On 5/16/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I as well. I have noticed a behaviour in which when a false 'consensus' has emerged in a corner of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, some users believe that this false consensus gives them license to ignore proof that that consensus self-evidently does not exist. This has clearly happened here: a subset of Wikipedia editors has created a false consensus in a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines to the effect that spoiler warnings are mandatory. This kind of false consensus can happen easily, because most Wikipedia editors neither read nor edit guideline pages on a regular basis. Only those with a specific issue to push tend to pay them that much attention. Thus, a 'consensus' can emerge (all five editors actually noticing the proposed change vote in favor). If the change sticks - if nobody who cares enough notices and fights it - then editors coming across the wording for the first time assume that a strong consensus must exist to support the wording and begin blindly following it, assuming it to be the Wikipedia Way. This is encouraged by the heading on most guideline pages saying that the content is supported by strong consensus - even though the guideline pages are not protected and therefore there is no guarantee of that whatsoever. Those who have blindly bought into that false consensus are often quite jarred when they find out that there is opposition to it, as is shown here. That our spoiler guideline appears to be strongly opposed by a large number of long-time editors shows that its current form and practise sneaked in without being noticed. I strongly doubt that anything remotely resembling consensus exists for the extreme interpretation of the spoilers guideline (that spoiler warnings should always be used). Thus edit-warring to keep spoiler warnings in place is seriously misguided if it is being done strictly in defense of the guideline in question. I suspect that when the dust settles we will find a position emerges that has widespread support - I imagine one that neither blanket-endorses nor blanket-condemns spoiler warnings. Thus, in the interim, editors should address the specific concerns of the article if the addition or removal of a spoiler warning concerns them. -Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

The solution is: 1) Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to contribute to, to enforce some style.

2) A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the encyclopedia.

There's already some nasty, pernicious "Oh, you've only edited this article once, so you've got no real say in what goes into it" attitude going around.

insuring that policies and guidelines really are enacted with consensus -of the community-, not just with consensus of whoever happened to be watching an obscure page that day.

In abbreviated form, those will be the rebuttals to your solution. Whether they would be valid ones I don't know yet. Suppose I would have to read the small print. While I agree we would probably be better off without {{spoiler}} tags anywhere, I can't say the same for infoboxes. The real problem there is inconstant formatting from one template to the next, and that there are too many specialized ones, and in some cases nobody can agree on which one should be used (see Paderewski). Ideally it wouldn't matter. For now the best approach would probably be to limit the ability of wikiprojects to annex articles of debatable relevance. Probably I'm as annoyed by talk page banners as you are by infoboxes.

(I like infoboxes because they provide a nice place to put [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]].) (And if anyone reverts you putting that in an article, let me know.)

(I like infoboxes because they provide a nice place to put [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]].)

I see the current version defaults to 10px in size. Is that a MediaWiki thing or can it be set inside the SVG?

You need of course but ask. The standard version is now the 150px version. w00t!

On 5/18/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> So we don't have to faff with all those |width=150px arguments any > more? Excellent.

Sadly not quite the case. A lot of infoboxes when not given a width will default to 200px+ which I tend to view as to large. On top of that there are a few that will not let you set the image size all through pretty much any standard method.

On 5/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Which ones are now broken and/or scale the SVG weirdly? > (A 150px image in a 200px infobox is fine.)

Various. I normaly only find out when I go to add the image but at random Template:Infobox_Wrestler will scale it up to 200px (not totally confident that one allows you to set size other than 200px)

Matthew Brown wrote: Absolutely. This is the problem with so many of our stylistic policies - few people care until the small clique that develops them starts enforcing conformity across swathes of articles. When people who are actually working on the article complain - they are told it is policy - and directed to the policy page - if they want to change it they must go there. When they do, the clique quickly rejects them. The same pattern is happening with infobox mania and with bloated Wikiprojects where a small group, often of non-writers, decides that all articles in 'their' field will conform to their rules. The solution is: 1) Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to contribute to, to enforce some style. 2) A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the encyclopedia. At the moment all we have is the blunt weapon of MfD for the community to say "Hell, no" to a small section of organised editors. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Both retaining all spoiler tags and removing all of them are extremes someone is going to be unhappy with, but Three Little Pigs? You can write an article on a fairy tale without discussing its moral which means revealing the end.

G'day Sean, Nothing like [[Three Little Pigs]] (what a corker!), but amusing nonetheless: [[Baron Münchhausen]]. But wait! It's not just that a spoiler warning was considered necessary for this chap's life (or unbelievable retelling of same), but what precisely we were protected from reading. For reasons unknown to my humble self, the article includes the table of contents, including the original ToC's introductory paragraphs, which explain what occurs in each chapter. Yes, the publisher isn't worried about spoiling your enjoyment with this, but some conscientious chap on Wikipedia wants to spare you where others callously refused. (I wonder if he'd go to bookshops and paint over the blurbs with a texta, too, to prevent spoilers ...)

Has anyone ever tried to insert a spoiler warning in [[Battle of Thermopylae]] to protect the innocent 300-watchers?

On 5/17/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote: Would a spoiler warning in [[Life]], [[Earth]], [[Reality]] or [[Universe]] be an indication of original research or conflict of interest?

I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].

On 5/17/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote: I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].