rediculus how can you delete something that is so common and widespread across wikipedia. Not everyone wants spoilers so it is nice to tell them where they are. DBZROCKS 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - very useful, particularly in articles where only part of the content comprises spoilers. MartinMcCann 12:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice - Spoiler warnings violate the spirit of what an encyclopedia is. We should not try to protect readers' intentional ignorance. Every article should try to be comprehensive. If people don't want to know something, they shouldn't be reading the Wikipedia article. This project will never be a serious encyclopedia while this template is all over it. --dm ^(talk) 12:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This template is one of the more important ones that we have on wikipedia. Who wants to read a spoiler on a wiki? This template informs the reader that there are spoilers when they access one of the thousands of book, tv or movie articles. Deleting it would be wrong. dposse 12:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm not sure why this vote is going on parallel to the RfC. Why don't we wait for the RfC to complete, see what consensus is, then worry about the individual templates? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep this template, Fallon This is harmless!--Riley the Kirlia 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Keep - Highly used, and is a nessicary part of many Wikipedia articles. Ryan ^{Got something to say?} 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep until the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning is completed. If the MfD is results in either delete or mark historical, then a new TfD discussion should be opened for the templates. --Farix (Talk) 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, not all users are bright enough to avoid spoilerriffic text here (eg. me) Mikael GRizzly 13:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Stong Keep - Highly useful, and absolutely necessary. There is absolutely no reason to delete this template. (Ibaranoff24 13:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
• Keep, I think it's ironic that some wikitard wants to delete the ONLY useful tag in wikipedia. But you go to any other page and it's packed full of useless tags.^{[citation needed]} 63.131.25.92 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Let's be realistic for a second. Is the primary goal of Wikipedia just to be a resource of information, or do we want it to be a USABLE, FUNCTIONAL resource of information? If all you do is throw information up on the screen without kind of differentiation between PLOT SPOILERS (sorry, but cast information/character lists in writings/names of authors are not spoilers) and the rest of the material, you're going to wind up with a resource that nobody wants to use. People want to look up information on a work of fiction or an author they're unfamiliar with, that's great. They shouldn't have to get slammed with things they don't want to know, because it's going to make wiki into something that people don't want to use and don't find pleasant to visit. Wiki can't just be a repository of all information ever. It needs to be a repository that people might actually want to look at. Alternative Suggestion - Simply delete all spoilers. ALL. It's the only other viable option - remove plot information from all articles about fiction on wiki. --Bishop2 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (whether I will be counted or not) - Since de: decided to get rid of spoiler warnings, a large part of it is simply off-limits to me, I neither read nor write anything related to media, actors, writers etc. there. This is obviously a huge restriction, all for what some deem to be "proper". Nothing is added, you take only away by removing the warning. --87.189.89.215

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.