Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the recent spoiler war? I notice that wp:spoiler now refers to the need for a "compelling reason" for the inclusion of a spoiler, which is a much better, more nuanced position than many real and strawman arguments I heard from both sides (ie, "no spoilers ever" and "spoilers everywhere"). But I'm not sure what the actual policy was before, so could someone enlighten me?
Steve
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 15:51 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the recent spoiler war? I notice that wp:spoiler now refers to the need for a "compelling reason" for the inclusion of a spoiler, which is a much better, more nuanced position than many real and strawman arguments I heard from both sides (ie, "no spoilers ever" and "spoilers everywhere"). But I'm not sure what the actual policy was before, so could someone enlighten me?
Steve
I could tell you, but that would spoil it.
On 5/31/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
I could tell you, but that would spoil it.
It's alright, you can tell him now that you've warned him beforehand.
Stephen Bain stated for the record:
On 5/31/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
I could tell you, but that would spoil it.
It's alright, you can tell him now that you've warned him beforehand.
Harry is Voldemort's mother.
On 31/05/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Stephen Bain stated for the record:
On 5/31/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
I could tell you, but that would spoil it.
It's alright, you can tell him now that you've warned him beforehand.
Harry is Voldemort's mother.
Soylent Green is Snape!
- d.
On 31/05/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the recent spoiler war? I notice that wp:spoiler now refers to the need for a "compelling reason" for the inclusion of a spoiler, which is a much better, more nuanced position than many real and strawman arguments I heard from both sides (ie, "no spoilers ever" and "spoilers everywhere"). But I'm not sure what the actual policy was before, so could someone enlighten me?
Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}.
- d.
On 5/31/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}.
Is that a change to the guideline, or just your reading of the apparent consensus on the talk page? I'd obviously rather remove my own toenails than read the entire discussion, but I don't want to be totally ignorant.
It's a real pity that I feel so strongly at odds with consensus. That hasn't happened for me with Wikipedia before. I do feel that there is a place for spoiler warning tags on most articles about fictional subjects, and I don't accept that "a plot summary inherently contains spoilers so don't read it if you don't want the spoilers".
Ho hum.
Steve
On 01/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}.
Is that a change to the guideline, or just your reading of the apparent consensus on the talk page? I'd obviously rather remove my own toenails than read the entire discussion, but I don't want to be totally ignorant.
That's what it looks like to me when I go through it.
It's a real pity that I feel so strongly at odds with consensus. That hasn't happened for me with Wikipedia before. I do feel that there is a place for spoiler warning tags on most articles about fictional subjects, and I don't accept that "a plot summary inherently contains spoilers so don't read it if you don't want the spoilers".
Perhaps it's just me. I have been rereading stuff off Project Gutenberg and deliberately not reading the Wikipedia articles on the assumption the articles would, um, discuss the book encyclopedically, plot and all.
It's entirely unclear to me what "Plot summary" means if it doesn't include the spoilerish bits. Separate headings "Plot summary without spoilers" and "Spoilers"? Oh dear.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Perhaps it's just me. I have been rereading stuff off Project Gutenberg and deliberately not reading the Wikipedia articles on the assumption the articles would, um, discuss the book encyclopedically, plot and all.
Perhaps Project Gutenberg should be encouraged to add spoiler warnings on all its fictional content. :-)
It's entirely unclear to me what "Plot summary" means if it doesn't include the spoilerish bits. Separate headings "Plot summary without spoilers" and "Spoilers"? Oh dear.
I wouldn't want to have a plot summary leave me guessing about the ending of the book. That's not being very comprehensive. We are providing a service for those who don't have time to read the whole book, or who don't have time to track down a video of episode 87 out 173 that they just happened to have missed because they were on vacation when it was shown.
In an era of instant gratification, are we the ones to be encouraging hard work? ;-)
Ec
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's entirely unclear to me what "Plot summary" means if it doesn't include the spoilerish bits. Separate headings "Plot summary without spoilers" and "Spoilers"? Oh dear.
This is so simple. Read the back of a DVD cover. Read a movie review in the paper. Read the blurb of a book. All contain a rough outline of the plot. They don't mention:
a) What the outcome of the major plot climax is. b) Any secrets that change your understanding of the story, but that are only revealed at the end. c) The deaths of any major characters that take place late in the story.
What's hard to get about that?
Now, I'm not even suggesting that Wikipedia avoid mentioning these. But it's so incredibly easy to use spoiler tags judiciously. This wilful ignorance to understand is quite annoying.
Example:
==Plot summary== In the story, John marries Susan, but they are separated as he is sent to war.<more plot describing his antics in the war, the adventures he gets up to etc >
{{spoiler}} Ultimately, John's leg is blown off and he returns an amputee, only to find that Susan has married his brother. {{end-spoiler}}
==Some other section==
It's not complicated. It's not a slippery slope. Can we drop the childish attitude please?
Steve
The plot summaries you mention are not plot summaries used by reference works. An encyclopedia of 20th century literature is going to tell you that George shoots Lenny. The back of the book will not. You seem to be comparing apples (advertisements and eyecatchers wanting to hook you) with oranges (reference works that are designed to actually be useful)
On 6/2/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's entirely unclear to me what "Plot summary" means if it doesn't include the spoilerish bits. Separate headings "Plot summary without spoilers" and "Spoilers"? Oh dear.
This is so simple. Read the back of a DVD cover. Read a movie review in the paper. Read the blurb of a book. All contain a rough outline of the plot. They don't mention:
a) What the outcome of the major plot climax is. b) Any secrets that change your understanding of the story, but that are only revealed at the end. c) The deaths of any major characters that take place late in the story.
What's hard to get about that?
Now, I'm not even suggesting that Wikipedia avoid mentioning these. But it's so incredibly easy to use spoiler tags judiciously. This wilful ignorance to understand is quite annoying.
Example:
==Plot summary== In the story, John marries Susan, but they are separated as he is sent to war.<more plot describing his antics in the war, the adventures he gets up to etc >
{{spoiler}} Ultimately, John's leg is blown off and he returns an amputee, only to find that Susan has married his brother. {{end-spoiler}}
==Some other section==
It's not complicated. It's not a slippery slope. Can we drop the childish attitude please?
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 6/2/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The plot summaries you mention are not plot summaries used by reference works. An encyclopedia of 20th century literature is going to tell you that George shoots Lenny. The back of the book will not. You seem to be comparing apples (advertisements and eyecatchers wanting to hook you) with oranges (reference works that are designed to actually be useful)
The contention was that it's impossible to separate a spoiler from a plot summary, as if they're somehow intricately linked. They're not. Have you never discussed a film with a group of people, and then paused and said, "are any of you going to see it?" Then, those that are cover their ears while you explain the ending. Pretty clear distinction don't you think?
The example you give is borderline: Of mice and men was published a long time ago and is a well-known classic. And knowing of the impending shooting doesn't necessarily "spoil" the rest. Come to think of it, my example was pretty bad, too. The Skywalker/Vader or Sixth Sense examples are much stronger, and can both be discussed quite separately from the "plot summary" in any case.
It may be the case that in individual examples, it's very difficult to write a good plot summary without spoiling the film. Maybe. But it's not the case that it is difficult or impossible in every instance.
Steve
On 6/2/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Now, I'm not even suggesting that Wikipedia avoid mentioning these. But it's so incredibly easy to use spoiler tags judiciously. This wilful ignorance to understand is quite annoying.
It's not wilful ignorance on my part. The spoiler tags are demeaning and insulting, they're eyesores, they make us look like some poxy fan site, and if used as you suggest they impost artificial constraints on the article body and make it impossible to write a proper article lead. If there are *any* advantages to have these, it seems to be that they coddle people who are stupid to tell the difference between a DVD box cover and an encyclopedia article.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/2/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Now, I'm not even suggesting that Wikipedia avoid mentioning these. But it's so incredibly easy to use spoiler tags judiciously. This wilful ignorance to understand is quite annoying.
It's not wilful ignorance on my part. The spoiler tags are demeaning and insulting, they're eyesores, they make us look like some poxy fan site, and if used as you suggest they impost artificial constraints on the article body and make it impossible to write a proper article lead. If there are *any* advantages to have these, it seems to be that they coddle people who are stupid to tell the difference between a DVD box cover and an encyclopedia article.
I suppose we should avoid drawing any conclusions about the intelligence of those who attach so much importance to such cruft. :-)
Ec
On 6/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
It's not wilful ignorance on my part. The spoiler tags are demeaning and insulting,
No they're not. Well, at least I feel neither demeaned nor insulted.
they're eyesores,
So make them prettier.
they make us look like some poxy fan site,
All that separates us from a poxy fan site is a spoiler warning? We have issues.
and if used as you suggest they impost artificial constraints on the article body and make it impossible to write a proper article lead.
Why would details of the plot and especially its ending, be found in the lead? The lead usually just covers the fact that it's a successful film and is the 3rd in the trilogy or whatever. I could accept that for *some* articles it's hard to write a lead without giving away the spoiler. But I don't accept that that is often, let alone always the case.
If there are *any* advantages to have these, it seems to be that they coddle people who are stupid to tell the difference between a DVD box cover and an encyclopedia article.
I see. Spoiler warnings are insulting and demeaning. But your attitude isn't.
Steve
On 5/31/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}.
Is that a change to the guideline, or just your reading of the apparent consensus on the talk page? I'd obviously rather remove my own toenails than read the entire discussion, but I don't want to be totally ignorant.
David is exaggerating. However, many of Wikipedia's articles on fiction go into mind-numbing plot detail, thanks to an army of contributors each of which has a little bit more to add (or, in some cases, one obsessed fan).
It's a real pity that I feel so strongly at odds with consensus. That hasn't happened for me with Wikipedia before. I do feel that there is a place for spoiler warning tags on most articles about fictional subjects, and I don't accept that "a plot summary inherently contains spoilers so don't read it if you don't want the spoilers".
For me, the convincing argument is that such warnings are nigh-on never used in reference works elsewhere. Spoiler warnings everywhere were AFAIK a Usenet invention.
Of course, we're not necessarily bound by precedent, but that precedent does make me believe that spoiler warnings have to justify themselves rather convincingly.
-Matt
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}.
Is that a change to the guideline, or just your reading of the apparent consensus on the talk page? I'd obviously rather remove my own toenails than read the entire discussion, but I don't want to be totally ignorant.
It's a real pity that I feel so strongly at odds with consensus. That hasn't happened for me with Wikipedia before. I do feel that there is a place for spoiler warning tags on most articles about fictional subjects, and I don't accept that "a plot summary inherently contains spoilers so don't read it if you don't want the spoilers".
I don't see any actual consensus here. The biggest claim of consensus is "if you don't revert my thousands of changes, that shows there's consensus for them". The new guideline was pretty much forced through, with objections allowed on its exact details but none on "we don't need this".
On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:51:17 +1000, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the recent spoiler war?
There never was and probably never will be a policy, only a guideline.
As it stands, there seems to be broad support for the idea that spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject.
That's my reading, anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On 31/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
As it stands, there seems to be broad support for the idea that spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject.
The "recent releases" question is a tricky one - what counts as a "recent release"? - but, for example, Tony Sidaway removed spoiler tags from all episodes of [[Doctor Who]] before 2005. No complaint.
A lot of the problem with spoiler-tagged plot summaries is that they're badly-written plot summaries. A simple blow-by-blow recitation of events will do the job, but it is often not as clear as a more thoughtful synopsis which mentions important allusions to past and future episodes, real world happenings and so forth.
So the real cure for spoiler tags is better writing.
Lots, lots more at [[Wikipedia talk:Spoiler]].
- d.
On 5/31/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The "recent releases" question is a tricky one - what counts as a "recent release"? - but, for example, Tony Sidaway removed spoiler tags from all episodes of [[Doctor Who]] before 2005. No complaint.
Actually since then some of the articles on more recent Doctor Who episodes have had their spoiler tags removed by someone using AWB (you, for instance!) and there hasn't been any complaint. I'm not going to put them back if nobody else does.
A lot of the problem with spoiler-tagged plot summaries is that they're badly-written plot summaries. A simple blow-by-blow recitation of events will do the job, but it is often not as clear as a more thoughtful synopsis which mentions important allusions to past and future episodes, real world happenings and so forth.
So the real cure for spoiler tags is better writing.
Yes, I've tried this, with mixed success. I think my rewrite of the plot of the first ever Doctor Who story is still up, and I successfully restored Phil Sandifer's rewrite of the plot of the second story (The Daleks), which had been reverted a while back. Writing decent plot summaries for more recent episodes is more problematic. I've successfully introduced a much shorter, more readable form of writing, which seems to be popular, but writing about Martha's character development has had a less enthusiastic reception. Of course much of this is due to the fact that anything I write on the subject will be tinged with original research because there are no reliable sources on this yet.
On 01/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I've tried this, with mixed success. I think my rewrite of the plot of the first ever Doctor Who story is still up, and I successfully restored Phil Sandifer's rewrite of the plot of the second story (The Daleks), which had been reverted a while back. Writing decent plot summaries for more recent episodes is more problematic. I've successfully introduced a much shorter, more readable form of writing, which seems to be popular, but writing about Martha's character development has had a less enthusiastic reception. Of course much of this is due to the fact that anything I write on the subject will be tinged with original research because there are no reliable sources on this yet.
As Jimbo pointed out, reliable sources are situational. In this case, fan critical opinion may be a useful guide as to what opinions to give a neutral rundown of. Of course, dredging for these gets toward work ...
- d.
Guy Chapman wrote:
As it stands, there seems to be broad support for the idea that spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject.
Did anyone ever experiment with the idea of dismissable spoiler warning tags?
On 5/31/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Did anyone ever experiment with the idea of dismissable spoiler warning tags?
Yes, but the idea was dismissed ...
(couldn't resist)
-Matt
On 5/31/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Guy Chapman wrote:
As it stands, there seems to be broad support for the idea that spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject.
Did anyone ever experiment with the idea of dismissable spoiler warning tags?
Yes, spoiler warning tags have been hideable by CSS for years.
Kusma