On 16 May 2007 at 02:05:03 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
It also seems to me like people are rather odd about what stuff they consider "spoiler" and what not. This is especially notable with major comic-book figures, who've often been recreated, re-imagined and retconned so many times that there are dozens of "plots" and "endings".
In fact, saying that Bruce Wayne is Batman is a spoiler... of the original Batman story in Detective Comics #27 (May 1939), "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate", in which that fact is not revealed until the final panel.
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
In fact, saying that Bruce Wayne is Batman is a spoiler... of the original Batman story in Detective Comics #27 (May 1939), "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate", in which that fact is not revealed until the final panel.
We need a policy WP:COMMONSENSE.
It's extremely unlikely that anyone would begin reading Batman stories while 1) not knowing Bruce Wayne is Batman and 2) starting their reading with Detective #27. On the other hand, it's far more likely that someone would begin watching Babylon 5 not already knowing who Valen is, and that they'd watch it in a way that the revelation is a surprise. It's *possible* that either the Batman or Valen article could spoil someone, but one possibility is vanishingly unlikely and the other isn't.
This is another case which proves that robotically applying a rule is bad. But that doesn't mean the rule itself is bad. It just means that it needs human judgment to use.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
In fact, saying that Bruce Wayne is Batman is a spoiler... of the original Batman story in Detective Comics #27 (May 1939), "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate", in which that fact is not revealed until the final panel.
We need a policy WP:COMMONSENSE.
It's extremely unlikely that anyone would begin reading Batman stories while
- not knowing Bruce Wayne is Batman and 2) starting their reading with
Detective #27. On the other hand, it's far more likely that someone would begin watching Babylon 5 not already knowing who Valen is, and that they'd watch it in a way that the revelation is a surprise. It's *possible* that either the Batman or Valen article could spoil someone, but one possibility is vanishingly unlikely and the other isn't.
This is another case which proves that robotically applying a rule is bad. But that doesn't mean the rule itself is bad. It just means that it needs human judgment to use.
Maybe the seven dwarves were responsible for putting the tag at [[Snow White (1933 cartoon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_%281933_cartoon%29]].
Ec
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is another case which proves that robotically applying a rule is bad. But that doesn't mean the rule itself is bad. It just means that it needs human judgment to use.
Maybe the seven dwarves were responsible for putting the tag at [[Snow White (1933 cartoon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_%281933_cartoon%29]].
It seems disingenuous to say "I want to remove spoiler warnings from Snow White and the Three Little Pigs" when those aren't typical. Sure, you want to remove spoiler warnings from them, but you also want to spoil [[Valen]], and that's what people are *really* worried about.
Otherwise, you could easily write a policy that just got rid of spoiler warnings on Three Little Pigs. "Don't use spoiler warnings if the vast majority of people who want to look at the article already know the spoiler or won't care about being spoiled".
On 17/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Otherwise, you could easily write a policy that just got rid of spoiler warnings on Three Little Pigs. "Don't use spoiler warnings if the vast majority of people who want to look at the article already know the spoiler or won't care about being spoiled".
I've had 'em reverted on articles about characters with the reversion "some people might not have read the last novel." If you're going to an article about the character, I'd expect you'd expect to see lots of plot details!
- d.
I see that the RFC is basically being 'owned' by one IP address (proxy?) from Amsterdam. 87.189.124.195's objections notwithstanding, is WP:SPOIL going to get killed finally?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I see that the RFC is basically being 'owned' by one IP address (proxy?) from Amsterdam. 87.189.124.195's objections notwithstanding, is WP:SPOIL going to get killed finally?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's the IP that's just been blocked for edit-waring to keep {{spoiler}} on [[Sleeping Beauty]]
Doc
On 17/05/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I see that the RFC is basically being 'owned' by one IP address (proxy?) from Amsterdam. 87.189.124.195's objections notwithstanding, is WP:SPOIL going to get killed finally?
That's the IP that's just been blocked for edit-waring to keep {{spoiler}} on [[Sleeping Beauty]]
Huh. We need to go through that thing, write a tentative policy based on it and see if there's any remaining places a {{spoiler}} template is actually appropriate.
Places it isn't:
* Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis, Story or similar header ** Anywhere the spoiler content *should* be under such a header * Articles about fictional characters - no-one would look them up without knowing the stories * Any article where almost the entire article would have to go under a spoiler * Fairy tales, Shakespeare, classical mythology or similar cultural canon, under the proviso of "don't be stupid"
What's left?
- d.
On Thu, 17 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
- Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis, Story or similar header
What if it's possible to explain the first 4/5 of the plot without a spoiler?
- Articles about fictional characters - no-one would look them up
without knowing the stories
That doesn't follow. I can imagine someone wanting to look up Valen, for instance and wanting to know more non-spoiler material about him without wanting to know the spoiler.
On 17/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
- Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis, Story or similar header
What if it's possible to explain the first 4/5 of the plot without a spoiler?
Then it's incomplete and unencyclopedic.
Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
And if we do have a source, then the spoiler is itself something that should be in the article.
- Articles about fictional characters - no-one would look them up
without knowing the stories
That doesn't follow. I can imagine someone wanting to look up Valen, for instance and wanting to know more non-spoiler material about him without wanting to know the spoiler.
Possibly. But I think with an encyclopedia it's fair to assume you're getting all we've got.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
- Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis, Story or similar header
What if it's possible to explain the first 4/5 of the plot without a spoiler?
Then it's incomplete and unencyclopedic.
I think what he means is that you'd have:
==Synopsis==
Plot Plot Plot Plot {{spoiler}} Plot twist
==References etc.==
ie, a complete description of the plot with a spoiler warning 4/5 of the way through it.
This doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, it doesn't mess with the flow of the section and anyone who truly hates the spoiler warning's appearance can turn it off in CSS.
Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
There's nothing inherently wrong with "just an editor deciding", editors make tons of decisions about the presentation and content of articles all the time. If someone disagrees with whether something is a spoiler, that's Wikipedia for you; it can be hashed out with the usual mechanisms (further editing, talk pages, RfCs, edit wars, arbitration, hit men, etc.)
And if we do have a source, then the spoiler is itself something that should be in the article.
I don't think many people are arguing to omit spoiler information entirely.
- Articles about fictional characters - no-one would look them up
without knowing the stories
That doesn't follow. I can imagine someone wanting to look up Valen, for instance and wanting to know more non-spoiler material about him without wanting to know the spoiler.
Possibly. But I think with an encyclopedia it's fair to assume you're getting all we've got.
Yeah, content comes before any and all spoiler considerations. If it's impossible to have an article without the spoilers being obvious, then the spoilers should be obvious.
On Thu, 17 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
That question is like asking "do we have a source for the fact that something is notable enough to have an article?" Meta decisions don't require sources.
On 18/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
That question is like asking "do we have a source for the fact that something is notable enough to have an article?" Meta decisions don't require sources.
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
- d.
On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:40:38 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Brought a wry smile, given today's events.
Guy (JzG)
On 18/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:40:38 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Brought a wry smile, given today's events.
Thankfully I've missed any media disasters today. What do you mean?
- d.
On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:51:21 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Thankfully I've missed any media disasters today. What do you mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#Qian_Zhijun and the attendant minor drama.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 18 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
That question is like asking "do we have a source for the fact that something is notable enough to have an article?" Meta decisions don't require sources.
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Not in the same sense. We need sources as evidence for importance, but we don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important". Importance is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly stated in them.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
That question is like asking "do we have a source for the fact that something is notable enough to have an article?" Meta decisions don't require sources.
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Not in the same sense. We need sources as evidence for importance, but we don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important". Importance is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly stated in them.
You aren't addressing the question though. It was about the fact that a given fact is a spoiler, or that it does in fact spoil someone's enjoyment. The question said nothing about "importance" or "notability". Referring to these throws in red herrings for the sole purpose of having a question that was easier to answer than the one that was actually asked.
When you say that these plot outlines, or other facts about the work of fiction, will spoil someone's enjoyment of the work how do you know that? The whole idea that it will happen seems like nothing more than wishful thinking fan-cruft.
Ec
On 5/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
That question is like asking "do we have a source for the fact that something is notable enough to have an article?" Meta decisions don't require sources.
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Not in the same sense. We need sources as evidence for importance, but we don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important". Importance is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly stated in them.
You aren't addressing the question though. It was about the fact that a given fact is a spoiler, or that it does in fact spoil someone's enjoyment. The question said nothing about "importance" or "notability". Referring to these throws in red herrings for the sole purpose of having a question that was easier to answer than the one that was actually asked.
When you say that these plot outlines, or other facts about the work of fiction, will spoil someone's enjoyment of the work how do you know that? The whole idea that it will happen seems like nothing more than wishful thinking fan-cruft.
Ec
Use common sense. ~~~~
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Not in the same sense. We need sources as evidence for importance, but we don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important". Importance is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly stated in them.
You aren't addressing the question though. It was about the fact that a given fact is a spoiler, or that it does in fact spoil someone's enjoyment. The question said nothing about "importance" or "notability". Referring to these throws in red herrings for the sole purpose of having a question that was easier to answer than the one that was actually asked.
Uhh, you do know what an analogy is, I hope?
The point is that just like whether something is notable, whether something is a spoiler is a conclusion made about article content. Conclusions made about article content don't require sources in the sense of finding a source that states the conclusion.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Not in the same sense. We need sources as evidence for importance, but we don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important". Importance is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly stated in them.
You aren't addressing the question though. It was about the fact that a given fact is a spoiler, or that it does in fact spoil someone's enjoyment. The question said nothing about "importance" or "notability". Referring to these throws in red herrings for the sole purpose of having a question that was easier to answer than the one that was actually asked.
Uhh, you do know what an analogy is, I hope?
Of course! It's as if in the story of the [[Three Little Pigs]] the first pig had made his house of spoiler warnings.
The point is that just like whether something is notable, whether something is a spoiler is a conclusion made about article content.
Ahhh! Now I understand. It's original research.
Conclusions made about article content don't require sources in the sense of finding a source that states the conclusion.
Carrying through the idea of being a tertiary source, if the plot line is available in a reliable source (whether on-line or dead tree) without a spoiler warning we should put only the information that we find. Anything else draws unwarranted conclusions.
Ec
Summarizing a plot line from an outside source or re-writing it in one's own words also affects the meaning, and listing the outside source it was based on does not necessarily make it any the more objective. I know we make the distinction, but in practice the distinction when applied to straightforward description is a little artificial; even when direct quotes are used, the selection of the quotes can be used to change the intent.
On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Not in the same sense. We need sources as evidence for importance, but we don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important". Importance is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly stated in them.
You aren't addressing the question though. It was about the fact that a given fact is a spoiler, or that it does in fact spoil someone's enjoyment. The question said nothing about "importance" or "notability". Referring to these throws in red herrings for the sole purpose of having a question that was easier to answer than the one that was actually asked.
Uhh, you do know what an analogy is, I hope?
Of course! It's as if in the story of the [[Three Little Pigs]] the first pig had made his house of spoiler warnings.
The point is that just like whether something is notable, whether something is a spoiler is a conclusion made about article content.
Ahhh! Now I understand. It's original research.
Conclusions made about article content don't require sources in the sense of finding a source that states the conclusion.
Carrying through the idea of being a tertiary source, if the plot line is available in a reliable source (whether on-line or dead tree) without a spoiler warning we should put only the information that we find. Anything else draws unwarranted conclusions.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/20/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Summarizing a plot line from an outside source or re-writing it in one's own words also affects the meaning, and listing the outside source it was based on does not necessarily make it any the more objective. I know we make the distinction, but in practice the distinction when applied to straightforward description is a little artificial; even when direct quotes are used, the selection of the quotes can be used to change the intent.
Well, yes, but that is editorial judgment - any synthesis of secondary sources is such. Adding extraneous information not found in the sources goes beyond mere editing and becomes creative writing - which may be beneficial, but runs foul of [[WP:OR]]. How do we determine what is a spoiler and what is not? It is purely a subjective judgment call (rather than actual editorial judgment, which assumes there is a source to base our editing on) unless there are sources which explicitly consider particular information to be spoilers.
Johnleemk
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The point is that just like whether something is notable, whether something is a spoiler is a conclusion made about article content.
Ahhh! Now I understand. It's original research.
So do you believe that figuring out whether something is notable is original research, unless you find a source saying "this is notable"?
Come on. Original research has nothing to do with meta decisions about article content. We don't require sources that say "this is notable" (though we do require sources from which a Wikipedia editor may deduce that something is notable). We don't require sources that say "This has enough information to be split out into a separate article". We don't require sources which say "this name is the most common name so it's the one we use to name the article", though again, we do require information (such as a Google search) that lets the editor deduce that. We don't require sources which say "this must be part of Wikiproject:Films". We don't require sources which say "this meets the criteria for being a Featured Article", or sources to say that an article goes on the main page.
Why in the *world* would you think we need sources to decide if something is a spoiler?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is another case which proves that robotically applying a rule is bad. But that doesn't mean the rule itself is bad. It just means that it needs human judgment to use.
Maybe the seven dwarves were responsible for putting the tag at [[Snow White (1933 cartoon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_%281933_cartoon%29]].
It seems disingenuous to say "I want to remove spoiler warnings from Snow White and the Three Little Pigs" when those aren't typical. Sure, you want to remove spoiler warnings from them, but you also want to spoil [[Valen]], and that's what people are *really* worried about.
But for what you write above I might never have heard of Valen. By looking it up I find that it's about a minor character in a TV series that went defunct in 1998. What's being spoiled? What is there in this fictional character to get people so worried? The show's groupies probably already know all that they need or want to know. The rest of us don't give a damn. Who's left to spoil the experience for?
This article isn't even about a story; it is about a character in the series. Would anyone who is not already familiar with the story have any reason to look him up? It's only relatively recently that producers have discovered that there is a market for DVDs of a TV series. Maybe inducing people to want to buy these DVDs is part of the reason for spoiler warnings, but that seems awful close to promoting a product.
Ec
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It seems disingenuous to say "I want to remove spoiler warnings from Snow White and the Three Little Pigs" when those aren't typical. Sure, you want to remove spoiler warnings from them, but you also want to spoil [[Valen]], and that's what people are *really* worried about.
But for what you write above I might never have heard of Valen. By looking it up I find that it's about a minor character in a TV series that went defunct in 1998. What's being spoiled?
Perhaps you should let the people who write the article figure that out. There is, in fact, a major spoiler regarding Valen's identity which is one of the big twists of the series.
The show's groupies probably already know all that they need or want to know. The rest of us don't give a damn. Who's left to spoil the experience for?
Are you seriously suggesting that there are no significant number of readers who might be watching the series for the first time, because they akll either watched it already or never will?