Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
I submit [[Valen]] as the most flagrant current example of this. Valen, for those of you not up on your fandom, is a minor character in the television show Babylon 5. He is most notable for doing a bunch of stuff in the far past before the series starts. Over the first two and a half seasons a bunch of scattered things are revealed about him. Then, in season 3, there's a big reveal where we find out that he's actually a character from the present of the show that travels back in time. It's all very awesome and great.
Here's the problem - the substantive portions of this topic are all things that have to be written from a post-season 3 perspective. There is no good spoiler-free lead for this article. Any lead that attempts to be spoiler-free is, by its nature, going to be a misleading opening. It is impossible to do the job of summarizing the major aspects of the topic and the job of remaining spoiler-free. And as a result, the article is a complete piece of shit. It's not even trying to be an encyclopedia article.
There are other cases like this - [[The Crying Game]] is a travesty of an article because the single most interesting aspect of the movie isn't actually revealed until the sixth paragraph. And there are lots of cases like this. You'd never know [[Sue Dibny]] is a flashpoint for a major debate about women in mainstream comics until you've read half the article. Why? Because it happened in a fairly recent comic, and fans buried it under spoiler warnings.
This is a massive problem. It was one thing when we allowed the use of "spoiler" warnings as a perceived favor to readers. But this is unacceptable - the focus on not revealing spoilers is being used as a pretext to write bad articles. It is clear that the policy of taking care with spoilers and the policy of writing an encyclopedia are, in numerous cases, alien to one another.
Bold proposal: Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies. People may well get burnt on one or two articles they read before they will come to a simple and obvious realization - encyclopedia articles on a topic reveal information about that topic. If you have a desire to not know things about a topic, you probably shouldn't go look it up in an encyclopedia.
This should be obvious. Our mission is to provide information, not hide it.
-Phil
On 5/15/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
This is a massive problem. It was one thing when we allowed the use of "spoiler" warnings as a perceived favor to readers. But this is unacceptable - the focus on not revealing spoilers is being used as a pretext to write bad articles. It is clear that the policy of taking care with spoilers and the policy of writing an encyclopedia are, in numerous cases, alien to one another.
Bold proposal: Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies. People may well get burnt on one or two articles they read before they will come to a simple and obvious realization - encyclopedia articles on a topic reveal information about that topic. If you have a desire to not know things about a topic, you probably shouldn't go look it up in an encyclopedia.
This should be obvious. Our mission is to provide information, not hide it.
-Phil
The problem is only partly due to the spoiler template. Most easy to get at reviews and plot summaries will also tend to protect spoilers. The upshot of this is that for less famous examples it can be quite hard to find a decent citeable sources that discuss the media in the context of the spoiler.
On May 14, 2007, at 7:48 PM, geni wrote:
The problem is only partly due to the spoiler template. Most easy to get at reviews and plot summaries will also tend to protect spoilers. The upshot of this is that for less famous examples it can be quite hard to find a decent citeable sources that discuss the media in the context of the spoiler.
Which is a challenge, but a surmountable one - the problem is that we've, on a policy (or at least guideline) level decided to organize articles in a manner consistent with this.
-Phil
geni wrote:
The problem is only partly due to the spoiler template. Most easy to get at reviews and plot summaries will also tend to protect spoilers. The upshot of this is that for less famous examples it can be quite hard to find a decent citeable sources that discuss the media in the context of the spoiler.
For fiction one can at least go to the primary source for any given spoiler material. Even if one cannot find any reviews anywhere that say who Valen really is, one can still {{cite episode| title=War Without End| season=3| number=16 & 17| series=Babylon 5}}.
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
Someone once tried to add the spoiler template to [[Night (book)]] -- which is about the Holocaust. :-|
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
Someone once tried to add the spoiler template to [[Night (book)]] -- which is about the Holocaust. :-|
At that rate we should soon be expecting a spoiler notice on [[World War II]]. :-)
Ec
On 5/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
Someone once tried to add the spoiler template to [[Night (book)]] -- which is about the Holocaust. :-|
At that rate we should soon be expecting a spoiler notice on [[World War II]]. :-)
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
Tech solution: put the spoilers within a foldable <div>, and so only people who really want to see them will expand those.
Granted, lynx viewers won't takeadvantage of the approach, but agai, they're not losing anything either, while many people is getting a more straighforward exposition, spoilers hidden and page uncluttered
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On 5/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
Someone once tried to add the spoiler template to [[Night (book)]] -- which is about the Holocaust. :-|
At that rate we should soon be expecting a spoiler notice on [[World War II]]. :-)
Ec
Tech solution: put the spoilers within a foldable <div>, and so only people who really want to see them will expand those.
Granted, lynx viewers won't takeadvantage of the approach, but agai, they're not losing anything either, while many people is getting a more straighforward exposition, spoilers hidden and page uncluttered
Much easier to delete {{spoiler}} and write an encyclopedia. What next? Shall we put them in Dickens, Shakesphere, and Thomas Hardy? Please, someone tell me that's not been tried.
On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Much easier to delete {{spoiler}} and write an encyclopedia. What next?
If, of course, it's easier to piss off your readers and alienate your editors. I mean, it's always "easier" if everyone just does what you want, isn't it?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Much easier to delete {{spoiler}} and write an encyclopedia. What next?
If, of course, it's easier to piss off your readers and alienate your editors. I mean, it's always "easier" if everyone just does what you want, isn't it?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if that pisses people off - tough.
On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if that pisses people off - tough.
I don't know what your point is, but it doesn't sound very helpful.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if that pisses people off - tough.
I don't know what your point is, but it doesn't sound very helpful.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My point is quite simple. This is an encyclopedia - it is a place where you'll find information on a subject - if you don't want information on a subject, then look away.
We constantly get demands for content warnings on sexual or other 'adult' articles. That would please some of our readers too, it would also no doubt please many editors. But we decline. Why? Because if you look up 'penis' or 'autofelation' don't be surprised when you learn something you didn't know - and might not want to know.
Same applies here. Articles on buffy episodes are going to tell you the plot. Articles on books are going to tell you what happens. Articles on characters are going to tell you about the metamorphoses in episode 4.4. That's what encyclopedia's do - they give information and they treat the reader like an adult. If you want film reviews before you go an see the film - use a review site, not en encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not censored - and does not give warning flags - not for minors, not for good taste, not for reasons of national security (and we regularly get that demand), not for commercial sensitivity, not for religious scruples ("Muslims - look away now - if you don't want to see the Prophet in his underpants", not for anything, and certainly not because Vader is Luke's father either. We just don't do that.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Much easier to delete {{spoiler}} and write an encyclopedia. What next?
If, of course, it's easier to piss off your readers and alienate your editors. I mean, it's always "easier" if everyone just does what you want, isn't it?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why would anyone go to an encyclopedia, which covers literary works in-depth and as a whole, and not expect to have it "spoiled"? If I went to an encyclopedia and found that only part of a work had been covered in the interest of avoiding "spoilers", I'd be pissed off! If I'm looking up encyclopedia coverage of a work, I expect to see a discussion of every important aspect of that work, and generally the climax and ending are critically important to a work. If I want to see a work of fiction "unspoiled", here's a thought-I read/watch it before I go digging for information on it!
Todd Allen wrote:
Why would anyone go to an encyclopedia, which covers literary works in-depth and as a whole, and not expect to have it "spoiled"? If I went to an encyclopedia and found that only part of a work had been covered in the interest of avoiding "spoilers", I'd be pissed off!
I've actually come across articles like this and I totally concur. I don't have any names handy since I don't keep track of such things, but I recall on several occasions coming across articles for books whose plot summaries ended halfway through with what was effectively "tune in next week for the exciting twist ending!"
I _hate_ that. Since I usually can't fix such problems myself I mark such articles with cleanup tags indicating that they're flagrantly incomplete. It is not Wikipedia's job to whet people's appetites for information about a work of fiction, it's Wikipedia's job to _satisfy_ people's appetites for information.
On 5/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Much easier to delete {{spoiler}} and write an encyclopedia. What next?
If, of course, it's easier to piss off your readers and alienate your editors. I mean, it's always "easier" if everyone just does what you want, isn't it?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why would anyone go to an encyclopedia, which covers literary works in-depth and as a whole, and not expect to have it "spoiled"? If I went to an encyclopedia and found that only part of a work had been covered in the interest of avoiding "spoilers", I'd be pissed off! If I'm looking up encyclopedia coverage of a work, I expect to see a discussion of every important aspect of that work, and generally the climax and ending are critically important to a work. If I want to see a work of fiction "unspoiled", here's a thought-I read/watch it before I go digging for information on it!
But if you have no idea where the spoiler is located in the article, you can't look up anything about the work until after you finished because you could have it spoiled otherwise.
Mgm
On Mon, 14 May 2007 23:46:38 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
At that rate we should soon be expecting a spoiler notice on [[World War II]].
I'm afraid to look and see if there's one on Titanic...
Guy (JzG)
Speaking of spoilers, we used to have the things in opera articles, until we made a collective decision to swat the things as being redundant, unnecessary, and, for opera, useless. Most people listen to opera knowing the plot in advance, don't they, otherwise doesn't make a huge amount of sense...
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Play your part in making history - Email Britain! http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/
On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:07:18 +0100, "Christiano Moreschi" moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Most people listen to opera knowing the plot in advance, don't they, otherwise doesn't make a huge amount of sense...
Opera plots make sense? News to me...
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:07:18 +0100, "Christiano Moreschi" moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Most people listen to opera knowing the plot in advance, don't they, otherwise doesn't make a huge amount of sense...
Opera plots make sense? News to me...
Fat lady sings, everyone dies.
HTH,
-Jeff
From: "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] {{spoiler}} vs. writing a goddamn encyclopedia Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:07:18 +0100, "Christiano Moreschi" moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Most people listen to opera knowing the plot in advance, don't they, otherwise doesn't make a huge amount of sense...
Opera plots make sense? News to me...
Fat lady sings, everyone dies.
HTH,
-Jeff
No, no, that's just Wagner you're thinking of. Handel is even better: everyone who's alive sings a happily-ever-after chorus along with the dead guys who the live guys have killed earlier, who get miraculously resuscitated for the occasion! Who needs spoilers for that? (and it's the same at the end of almost every Handel opera).
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/
On 5/15/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] {{spoiler}} vs. writing a goddamn encyclopedia Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:07:18 +0100, "Christiano Moreschi" moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Most people listen to opera knowing the plot in advance, don't they, otherwise doesn't make a huge amount of sense...
Opera plots make sense? News to me...
Fat lady sings, everyone dies.
HTH,
-Jeff
No, no, that's just Wagner you're thinking of. Handel is even better: everyone who's alive sings a happily-ever-after chorus along with the dead guys who the live guys have killed earlier, who get miraculously resuscitated for the occasion! Who needs spoilers for that? (and it's the same at the end of almost every Handel opera).
Moreschi
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I thought someone had cheated on the clown
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:35:43 +0100, "Christiano Moreschi" moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Handel is even better: everyone who's alive sings a happily-ever-after chorus along with the dead guys who the live guys have killed earlier, who get miraculously resuscitated for the occasion! Who needs spoilers for that? (and it's the same at the end of almost every Handel opera).
Yebbut once you get into Mozart or Rossini the plots strain credulity from the word go. Best to check credulity at the door, I find, and not wonder too much why the comely wench would be attracted to the big fat bloke with the squeaky voice.
Guy (JzG)
All this got me curious - so I took a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
One problem is it is distinctively patronizing to our readers - of course, if you read material under the heading 'plot summary' - you will be told (guess what) the plot. We don't need spoilers in such cases.
But among the more unexpected uses are:
A Biblical book:
Romeo and Juliet (they die)
Hamlet (he dies too)
My Fair Lady (she doesn't die)
Star Wars (cos someone doesn't know he's Vader's son? )
The Graduate
Casablanca, Emma (FFS!), The Hunchback of Notre Damme, The Wind in the Willows, the Grapes of Wrath, Lord of the Flies, Dorian Gray, The Taming of the Shrew, Snow White (?), Sons and Lovers, Tess, and Petronius' Satyricon (yes, that's a work from the 1st Century AD!)
And that's just with a quick skim.
Now, it is one thing for buffyfans and trekies to protect their secrets. There's a weak case for books just published and episodes yet unscreened in some parts of the world. After all perhaps someone searching us here has just come from some fandom site where spoiler warnings are expected. However, when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
On 15/05/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler Now, it is one thing for buffyfans and trekies to protect their secrets. There's a weak case for books just published and episodes yet unscreened in some parts of the world. After all perhaps someone searching us here has just come from some fandom site where spoiler warnings are expected. However, when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
Sounds like time for a removal of stupid spoiler tags. Could all reading this please go to the above URL and get hacking?
I can't find anything in the Manual of Style about them. Is there something lurking there?
- d.
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:53:40 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like time for a removal of stupid spoiler tags. Could all reading this please go to the above URL and get hacking?
TfD for {{spoiler}} ?
Guy (JzG)
On 5/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:53:40 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like time for a removal of stupid spoiler tags. Could all reading this please go to the above URL and get hacking?
TfD for {{spoiler}} ?
At the very least its use in sections called "Plot" should be generally recognized as silly. "==Plot== Warning! Plot details follow" seems to me to be about as useful as "==Technical specification== Warning! Details about the technical specification follow".
Kusma
On 5/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like time for a removal of stupid spoiler tags. Could all reading this please go to the above URL and get hacking?
Someone could be bold again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4...
But looks like it didn't work last time. For what its worth, it's nice getting the warning, but like others have said, it's an encyclopedia. I kicked myself the other day for reading 28 Weeks Later, knowing full well it would give away crap. X-Men 3 got me last time. But so what? Thats the point: information.
On May 15, 2007, at 10:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I can't find anything in the Manual of Style about them. Is there something lurking there?
It has its very own MOS page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Spoilers.
I've edited it to try to contain some sanity. If that proves a doomed endeavor I'll take it to Bad Policy for Deletion.
-Phil
<rant>
I'm willing to wager that it wasn't our expert writers on Shakesphere, Austen, Dickens, or Steinberg, English literature or classical text scholars who placed {{spoiler}} on these articles.
It will have been boy-scouts inflating their edit counts and applying misplaced conformity by sticking tags on things. This is the problem all over Wikipedia right now - ignorant bullies enforcing their new stylistic meta-policies across articles whose content they know nothing about. Telling those that have worked on them for weeks that they *must* have an infoxbox - ugly navigation template - or are now 'owned' by some over-extended wikiproject.
Yes, we resist possession per [[WP:OWN]], but I think we need to say 'no' to other things: 1)demands for conformity which originate from a small number of people who have made a 'rule'
2) intrusion - by which I mean people who have no interest in improving the rest of the article jumping in to enforce some idea.
And perhaps we need a moratorium on tagging things needlessly.
</rant>
On 5/16/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Yes, we resist possession per [[WP:OWN]], but I think we need to say 'no' to other things: 1)demands for conformity which originate from a small number of people who have made a 'rule'
- intrusion - by which I mean people who have no interest in improving
the rest of the article jumping in to enforce some idea.
And perhaps we need a moratorium on tagging things needlessly.
</rant>
Yeah, well put. Infoboxes do suck in a lot of ways. They make nice layout very difficult. And they compete with having an attractive image in the top right.
I was amused recently to find that [[Andrew Gaze]] was claimed by WikiProject:Texas. Couldn't find the logic in that, so I unclaimed it. Maybe he once played a season for the San Antonio Spurs or something but geez.
Steve
On 5/15/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I was amused recently to find that [[Andrew Gaze]] was claimed by WikiProject:Texas. Couldn't find the logic in that, so I unclaimed it. Maybe he once played a season for the San Antonio Spurs or something but geez.
The article on him mentions that he won an NBA championship with the Spurs (then again, he played in only 19 games and wasn't on the playoff roster).
-- Jonel
On 5/16/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, well put. Infoboxes do suck in a lot of ways. They make nice layout very difficult. And they compete with having an attractive image in the top right.
How so? Plenty of infobox actually include an image of the subject near the top.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
How so? Plenty of infobox actually include an image of the subject near the top.
Mgm _______________________________________________
Yeah, sometimes infoboxes are great. It all depends on the article - that's why those working on them need to decide and not the boy-scouts. Sometimes infoboxes end up looking like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ignacy_Jan_Paderewski&oldid=13...
On 5/16/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
How so? Plenty of infobox actually include an image of the subject near
the
top.
Mgm _______________________________________________
Yeah, sometimes infoboxes are great. It all depends on the article - that's why those working on them need to decide and not the boy-scouts. Sometimes infoboxes end up looking like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ignacy_Jan_Paderewski&oldid=13...
Especially the flags of course. A USA flag (example) in place of birth, one in place of death, one in nationality of spouse etc. :) Then of course we do the same with the flag of the state. Born in Arkansas (Arkansas flag), died in Alabama (Alabama flag).
Can't people read the article anymore that they need everything spelled out with pictures in an infobox?
Graion96
On 16/05/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Yeah, sometimes infoboxes are great. It all depends on the article - that's why those working on them need to decide and not the boy-scouts.
Infoboxes have their place. I so so so wish the US census articles created by Rambot had been a bunch of tables rather than computer-madlibs text.
- d.
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:33:22 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sometimes infoboxes end up looking like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ignacy_Jan_Paderewski&oldid=13...
Ugh. US flag in infobox of Polish cultural icon, genius.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:33:22 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sometimes infoboxes end up looking like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ignacy_Jan_Paderewski&oldid=13...
Ugh. US flag in infobox of Polish cultural icon, genius.
Guy (JzG)
Yes, and in BOTH the infoboxes!
This is what happens when the infobox isn't put on by the folk editing the article - but is added by people who are enforcing a standard box on 'their' series of articles. So when one person belongs in two series - he gets two boxes.
Aggggg
On 5/16/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
So when one person belongs in two series - he gets two boxes.
Offhand I would suggest that being a pianist is trivial compared to being a prime minister of Poland. However, the latter infobox should remain.
—C.W.
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:53:09 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Offhand I would suggest that being a pianist is trivial compared to being a prime minister of Poland. However, the latter infobox should remain.
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland - and the popularity which saw him elected was founded in part on his pianism anyway.
Seriously, I have 78s of Paderewski which were treasured possessions of my parents.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American actor who, in his 30-year career, appeared in 76 films and television series. Although best-known for his role in Knute Rockne, All-American, Reagan also served as president of the Screen Actors' Guild from 1947 to 1952 and from 1959 to 1960.
==Trivia== *Reagan was governor of California from 1967 to 1975 and president of the United States from 1981 to 1989.
{{stub}}
That is, of course, one way to look at it.
—C.W.
On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:42:28 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 June 5, 2004) was an American actor who, in his 30-year career, appeared in 76 films and television series. Although best-known for his role in Knute Rockne, All-American, Reagan also served as president of the Screen Actors' Guild from 1947 to 1952 and from 1959 to 1960.
LOL! But as a Brit I have only really ever seen him as President. Whereas I have heard recordings of Paderewski playing, and have heard accounts of his concerts.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
LOL! But as a Brit I have only really ever seen [Reagan] as President.
In that case, would it be unreasonable to assume that some people only knew of Paderewski as Prime Minister?
—C.W.
On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:43:22 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
LOL! But as a Brit I have only really ever seen [Reagan] as President.
In that case, would it be unreasonable to assume that some people only knew of Paderewski as Prime Minister?
Unlikely, I think. Possible, but unlikely. Pianist and Prime Minister is how he is usually known.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/16/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American actor who, in his 30-year career, appeared in 76 films and television series. Although best-known for his role in Knute Rockne, All-American, Reagan also served as president of the Screen Actors' Guild from 1947 to 1952 and from 1959 to 1960.
==Trivia== *Reagan was governor of California from 1967 to 1975 and president of the United States from 1981 to 1989.
{{stub}}
That is, of course, one way to look at it.
—C.W.
The difference is, however, that Reagan was only a B-list actor.
Then again, the same does apply for his presidency... ~~~~
on 5/16/07 9:11 PM, Gabe Johnson at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 June 5, 2004) was an American actor who, in his 30-year career, appeared in 76 films and television series. Although best-known for his role in Knute Rockne, All-American, Reagan also served as president of the Screen Actors' Guild from 1947 to 1952 and from 1959 to 1960.
==Trivia== *Reagan was governor of California from 1967 to 1975 and president of the United States from 1981 to 1989.
{{stub}}
That is, of course, one way to look at it.
C.W.
The difference is, however, that Reagan was only a B-list actor.
And, to be artistically correct, he wasn't an actor, he was a performer; he never played any character that wasn't, basically, Ronald Reagan.
Then again, the same does apply for his presidency...
Marc Riddell
On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:36:54 -0400, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And, to be artistically correct, he wasn't an actor, he was a performer; he never played any character that wasn't, basically, Ronald Reagan.
Same applies to many famous actors, especially Richard Burton and Robert Mitchum. Maybe even Jimmy Stewart.
Guy (JzG)
On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:36:54 -0400, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And, to be artistically correct, he wasn't an actor, he was a performer; he never played any character that wasn't, basically, Ronald Reagan.
on 5/17/07 2:25 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Same applies to many famous actors, especially Richard Burton and Robert Mitchum. Maybe even Jimmy Stewart.
True enough, Guy. But, although the term "actor" is widespread and commonly used to describe an occupation, I differentiate between an "actor" and a "performer" in the same way I do between a "pianist" and a "piano player".
Marc
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Charlotte Webb wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ...
The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more notable. President of the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts of fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award winning actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
On 5/17/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland...
America has always been quick to forget about Poland.
President of the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts of fame.
Resisting the urge to play the systemic bias card, I will instead offer "Governor of California" as a better comparison. California has slightly greater land area but fewer people than Poland.
Comparing the acting careers of Reagan and Schwarzenegger could be a very complex and emotional debate, but I'd suggest that Arnold was accomplished more with less talent. Of course, he has the lower hand not being eligible for U.S. Presidency, but that could change (though probably not soon enough to benefit Arnie).
So basically we have two extra floating boxes in lower sections of the Schwarzenegger article, mostly to highlight his robust physique, bodybuilding awards, and the Golden Globe he won for Stay Hungry. Hilarious! But... it typifies my rant about specialized infoboxes.
Arnold is after all one person who arguably has three careers. If we could figure out a way to put all of the muy importante information in the same box rather than haviing three boxes, three photos, three dates of birth and so on, we could save a lot of screen space.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award winning actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Well, that resulted from a marriage which, in a different time and place, would have ended up like Edward VIII and the American actress he married.
Aside from that, the city-state of Monaco sits on 3/4 of a square mile and has a lower population than Bloomington, Indiana, stomping ground of John "I can breathe in a small town" Mellencamp (which is only interesting because "Jack and Diane" became a #1 hit two weeks after Princess Grace died). Poland may not be comparable to the U.S. but it sure as hell isn't comparable to Monaco either.
Oh yeah, life goes on.
On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:31:21 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
So basically we have two extra floating boxes in lower sections of the Schwarzenegger article, mostly to highlight his robust physique, bodybuilding awards, and the Golden Globe he won for Stay Hungry. Hilarious! But... it typifies my rant about specialized infoboxes.
There was a link a while ago to a sports coach - slightly less than one line of info and a whole page full of brightly coloured tables with succession boxes for coach of the Mudhole Flats College senior team and so on.
Guy (JzG)
On 17/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award winning actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
I don't see that at all. Her article starts off with "Grace, Princess of Monaco". Were you looking at a super-old version or something?
~Mark Ryan
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:53:09 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Offhand I would suggest that being a pianist is trivial compared to being a prime minister of Poland. However, the latter infobox should remain.
on 5/16/07 5:20 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland - and the popularity which saw him elected was founded in part on his pianism anyway.
Seriously, I have 78s of Paderewski which were treasured possessions of my parents.
Guy,
Wonderful! I am a collector also, and the Paderewski recordings are among the most treasured. History does, and always will, remember him as an artist first!
Marc Riddell
On 5/16/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:53:09 -0500, "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Offhand I would suggest that being a pianist is trivial compared to being a prime minister of Poland. However, the latter infobox should remain.
on 5/16/07 5:20 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland - and the popularity which saw him elected was founded in part on his pianism anyway.
Seriously, I have 78s of Paderewski which were treasured possessions of my parents.
Guy,
Wonderful! I am a collector also, and the Paderewski recordings are among the most treasured. History does, and always will, remember him as an artist first!
Marc Riddell
It seems Wikipedia has something right. Paderewski did have a substantial role in international relations for the newly reminted post WWI Poland, though, and he was immensely popular and well known in the United States. I suspect there are many Americans who knew him as a statesman also, but probably more Europeans because of his role at various times in international events of the WWI-WWII age. It would be hard to imagine an American saying "Polish Prime Minister" first.
Paderewski has neither a politican nor a pianist/musician box.
Václav Havel has only a politician box.
KP
On 5/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
How so? Plenty of infobox actually include an image of the subject near the top.
Which works if you have a good image in the right proportions that looks good at that small size. Other infoboxes want to stick a "locator" map in that image location. E.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grampians_National_Park&oldid=...
(as compared to the current version)
Steve
On 5/15/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, well put. Infoboxes do suck in a lot of ways. They make nice layout very difficult. And they compete with having an attractive image in the top right.
So fix the template so that it can accommodate an attractive image.
I was amused recently to find that [[Andrew Gaze]] was claimed by WikiProject:Texas. Couldn't find the logic in that, so I unclaimed it. Maybe he once played a season for the San Antonio Spurs or something but geez.
It's a side-effect of free agency and Jimmy Jackson syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jackson_(basketball)#External_links
Looking at the talk page, and you might conclude that WP:TEXAS oversteps it's boundaries more than any other project. I don't think bots can adequately determine whether or not an article is relevant to any project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WatchlistBot
—C.W.
On 16/05/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the talk page, and you might conclude that WP:TEXAS oversteps it's boundaries more than any other project. I don't think bots can adequately determine whether or not an article is relevant to any project.
Quite a lot of wikiprojects seem to take ownership of articles, which mostly manifests itself as a bludgeon wielded by their more obnoxious and/or clueless participants. Check the far end of my talk page, as noted.
- d.
On 16/05/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the talk page, and you might conclude that WP:TEXAS oversteps it's boundaries more than any other project.
Ha. "The bot has reached the G's, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/Articles page won't save"
This may be an indication your scope is too large...
On 5/16/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Ha. "The bot has reached the G's, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/Articles page won't save"
This may be an indication your scope is too large...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas/Articles
Yes, if you can get that page to even load it might be wise to start urtagging the talk pages of items which have sweet f-a to do with Texas.
—C.W.
On May 15, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On May 15, 2007, at 10:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I can't find anything in the Manual of Style about them. Is there something lurking there?
It has its very own MOS page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Spoilers.
Which I've actually gone and nominated for deletion: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/ Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning
Note in particular the fact that [[Wikipedia:Spoiler Warning]], [[Wikipedia:Lead Section]], and [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View]] cannot all be applied simultaneously to [[The Crying Game]]. You have to pick two. And you're not allowed to get rid of NPOV.
-Phil
On 5/15/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 15, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On May 15, 2007, at 10:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I can't find anything in the Manual of Style about them. Is there something lurking there?
It has its very own MOS page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Spoilers.
Which I've actually gone and nominated for deletion: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/ Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning
Note in particular the fact that [[Wikipedia:Spoiler Warning]], [[Wikipedia:Lead Section]], and [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View]] cannot all be applied simultaneously to [[The Crying Game]]. You have to pick two. And you're not allowed to get rid of NPOV.
-Phil
Phil, you've mentioned the same film several times now, but it looks like that one is an exception to the rule. Can you say the same applies to every other film in the world? I don't. Apart from 'your' film, I think there's plenty of films where all policies can be applied at the same time.
Mgm
On May 16, 2007, at 3:02 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Phil, you've mentioned the same film several times now, but it looks like that one is an exception to the rule. Can you say the same applies to every other film in the world? I don't. Apart from 'your' film, I think there's plenty of films where all policies can be applied at the same time.
Not just films, but here's a bevy of things where a good lead has to have a spoiler in it. I limited myself to things I could think of quickly where the spoilerish content forms the basis of a major critical perspective on the work and thus must be included for NPOV reasons. Plenty of other things (Valen, Norman Bates, Romeo and Juliet) should probably mention their endings in the lead just because their endings are among the most important things about them. But these are ones where there's a clear and present NPOV reason to include them in the lead.
Sue Dibny, The Chairs, Taming of the Shrew, Boys Don't Cry, Metroid, Easy Rider, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Heart of Darkness, The Godfather.
I'm sure there are many more than this. And yes, there are also many films where there is not a pressing reason to mention the end in the lead. But this can probably be reduced to a single sentence in [[Wikipedia:Lead paragraph]] that says "unless there is a pressing reason to do so, revealing any major twists or surprises in the plot of something should be avoided in the lead paragraph."
-Phil
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:49:33 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
You are so right. What next? Spoiler warnings in [[Dinosaur]] (they died out)? Patent silliness.
Guy (JzG)
On 15/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:49:33 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
You are so right. What next? Spoiler warnings in [[Dinosaur]] (they died out)? Patent silliness.
I just removed spoiler warnings from [[Agatha Christie]] ... and [[anagram]]. What on earth.
I've added a note to [[Template:Spoiler]] noting it should be kept to very recent and unreleased fiction.
Right, I've done A. We have a whole alphabet to get through.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 15/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:49:33 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
You are so right. What next? Spoiler warnings in [[Dinosaur]] (they died out)? Patent silliness.
I just removed spoiler warnings from [[Agatha Christie]] ... and [[anagram]]. What on earth.
I've added a note to [[Template:Spoiler]] noting it should be kept to very recent and unreleased fiction.
Right, I've done A. We have a whole alphabet to get through.
I've just done [[All Quiet on the Western Front]] and [[The Birth of a Nation]] (1915 movie). It all makes me wonder. On a site where there is so much concern about marketting and spam it seems completely contrary to have spoiler warnings. Spoiler warnings are a _marketting_ tool; they want to make people curious enough to see the movie, watch the programme, read the book. Look at the fuss and secrecy surrounding the last time that a volume of Harry Potter was issued, and the legal threats over the early release of a few copies.
I can understand there can be a concern in the few days surrounding the release of a film, but once it is released the whole film is released. I don't think that it's up to us to be complicit in the movie industry's spamming policy.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've just done [[All Quiet on the Western Front]] and [[The Birth of a Nation]] (1915 movie). It all makes me wonder. On a site where there is so much concern about marketting and spam it seems completely contrary to have spoiler warnings. Spoiler warnings are a _marketting_ tool; they want to make people curious enough to see the movie, watch the programme, read the book.
This seems like a pretty ridiculous supposition of bad faith. Are you seriously alleging that Wikipedia is being spammed by people who have a financial interest in promoting sales of the novel _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (published 1929), rather than by editors who in good faith think (even if wrongly) that the information is better presented with spoiler tags?
-Mark
On 16/05/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've just done [[All Quiet on the Western Front]] and [[The Birth of a Nation]] (1915 movie). It all makes me wonder. On a site where there is so much concern about marketting and spam it seems completely contrary to have spoiler warnings. Spoiler warnings are a _marketting_ tool; they want to make people curious enough to see the movie, watch the programme, read the book.
This seems like a pretty ridiculous supposition of bad faith. Are you seriously alleging that Wikipedia is being spammed by people who have a financial interest in promoting sales of the novel _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (published 1929), rather than by editors who in good faith think (even if wrongly) that the information is better presented with spoiler tags?
No, it's a statement (an erroneous one, IMO, but anyway) of what spoiler tags are for - not an assumption of bad faith.
I like the de:wp policy, which Babelfish and I roughly translate:
When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.
In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the plot should, however, always be clearly denoted, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== or ==Synopsis==.
- d.
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've just done [[All Quiet on the Western Front]] and [[The Birth of a Nation]] (1915 movie). It all makes me wonder. On a site where there is so much concern about marketting and spam it seems completely contrary to have spoiler warnings. Spoiler warnings are a
_marketting_
tool; they want to make people curious enough to see the movie, watch the programme, read the book.
This seems like a pretty ridiculous supposition of bad faith. Are you seriously alleging that Wikipedia is being spammed by people who have a financial interest in promoting sales of the novel _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (published 1929), rather than by editors who in good faith think (even if wrongly) that the information is better presented with spoiler tags?
No, it's a statement (an erroneous one, IMO, but anyway) of what spoiler tags are for - not an assumption of bad faith.
I like the de:wp policy, which Babelfish and I roughly translate:
When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.
In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the plot should, however, always be clearly denoted, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== or ==Synopsis==.
What do they do about spoiling plot details that need to be discussed for full coverage of the subject in de Wikipedia?
Mgm
On 5/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:49:33 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
You are so right. What next? Spoiler warnings in [[Dinosaur]] (they died out)? Patent silliness.
Guy (JzG)
Of course, that's silly. Anyone could know that from simple observation. Spoiler tags are for fiction only.
Mgm
On 5/16/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
All this got me curious - so I took a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
One problem is it is distinctively patronizing to our readers - of course, if you read material under the heading 'plot summary' - you will be told (guess what) the plot. We don't need spoilers in such cases.
But among the more unexpected uses are:
A Biblical book:
Romeo and Juliet (they die)
Hamlet (he dies too)
My Fair Lady (she doesn't die)
Star Wars (cos someone doesn't know he's Vader's son? )
The Graduate
Casablanca, Emma (FFS!), The Hunchback of Notre Damme, The Wind in the Willows, the Grapes of Wrath, Lord of the Flies, Dorian Gray, The Taming of the Shrew, Snow White (?), Sons and Lovers, Tess, and Petronius' Satyricon (yes, that's a work from the 1st Century AD!)
And that's just with a quick skim.
Now, it is one thing for buffyfans and trekies to protect their secrets. There's a weak case for books just published and episodes yet unscreened in some parts of the world. After all perhaps someone searching us here has just come from some fandom site where spoiler warnings are expected. However, when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
Absolutely. I think we need to start using {{spoiler}} like we use fair use images - only where it is absolutely necessary. It is one thing to slap a {{spoiler}} on, say, a movie which comes out only tomorrow in theatres worldwide. It is another to slap {{spoiler}} on [[Bible]] because Jesus dies at the end and comes back to life - which might actually happen if at the moment we are sticking such tags on things like the [[Book of Ruth]].
We've gone way overboard with {{spoiler}} tags. We should use them only where we're damn sure that the majority of our audience won't have seen the work/otherwise know the plot and probably won't want to know at the moment. Otherwise...really, why are we doing this with every little thing that could present a surprise to someone? Are we going to have to put a {{spoiler}} on the fact that [[George Washington]] did not chop down the cherry tree or that [[Santa Claus]] is not real so we won't ruin the pleasant fantasies of small children who might be reading WP?
I'll admit I've overused {{spoiler}} in the past - this was generally when I was irritated that a book I had been planning to read was spoiled for me - but it's time for a change in our editing habits. Being an encyclopaedia, people shouldn't be surprised that we *gasp* summarise the whole story and its significance.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
I'll admit I've overused {{spoiler}} in the past - this was generally when I was irritated that a book I had been planning to read was spoiled for me - but it's time for a change in our editing habits. Being an encyclopaedia, people shouldn't be surprised that we *gasp* summarise the whole story and its significance.
I think, however, this is one of those times where we need to be cognizant of our audience and how we're used. I don't think we should be completely ignorant of the fact that we're a quick reference tool, and that the typical way some people use Wikipedia lends itself to bizarre links and occasional missteps.
Yes, it's kind of dumb to put a spoiler in [[The Christmas Carol]], which most English-reading audiences would know the ending of. But is it equally as dumb for [[The Book Thief]]?
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
I think, however, this is one of those times where we need to be cognizant of our audience and how we're used. I don't think we should be completely ignorant of the fact that we're a quick reference tool, and that the typical way some people use Wikipedia lends itself to bizarre links and occasional missteps.
Yes, it's kind of dumb to put a spoiler in [[The Christmas Carol]], which most English-reading audiences would know the ending of. But is it equally as dumb for [[The Book Thief]]?
I agree we should pay attention to that possibility, but I think a lot of it could be done in a subtler way. In articles on specific works, simply collecting the spoilerish content under a heading such as Plot Summary ought to provide sufficient warning that plot information will be given away in that section. Other than that, just being a bit careful about gratuitously spoiling endings could remove a lot of the trouble---if a work relies heavily on a twist ending, then maybe mention that it relies heavily on a twist ending in the intro, but don't mention what the twist *is* until the Plot Summary section.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
I think, however, this is one of those times where we need to be cognizant of our audience and how we're used. I don't think we should be completely ignorant of the fact that we're a quick reference tool, and that the typical way some people use Wikipedia lends itself to bizarre links and occasional missteps.
Yes, it's kind of dumb to put a spoiler in [[The Christmas Carol]], which most English-reading audiences would know the ending of. But is it equally as dumb for [[The Book Thief]]?
I agree we should pay attention to that possibility, but I think a lot of it could be done in a subtler way. In articles on specific works, simply collecting the spoilerish content under a heading such as Plot Summary ought to provide sufficient warning that plot information will be given away in that section. Other than that, just being a bit careful about gratuitously spoiling endings could remove a lot of the trouble---if a work relies heavily on a twist ending, then maybe mention that it relies heavily on a twist ending in the intro, but don't mention what the twist *is* until the Plot Summary section.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Unless the twist is precisely what makes the work important. In which case it is clearly one of the most important pieces of information and belongs in the lead.
On May 15, 2007, at 11:41 AM, doc wrote:
Unless the twist is precisely what makes the work important. In which case it is clearly one of the most important pieces of information and belongs in the lead.
Exactly. The use of somewhat silly spoiler tags (I think Slim's observation of the tag on Night is still the best) is silly and makes us look bad. But for me the real point of venemous rage comes when concern about spoilers is used as a tool to actively make the article worse.
-Phil
On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
I think, however, this is one of those times where we need to be
cognizant
of our audience and how we're used. I don't think we should be
completely
ignorant of the fact that we're a quick reference tool, and that the typical way some people use Wikipedia lends itself to bizarre links and occasional missteps.
Yes, it's kind of dumb to put a spoiler in [[The Christmas Carol]],
which
most English-reading audiences would know the ending of. But is it equally as dumb for [[The Book Thief]]?
I agree we should pay attention to that possibility, but I think a lot of it could be done in a subtler way. In articles on specific works, simply collecting the spoilerish content under a heading such as Plot Summary ought to provide sufficient warning that plot information will be given away in that section. Other than that, just being a bit careful about gratuitously spoiling endings could remove a lot of the trouble---if a work relies heavily on a twist ending, then maybe mention that it relies heavily on a twist ending in the intro, but don't mention what the twist *is* until the Plot Summary section.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Unless the twist is precisely what makes the work important. In which case it is clearly one of the most important pieces of information and belongs in the lead.
Of course. The film you mentioned is an example of where the ending belongs in the lead. But I think we could safely write about Star Wars without revealing Vader is Skywalker's father in the lead.
Mgm
Jeff Raymond wrote:
John Lee wrote:
I'll admit I've overused {{spoiler}} in the past - this was generally when I was irritated that a book I had been planning to read was spoiled for me - but it's time for a change in our editing habits. Being an encyclopaedia, people shouldn't be surprised that we *gasp* summarise the whole story and its significance.
I think, however, this is one of those times where we need to be cognizant of our audience and how we're used. I don't think we should be completely ignorant of the fact that we're a quick reference tool, and that the typical way some people use Wikipedia lends itself to bizarre links and occasional missteps.
Yes, it's kind of dumb to put a spoiler in [[The Christmas Carol]], which most English-reading audiences would know the ending of.
I just removed it from [[Charles Dickens]]. [[Don Quixote]] also has one.
Ec
doc wrote:
Now, it is one thing for buffyfans and trekies to protect their secrets. There's a weak case for books just published and episodes yet unscreened in some parts of the world. After all perhaps someone searching us here has just come from some fandom site where spoiler warnings are expected. However, when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
I had to laugh, an FAC I'm involved in right now wants me to consider a spoiler warning for a film with no budget and minimal plot that was marketed solely because the girl takes her clothes off in an unrelated-to-the-"plot" scene.
I was, for once, unable to come up with a useful response.
-Jeff
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Jeff Raymond wrote:
I had to laugh, an FAC I'm involved in right now wants me to consider a spoiler warning for a film with no budget and minimal plot that was marketed solely because the girl takes her clothes off in an unrelated-to-the-"plot" scene.
I was, for once, unable to come up with a useful response.
Well, I think a response of "spoilers aren't as necessary for bad movies as for good ones" wouldn't have worked too well, and for good reason.
One problem is it is distinctively patronizing to our readers - of course, if you read material under the heading 'plot summary' - you will be told (guess what) the plot. We don't need spoilers in such cases.
Hear, hear! I've been removing spoiler tags from plot summaries in articles I'm involved in. I haven't quite got up the nerve to remove them from articles I haven't edited before, though... almost did earlier today.
Indeed. This discussion reminds me somewhat of a Penny Arcade comic from a couple years back.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/05
(In other news, [[The Passion of the Christ]] currently *does* contain a {{spoiler}} tag.)
doc wrote:
However, when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
On 5/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'm afraid to look and see if there's one on Titanic...
If you're talking about [[Titanic (1997 film)]] then of course it does! Everyone knows what happens to the boat, but that's not all that comes to pass. You know,
{{spoiler}} Leo dies in the end {{endspoiler}}
Not everyone knows that.
--Oskar
On 15/05/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
{{spoiler}} Leo dies in the end {{endspoiler}}
I suggest replacing it with this one:
http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Template:Spoiler
- d.
On 5/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest replacing it with this one:
Hey, thanks a lot! I didn't know that Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter defeated the archangel together! I'm only through the first two books!
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 5/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest replacing it with this one:
Hey, thanks a lot! I didn't know that Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter defeated the archangel together! I'm only through the first two books!
You're welcome. You have now been saved the travail of ploughing through the rest of whatever book-set you are talking about. :-)
Ec
On 15/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
Someone once tried to add the spoiler template to [[Night (book)]] -- which is about the Holocaust. :-|
I've seen it on [[Samuel Pepys]] before, because there was material in there that might spoil "anything based on this dudes work" (I quote directly)
I mean, sheesh. Even *if* there are people out there who read diarists as though they were novels, and then go to read about the diarist in an encyclopedia, would they really expect to avoid reading about a ten-year period in the author's life just to avoid anything interfering with the book?
On 5/15/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen it on [[Samuel Pepys]] before, because there was material in there that might spoil "anything based on this dudes work" (I quote directly)
I mean, sheesh. Even *if* there are people out there who read diarists as though they were novels, and then go to read about the diarist in an encyclopedia, would they really expect to avoid reading about a ten-year period in the author's life just to avoid anything interfering with the book?
I think I've got the most ridiculous usage of the spoiler templates (before I removed them, that is): the [[Get A Mac]] article. You know, the "Hello, I'm a Mac" "And I'm a PC"-commercials? We can't go around willy nilly spoiling those, can we?
--Oskar
On 5/14/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Someone once tried to add the spoiler template to [[Night (book)]] -- which is about the Holocaust. :-|
Sarah
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_%28book%29&diff=37765709...
It was AndyZ. That name sounds familiar but I'm not sure why.
—C.W.
People are now edit-warring the {{spoiler}} template back onto [[Hamlet]], against the instructions on use that are in the template itself!
Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?
- d.
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
People are now edit-warring the {{spoiler}} template back onto [[Hamlet]], against the instructions on use that are in the template itself!
Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?
Judging by the heated debate in the lower two thirds of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4 that wouldn't be very popular, but I say go for it.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
People are now edit-warring the {{spoiler}} template back onto [[Hamlet]], against the instructions on use that are in the template itself!
Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?
Judging by the heated debate in the lower two thirds of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4 that wouldn't be very popular, but I say go for it.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Send it to TFD, before we see it on "Julius Caesar" too. (But we NEED a spoiler warning, or people will learn that he dies!)
On 5/16/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
It was AndyZ. That name sounds familiar but I'm not sure why.
One of the compromised accounts in the recent password-guessing incident.
-Matt
I never thought I'd found myself saying this, but largely, I agree with you. When you go to look something up in an encyclopedia, some degree of spoilers should be expected.
On the other hand, if it is entirely possible to write a good article while minimizing spoilers, than by all means, that should be done. I'd submit [[Alundra]] as an example of an article on a video game that doesn't explain the plot of the game in great detail, and yet still is able to cover it in a rather decent manner. (Of course, the article has some other issues, mainly amateurish writing, but that's not entirely the point here.)
In a sense, avoidance of plot spoilers should be a guideline - it usually makes for better articles - but it shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule, because there are occasions when spoilers are unavoidable. Particularly when you are talking about "minor character[s] in [a] television show" (ie, cruft).
Philip Sandifer wrote:
Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
[...]
Blu Aardvark wrote:
In a sense, avoidance of plot spoilers should be a guideline - it usually makes for better articles - but it shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule, because there are occasions when spoilers are unavoidable. Particularly when you are talking about "minor character[s] in [a] television show" (ie, cruft).
On the other hand, one of the uses I put Wikipedia to on a regular basis depends on spoilers being present. I hate horror movies and never watch them. But darnit, they often make the commercials for those movies so _interesting._ So when I get hit with a horror movie promo that makes me wonder what the heck the big secret of the movie is, I check out the Wikipedia article and expect to find a nice straightforward plot summary that explains all the main points.
PS, Valen is not actually a minor character despite his lack of on-screen presence. He's basically the Minbari's Christ figure.
PPS, can we have some sort of Godwin's Law equivalent about the use of the suffix "cruft" in deletion debates? It's basically equivalent to "I personally think this is not worth having in Wikipedia", a sentiment that deserves to be made more explicitly and in more detail than that.
On 5/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
On the other hand, one of the uses I put Wikipedia to on a regular basis depends on spoilers being present. I hate horror movies and never watch them. But darnit, they often make the commercials for those movies so _interesting._ So when I get hit with a horror movie promo that makes me wonder what the heck the big secret of the movie is, I check out the Wikipedia article and expect to find a nice straightforward plot summary that explains all the main points.
Yep. But you wouldn't object to having to click a link that said "Show spoilers" would you?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
On the other hand, one of the uses I put Wikipedia to on a regular basis depends on spoilers being present. I hate horror movies and never watch them. But darnit, they often make the commercials for those movies so _interesting._ So when I get hit with a horror movie promo that makes me wonder what the heck the big secret of the movie is, I check out the Wikipedia article and expect to find a nice straightforward plot summary that explains all the main points.
Yep. But you wouldn't object to having to click a link that said "Show spoilers" would you?
Not unless the structure of the article had to be extremely distorted in order to preserve the spoiler. To stick with the Valen example, I popped over there and found that there was a fair-use picture of Valen that was linked to but not actually displayed in the article for fear of spoiling his identity. But a recent change to how fair use images are dealt with would result in this image being deleted, so I made the image visible. I don't believe spoiler preservation takes precedence over being informative.
I would. Thats an extra step between me and information. We are an encyclopedia. We should not be double wrapped. I punch in the name of the article I want, I read it. Thats all there is to it.
On 5/15/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
On the other hand, one of the uses I put Wikipedia to on a regular basis depends on spoilers being present. I hate horror movies and never watch them. But darnit, they often make the commercials for those movies so _interesting._ So when I get hit with a horror movie promo that makes me wonder what the heck the big secret of the movie is, I check out the Wikipedia article and expect to find a nice straightforward plot summary that explains all the main points.
Yep. But you wouldn't object to having to click a link that said "Show spoilers" would you?
Steve
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 5/16/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I would. Thats an extra step between me and information. We are an encyclopedia. We should not be double wrapped. I punch in the name of the article I want, I read it. Thats all there is to it.
I agree wholly.
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 these, it seems that only recent versions get spoiler warnings; additionally, TV versions seem much more likely to get spoiler warnings. I just read through a bunch of our articles on major Superman characters; in these, only recent "Smallville" plot and recent movies seem to get spoiler warnings.
This is really annoying to me (why should TV be so sacred, while we can handle other media more intelligently?) and especially since the choppy nature of these articles means we're constantly diving into spoiler-tagged paragraphs.
-Matt
On 5/15/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
I never thought I'd found myself saying this, but largely, I agree with you. When you go to look something up in an encyclopedia, some degree of spoilers should be expected.
Nah. Several times I would have liked to have read about future episodes of a show I've watched, or a movie that I'm considering going to see, but I refrain, because the use of spoiler templates is totally unpredictable. You either get them used far too vaguely (like the entire plot section is flagged as possibly containing spoilers), or not at all. Is it so much to ask that only the actual *spoiler* part be flagged, and that the "hide" template is used?
By "actual spoiler part", I definitely don't mean any information that could be found in a blurb or marketing material about the movie. The general outline of the plot is fine. The hidden fact that Johnson is actually Wilson and that they are both undead zombies is a spoiler. In some hypothetical movie, that is.
Steve
On 15/05/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
By "actual spoiler part", I definitely don't mean any information that could be found in a blurb or marketing material about the movie. The general outline of the plot is fine. The hidden fact that Johnson is actually Wilson and that they are both undead zombies is a spoiler. In some hypothetical movie, that is.
Mmm. There are certainly people around who define "spoiler" as "any information which remotely pertains to the fiction that isn't in the cover art", which does tend to mean that even if we wanted such tagging, we'd get some very sloppy application.
[PS: change one word and you just wrote the best House episode ever concieved]
On 5/15/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Mmm. There are certainly people around who define "spoiler" as "any information which remotely pertains to the fiction that isn't in the cover art", which does tend to mean that even if we wanted such tagging, we'd get some very sloppy application.
Yeah, well I suspect that the anti-spoiler people probably have an unnecessarily broad definition of "spoiler". A plot outline is generally not a spoiler, but dramatic events in say the last third or quarter of the plot could well be. If someone dies at the start, and that's the setting for the novel, that's obviously not a spoiler. If the hero tragically dies in the last few pages from an unexpected cause, that could well be.
Now, if a book is famous *because* the hero dies (perhaps violating the norms of books at the time), then the issue of how to address that fact becomes more complex and subtle. However, complexity and subtlety are not generally present in the pro-spoiler/anti-spoiler debates we see on Wikipedia.
Steve
Blu Aardvark wrote:
I never thought I'd found myself saying this, but largely, I agree with you. When you go to look something up in an encyclopedia, some degree of spoilers should be expected.
On the other hand, if it is entirely possible to write a good article while minimizing spoilers, than by all means, that should be done. I'd submit [[Alundra]] as an example of an article on a video game that doesn't explain the plot of the game in great detail, and yet still is able to cover it in a rather decent manner. (Of course, the article has some other issues, mainly amateurish writing, but that's not entirely the point here.)
In a sense, avoidance of plot spoilers should be a guideline - it usually makes for better articles - but it shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule, because there are occasions when spoilers are unavoidable. Particularly when you are talking about "minor character[s] in [a] television show" (ie, cruft).
Philip Sandifer wrote:
Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the process of writing an encyclopedia.
[...]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And there's the solution. Why should we have an article on some minor character from a fictional work at all? Touch on them briefly in the main article or a "List of characters in...".
On May 14, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
And there's the solution. Why should we have an article on some minor character from a fictional work at all? Touch on them briefly in the main article or a "List of characters in...".
And with that suggestion you've solved one of the three articles I pointed out. Sue Dibny is not a minor character, and The Crying Game is not a character at all.
More notably, though, I think there's a well-sourced, interesting, informative article to be written about Valen - one that looks at how information about him is threaded through the series, one that looks at how the series changed shape when the character who turns out to be Valen is written out at the end of season 1, one that uses the copious comments given on the matter by B5's creator, etc. It's something that a really, really good article could be written on. But not one that's organized with the intention of hiding spoilers.
-Phil
More notably, though, I think there's a well-sourced, interesting, informative article to be written about Valen - one that looks at how information about him is threaded through the series, one that looks at how the series changed shape when the character who turns out to be Valen is written out at the end of season 1, one that uses the copious comments given on the matter by B5's creator, etc. It's something that a really, really good article could be written on. But not one that's organized with the intention of hiding spoilers.
-Phil
As a side note: Someone already mentioned this, but Valen isn't a minor character in B5 canon.
I too would love to see a really good Valen article.
Cheers, Erica
Philip Sandifer wrote:
More notably, though, I think there's a well-sourced, interesting, informative article to be written about Valen - one that looks at how information about him is threaded through the series, one that looks at how the series changed shape when the character who turns out to be Valen is written out at the end of season 1, one that uses the copious comments given on the matter by B5's creator, etc. It's something that a really, really good article could be written on. But not one that's organized with the intention of hiding spoilers.
Alternately, if one really must merge Valen with anything, merge it with [[Wrsserl Fvapynve]]. (ROT13 to protect the spoiler-conscious.) Spoiler warnings would become moot then. :)
Phil makes some good points but I see them as being about a subset of 'spoiler' articles where the fundamentals of the article are inevitably plot spoilers. For instance, I would include [[The Mousetrap]]: as presently written it necessarily begins in the middle, without a proper introduction, but try to write it properly: "The Mousetrap is a murder mystery play by Agatha Christie which is notable for its plot twist in which the murderer is revealed to be the police sergeant sent to carry out the investigation" and it's a spoiler from the very first lines.
Spoiler templates are overused but getting rid of all of them is too extreme. Perhaps only really vital plot twists should be covered? Meanwhile the idea of a foldable spoiler warning for articles in the class of 'the whole thing is a spoiler' is worth trying.
On May 15, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Sam Blacketer wrote:
Spoiler templates are overused but getting rid of all of them is too extreme. Perhaps only really vital plot twists should be covered? Meanwhile the idea of a foldable spoiler warning for articles in the class of 'the whole thing is a spoiler' is worth trying.
That would help somewhat with the secondary concern I have, which is that they're silly. But it really wouldn't help with my biggest concern - some articles cannot be written well if they are to dance around spoilers. [[The Crying Game]] is in some ways the most vital example here. The film's twist makes it a major film from a perspective of LGBT cinema. But because we're obsessed with burying the twist ending, that doesn't get brought up early on at all. Frankly, this is a NPOV violation - key aspects of the film get buried far outside of the lead where they belong.
-Phil
Spoiler: I agree.
--- Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
...
There are other cases like this - [[The Crying Game]] is a travesty of an article because the single most interesting aspect of the movie isn't actually revealed until the sixth paragraph. And
...
Bold proposal: Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies. People may well get burnt on one or two articles they read before they will come to a simple and obvious realization
encyclopedia articles on a topic reveal information about that topic. If you have a desire to not know things about a topic, you probably shouldn't go look it up in an encyclopedia.
This should be obvious. Our mission is to provide information, not hide it.
Exactly. I get the feeling that spoiler rules well-intended on things like IMDB get assumed and applied on WP. The only way to avoid that is to simply rip out any suggestion that WP cares about "spoiler"s.
More importantly, there seems to be a more general problem with articles going into all sorts of detail before ever summarizing the most significant points of the article. Anything that contributes further to this really should be removed or relegated to one of those non-templated, non-policy, non-guideline writings.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
G'day CS,
<snip/>
More importantly, there seems to be a more general problem with articles going into all sorts of detail before ever summarizing the most significant points of the article. Anything that contributes further to this really should be removed or relegated to one of those non-templated, non-policy, non-guideline writings.
Hmm, in this thread I'm finding myself agreeing with a few people with whom I normally would not agree. This can't be allowed to spread, surely!
I find the most disappointing plot summaries are in our /Doctor Who/ articles. Wikipedia /Doctor Who/ coverage, in general, is simply fantastic, especially when compared to, say, /Star Wars/, or /Gundam/ (is it /Gundam/?). However, the plot summaries are just plain useless.
Don't get me wrong, they're usually quite well-written, and it's obvious the /Doctor Who/ junkies have sunk awesome amounts of time and effort into putting in a long, detailed summary for every single episode. But here's the thing: if I miss an episode, and want to find out what happened, I *can't*. It's just not do-able. Can't see the forest for trees, in essence. I can find out that the PM said, "My Doctor is back!", but I can't find out why, because I'm too busy reading things like, "The PM said, 'My Doctor is back!'" As for looking at old episodes which /Who/ fans tell me are classics and trying to work out why, well, forget it.
We want a common ground for plot summaries between "blurb" and "description of every action in the story". A lot of summary-writers get caught up in retelling the story in brief, in story order. This makes it (relatively) easy to isolate spoiler warnings, but not to give the reader a decent overview.
Let's take, oh, say, /Citizen Kane/. What if we had fifteen long paragraphs describing the action of the film, ending with: "And they throw it into the fire, never realising that Rosebud is in fact the name of the sled." Now, we can bung a spoiler warning between the main summary and that sentence, no worries. Problem solved. Now nobody will ever have /CK/ ruined for them by Wikipedia, at least not without fair warning. Of course, anybody hoping for a quick summary of the film so they can be reasonably conversant in it (enough not to look like a moron at posh dinner parties, say) is what we in the business call, "fucked", but at least the people editing the article enjoyed their exercise.
Compare that with a discussion of what happens, in the past tense, with a view towards making it accessible for those who know nothing about the film but want to know what the plot is ...
Cheers,
While waiting to kill it with a stick, I am pleased to note that the current version of {{spoiler}} notes that sections headed "Plot summary" or similar are likely to contain ... plot elements.
Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case? At least then if, God forbid, the accursed thing isn't killed after all, its harm will have been mitigated.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
While waiting to kill it with a stick, I am pleased to note that the current version of {{spoiler}} notes that sections headed "Plot summary" or similar are likely to contain ... plot elements.
Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case? At least then if, God forbid, the accursed thing isn't killed after all, its harm will have been mitigated.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I did so. I removed from Mary Poppins and Romeo and Juliet (1968 film. However when I tried it on Sunset boulevard, I was instantly reverted - as these things are now 'standard'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunset_Boulevard_%281950_film%29&a...
David Gerard wrote:
While waiting to kill it with a stick, I am pleased to note that the current version of {{spoiler}} notes that sections headed "Plot summary" or similar are likely to contain ... plot elements.
Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case? At least then if, God forbid, the accursed thing isn't killed after all, its harm will have been mitigated.
Good plan.
Also with the plural Template:Spoilers and with Template:Endspoiler. With the latter I've found that when people remove the spoiler warning they can forget the corresponding {{endspoiler}}
Ec
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
While waiting to kill it with a stick, I am pleased to note that the current version of {{spoiler}} notes that sections headed "Plot summary" or similar are likely to contain ... plot elements.
Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case? At least then if, God forbid, the accursed thing isn't killed after all, its harm will have been mitigated.
Good plan.
Bad plan.
I've already pointed out on the RFC page that it's often good to have a consistent user interface. It's best if all spoilers are marked as spoilers rather than some being marked as spoilers and some being unmarked because it's obvious. Even if it is obvious.
On 5/18/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
While waiting to kill it with a stick, I am pleased to note that the current version of {{spoiler}} notes that sections headed "Plot summary" or similar are likely to contain ... plot elements.
Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case? At least then if, God forbid, the accursed thing isn't killed after all, its harm will have been mitigated.
Good plan.
Bad plan.
I've already pointed out on the RFC page that it's often good to have a consistent user interface. It's best if all spoilers are marked as spoilers rather than some being marked as spoilers and some being unmarked because it's obvious. Even if it is obvious.
Ding ding ding! You win the jackpot!
Seriously, that pretty much sums up the argument. In the vast majority of articles, it does not break up the flow. ~~~~
On 5/18/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I've already pointed out on the RFC page that it's often good to have a consistent user interface. It's best if all spoilers are marked as spoilers rather than some being marked as spoilers and some being unmarked because it's obvious. Even if it is obvious.
Consistency is only one dimension on which to judge - Wikipedia does not value consistency consistently over other values elsewhere, and I don't see that therefore this is an overly compelling argument here.
True consistency would have every article on Wikipedia having a spoiler warning, just in case, and a half-dozen others as well.
-Matt
On 18/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
True consistency would have every article on Wikipedia having a spoiler warning, just in case, and a half-dozen others as well.
Literally every page on Wikipedia has a link to [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]], which links to [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]], which proclaims in big letters at the top:
WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE
- d.
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
True consistency would have every article on Wikipedia having a spoiler warning, just in case, and a half-dozen others as well.
Literally every page on Wikipedia has a link to [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]], which links to [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]], which proclaims in big letters at the top:
WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And that's all we need. We don't have warnings to say "THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS ANATOMICALLY CORRECT IMAGES OF HUMAN GENITALIA", and we don't need any to say "THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS A SPOILER." If you go looking for information on a work of fiction -anywhere- besides sites which you clearly know avoid spoilers, you may get a faceful of spoiler. That's true whether it's Wikipedia, a forum, or anything else. Our job is not as a film-review or film-recommendation site, it is as an encyclopedia. And those discuss works of fiction in full without spoiler warnings.
On 5/18/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
True consistency would have every article on Wikipedia having a spoiler warning, just in case, and a half-dozen others as well.
Literally every page on Wikipedia has a link to [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]], which links to [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]], which proclaims in big letters at the top:
WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And that's all we need. We don't have warnings to say "THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS ANATOMICALLY CORRECT IMAGES OF HUMAN GENITALIA", and we don't need any to say "THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS A SPOILER." If you go looking for information on a work of fiction -anywhere- besides sites which you clearly know avoid spoilers, you may get a faceful of spoiler. That's true whether it's Wikipedia, a forum, or anything else. Our job is not as a film-review or film-recommendation site, it is as an encyclopedia. And those discuss works of fiction in full without spoiler warnings.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
But we *do* discuss the stuff in full, just put a centimeter-tall warning at the top that you can turn off with your CSS. And also, on the images issue, I believe that [[autofellatio]] does not have the image on the page, but on a seperate one. (I may be wrong, that article *may* have the image on it, and is NOT AT ALL SAFE FOR WORK.)
~~~~
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
True consistency would have every article on Wikipedia having a spoiler warning, just in case, and a half-dozen others as well.
Literally every page on Wikipedia has a link to [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]], which links to [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]], which proclaims in big letters at the top:
WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE
- d.
Yes, but it is polite to warn them first. If you think anyone actually goes there, then you're dead wrong here. ~~~~
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
True consistency would have every article on Wikipedia having a spoiler warning, just in case, and a half-dozen others as well.
Literally every page on Wikipedia has a link to [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]], which links to [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]], which proclaims in big letters at the top:
WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE
Well, that was actually kind of my point, hoping I wouldn't have to spell it out. *grin*
-Matt
The problem is not with spoiler tags. All they do is give the reader a little more information about what they are reading and help them decide how much more to read. Over use of spoiler tags (one for each season in the plot summary of a character, for example) can look bad and is unnecessary in a well written article, but generally spoiler tags serve a useful purpose.
The problem is with trying to avoid giving away spoilers. We shouldn't be worrying about that unless it really makes no difference to the quality of the article. Write a good article, then worry about adding spoiler tags. If a spoiler has to go in the lead for the article to work, then so be it.
It is worth mentioning that it is possible to warn readers about spoilers without spoiler tags. Just start the sentence "In season 3, it is revealed that...". Yes, if you're reading fast you might end up reading the spoiler before you've realised what you're doing, but it's much better than nothing and can be used in almost any situation. Spoiler tags only really work when the part with the spoilers is naturally separate from the rest of the article.
Oh, and "click here to see spoilers" is a very bad idea - for a start, I don't think it is standards compliant. Secondly, Wikipedia is not designed to be read only online, its designed to be available for anyone to use in any way they like - how to you parse a hidden spoiler when printing articles out?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Oh, and "click here to see spoilers" is a very bad idea - for a start, I don't think it is standards compliant. Secondly, Wikipedia is not designed to be read only online, its designed to be available for anyone to use in any way they like - how to you parse a hidden spoiler when printing articles out?
With proper CSS it can be very standards-compliant. The links to reveal the spoilers can be hidden in print media.
Of course I still think this isn't the proper solution. The real solution is to delete Template:Spoiler and friends ASAP.
With proper CSS it can be very standards-compliant. The links to reveal the spoilers can be hidden in print media.
But then what happens to the spoilers? Someone reading the article on paper should get the same experience as someone reading it online. That's what the self-reference policy is all about.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
With proper CSS it can be very standards-compliant. The links to reveal the spoilers can be hidden in print media.
But then what happens to the spoilers? Someone reading the article on paper should get the same experience as someone reading it online. That's what the self-reference policy is all about.
You didn't quote the part where I said:
Of course I still think this isn't the proper solution. The real solution is to delete Template:Spoiler and friends ASAP.
I agree with you. I'm just pointing out an incorrect statement. We have the means to implement collapsible spoilers (heck, I could do it in <15 minutes). But that's not the right direction, not even the right ballpark.
On 16/05/07, Chris Howie cdhowie@nerdshack.com wrote:
I agree with you. I'm just pointing out an incorrect statement. We have the means to implement collapsible spoilers (heck, I could do it in <15 minutes). But that's not the right direction, not even the right ballpark.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
Absolutely. I've been looking through articles using spoiler warning template, and a stupidly high number of them have the template directly below a section heading with the title "plot details" or the like. Using the spoiler template is in these cases, *completely unnecessary* even if the premise of warning people is valid in other situations.
Unfortunately I don't have time to seek out all such cases and immediately fix them, but I would suggest these more than any other uses of the spoiler template (or arguments about not using it ever) should be tackled immediately. All that's necessary is to ensure the section heading gets the message across as to what is contained within the section, something that should already be the case. The spoiler warning is completely and utterly redundant where used below such a section heading.
Zoney
On 16/05/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. I've been looking through articles using spoiler warning template, and a stupidly high number of them have the template directly below a section heading with the title "plot details" or the like. Using the spoiler template is in these cases, *completely unnecessary* even if the premise of warning people is valid in other situations. Unfortunately I don't have time to seek out all such cases and immediately fix them,
Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long.
but I would suggest these more than any other uses of the spoiler template (or arguments about not using it ever) should be tackled immediately. All that's necessary is to ensure the section heading gets the message across as to what is contained within the section, something that should already be the case. The spoiler warning is completely and utterly redundant where used below such a section heading.
- d.