On 5/16/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software. Wikipedia says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer.
Mgm
It's also common sense that an encyclopedia article on [[Fahrenheit 451]] is going to contain, you know, details on the plot of Fahrenheit 451.
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
You're not alone, but you're in a distinct minority. There was a poll on this at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4]], and the ratio was running about 7:1 Keep before AzaToth speedied it under WP:SNOW.
On 5/16/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
You're not alone, but you're in a distinct minority. There was a poll on this at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4]], and the ratio was running about 7:1 Keep before AzaToth speedied it under WP:SNOW.
I wonder if the ratio would have been significantly different if the reason for nomination hadn't been so terrible (the template *isn't* used for censorship, of course). Looking through the "votes" there doesn't seem to be very much intelligent discussion on either side of the issue.
I still hate that damn template. At the very least I think most would agree that it is overused.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
I still hate that damn template. At the very least I think most would agree that it is overused.
I wouldn't, because I honestly don't know. I read plenty of articles on movies, and my eye sorta skips over the spoiler template such that I barely even notice it. And yet, other people, it leaps up off the page and seriously annoys them. Fascinating. (I'm not arguing with your reaction, because it is what it is, but it's interesting how different they can be.)
On 5/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I still hate that damn template. At the very least I think most would agree that it is overused.
You can't hate it until you've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone_poops
Now you can hate it.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I still hate that damn template. At the very least I think most would agree that it is overused.
You can't hate it until you've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone_poops
Now you can hate it.
Ouch. The article linked from "see also" is just as bad, even though there's no spoiler warning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_training
It reads like a narrative and smells like a copyvio...
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
It's also common sense that an encyclopedia article on [[Fahrenheit 451]] is going to contain, you know, details on the plot of Fahrenheit 451.
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
Does it really hurt? Believe it or not, there are some folk around who don't know if Hamlet becomes King of Denmark or if Romeo gets the girl, and maybe they want to know a bit about the historical and publishing background before they read a novel or see a play. Maybe they get to the article through Google and they are really looking for information on Ray Bradbury or Julie Christie ***sigh*** ond don't care to have plot details revealed.
Our readers don't always come to our articles by typing in the title.
--Peter in Canberra
On 5/16/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
It's also common sense that an encyclopedia article on [[Fahrenheit 451]] is going to contain, you know, details on the plot of Fahrenheit 451.
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
Does it really hurt?
It's annoying, about on the level of those ads some websites place in the middle of their news articles. I wish there was at least a way to turn them off, but then again I usually don't log in so that wouldn't help me all that much.
Believe it or not, there are some folk around who don't know if Hamlet becomes King of Denmark or if Romeo gets the girl, and maybe they want to know a bit about the historical and publishing background before they read a novel or see a play. Maybe they get to the article through Google and they are really looking for information on Ray Bradbury or Julie Christie ***sigh*** ond don't care to have plot details revealed.
Our readers don't always come to our articles by typing in the title.
Well, using [[Hamlet]] as an example, if they read through the article and stop when it gets to the sections that have the titles "Main characters" or "Plot Summary", then they'd accomplish that perfectly well *without* a warning. I mean, the section is called "Plot Summary". Isn't that warning enough?
Seriously, look at that article. It reads (in pseudo-wikitext):
==Plot summary== Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
Go figure, plot details follow a headline which says "Plot summary".
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/16/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Does it really hurt?
It's annoying, about on the level of those ads some websites place in the middle of their news articles. I wish there was at least a way to turn them off, but then again I usually don't log in so that wouldn't help me all that much.
Believe it or not, there are some folk around who don't know if Hamlet becomes King of Denmark or if Romeo gets the
girl, and
maybe they want to know a bit about the historical and publishing background before they read a novel or see a play. Maybe
they get to
the article through Google and they are really looking for
information
on Ray Bradbury or Julie Christie ***sigh*** ond don't care to have plot details revealed.
Our readers don't always come to our articles by typing in
the title.
Well, using [[Hamlet]] as an example, if they read through the article and stop when it gets to the sections that have the titles "Main characters" or "Plot Summary", then they'd accomplish that perfectly well *without* a warning. I mean, the section is called "Plot Summary". Isn't that warning enough?
Seriously, look at that article. It reads (in pseudo-wikitext):
==Plot summary== Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
Go figure, plot details follow a headline which says "Plot summary".
<grin>
Point taken. Personally I see it as a reinforcement. Like having a red STOP sign as well as a broad white stripe across the road surface.
Then again, this isn't an issue that will have me fighting and debating and voting on talk pages (assuming I was able to do so, ahem).
Maybe the real issue is the visibility of the template, and if we toned down the warning to make it less intrusive we could still satisfy everybody. </grin>
--Peter in Canberra
On 5/29/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I wish there was at least a way to turn them off,
There is.
div#spoiler { display:none; }
but then again I usually don't log in
That would be a problem.
I just discovered that it's possible to use the "test styles" bookmarklet (http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/webdevel.html) without logging in, though. Hmm, now the trick is how to get that to pop up automatically whenever I go to Wikipedia. Not just for the spoilers, of course:
div#spoiler { display:none; } table#toc { display:none; } div#siteNotice { display:none; }
are three particularly annoying ones that I can think of off the top of my head.
Anthony
On May 29, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Hmm, now the trick is how to get that to pop up automatically whenever I go to Wikipedia.
Use Greecemonkey (google it); it's a extension to Firefox that allows arbitrary javascript to be automatically run on arbitrary pages. Very nice thing.
Jesse Weinstein
Jesse W wrote:
On May 29, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Hmm, now the trick is how to get that to pop up automatically whenever I go to Wikipedia.
Use Greecemonkey (google it); it's a extension to Firefox that allows arbitrary javascript to be automatically run on arbitrary pages. Very nice thing.
You can find it at http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
On 5/30/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On May 29, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Hmm, now the trick is how to get that to pop up automatically whenever I go to Wikipedia.
Use Greecemonkey (google it); it's a extension to Firefox that allows arbitrary javascript to be automatically run on arbitrary pages. Very nice thing.
I intentionally didn't install this because of security issues, but from what I've read these seem to have been addressed. Still a rather scary extension from its description, but as I read a little more about what it does maybe I'll be comfortable enough to install it.
Thanks for the info.
Anthony
On 5/16/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Believe it or not, there are some folk around who don't know if Hamlet becomes King of Denmark or if Romeo gets the girl, and maybe they want to know a bit about the historical and publishing background before they read a novel or see a play.
I just looked at [[Romeo and Juliet]], and it's even worse. The spoiler warning comes after only two lines of text, and the first section (where the warning is) is called "Plot", and so it obvious contains details of the plot.
Then again, the section entitled "Farce" also contains a spoiler, and doesn't have a warning (I guess once you have one everything below that is fair game?).
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 9:32 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Template:spoiler
On 5/16/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Believe it or not, there are some folk around who don't know if Hamlet becomes King of Denmark or if Romeo gets the
girl, and
maybe they want to know a bit about the historical and publishing background before they read a novel or see a play.
I just looked at [[Romeo and Juliet]], and it's even worse. The spoiler warning comes after only two lines of text, and the first section (where the warning is) is called "Plot", and so it obvious contains details of the plot.
Then again, the section entitled "Farce" also contains a spoiler, and doesn't have a warning (I guess once you have one everything below that is fair game?).
That would be my reading of it. I suppose we could have the plot details right at the end of the article...
But on looking at the template itself, it's not that bad. Can't you just grit your teeth?
There's lots about WP that annoys me, but I find my life is less stressful if I just ignore the small stuff and enjoy the good bits.
Like having one of my photographs selected to illustrate a day of the year. [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 23]] - I stood out in the cold for about ten minutes before I got the curl of the flag just right, and I'm proud of that small detail, even if my ungloved hands still give me twinges of pain each year on that day...
-- Peter in Canberra
-- Peter in Canberra
On 5/16/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
But on looking at the template itself, it's not that bad. Can't you just grit your teeth?
I think part of the annoyance is that the template is so often put in a ridiculous place (such as the two examples I gave where it was in a section which was already obviously about plot). Can I just grit my teeth? Sure. It's what I do when I see something stupid on all those other sites that I *can't* edit.
There's lots about WP that annoys me, but I find my life is less stressful if I just ignore the small stuff and enjoy the good bits.
One of the things I like about WP is that if something annoys me I can usually fix it. And I've removed that template from articles lots of times.
But yeah, I should get less stressed about things. And when people spell the word "its" with an apostrophe, I shouldn't cringe. And I should stop worrying about whether the term "anal-retentive" should be spelled with or without a hyphen. I doubt I'm going to succeed though.
Like having one of my photographs selected to illustrate a day of the year. [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 23]] - I stood out in the cold for about ten minutes before I got the curl of the flag just right, and I'm proud of that small detail, even if my ungloved hands still give me twinges of pain each year on that day...
I was quite pleased when I ran across one of my photos on a website outside of Wikipedia. Granted, it was a Wikicities site, but still :).
And hey, that photo is awesome (though I couldn't help but wonder whether the statue is a derivative of the original photo and therefore your photo is copyright-tainted - see, this is what I've gotta stop).
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/16/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
But on looking at the template itself, it's not that bad. Can't you just grit your teeth?
I think part of the annoyance is that the template is so often put in a ridiculous place (such as the two examples I gave where it was in a section which was already obviously about plot). Can I just grit my teeth? Sure. It's what I do when I see something stupid on all those other sites that I *can't* edit.
Perhaps the issue is placement. I guess a lot of editors just copy and paste when starting a new article, and the template is automatically included, even if it's not appropriate in that position, or it gets moved around a bit. This is where intelligent editing comes in.
So long as we don't have a bunch of spoiler-template nazis whose aim is to preserve these templates and maybe spread them around even more and it all turns into a wikiwar, I really can't see the harm in removing them when the section title says "Plot summary".
...And I should stop worrying about whether the term "anal-retentive" should be spelled with or without a hyphen.
LOL!
Like having one of my photographs selected to illustrate a
day of the
year. [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 23]] - I
stood out
in the cold for about ten minutes before I got the curl of the flag just right, and I'm proud of that small detail, even if my ungloved hands still give me twinges of pain each year on that day...
I was quite pleased when I ran across one of my photos on a website outside of Wikipedia. Granted, it was a Wikicities site, but still :).
And hey, that photo is awesome (though I couldn't help but wonder whether the statue is a derivative of the original photo and therefore your photo is copyright-tainted - see, this is what I've gotta stop).
Thanks for the kind words. The original photograph is just awesome. Someone even wrote a book about it: Flags of our Fathers. I wanted to get the flag fluttering out dramatically like in the original, so yeah, I was being a bit derivative with my shot of the monument.
On 5/16/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I just looked at [[Romeo and Juliet]], and it's even worse. The spoiler warning comes after only two lines of text, and the first section (where the warning is) is called "Plot", and so it obvious contains details of the plot.
That's just poor use of the template. Whenever I see something like that, I try to move as much non-spoiler text out of the spoiler section as I can.
On 5/17/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
That's just poor use of the template. Whenever I see something like that, I try to move as much non-spoiler text out of the spoiler section as I can.
I agree. Common sense would suggest that something like the first 70% of a book can be discussed without fear of "spoiling" it. Only the big denouements should be placed between those spoiler tags.
Currently they're pretty much used to demarcate a section which discusses the plot, which is a misuse.
Steve
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It's also common sense that an encyclopedia article on [[Fahrenheit 451]] is going to contain, you know, details on the plot of Fahrenheit 451.
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
I would support delting that template. But failing that, you can add
.spoiler { display: none; }
to your monobook.css to hide them.
Ruud
Ruud Koot wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It's also common sense that an encyclopedia article on [[Fahrenheit 451]] is going to contain, you know, details on the plot of Fahrenheit 451.
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
I would support delting that template. But failing that, you can add
.spoiler { display: none; }
to your monobook.css to hide them.
But that would pose severe problems for people writing about more recent works that may not have received global distribution at the time the article is being written. It is most commonly used in popular culture articles (many anime/manga series, newer episodes of Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica, recent fantasy and SF films) but would also be useful for more "serious" works such as films like Brokeback Mountain, Capote and Memoirs of a Geisha.
The spoiler tag is also helpful when ORGANIZING articles on such topics.
Anthony DiPierro schrieb:
It's also common sense that an encyclopedia article on [[Fahrenheit 451]] is going to contain, you know, details on the plot of Fahrenheit 451.
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I hate that template.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Spoilerhinweis 17 supporters, 81 people voting contra and 29 against even posing the question for an encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel was a very useful example.
greetings, elian
PS: some random musings...
==Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanhoe - spoiler warning present, though no spoiler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus - *wow* Mozart dies, who would have guessed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(novel) - I was reading the book looking forward to the end and now you've spoiled it *booohooo*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake - another work which people only read for its really surprising plot and end
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will - "The film fades to black as the entire crowd sings the Horst Wessel Lied." - who would have thought?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_the_King - I mean, there's one person who was really very sad when someone told her the outcome of the tragedy. But she's a fictional movie character. (big surprise: the article about the movie _lacks_ a spoiler warning!)
On 5/17/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Anthony DiPierro schrieb:
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Spoilerhinweis 17 supporters, 81 people voting contra and 29 against even posing the question for an encyclopedia.
Even the Google-translated version of that vote makes about as much sense to me as the English vote (which is, not at all). "Property me the spoiler references in the English Wikipedia looked at and feels you as additional information. So white I at the beginning whether in the text a possible tensionful action is uncovered or not."
Heh, sorry, I can't even figure out what the people are voting for and against, though I do find it disappointing that De Wikipedians vote in the first place (and apparently without even apologizing about it like the En Wikipedians do).
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/17/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Anthony DiPierro schrieb:
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Spoilerhinweis 17 supporters, 81 people voting contra and 29 against even posing the question for an encyclopedia.
Even the Google-translated version of that vote makes about as much sense to me as the English vote (which is, not at all). "Property me the spoiler references in the English Wikipedia looked at and feels you as additional information. So white I at the beginning whether in the text a possible tensionful action is uncovered or not."
Heh, sorry, I can't even figure out what the people are voting for and against, though I do find it disappointing that De Wikipedians vote in the first place (and apparently without even apologizing about it like the En Wikipedians do).
de: also has a cabal. On en: TINC.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/17/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Anthony DiPierro schrieb:
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Spoilerhinweis 17 supporters, 81 people voting contra and 29 against even posing the question for an encyclopedia.
Even the Google-translated version of that vote makes about as much sense to me as the English vote (which is, not at all). "Property me the spoiler references in the English Wikipedia looked at and feels you as additional information. So white I at the beginning whether in the text a possible tensionful action is uncovered or not."
Heh, sorry, I can't even figure out what the people are voting for and against, though I do find it disappointing that De Wikipedians vote in the first place (and apparently without even apologizing about it like the En Wikipedians do).
If you are referring to "Habe mir die Spoilerhinweise in der englischen Wikipedia angeschaut und empfinde Sie als Zusatzinformation. So weiß ich am Anfang ob im Text eine eventuelle spannungsvolle Handlung aufgedeckt wird oder nicht. -- Carl Steinbeißer 17:01, 8. Mai 2006 (CEST)" it loosely translates as:
"[I] have looked at the spoiler signs in the English Wikipedia and I consider them an additional information. Thanks to them I know from the beginning that this text might reveal some [spannungsvoll is not even a word, I think he is referring to "spannend" = exciting] plot or not."
Mathias
I can confirm that even the original part does not make sense in its original language.