This page was formerly Template talk:Spoiler. The template having been deleted, the talk page was moved here, to keep a record of debates about the template. An archive of even older discussion (2003–2004) is now at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk/Archive 1.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This change [1] today added the text "This template should only be used on very recent or unreleased works of fiction. Be sparing in its use" and the same editor immediately went to work removing it from older works.
I'd like to ask why? Was a consensus reached somewhere about this? I don't understand why someone who hasn't read or seen something would only want a spoiler warning if it was brand new. What purpose does it serve? Notinasnaid 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make spoiler warnings opt-in instead of opt-out, then people could use as many as they want. Or create a warning "Warning! Information that you do not know yet might follow!" at the top of every article. Kusma ( talk) 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
See this, that editor has screwed up, what: 1/2 of articles on Wikipedia? That wasn't discussed at all. Should be reverted ASAP. Matthew 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Formatting issues, Sylar is centred instead of justified - and why wasn't there some wider discussion about this? At least a mention in the Signpost would have been nice. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Bah, brain damage, do as you wish. See User:Drini/sandbox to know what it should look like if you use PROPERLY the template -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The template right now looks exactly as the average encyclopaedia user would expect: i.e. it's completely blank. Which is perfect. We don't need to be warned to look away before an encyclopaedia (read: comprehensive source of information) tells us that the gorilla dies. So, since a small number of people seem to want the warning, how about this: rework the template so it is hidden by default for all users unless they turn on a css variable in their personal css. In other words, reverse the status quo, making content visible unless poeple specifically choose not to see it. Guy ( Help!) 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
How will new readers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia even know that they have an option of enabling spoiler warnings? Richard75 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am blanking this temoplate. The MfD/RfC on the policy page, shows there is no consensus for its use. Rather then delete it, I shall blank it until consensus for its use is arrived at.-- Docg 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The present look is in-formal, "spoiler warning". I propose we change to the below design, without the "spoiler warning" text... instead, just stating the need to know information.
Matthew
15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Spoilers}}
{{ editprotected}} Please place the contents of Template:Spoilers within this template. This new version is more formal, uses standard wikitable markup and also avoids usage of the word "spoiler" (which itself is informal and unneeded to state "plot/[..] follow". (this is a BOLD action to give it a test run) Matthew 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ }}
are.
Mr.Z-man
talk
¢
16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're keeping an image (which I recommend against), please replace it with Image:Information icon.svg. The current image is ugly, especially at such a small size, and intended for template documentation – the {{ }} make no sense outside of the context of mediawiki templates – Gurch 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a change at all. 'Spoiler' is a perfectly legitimate word and I don't see it as too informal. [3] Having it there in the template is a useful descriptor and title. The image really is unnecessary, and the template looks very obtrusive. I understand the principles of being BOLD, but for me this wasn't broke, so there is no need to 'fix' it. Tphi 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, there is no reason for the constant, radical revisions to this template lately. It was entirely fine the way it was. Each implemented change disrupts a lot of articles. And, pardon my French, but the current revision looks like ass. Pele Merengue 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I like to request that this template be reverted back to its previous state. The new design is fugly, stands out too much, doesn't complement the way in which the template is used in articles, and it disrupts the flow of the article more so then the original template. -- Farix ( Talk) 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't fit in well with wiki's scheme... I say it, and the about version, go back to their prior states. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted based on apparent overwhelming support for the old format. This is not an endorsement of the old format or a call to prevent future reformatting, but please try to make the template stylistically pleasant next time. — Cuiviénen 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
When the design changed for the first time today, I thought something good will come of it. Now I feel like you guys are arbitrarily changing the design on a whim. ^_^; Isn't the argument about the existence of these templates in the first place more important than changing the template back and forth? -- Darkbane talk 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Restore to
this. The recent changes have broken the ability to turn the warnings off via CSS. --
Ned Scott
02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
.spoiler{ display: none; }
Should work I believe (remember to purge : - )). Re-add the editprotected if it doesn't work. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A new draft is in the works to help act as a compromise for the recent RFC, see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/draft. Feel free to modify, discuss, etc. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I and David Gerard are apparently in agreement, an event shocking by its rarity over these last few days, that there should be more informing going on. There's been no invitation to discussion of this public matter, so an issue far more important than (say) a webcomic AfD is getting less exposure than one of those would. Snowfire suggested a TfD-style message on the template along the lines of "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate," and there have been no dissenting opinions. Can I ask someone who can to add one? -- Kizor 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Looks like we're going for a single spoiler tag with the discussion on WP:SPOILER, and with that in mind I propose we simply merge the function of {{ spoiler-about}} to {{ spoiler}}. There is also {{ spoiler-blank}}, but -about is far more used, and is less of a change than -other. I also propose we put back in "metadata" in the div class, which hides the spoiler warning when the article is printed. The updated code would look like this:
<div class="notice metadata spoiler">'''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning|Spoiler warning]]: ''Plot and/or ending details {{#if:{{{1|}}}|about {{{1}}}}} follow.'''''</div><noinclude> {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}} </noinclude>
-- Ned Scott 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, allow me to make an argument for this change. Spoiler-about simply allows the editor to add what is being spoiled, used for when the work of fiction might not be clear. For example, "Plot and/or ending details about Star Wars follow." -- Ned Scott 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Do we really want to put the text "The status of spoiler warnings is being discussed at this Request for Comment" right on the template? This is gonna show up at every place the template is used, which is a lot. I can see a need to solicit comments but this is rather in-your-face. Can't the message be simply put on Template:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Spoiler warning? 131.107.0.73 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags are considered metadata, correct? I'm about to change the rest of the spoiler tags, but I thought I'd ask here first. --- RockMFR 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's got "guideline" at the top now and the RFC appears, with the link in the Spoiler tag, to have turned into a chat page with no plausible hope of a resolution being reached through it (though I haven't delinked the RFC) - David Gerard 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Someone should create an Anchor Link inside the Spoiler.
Clicking <A href="#EndSpoiler1">Go to End Spoiler</A> should refer the reader to the end of the spoiler section, which is marked by
<A name="EndSpoiler1">End Spoiler</A>.
Thank you,
LAUBO
20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
{{spoiler|end=yes}}
so articles that already have the tags would need to be changed and editors would need to learn the new way to tag articles. The other (minor) problem is articles with mutiple spoiler sections, this would only link to the end of the first one.
Mr.Z-man
talk
¢
21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC){{ editprotected}} To something like:
The reason is because the template should only be used to precede significant plot details or twist endings and not general plot details. This should help discourage the overuse of the template, as has been mentioned repeatedly in the recent RfC and during the construction of the new Wikipedia:Spoilers guideline. It also removes the use of "spoiler" which many editors consider a non-academic term. -- Farix ( Talk) 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Dang it, one week's discussion is all that's needed before changing the wording? Youse peoples are being impulsive. ... So do I correctly understand that the Spoiler tag is now used to bracket just the surprise or twist plot elements? David Spalding 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I think that the link to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning should be changed just to Wikipedia:Spoiler. The amount of times that the template is used justifies the change to remove the redirect. - anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The spoiler template is not working properly on this article. It is covering up an image and an infobox on the page. Can this be fixed? ANNAfoxlover 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's good that "spoiler warning" has been replaced by plain "warning"... that's a step in the right direction. But why do we need a "warning" at all? Won't the phrase "significant plot details follow" do its job admirably by itself? "Warning" is rather intrusive, but "significant plot details follow" is merely informative. 131.111.8.99 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does it even need a new look? The original was fine.-- Indakeepyo 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
kk ty I just wanted to know the reason. i'd like to see Significant plot details follow in bold but if not ok.-- Indakeepyo 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The current template is completely useless and says nothing. "Significant plot details follow" is completely redundant. 68.146.8.46 04:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It can be found at template:spoiler2.
Here it is:
{{
spoiler2}}
The result of the proposal was don't move. Kusma ( talk) 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler → Template:Plot information — "Spoiler" is a non-encyclopaedic term (hence a reason why it's no longer used in the template itself). It's also of note that naive users are still affixing this template to articles, therefore I believe no redirect should be kept if this template move reaches consensus (a blank page -- with some information surrounded by noinclude tags). Matthew 10:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.
(I added this in a separate subsection for clarity, but do not intend to interrupt the discussion. Please continue discussion comments above this new sub-section, unless you want to reply to this particular part of the topic. Either way, as you prefer...)
Here is the definition of "encyclopedic" from wiktionary:
encyclopedic
encyclopedia
I can't see anything in these definitions that would imply that spoiler alerts are either encyclopedic or non-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia will not be affected one way or the other by whether or not we use Spoiler tags.
Therefore, this is a question of Wikipedia culture and usage, not a question a scholarship or utility as an encyclopedia. -- Parzival418 Hello 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone here did not realise it, there is currently a MedCab case to attempt to resolve disputes on the spoiler guideline and its application. Matthew, I think you missed that one, but you should probably be involved. Anyway, while there is an ongoing dispute, as Kuronue alluded to above, I don't think that it's appropriate to be making major changes to the template. - Kieran 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Active discussion appears to have shifted to WT:SPOIL. Unless having discussion active in multiple places apparently unconnected to the others is considered a good thing - David Gerard 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that this template should be used liberally, not sparingly. The downside of using the template too liberally is minimal (an extra line of text appears); the downside of using it too sparingly is much worse - readers irreperably learn the endings of works. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to obtain a plot overview of a work without becoming aware of the ending (the back covers of books and movies do this routinely.) If detailled discussion of the spoilers is desired, simply add the template. Just because a section is called "Plot" is not enough to imply that it will contain spoilers. I just learned spoiler plot details of a movie I haven't seen yet because I expected that there would be a spoiler warning with any spoilers, since this was standard practice on Wikipedia until very recently. Kwertii 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that the word "note" be changed to "warning" again. " Spoiler warning" is the common term used for this. Also, it is a warning, no matter how you put it. We are "warning" the reader that significant plot details follow; if it were just a general note, we wouldn't use this tag (it's like making a template with: "Note: Significant details about the etymology of this word follow.") If anyone has any objections, tell me, and I'll discuss it. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The word "Note" is sufficient and less pushy. This could help to increase the acceptance of this tag. -- Lasttan 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Note" replaced with "Spoiler warning" But it's NOT a warning. If you favor increased use of spoiler tags, why would you want to assist the deletionists' agenda? By formal dictionary use, if there is no danger, it's not a warning. Does it matter? Yes, because formality wins encyclopedic debates. Do you want to win or just repeat past mistakes?
Those opposed to spoiler tags will use any excuse to suppress them. Some of the anti-tag editors will distract the local consensus editors during spoiler tag debates, using a false "no disclaimers" issue if the tag is labeled a "warning". See the details of the falsely hyperbolic use of "warning" when there is no danger, in my 2007_08_03 post above.
The correct phrase is "Spoiler notice", although "Note: Spoiler details follow" is also ok, and way of avoiding the "Spoiler notice" phrase. However, by beginning with "Spoiler notice: significant plot details follow", you can make the notice less subtle.
Adding "Spoiler" back is good, because "spoiler" is listed with a narrative suspense-related meaning in the American Heritage Dictionary, and even the tagging opponents have consensed that it is ok to use the "spoiler" word.
"the current tag is being deleted far more often than the original tag was" That's due to active sppression by the spoiler police squad that operates out of Talk:Spoiler. They report deleting at least five IP-added text tags per day, plus they scan the system for new template tags and show up to pressure any account editors who dare add this template tag.
Milo
01:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The protection log for this page lists:
Now, two years later, there are very few uses of this template on Wikipedia. According to the research done at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler, it's only on a around 20 or so mainspace pages. The majority of the links listed in "what links here" are on talk and user talk pages. Per the what-links-here for current mainspace uses of this template, it seems like only a few.
Other templates used on many more pages than this one are not protected. Here are a some examples of unprotected templates used in mainspace:
Since the reason for protection that existed in 2005 no longer applies, I request that this page be unprotected, based on: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". -- Parsifal Hello 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[I re-edited my above comment above to clarify the request and add the current mainspace what-links-here link. -- Parsifal Hello 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it'd be more appropriate to delete this template, as it is also superseded by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. L337 kybldmstr 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Spoiler has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. L337 kybldmstr 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I've nominated the template for deletion, I'd like to have the TfD nom. tag added, please. You can remove it after the nomination is closed, if the template is kept. Thank you. L337 kybldmstr 07:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The template has an extra little thing at the top saying that it's currently being considered for deletion. The talk page says that it was but that the result was keep. Would it not be better to remove the little box as it is outdated? — Polish Name 21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did this template have to go? *sigh* I used Cryptics anti-spoiler template, so spoilers were hidden, but now it doesn't appear to function anymore. It is fortunate that I noticed this on a talk page for something I had already read, but of course that doesn't change that I am not very happy with it. Why did people insist on killing it? How can people be so mean and foulhearted? I'll miss you, my little spoiler template. Shinobu 07:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that was such a good idea. There are some pretty significant differences between {{ current fiction}} and the former spoiler template. {{ Current fiction}} emphasizes the new-ness of the work and the lack of critical commentary. "Spoiler" emphasized that the article presented significant plot details.
The former spoiler template had a high percentage of misuse — for instance, slapping it on the entire plot, thereby making no distinction between spoilers and general information. If "spoiler" redirects to {{ current fiction}}, I suspect that a high percentage of misuse will continue.
I'm inclined to think that {{ Current fiction}} is different enough that it shouldn't be regarded as a synonym of "spoiler". Marc Shepherd 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, The DRV has been closed as overturning and closing as no consensus. See [4]. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days."
Closing reviews - A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the article should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
Well, the template was deleted per the talk page. So, what do you guys think? Should we merge this talk page into the Current Fiction TP, or speedy delete this per CSD G8? L337 kybldmstr ( talk) 03:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Check this out: User:Grue/howto. Coming soon, "how to delete an article you don't like". Grue 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand, even if I disagree with, the argument that users of Wikipedia ought to assume that the Plot section of an article about a specific work of fiction will include "spoilers" about that work. In numerous articles, however, details of the plots of works of fiction are included as part of a larger discussion on some other topic. For example, in Omega point, an article on a topic in metaphysics, the final twist of Robert Charles Wilson's Darwinia is revealed without any warning to the reader. Should Wikipedians wishing to avoid spoilers skip over sections on popular culture altogether? What about articles that are not organized to include such a section, should prudent Wikipedians simply leave them unread?
-- Frostyservant ( talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This page was formerly Template talk:Spoiler. The template having been deleted, the talk page was moved here, to keep a record of debates about the template. An archive of even older discussion (2003–2004) is now at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk/Archive 1.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This change [1] today added the text "This template should only be used on very recent or unreleased works of fiction. Be sparing in its use" and the same editor immediately went to work removing it from older works.
I'd like to ask why? Was a consensus reached somewhere about this? I don't understand why someone who hasn't read or seen something would only want a spoiler warning if it was brand new. What purpose does it serve? Notinasnaid 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make spoiler warnings opt-in instead of opt-out, then people could use as many as they want. Or create a warning "Warning! Information that you do not know yet might follow!" at the top of every article. Kusma ( talk) 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
See this, that editor has screwed up, what: 1/2 of articles on Wikipedia? That wasn't discussed at all. Should be reverted ASAP. Matthew 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Formatting issues, Sylar is centred instead of justified - and why wasn't there some wider discussion about this? At least a mention in the Signpost would have been nice. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Bah, brain damage, do as you wish. See User:Drini/sandbox to know what it should look like if you use PROPERLY the template -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The template right now looks exactly as the average encyclopaedia user would expect: i.e. it's completely blank. Which is perfect. We don't need to be warned to look away before an encyclopaedia (read: comprehensive source of information) tells us that the gorilla dies. So, since a small number of people seem to want the warning, how about this: rework the template so it is hidden by default for all users unless they turn on a css variable in their personal css. In other words, reverse the status quo, making content visible unless poeple specifically choose not to see it. Guy ( Help!) 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
How will new readers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia even know that they have an option of enabling spoiler warnings? Richard75 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am blanking this temoplate. The MfD/RfC on the policy page, shows there is no consensus for its use. Rather then delete it, I shall blank it until consensus for its use is arrived at.-- Docg 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The present look is in-formal, "spoiler warning". I propose we change to the below design, without the "spoiler warning" text... instead, just stating the need to know information.
Matthew
15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Spoilers}}
{{ editprotected}} Please place the contents of Template:Spoilers within this template. This new version is more formal, uses standard wikitable markup and also avoids usage of the word "spoiler" (which itself is informal and unneeded to state "plot/[..] follow". (this is a BOLD action to give it a test run) Matthew 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ }}
are.
Mr.Z-man
talk
¢
16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're keeping an image (which I recommend against), please replace it with Image:Information icon.svg. The current image is ugly, especially at such a small size, and intended for template documentation – the {{ }} make no sense outside of the context of mediawiki templates – Gurch 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a change at all. 'Spoiler' is a perfectly legitimate word and I don't see it as too informal. [3] Having it there in the template is a useful descriptor and title. The image really is unnecessary, and the template looks very obtrusive. I understand the principles of being BOLD, but for me this wasn't broke, so there is no need to 'fix' it. Tphi 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, there is no reason for the constant, radical revisions to this template lately. It was entirely fine the way it was. Each implemented change disrupts a lot of articles. And, pardon my French, but the current revision looks like ass. Pele Merengue 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I like to request that this template be reverted back to its previous state. The new design is fugly, stands out too much, doesn't complement the way in which the template is used in articles, and it disrupts the flow of the article more so then the original template. -- Farix ( Talk) 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't fit in well with wiki's scheme... I say it, and the about version, go back to their prior states. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted based on apparent overwhelming support for the old format. This is not an endorsement of the old format or a call to prevent future reformatting, but please try to make the template stylistically pleasant next time. — Cuiviénen 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
When the design changed for the first time today, I thought something good will come of it. Now I feel like you guys are arbitrarily changing the design on a whim. ^_^; Isn't the argument about the existence of these templates in the first place more important than changing the template back and forth? -- Darkbane talk 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Restore to
this. The recent changes have broken the ability to turn the warnings off via CSS. --
Ned Scott
02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
.spoiler{ display: none; }
Should work I believe (remember to purge : - )). Re-add the editprotected if it doesn't work. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A new draft is in the works to help act as a compromise for the recent RFC, see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/draft. Feel free to modify, discuss, etc. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I and David Gerard are apparently in agreement, an event shocking by its rarity over these last few days, that there should be more informing going on. There's been no invitation to discussion of this public matter, so an issue far more important than (say) a webcomic AfD is getting less exposure than one of those would. Snowfire suggested a TfD-style message on the template along the lines of "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate," and there have been no dissenting opinions. Can I ask someone who can to add one? -- Kizor 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Looks like we're going for a single spoiler tag with the discussion on WP:SPOILER, and with that in mind I propose we simply merge the function of {{ spoiler-about}} to {{ spoiler}}. There is also {{ spoiler-blank}}, but -about is far more used, and is less of a change than -other. I also propose we put back in "metadata" in the div class, which hides the spoiler warning when the article is printed. The updated code would look like this:
<div class="notice metadata spoiler">'''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning|Spoiler warning]]: ''Plot and/or ending details {{#if:{{{1|}}}|about {{{1}}}}} follow.'''''</div><noinclude> {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}} </noinclude>
-- Ned Scott 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, allow me to make an argument for this change. Spoiler-about simply allows the editor to add what is being spoiled, used for when the work of fiction might not be clear. For example, "Plot and/or ending details about Star Wars follow." -- Ned Scott 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Do we really want to put the text "The status of spoiler warnings is being discussed at this Request for Comment" right on the template? This is gonna show up at every place the template is used, which is a lot. I can see a need to solicit comments but this is rather in-your-face. Can't the message be simply put on Template:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Spoiler warning? 131.107.0.73 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags are considered metadata, correct? I'm about to change the rest of the spoiler tags, but I thought I'd ask here first. --- RockMFR 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's got "guideline" at the top now and the RFC appears, with the link in the Spoiler tag, to have turned into a chat page with no plausible hope of a resolution being reached through it (though I haven't delinked the RFC) - David Gerard 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Someone should create an Anchor Link inside the Spoiler.
Clicking <A href="#EndSpoiler1">Go to End Spoiler</A> should refer the reader to the end of the spoiler section, which is marked by
<A name="EndSpoiler1">End Spoiler</A>.
Thank you,
LAUBO
20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
{{spoiler|end=yes}}
so articles that already have the tags would need to be changed and editors would need to learn the new way to tag articles. The other (minor) problem is articles with mutiple spoiler sections, this would only link to the end of the first one.
Mr.Z-man
talk
¢
21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC){{ editprotected}} To something like:
The reason is because the template should only be used to precede significant plot details or twist endings and not general plot details. This should help discourage the overuse of the template, as has been mentioned repeatedly in the recent RfC and during the construction of the new Wikipedia:Spoilers guideline. It also removes the use of "spoiler" which many editors consider a non-academic term. -- Farix ( Talk) 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Dang it, one week's discussion is all that's needed before changing the wording? Youse peoples are being impulsive. ... So do I correctly understand that the Spoiler tag is now used to bracket just the surprise or twist plot elements? David Spalding 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I think that the link to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning should be changed just to Wikipedia:Spoiler. The amount of times that the template is used justifies the change to remove the redirect. - anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The spoiler template is not working properly on this article. It is covering up an image and an infobox on the page. Can this be fixed? ANNAfoxlover 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's good that "spoiler warning" has been replaced by plain "warning"... that's a step in the right direction. But why do we need a "warning" at all? Won't the phrase "significant plot details follow" do its job admirably by itself? "Warning" is rather intrusive, but "significant plot details follow" is merely informative. 131.111.8.99 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does it even need a new look? The original was fine.-- Indakeepyo 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
kk ty I just wanted to know the reason. i'd like to see Significant plot details follow in bold but if not ok.-- Indakeepyo 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The current template is completely useless and says nothing. "Significant plot details follow" is completely redundant. 68.146.8.46 04:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It can be found at template:spoiler2.
Here it is:
{{
spoiler2}}
The result of the proposal was don't move. Kusma ( talk) 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler → Template:Plot information — "Spoiler" is a non-encyclopaedic term (hence a reason why it's no longer used in the template itself). It's also of note that naive users are still affixing this template to articles, therefore I believe no redirect should be kept if this template move reaches consensus (a blank page -- with some information surrounded by noinclude tags). Matthew 10:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.
(I added this in a separate subsection for clarity, but do not intend to interrupt the discussion. Please continue discussion comments above this new sub-section, unless you want to reply to this particular part of the topic. Either way, as you prefer...)
Here is the definition of "encyclopedic" from wiktionary:
encyclopedic
encyclopedia
I can't see anything in these definitions that would imply that spoiler alerts are either encyclopedic or non-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia will not be affected one way or the other by whether or not we use Spoiler tags.
Therefore, this is a question of Wikipedia culture and usage, not a question a scholarship or utility as an encyclopedia. -- Parzival418 Hello 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone here did not realise it, there is currently a MedCab case to attempt to resolve disputes on the spoiler guideline and its application. Matthew, I think you missed that one, but you should probably be involved. Anyway, while there is an ongoing dispute, as Kuronue alluded to above, I don't think that it's appropriate to be making major changes to the template. - Kieran 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Active discussion appears to have shifted to WT:SPOIL. Unless having discussion active in multiple places apparently unconnected to the others is considered a good thing - David Gerard 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that this template should be used liberally, not sparingly. The downside of using the template too liberally is minimal (an extra line of text appears); the downside of using it too sparingly is much worse - readers irreperably learn the endings of works. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to obtain a plot overview of a work without becoming aware of the ending (the back covers of books and movies do this routinely.) If detailled discussion of the spoilers is desired, simply add the template. Just because a section is called "Plot" is not enough to imply that it will contain spoilers. I just learned spoiler plot details of a movie I haven't seen yet because I expected that there would be a spoiler warning with any spoilers, since this was standard practice on Wikipedia until very recently. Kwertii 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that the word "note" be changed to "warning" again. " Spoiler warning" is the common term used for this. Also, it is a warning, no matter how you put it. We are "warning" the reader that significant plot details follow; if it were just a general note, we wouldn't use this tag (it's like making a template with: "Note: Significant details about the etymology of this word follow.") If anyone has any objections, tell me, and I'll discuss it. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The word "Note" is sufficient and less pushy. This could help to increase the acceptance of this tag. -- Lasttan 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Note" replaced with "Spoiler warning" But it's NOT a warning. If you favor increased use of spoiler tags, why would you want to assist the deletionists' agenda? By formal dictionary use, if there is no danger, it's not a warning. Does it matter? Yes, because formality wins encyclopedic debates. Do you want to win or just repeat past mistakes?
Those opposed to spoiler tags will use any excuse to suppress them. Some of the anti-tag editors will distract the local consensus editors during spoiler tag debates, using a false "no disclaimers" issue if the tag is labeled a "warning". See the details of the falsely hyperbolic use of "warning" when there is no danger, in my 2007_08_03 post above.
The correct phrase is "Spoiler notice", although "Note: Spoiler details follow" is also ok, and way of avoiding the "Spoiler notice" phrase. However, by beginning with "Spoiler notice: significant plot details follow", you can make the notice less subtle.
Adding "Spoiler" back is good, because "spoiler" is listed with a narrative suspense-related meaning in the American Heritage Dictionary, and even the tagging opponents have consensed that it is ok to use the "spoiler" word.
"the current tag is being deleted far more often than the original tag was" That's due to active sppression by the spoiler police squad that operates out of Talk:Spoiler. They report deleting at least five IP-added text tags per day, plus they scan the system for new template tags and show up to pressure any account editors who dare add this template tag.
Milo
01:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The protection log for this page lists:
Now, two years later, there are very few uses of this template on Wikipedia. According to the research done at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler, it's only on a around 20 or so mainspace pages. The majority of the links listed in "what links here" are on talk and user talk pages. Per the what-links-here for current mainspace uses of this template, it seems like only a few.
Other templates used on many more pages than this one are not protected. Here are a some examples of unprotected templates used in mainspace:
Since the reason for protection that existed in 2005 no longer applies, I request that this page be unprotected, based on: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". -- Parsifal Hello 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[I re-edited my above comment above to clarify the request and add the current mainspace what-links-here link. -- Parsifal Hello 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it'd be more appropriate to delete this template, as it is also superseded by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. L337 kybldmstr 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Spoiler has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. L337 kybldmstr 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I've nominated the template for deletion, I'd like to have the TfD nom. tag added, please. You can remove it after the nomination is closed, if the template is kept. Thank you. L337 kybldmstr 07:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The template has an extra little thing at the top saying that it's currently being considered for deletion. The talk page says that it was but that the result was keep. Would it not be better to remove the little box as it is outdated? — Polish Name 21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did this template have to go? *sigh* I used Cryptics anti-spoiler template, so spoilers were hidden, but now it doesn't appear to function anymore. It is fortunate that I noticed this on a talk page for something I had already read, but of course that doesn't change that I am not very happy with it. Why did people insist on killing it? How can people be so mean and foulhearted? I'll miss you, my little spoiler template. Shinobu 07:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that was such a good idea. There are some pretty significant differences between {{ current fiction}} and the former spoiler template. {{ Current fiction}} emphasizes the new-ness of the work and the lack of critical commentary. "Spoiler" emphasized that the article presented significant plot details.
The former spoiler template had a high percentage of misuse — for instance, slapping it on the entire plot, thereby making no distinction between spoilers and general information. If "spoiler" redirects to {{ current fiction}}, I suspect that a high percentage of misuse will continue.
I'm inclined to think that {{ Current fiction}} is different enough that it shouldn't be regarded as a synonym of "spoiler". Marc Shepherd 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, The DRV has been closed as overturning and closing as no consensus. See [4]. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days."
Closing reviews - A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the article should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
Well, the template was deleted per the talk page. So, what do you guys think? Should we merge this talk page into the Current Fiction TP, or speedy delete this per CSD G8? L337 kybldmstr ( talk) 03:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Check this out: User:Grue/howto. Coming soon, "how to delete an article you don't like". Grue 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand, even if I disagree with, the argument that users of Wikipedia ought to assume that the Plot section of an article about a specific work of fiction will include "spoilers" about that work. In numerous articles, however, details of the plots of works of fiction are included as part of a larger discussion on some other topic. For example, in Omega point, an article on a topic in metaphysics, the final twist of Robert Charles Wilson's Darwinia is revealed without any warning to the reader. Should Wikipedians wishing to avoid spoilers skip over sections on popular culture altogether? What about articles that are not organized to include such a section, should prudent Wikipedians simply leave them unread?
-- Frostyservant ( talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)