I'm sure the closing admin will know policy well enough and will read this comment, and the one above (that you posted earlier, and was also at the bottom of the page, complete with requests to post above it). There is no need for the extra emphasis complete with wiki commented <! -- warnings --> to post above it. What is stated here is no more or less important then what anyone else here has stated. (Please note I have not yet made a statement on this MFD) —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- MFD is wrong venue for policy discussions. This is a compromise as it stands. Two options : Leave MFD open, albeit with caveat, or speedy close MFD as inappropriate venue. One is giving folks a break as per WP:IAR, one is following policy. Your call. :-) -- Kim Bruning 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that does seem to be a good idea to me. Don't you think? However, the next time you remove the point of policy, I shall be forced to close, as current policy does not allow more tolerance. (Else I'd have to violate 3RR just to be polite and accommodate your whims) Would you prefer to talk with me here and reach a compromise? --
Kim Bruning 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I never did remove your statement :), All I've done is put it in the normal format of the rest of the debate, what you say is not more important then what anyone else says right? ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the content of the comment was important, as the only alternative was to close the discussion. Which I have now done (This is an ironic situation where I ran out of reverts to be polite with ^^;; ). -- Kim Bruning 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I never did remove your statement :), All I've done is put it in the normal format of the rest of the debate, what you say is not more important then what anyone else says right? ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that does seem to be a good idea to me. Don't you think? However, the next time you remove the point of policy, I shall be forced to close, as current policy does not allow more tolerance. (Else I'd have to violate 3RR just to be polite and accommodate your whims) Would you prefer to talk with me here and reach a compromise? --
Kim Bruning 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
MFD is completely inappropriate for this kind of discussion. Less than a year ago we went though a "no spoiler warning" discussion at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind, speedy closed as I typed my message. --
Ned Scott 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or not.. look, people, regardless if there are going to be warnings or not, there should still be a guideline to tell people what's up. In the very least it will tell people not to use such warnings, or "hide spoiler" methods. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let's do the compromise where we leave a point of policy at the bottom of the page, but let people have their say anyway. This discussion would then basically be about marking the page "historical", which is fine by me. You can then go about fixing the process to make it acceptable to the community again. Will that do? --
Kim Bruning 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds good. Thank you for being reasonable. Axem Titanium 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let's do the compromise where we leave a point of policy at the bottom of the page, but let people have their say anyway. This discussion would then basically be about marking the page "historical", which is fine by me. You can then go about fixing the process to make it acceptable to the community again. Will that do? --
Kim Bruning 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion should be about us using spoiler warnings or not. This discussion should be able to accurately gauge community consensus. The outcome will dictate what the active guideline will then say. --
Ned Scott 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's all I want. The guideline can stay, just what it says is up for debate. How about a message box at the top to inform debaters about the nature of the debate? Axem Titanium 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion should be about us using spoiler warnings or not. This discussion should be able to accurately gauge community consensus. The outcome will dictate what the active guideline will then say. --
Ned Scott 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If we count all deletes as historifys, that merely mitigates damage.
If you think you have ways to actually improve the situation, that would be cool. :-)
-- Kim Bruning 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Deckiller said it best
here. MFD may not be the best place to discuss it but at least it's very visible and generates a lot of discussion (45kb in only a few hours). I don't think vote counting is even necessary. We can just wait until it dies down and then cull consensus from the pages of discussion.
Axem Titanium 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but you yell COI at me, but not at Deckiller (because he holds the same view you do)? 45kb is nothing, check the talk archives of this very page. --
Ned Scott 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but Deckiller isn't trying to suppress new debate. Indeed, he does have a COI but he's not here unilaterally doing anything. I have a COI too: I don't like spoiler warnings (for reasons founded in my own logic and repeated ad nauseam), but I still get a say in it just like you and Deck do.
Axem Titanium 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- In no way am I trying to suppress debate. I am respectful to those who disagree with me, and I've even stuck up for them when they were not around, because I knew there logic and respected it. Your assumptions of me are completely unfair and wrong. I wanted to find a way to include ALL the comments from the MFD to the current discussion, while promoting a better format for discussion, but I guess you guys didn't even consider that. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but Deckiller isn't trying to suppress new debate. Indeed, he does have a COI but he's not here unilaterally doing anything. I have a COI too: I don't like spoiler warnings (for reasons founded in my own logic and repeated ad nauseam), but I still get a say in it just like you and Deck do.
Axem Titanium 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but you yell COI at me, but not at Deckiller (because he holds the same view you do)? 45kb is nothing, check the talk archives of this very page. --
Ned Scott 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, the policy is currently full protected. Lots of edit warring :-( -- Iamunknown 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in commenting, my school had a fire alarm in the pouring rain. I'm soaking wet, but besides the point, This conversation would be best at a RFC on a policy or a guideline... or on a manual of style element. There are two types... but this one fits both of them!
- Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects (watch) (add entry)
- Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals (watch) (add entry)
are the two options. Kim I'd like to appologize for not figuring out your edit, I hit your 3rd edit in an edit conflict whilist modifiying my own comment, and I presummed someone reverted me wholesale, and just copy pasted. (I did not realize you wanted to talk on the talk page, in any case I'm sorry, and I know I fucked up. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It happens. I could have used a different order for my edits, or been a tad slower myself. -- Kim Bruning 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
While I feel it's still too early to "call the fight", if the conclusion is to no longer use spoiler warnings, would This version be acceptable for the new spoiler guideline? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The second point on what not to do ends with "...instead of properly applying spoiler templates," which it probably shouldn't. -- Masamage ♫ 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's perhaps a decent start - an explicit allowing of spoilers in article leads if the spoiler is a major aspect of the topic is, to my mind, essential, but it's certainly not mind-wrenchingly awful.
Phil Sandifer 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- With a little editting, that version looks good. Don't throw in the towel, just yet, though. A good debate is always fun. Axem Titanium 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're not supposed to discuss policies and guidelines at MFD. One of the reasons MFD got split off from WP:AFD is so that we could easily catch situations where that happened.
Now since closing an MFD always causes a lot of wikidrama, I decided to try to just put a friendly footer on the page, that points out that all deletes go to historify, and that we're actually sort of Ignoring that "inconvenient" rule by keeping the discussion here.
Of course, if the footer gets removed all the time, well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, and we'll just have to close the MFD anyway.
(possibly I'm being too soft, and should just crack down and enforce policy)
-- Kim Bruning 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see what happens if we put it in a box. :-) --
Kim Bruning 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC) or on a fox, or under rocks
- xFD is sometimes the best way to create a policy discussion. Sure, it's against The Rules, but it works, so what's the problem?
Kusma (
talk) 09:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Of course it doesn't work for policy and guidelines. By no measure. We're just keeping this MFD open for once because I wanted to see if that's easier than closing it. People can all have their fun and wikidrama waste their time, and then we'll end up doing the actual consensus formation elsewhere (just like many other times when people tried MfDing active guidelines). :-/ -- Kim Bruning 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- xFD is sometimes the best way to create a policy discussion. Sure, it's against The Rules, but it works, so what's the problem?
Kusma (
talk) 09:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(re MFD)
- Well, I disagree. Sometimes a special interest group goes off and develops a policy - and those working on Jane Austen and Shakesphere have better things to do - until the clique starts enforcing its little decisions on hundreds of articles. MfD isn't ideal - but it is the one mechanism the community has to shout "STOP IT NOW!". Not everyone wants to gets involved in interminable policy page discussions.--
Docg 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines say that MFD is not for guideline discussions. The reason we saw for that is because MFD simply does not work for that form of discussion. Sure a lot of people suddenly come by, but they achieve practically nothing. You generally do not want a policy page deleted. (In our descriptive system, the policy/guideline might well remain active, even if there's no page. Mmmm, secret policy! . Or even if it goes away, no one knows what the bad idea was anymore, so they reinvent the square wheel.)
- What you actually want is to mark the page historical. So ok, we get consensus to add a tag to a wikipage. At that point in time, the rules say anyone can revert. So the net gain is very close to 0. --
Kim Bruning 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, MfD has often been used as a wider community cluestick to say "Hell, No" to ideas that a minority have developed on a policy page. I'm fine with marking as historical rather than deleting. But to suggest that if a mass of the community say "hell no" that a minority can go off and reverse that on a policy page somewhere is ridiculous. And you presenting it as a 'fact' on the page is unacceptable. No MfD isn't ideal here - but sometimes it is the best way, and we have lots of precedents. WP:PAIN WP:ESP etc..--
Docg 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- that a minority can go off and reverse that on a policy page somewhere is ridiculous. Well, it's only ridiculous if you thought that MfD actually influenced guidelines. It's not designed for that, so it does very poorly. This is not my fault, this is not your fault, and it's not the fault of the designers . It's just that people are making use of MfD for something it's not designed for. Cardboard boxes don't hold water too well, cars have a dismal record at flying, and MfD doesn't handle guidelines. If all the people who were on MfD right now all went to the actual guideline page instead, and all said and did their "Hello no's" there, the guideline would be discontinued by morning. -- Kim Bruning 11:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Esperanza was closed by me, and I can tell you I had a lot of work after. There's still a similar process to PAIN still running)
- Actually, MfD has often been used as a wider community cluestick to say "Hell, No" to ideas that a minority have developed on a policy page. I'm fine with marking as historical rather than deleting. But to suggest that if a mass of the community say "hell no" that a minority can go off and reverse that on a policy page somewhere is ridiculous. And you presenting it as a 'fact' on the page is unacceptable. No MfD isn't ideal here - but sometimes it is the best way, and we have lots of precedents. WP:PAIN WP:ESP etc..--
Docg 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also note that an MFD has far higher visibility than a talk page discussion. It does not matter how consensus on this issue is achieved, and this seems to be just as good as a place for discussion as any other.
Kusma (
talk) 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is untrue (see also rest of section above). MFD is not so much a discussion as a drive-by-vote kind of page. It's not set up for discussing policy, so it does quite dismally. At the end of the day, the outcome of an MfD can simply be reverted in these instances. Note that high visibility pages are never a good thing, as you can quickly exceed Dunbar's number on such pages. -- Kim Bruning 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this here for discussion - it is obviously disputed and if you are unwilling to have it attributed as your view - then we need to discuss it before presenting it.-- Docg 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 | Point of policy
Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Spoiler warning is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as {{ historical}}, or {{ rejected}}. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete. I've moved this to talk, it is quite obviously disputed in parts - and if you are unwilling to have it attributed as your view, then we need further discussion: Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline is likely to overturn any decision made on MFD. |
-- Docg 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have better things to do with my time. This experiment of mine failed. I am closing this MfD as inappropriate venue as I should have done per policy in the first place -- Kim Bruning 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok closed, and linked to appropriate venues. -- Kim Bruning 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Relevant policy from WP:MFD: Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
Note that I have been basically IARing all day, and now I've merely stopped doing so, since it is too difficult to coordinate or cooperate with people at this location at this moment in time :-/ -- Kim Bruning 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reopened. This is the second time somebody tried to close this early; let the discussion run, everything else just causes more confusion.
Kusma (
talk) 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are in violation of policy. Please re-close the page. --
Kim Bruning 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter where the discussion has been centralized if all factors involved know how to treat the results. —
Deckill
er 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It matters somewhat if the venue/discussion style is stilted or specialised towards some other task. Else I'd have no issue with it. (the fact that people are putting bolded delete means that this is probably not the right venue, they're mistaking it for a deletion discussion ;-) ). Whatever the case, I've been unwisely keeping this page open contrary to policy. People keep reverting particular notes I left which were part of the compromise to keep it open I agreed to earlier today. I'm not going to keep it open longer myself. Keeping it open is a clear violation of MFD policy, and I don't think you have a good IAR rationale in this case. (especially since I've exhausted mine) -- Kim Bruning 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter where the discussion has been centralized if all factors involved know how to treat the results. —
Deckill
er 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are in violation of policy. Please re-close the page. --
Kim Bruning 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reopened. This is the second time somebody tried to close this early; let the discussion run, everything else just causes more confusion.
Kusma (
talk) 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Can one non- pointedly nominate WP:MfD at WP:MfD? Carcharoth 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would probably be inappropriate. But if MFD had become a sick process one would simply delete it or mark it historical. If concensus was that MFD was sick then that would be that. --
Tony Sidaway 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, so miscelleny includes User namespace pages, and Wikipedia namespace pages that are not policy or guidelines. So essays comes here, and WikiProjects and noticeboards (PAIN) and other organisations (Esperanza), but what about processes (like the various XfDs and PROD and FAC and DRV) and other organisations (eg. ArbCom or Community Portal)? Of course, most of these are currently functioning well, but I am just saying that MfD, despite seeing some massive debates over certain classes of miscellany, might not be the best place for some of those classes. Is there the stomach for another "type" of XfD process? Or should it be made clearer which discussions should be kept away from deletion venues and directed to requests for comments, with the caveat that MfD may be an acceptable way to advertise such an "inactivation" discussion? Carcharoth 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. We can let this run - but the result is now obvious. If this was still an MfD, there may not be the 2/3 to delete. However, what is obvious is there is no consensus in favour of continuing with this policy. There isn't even a majority in favour. Thus the policy should be marked as rejected. And we can go forward from there:
Do I have support thus far? Or does anyone think the outcome maybe different?
Personally, I'm against these things altogether. I'd like to ban them. But I suspect that doesn't have consensus support, so I'd suggest we discuss round a new policy that could be framed in general terms like this:
- There is no consensus on spoiler warnings either for or against. Many people believe clearly marking the 'plot' section is sufficient notice of the content being disclosed - it should generally be up to those working on a particular article whether to use {spoiler} in addition.
- Sensitivity should be shown in not unnecessarily disclosing twists
- no one should enforce {spoiler} as if they had general support - it doesn't..
- {spoiler} should not be used where they interfere with NPOV. NPOV and accuracy take priority.
- However, twists should not be unnecessarily disclosed in the lead
- There is a consensus that spoiler warnings should never be used on ancient texts, literary classics, older films, or works whose plot is 'common knowledge'. There is more support for recent works.
How might that sound as a way forward? I realise everyone won't like it - but I'm trying to read consensus here - and I think we may have one.-- Docg 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say there appears to be clear consensus that this guideline is bad for Wikipedia. We should change the guideline accordingly to reflect actual consensus. Spoiler warnings may be used where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Perhaps a spoiler before "Snape kills Dumbledore", in the first month of the book's release, would have been justifiable, perhaps not. It would be a matter of discretion. But none of these silly warnings just because the article happens to discuss the plot. That's asinine and has the aforementioned problems.
- But I think that closing this would be premature, so let it run. -- Tony Sidaway 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's put it in another way. If there is no consensus as to whether the policy should be kept. Then should it be there at all? Of course, it's all about perspective. But so far, I believe concensus should be used to agree on what should be done more than what not should be done.-- Kylohk 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that the discussion is moving towards something useful. — The Storm Surfer 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Making a massive encyclopedia-wide change is not to be done lightly, and it is NOT to be done after one or two day's discussion, with no kind of announcement and very little informing, on the basis of the people who happened to be here. That isn't consensus, that's steamrolling. -- Kizor 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just to add my 2 cents worth as a low level editor and to point out that I only learnt about this discussion about 50 minutes ago so I agree with
Kizor that discussion should be kept open .
Garda40 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't think anything is going to change - you have people who are for deleting the spoilers cause it's unencyclopedic and then you have people who want to keep it as a courtesy to the readers - and so far none have been able to effectively compromise. daniel folsom 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is exceedingly obvious that the guideline as-it-now-stands does not have anything near any kind of consensus or even supermajority support.
- I don't think a rough consensus has yet emerged as to what should be our guidelines on spoiler warnings instead of the clearly without consensus current version. I'm inclined to think the points outlined by Doc above come closer. Perhaps a little more time will help if there is anyone left still discussing. If all that's left is sniping from entrenched positions, then it might be time to close.
- Kizor, the problem is that guidelines like this are made lightly after little discussion and no kind of announcement, on the basis of those who happened to be there. Then people come along, see what looks like a policy page that claims it has deep, established consensus, and go ahead and implement it across the project - yes, not in a couple of days, but without widespread agreement.
- And then, at some point, an established editor who disagrees stumbles across people blindly following the guideline and says, "Wait a minute! Who decided that this should be Wikipedia-wide automatic policy? I remember that it wasn't, before!" and causes a fuss, and we see the results.
- We maybe should not be quick in establishing a new spoilers guideline. I see no reason to not be quick, however, in changing the spoilers guideline to show that the one formerly in place has been shown to not have consensus support, and that this is an area currently in flux. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good call. I've tagged this as rejected for now, with a note that active discussion is going on about fixing it. Phil Sandifer 22:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Both the MfD and the TfD were/are apparently inappropriate venues for discussion, but why is the pro-deletion MfD included directly on the page, when the pro-keep TfD is hidden away on a sub-page? This unfairly slants the discussion in favour of the anti-spoiler camp.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please
WP:AGF, there is no reason to believe that this was intentional. The reason for this was probably because this RFC page was moved directly from the MfD page so a separate page for the MfD wasn't created since it would be extra work. I was under the impression that the TfD was closed prematurely anyway.
Axem Titanium 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could we not move the MfD onto another page to avoid it influencing the debate? Some people have been citing it as part of the 'consensus'--
Nydas
(Talk) 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
- I'm not sure why we wouldn't want an MfD that overwhelmingly showed that the guideline lacks support to influence the debate.
Phil Sandifer 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because the TfD which showed a clear majority in favour of keeping isn't being given the same airing? Don't you think that's a little unfair?--
Nydas
(Talk) 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The TfD shows that there is some consensus to have some form of spoiler warning. The MfD shows that there is no consensus for the current rules for doing so. Since nobody seems to be seriously proposing a complete ban on spoiler warnings, I'd say the TfD position is pretty well-represented. Phil Sandifer 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because the TfD which showed a clear majority in favour of keeping isn't being given the same airing? Don't you think that's a little unfair?--
Nydas
(Talk) 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why we wouldn't want an MfD that overwhelmingly showed that the guideline lacks support to influence the debate.
Phil Sandifer 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the "keep" votes for the TfD barely managed 60%, a far cry from the super-majority needed to build consensus. At any rate, the MfD has been archived similarly. Axem Titanium 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could we not move the MfD onto another page to avoid it influencing the debate? Some people have been citing it as part of the 'consensus'--
Nydas
(Talk) 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
"The problem is" - in this context Wikipedia is being used by two different groups of people: newbies (who might appreciate the plot spoiler) and those familiar with the production, or who wish to have a quick overview of the storyline. The question is - are the former more annoyed by the spoiler's presence than the latter by its absence? Jackiespeel 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I understanding this correctly? Are some people proposing no censoring of information at all? Are people really promoting this hairbrained scheme? If this is correct and the lead is the lead is a summary of the article then The Usual Suspects should say that Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze in the lead. Hell, it should be pretty prominent too probably in the second or third sentence. Marcus Taylor 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the
Content disclaimer and
WP:NOT which clearly says "Wikipedia is not censored". These are long-standing rules of Wikipedia, this is nothing new. So yes, people are proposing no censoring of information at all, and some people feel that spoiler warnings are a form of censoring. But no, this isn't some "hairbrained scheme". --—
Δαίδαλος
Σ 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for ignoring my question.
- So you're answer is yes the second or third sentence of that article should say that Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? It flows naturally from your logic as the lead is a summary of the article. Please answer the question. Marcus Taylor 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the huge plot twist of this film in particular should be in the lead. This is the difference between writing for a fan site and writing for an encyclopedia. -- Tony Sidaway 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It really, really shouldn't be. This is a poor example because
The Usual Suspects isn't
The Crying Game. The plot twist doesn't alter the majority of the plot. --
Bishop2 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- So you advocate censorship? Because that's the salient point of the whole movie and if the article were about a true event the identity would definitely be in the lead. Marcus Taylor 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, it's positively barbaric that the revelation wasn't made until seven paragraphs into Keyser Soze. Phil Sandifer 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It really, really shouldn't be. This is a poor example because
The Usual Suspects isn't
The Crying Game. The plot twist doesn't alter the majority of the plot. --
Bishop2 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would agree that that's utterly ludicrous. -- Bishop2 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Marcus Taylor. As I understood your post, the question you posed was "Are some people proposing no censoring of information at all?" which I answered quite clearly. I assumed that your example of The Usual Suspects was exactly that: an example, escpecially in light of the fact that it was phrased as an "If-Then" statement and not as a question. --— Δαίδαλος Σ 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I request that the question as posed be answered on its own merits, and avoid the sidetrack with an incorrect premise. But this is an opportunity to address the sidetrack directly.
- • "some people feel that" That's just a feeling not supported by definitions. Spoiler warnings (spoiler tags) are not a form of censoring, period. Censoring is the removal of information, or the prior restraint against adding it. Spoiler tags add forward-looking information similar to a table of contents.
- • I don't think even Phil Sandifer is claiming that NPOV policy requires lead section spoiling. I think he's saying sometimes it does, sometimes not.
- • The spoiling issue of how to correctly write an article is different and separate from the spoiler tagging issue. It is possible to write an article to Sandifer's most stringent specifications and still use one or more spoiler tags. Milo 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to point out that until 5 minutes ago when I changed it, the spoiler for The Usual Suspects occurred in the second sentence.
Kuronue 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the response I wrote to Kusma on Poll 1 (the one where I asked whether Xenu was written as fiction or non-fiction and pointed out that Romeo and Juliet can still be spoiled even though people know what happens at the end), even when I check the history pages, and my earlier response to him (the one beginning "No, it really doesn't") keeps getting moved into the votes against section, when I've already voted in the votes for. Can people please stop moving my comments? RobbieG 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the closing admin will know policy well enough and will read this comment, and the one above (that you posted earlier, and was also at the bottom of the page, complete with requests to post above it). There is no need for the extra emphasis complete with wiki commented <! -- warnings --> to post above it. What is stated here is no more or less important then what anyone else here has stated. (Please note I have not yet made a statement on this MFD) —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- MFD is wrong venue for policy discussions. This is a compromise as it stands. Two options : Leave MFD open, albeit with caveat, or speedy close MFD as inappropriate venue. One is giving folks a break as per WP:IAR, one is following policy. Your call. :-) -- Kim Bruning 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that does seem to be a good idea to me. Don't you think? However, the next time you remove the point of policy, I shall be forced to close, as current policy does not allow more tolerance. (Else I'd have to violate 3RR just to be polite and accommodate your whims) Would you prefer to talk with me here and reach a compromise? --
Kim Bruning 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I never did remove your statement :), All I've done is put it in the normal format of the rest of the debate, what you say is not more important then what anyone else says right? ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the content of the comment was important, as the only alternative was to close the discussion. Which I have now done (This is an ironic situation where I ran out of reverts to be polite with ^^;; ). -- Kim Bruning 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I never did remove your statement :), All I've done is put it in the normal format of the rest of the debate, what you say is not more important then what anyone else says right? ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that does seem to be a good idea to me. Don't you think? However, the next time you remove the point of policy, I shall be forced to close, as current policy does not allow more tolerance. (Else I'd have to violate 3RR just to be polite and accommodate your whims) Would you prefer to talk with me here and reach a compromise? --
Kim Bruning 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. ——
Eagle101
Need help? 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
MFD is completely inappropriate for this kind of discussion. Less than a year ago we went though a "no spoiler warning" discussion at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind, speedy closed as I typed my message. --
Ned Scott 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or not.. look, people, regardless if there are going to be warnings or not, there should still be a guideline to tell people what's up. In the very least it will tell people not to use such warnings, or "hide spoiler" methods. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let's do the compromise where we leave a point of policy at the bottom of the page, but let people have their say anyway. This discussion would then basically be about marking the page "historical", which is fine by me. You can then go about fixing the process to make it acceptable to the community again. Will that do? --
Kim Bruning 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds good. Thank you for being reasonable. Axem Titanium 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let's do the compromise where we leave a point of policy at the bottom of the page, but let people have their say anyway. This discussion would then basically be about marking the page "historical", which is fine by me. You can then go about fixing the process to make it acceptable to the community again. Will that do? --
Kim Bruning 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion should be about us using spoiler warnings or not. This discussion should be able to accurately gauge community consensus. The outcome will dictate what the active guideline will then say. --
Ned Scott 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's all I want. The guideline can stay, just what it says is up for debate. How about a message box at the top to inform debaters about the nature of the debate? Axem Titanium 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion should be about us using spoiler warnings or not. This discussion should be able to accurately gauge community consensus. The outcome will dictate what the active guideline will then say. --
Ned Scott 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If we count all deletes as historifys, that merely mitigates damage.
If you think you have ways to actually improve the situation, that would be cool. :-)
-- Kim Bruning 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Deckiller said it best
here. MFD may not be the best place to discuss it but at least it's very visible and generates a lot of discussion (45kb in only a few hours). I don't think vote counting is even necessary. We can just wait until it dies down and then cull consensus from the pages of discussion.
Axem Titanium 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but you yell COI at me, but not at Deckiller (because he holds the same view you do)? 45kb is nothing, check the talk archives of this very page. --
Ned Scott 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but Deckiller isn't trying to suppress new debate. Indeed, he does have a COI but he's not here unilaterally doing anything. I have a COI too: I don't like spoiler warnings (for reasons founded in my own logic and repeated ad nauseam), but I still get a say in it just like you and Deck do.
Axem Titanium 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- In no way am I trying to suppress debate. I am respectful to those who disagree with me, and I've even stuck up for them when they were not around, because I knew there logic and respected it. Your assumptions of me are completely unfair and wrong. I wanted to find a way to include ALL the comments from the MFD to the current discussion, while promoting a better format for discussion, but I guess you guys didn't even consider that. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but Deckiller isn't trying to suppress new debate. Indeed, he does have a COI but he's not here unilaterally doing anything. I have a COI too: I don't like spoiler warnings (for reasons founded in my own logic and repeated ad nauseam), but I still get a say in it just like you and Deck do.
Axem Titanium 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but you yell COI at me, but not at Deckiller (because he holds the same view you do)? 45kb is nothing, check the talk archives of this very page. --
Ned Scott 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, the policy is currently full protected. Lots of edit warring :-( -- Iamunknown 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in commenting, my school had a fire alarm in the pouring rain. I'm soaking wet, but besides the point, This conversation would be best at a RFC on a policy or a guideline... or on a manual of style element. There are two types... but this one fits both of them!
- Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects (watch) (add entry)
- Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals (watch) (add entry)
are the two options. Kim I'd like to appologize for not figuring out your edit, I hit your 3rd edit in an edit conflict whilist modifiying my own comment, and I presummed someone reverted me wholesale, and just copy pasted. (I did not realize you wanted to talk on the talk page, in any case I'm sorry, and I know I fucked up. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It happens. I could have used a different order for my edits, or been a tad slower myself. -- Kim Bruning 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
While I feel it's still too early to "call the fight", if the conclusion is to no longer use spoiler warnings, would This version be acceptable for the new spoiler guideline? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The second point on what not to do ends with "...instead of properly applying spoiler templates," which it probably shouldn't. -- Masamage ♫ 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's perhaps a decent start - an explicit allowing of spoilers in article leads if the spoiler is a major aspect of the topic is, to my mind, essential, but it's certainly not mind-wrenchingly awful.
Phil Sandifer 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- With a little editting, that version looks good. Don't throw in the towel, just yet, though. A good debate is always fun. Axem Titanium 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're not supposed to discuss policies and guidelines at MFD. One of the reasons MFD got split off from WP:AFD is so that we could easily catch situations where that happened.
Now since closing an MFD always causes a lot of wikidrama, I decided to try to just put a friendly footer on the page, that points out that all deletes go to historify, and that we're actually sort of Ignoring that "inconvenient" rule by keeping the discussion here.
Of course, if the footer gets removed all the time, well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, and we'll just have to close the MFD anyway.
(possibly I'm being too soft, and should just crack down and enforce policy)
-- Kim Bruning 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see what happens if we put it in a box. :-) --
Kim Bruning 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC) or on a fox, or under rocks
- xFD is sometimes the best way to create a policy discussion. Sure, it's against The Rules, but it works, so what's the problem?
Kusma (
talk) 09:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Of course it doesn't work for policy and guidelines. By no measure. We're just keeping this MFD open for once because I wanted to see if that's easier than closing it. People can all have their fun and wikidrama waste their time, and then we'll end up doing the actual consensus formation elsewhere (just like many other times when people tried MfDing active guidelines). :-/ -- Kim Bruning 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- xFD is sometimes the best way to create a policy discussion. Sure, it's against The Rules, but it works, so what's the problem?
Kusma (
talk) 09:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(re MFD)
- Well, I disagree. Sometimes a special interest group goes off and develops a policy - and those working on Jane Austen and Shakesphere have better things to do - until the clique starts enforcing its little decisions on hundreds of articles. MfD isn't ideal - but it is the one mechanism the community has to shout "STOP IT NOW!". Not everyone wants to gets involved in interminable policy page discussions.--
Docg 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines say that MFD is not for guideline discussions. The reason we saw for that is because MFD simply does not work for that form of discussion. Sure a lot of people suddenly come by, but they achieve practically nothing. You generally do not want a policy page deleted. (In our descriptive system, the policy/guideline might well remain active, even if there's no page. Mmmm, secret policy! . Or even if it goes away, no one knows what the bad idea was anymore, so they reinvent the square wheel.)
- What you actually want is to mark the page historical. So ok, we get consensus to add a tag to a wikipage. At that point in time, the rules say anyone can revert. So the net gain is very close to 0. --
Kim Bruning 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, MfD has often been used as a wider community cluestick to say "Hell, No" to ideas that a minority have developed on a policy page. I'm fine with marking as historical rather than deleting. But to suggest that if a mass of the community say "hell no" that a minority can go off and reverse that on a policy page somewhere is ridiculous. And you presenting it as a 'fact' on the page is unacceptable. No MfD isn't ideal here - but sometimes it is the best way, and we have lots of precedents. WP:PAIN WP:ESP etc..--
Docg 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- that a minority can go off and reverse that on a policy page somewhere is ridiculous. Well, it's only ridiculous if you thought that MfD actually influenced guidelines. It's not designed for that, so it does very poorly. This is not my fault, this is not your fault, and it's not the fault of the designers . It's just that people are making use of MfD for something it's not designed for. Cardboard boxes don't hold water too well, cars have a dismal record at flying, and MfD doesn't handle guidelines. If all the people who were on MfD right now all went to the actual guideline page instead, and all said and did their "Hello no's" there, the guideline would be discontinued by morning. -- Kim Bruning 11:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Esperanza was closed by me, and I can tell you I had a lot of work after. There's still a similar process to PAIN still running)
- Actually, MfD has often been used as a wider community cluestick to say "Hell, No" to ideas that a minority have developed on a policy page. I'm fine with marking as historical rather than deleting. But to suggest that if a mass of the community say "hell no" that a minority can go off and reverse that on a policy page somewhere is ridiculous. And you presenting it as a 'fact' on the page is unacceptable. No MfD isn't ideal here - but sometimes it is the best way, and we have lots of precedents. WP:PAIN WP:ESP etc..--
Docg 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also note that an MFD has far higher visibility than a talk page discussion. It does not matter how consensus on this issue is achieved, and this seems to be just as good as a place for discussion as any other.
Kusma (
talk) 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is untrue (see also rest of section above). MFD is not so much a discussion as a drive-by-vote kind of page. It's not set up for discussing policy, so it does quite dismally. At the end of the day, the outcome of an MfD can simply be reverted in these instances. Note that high visibility pages are never a good thing, as you can quickly exceed Dunbar's number on such pages. -- Kim Bruning 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this here for discussion - it is obviously disputed and if you are unwilling to have it attributed as your view - then we need to discuss it before presenting it.-- Docg 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
| Point of policy
Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Spoiler warning is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as {{ historical}}, or {{ rejected}}. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete. I've moved this to talk, it is quite obviously disputed in parts - and if you are unwilling to have it attributed as your view, then we need further discussion: Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline is likely to overturn any decision made on MFD. |
-- Docg 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have better things to do with my time. This experiment of mine failed. I am closing this MfD as inappropriate venue as I should have done per policy in the first place -- Kim Bruning 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok closed, and linked to appropriate venues. -- Kim Bruning 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Relevant policy from WP:MFD: Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
Note that I have been basically IARing all day, and now I've merely stopped doing so, since it is too difficult to coordinate or cooperate with people at this location at this moment in time :-/ -- Kim Bruning 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reopened. This is the second time somebody tried to close this early; let the discussion run, everything else just causes more confusion.
Kusma (
talk) 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are in violation of policy. Please re-close the page. --
Kim Bruning 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter where the discussion has been centralized if all factors involved know how to treat the results. —
Deckill
er 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It matters somewhat if the venue/discussion style is stilted or specialised towards some other task. Else I'd have no issue with it. (the fact that people are putting bolded delete means that this is probably not the right venue, they're mistaking it for a deletion discussion ;-) ). Whatever the case, I've been unwisely keeping this page open contrary to policy. People keep reverting particular notes I left which were part of the compromise to keep it open I agreed to earlier today. I'm not going to keep it open longer myself. Keeping it open is a clear violation of MFD policy, and I don't think you have a good IAR rationale in this case. (especially since I've exhausted mine) -- Kim Bruning 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter where the discussion has been centralized if all factors involved know how to treat the results. —
Deckill
er 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are in violation of policy. Please re-close the page. --
Kim Bruning 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reopened. This is the second time somebody tried to close this early; let the discussion run, everything else just causes more confusion.
Kusma (
talk) 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Can one non- pointedly nominate WP:MfD at WP:MfD? Carcharoth 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would probably be inappropriate. But if MFD had become a sick process one would simply delete it or mark it historical. If concensus was that MFD was sick then that would be that. --
Tony Sidaway 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, so miscelleny includes User namespace pages, and Wikipedia namespace pages that are not policy or guidelines. So essays comes here, and WikiProjects and noticeboards (PAIN) and other organisations (Esperanza), but what about processes (like the various XfDs and PROD and FAC and DRV) and other organisations (eg. ArbCom or Community Portal)? Of course, most of these are currently functioning well, but I am just saying that MfD, despite seeing some massive debates over certain classes of miscellany, might not be the best place for some of those classes. Is there the stomach for another "type" of XfD process? Or should it be made clearer which discussions should be kept away from deletion venues and directed to requests for comments, with the caveat that MfD may be an acceptable way to advertise such an "inactivation" discussion? Carcharoth 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. We can let this run - but the result is now obvious. If this was still an MfD, there may not be the 2/3 to delete. However, what is obvious is there is no consensus in favour of continuing with this policy. There isn't even a majority in favour. Thus the policy should be marked as rejected. And we can go forward from there:
Do I have support thus far? Or does anyone think the outcome maybe different?
Personally, I'm against these things altogether. I'd like to ban them. But I suspect that doesn't have consensus support, so I'd suggest we discuss round a new policy that could be framed in general terms like this:
- There is no consensus on spoiler warnings either for or against. Many people believe clearly marking the 'plot' section is sufficient notice of the content being disclosed - it should generally be up to those working on a particular article whether to use {spoiler} in addition.
- Sensitivity should be shown in not unnecessarily disclosing twists
- no one should enforce {spoiler} as if they had general support - it doesn't..
- {spoiler} should not be used where they interfere with NPOV. NPOV and accuracy take priority.
- However, twists should not be unnecessarily disclosed in the lead
- There is a consensus that spoiler warnings should never be used on ancient texts, literary classics, older films, or works whose plot is 'common knowledge'. There is more support for recent works.
How might that sound as a way forward? I realise everyone won't like it - but I'm trying to read consensus here - and I think we may have one.-- Docg 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say there appears to be clear consensus that this guideline is bad for Wikipedia. We should change the guideline accordingly to reflect actual consensus. Spoiler warnings may be used where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Perhaps a spoiler before "Snape kills Dumbledore", in the first month of the book's release, would have been justifiable, perhaps not. It would be a matter of discretion. But none of these silly warnings just because the article happens to discuss the plot. That's asinine and has the aforementioned problems.
- But I think that closing this would be premature, so let it run. -- Tony Sidaway 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's put it in another way. If there is no consensus as to whether the policy should be kept. Then should it be there at all? Of course, it's all about perspective. But so far, I believe concensus should be used to agree on what should be done more than what not should be done.-- Kylohk 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that the discussion is moving towards something useful. — The Storm Surfer 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Making a massive encyclopedia-wide change is not to be done lightly, and it is NOT to be done after one or two day's discussion, with no kind of announcement and very little informing, on the basis of the people who happened to be here. That isn't consensus, that's steamrolling. -- Kizor 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just to add my 2 cents worth as a low level editor and to point out that I only learnt about this discussion about 50 minutes ago so I agree with
Kizor that discussion should be kept open .
Garda40 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't think anything is going to change - you have people who are for deleting the spoilers cause it's unencyclopedic and then you have people who want to keep it as a courtesy to the readers - and so far none have been able to effectively compromise. daniel folsom 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is exceedingly obvious that the guideline as-it-now-stands does not have anything near any kind of consensus or even supermajority support.
- I don't think a rough consensus has yet emerged as to what should be our guidelines on spoiler warnings instead of the clearly without consensus current version. I'm inclined to think the points outlined by Doc above come closer. Perhaps a little more time will help if there is anyone left still discussing. If all that's left is sniping from entrenched positions, then it might be time to close.
- Kizor, the problem is that guidelines like this are made lightly after little discussion and no kind of announcement, on the basis of those who happened to be there. Then people come along, see what looks like a policy page that claims it has deep, established consensus, and go ahead and implement it across the project - yes, not in a couple of days, but without widespread agreement.
- And then, at some point, an established editor who disagrees stumbles across people blindly following the guideline and says, "Wait a minute! Who decided that this should be Wikipedia-wide automatic policy? I remember that it wasn't, before!" and causes a fuss, and we see the results.
- We maybe should not be quick in establishing a new spoilers guideline. I see no reason to not be quick, however, in changing the spoilers guideline to show that the one formerly in place has been shown to not have consensus support, and that this is an area currently in flux. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good call. I've tagged this as rejected for now, with a note that active discussion is going on about fixing it. Phil Sandifer 22:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Both the MfD and the TfD were/are apparently inappropriate venues for discussion, but why is the pro-deletion MfD included directly on the page, when the pro-keep TfD is hidden away on a sub-page? This unfairly slants the discussion in favour of the anti-spoiler camp.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please
WP:AGF, there is no reason to believe that this was intentional. The reason for this was probably because this RFC page was moved directly from the MfD page so a separate page for the MfD wasn't created since it would be extra work. I was under the impression that the TfD was closed prematurely anyway.
Axem Titanium 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could we not move the MfD onto another page to avoid it influencing the debate? Some people have been citing it as part of the 'consensus'--
Nydas
(Talk) 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
- I'm not sure why we wouldn't want an MfD that overwhelmingly showed that the guideline lacks support to influence the debate.
Phil Sandifer 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because the TfD which showed a clear majority in favour of keeping isn't being given the same airing? Don't you think that's a little unfair?--
Nydas
(Talk) 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The TfD shows that there is some consensus to have some form of spoiler warning. The MfD shows that there is no consensus for the current rules for doing so. Since nobody seems to be seriously proposing a complete ban on spoiler warnings, I'd say the TfD position is pretty well-represented. Phil Sandifer 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because the TfD which showed a clear majority in favour of keeping isn't being given the same airing? Don't you think that's a little unfair?--
Nydas
(Talk) 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why we wouldn't want an MfD that overwhelmingly showed that the guideline lacks support to influence the debate.
Phil Sandifer 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the "keep" votes for the TfD barely managed 60%, a far cry from the super-majority needed to build consensus. At any rate, the MfD has been archived similarly. Axem Titanium 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could we not move the MfD onto another page to avoid it influencing the debate? Some people have been citing it as part of the 'consensus'--
Nydas
(Talk) 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
"The problem is" - in this context Wikipedia is being used by two different groups of people: newbies (who might appreciate the plot spoiler) and those familiar with the production, or who wish to have a quick overview of the storyline. The question is - are the former more annoyed by the spoiler's presence than the latter by its absence? Jackiespeel 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I understanding this correctly? Are some people proposing no censoring of information at all? Are people really promoting this hairbrained scheme? If this is correct and the lead is the lead is a summary of the article then The Usual Suspects should say that Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze in the lead. Hell, it should be pretty prominent too probably in the second or third sentence. Marcus Taylor 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the
Content disclaimer and
WP:NOT which clearly says "Wikipedia is not censored". These are long-standing rules of Wikipedia, this is nothing new. So yes, people are proposing no censoring of information at all, and some people feel that spoiler warnings are a form of censoring. But no, this isn't some "hairbrained scheme". --—
Δαίδαλος
Σ 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for ignoring my question.
- So you're answer is yes the second or third sentence of that article should say that Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? It flows naturally from your logic as the lead is a summary of the article. Please answer the question. Marcus Taylor 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the huge plot twist of this film in particular should be in the lead. This is the difference between writing for a fan site and writing for an encyclopedia. -- Tony Sidaway 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It really, really shouldn't be. This is a poor example because
The Usual Suspects isn't
The Crying Game. The plot twist doesn't alter the majority of the plot. --
Bishop2 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- So you advocate censorship? Because that's the salient point of the whole movie and if the article were about a true event the identity would definitely be in the lead. Marcus Taylor 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, it's positively barbaric that the revelation wasn't made until seven paragraphs into Keyser Soze. Phil Sandifer 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It really, really shouldn't be. This is a poor example because
The Usual Suspects isn't
The Crying Game. The plot twist doesn't alter the majority of the plot. --
Bishop2 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would agree that that's utterly ludicrous. -- Bishop2 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Marcus Taylor. As I understood your post, the question you posed was "Are some people proposing no censoring of information at all?" which I answered quite clearly. I assumed that your example of The Usual Suspects was exactly that: an example, escpecially in light of the fact that it was phrased as an "If-Then" statement and not as a question. --— Δαίδαλος Σ 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I request that the question as posed be answered on its own merits, and avoid the sidetrack with an incorrect premise. But this is an opportunity to address the sidetrack directly.
- • "some people feel that" That's just a feeling not supported by definitions. Spoiler warnings (spoiler tags) are not a form of censoring, period. Censoring is the removal of information, or the prior restraint against adding it. Spoiler tags add forward-looking information similar to a table of contents.
- • I don't think even Phil Sandifer is claiming that NPOV policy requires lead section spoiling. I think he's saying sometimes it does, sometimes not.
- • The spoiling issue of how to correctly write an article is different and separate from the spoiler tagging issue. It is possible to write an article to Sandifer's most stringent specifications and still use one or more spoiler tags. Milo 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to point out that until 5 minutes ago when I changed it, the spoiler for The Usual Suspects occurred in the second sentence.
Kuronue 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the response I wrote to Kusma on Poll 1 (the one where I asked whether Xenu was written as fiction or non-fiction and pointed out that Romeo and Juliet can still be spoiled even though people know what happens at the end), even when I check the history pages, and my earlier response to him (the one beginning "No, it really doesn't") keeps getting moved into the votes against section, when I've already voted in the votes for. Can people please stop moving my comments? RobbieG 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)