Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
:::::In any event, we're supposed to be known for comprehensive overviews of each aspect of something. In the case of a fictional work's plot, which is by definition its beginning-to-end details, this means that the purpose of every plot section here is to do that, whether all of them are currently up to that mark or not. There's simply no reason for this tag to be used in such a redundant capacity. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
:::::In any event, we're supposed to be known for comprehensive overviews of each aspect of something. In the case of a fictional work's plot, which is by definition its beginning-to-end details, this means that the purpose of every plot section here is to do that, whether all of them are currently up to that mark or not. There's simply no reason for this tag to be used in such a redundant capacity. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::::If you are simply going to debate spoiler tag inclusion then please do so on [[Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC]] and NOT here. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Don't avoid spoilers for the sake of not spoiling== |
==Don't avoid spoilers for the sake of not spoiling== |
Revision as of 22:06, 1 August 2006
This is the talk page for addressing revised guidelines for Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, in response to the RfC on Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. A separate talk page has been started to discuss guideline revisions do to the excessive length of the previous RfC page and because of the shift of focus this discussion will cover.
Example articles?
Can anyone point to an article where the tagging is done in an exemplary manner? I assume that would be an article without any "spoilers" outside the begin-end tags and where what's left isn't just a stub, but makes a decent article on it's own. Shanes 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously an article in which all the plot details aren't contained within sections marked "Plot" would be best as an example. So long as I'm here, I might as well try to find one. Ryu Kaze 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Henrick Ibsen is an example of an article with vital plot details not contained within "Plot" sections, as the purpose of the information is to explain the commentary his plays were making on society. While I would think it entirely contrary to the purpose of the article to place spoiler tags in such an article, one like this is probably what you would be looking to as an example. Ryu Kaze 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was more looking for well written articles where the spoiler tags are in place and tagged in such a way that a guideline can point to them as examples of how to do it. I started looking at a few featured articles with spoiler tags, (e.g. Cheers and The Lord of the Rings) but they all seem to contain many "spoilers" outside the tags, so they aren't good examples at all. I assume that if we are to endorse spoiler-tags, they have to be used consistently and in such a way that no plot details that will lessen a reader's experience are revealed outside these tags. When readers see we are using these tags they will expect this website to be of the fan site kind that has these warnings before plot details everywhere.
- As to spoiler tagging Henrik Ibsen, I hope that's not ever going to happen. I'm a Norwegian and have seen a fair share of Ibsen plays. I'll be hard pressed to name a play I haven't seen, actually. But never, I repeat never, did I see a play where I didn't know the plot beforehand. And knowing the various plots didn't ruin any of the plays. Of course. Not for me, and not for anyone else in the theatre, most of whom had seen the plays many times before. Same goes for Shakespeare and other such classics where knowing the plot beforehand is very often a prerequisite for enjoing the play. But I believe we are digressing here. Any examples where the tags should be used and where they are used in an exemplary fashion so that we can say "there, that's how articles should be spoiler-tagged"? Examples are always useful when discussing things like this. Shanes 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd hate to see Ibsen's article tagged too. Discussing the man without discussing his works, what they said, and why they were saying it just can't be done in any article worth the paper (electronic or otherwise) it's written on. I also agree that knowing the plot of his works in advance enhances the experience of watching a performance. Hell, the theatre books I used in college summarized plays from beginning to end (his and other people's) before even showing you the script or before the professor showed a video of them or before we were instructed to go see one of the plays. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Firefly (TV series) has spoilers outside the plot (in characters) and uses the spoiler tag. It's in the middle of a peer review with next step FAC plange 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't have spoilers outside the plot area. Characters are a literary tool utilized by a plot to tell its story. They're as much an aspect of the plot as the setting, really. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Normally, yes, but in this instance, in the Guest area, one person in particular is THE whole plot twist to the first show she appears in. Hence why it's inside the spoiler tag plange 15:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't have spoilers outside the plot area. Characters are a literary tool utilized by a plot to tell its story. They're as much an aspect of the plot as the setting, really. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, here's a possible example for discussion purposes: A Wrinkle in Time. It's not that I think the spoiler placement is especially good or especially bad, but it is an example of issues to be resolved. The initial spoiler tag was on this article before I got here, but the end spoiler was added by me today. It currently encloses only the plot section, which by some schools of thought should be considered a potentially spoiler-rich area without tagging. Yet by the same token, many articles' plot sections have nothing that can reasonably be called a spoiler. So what is the consensus? Also, in this particular case, very little in the character and religious content sections could be considered spoilers, in my view, since it's pretty much all revealed in early chapters. Still, people might disagree with respect to the info on who and what Mrs Whatsit and friends are. That leaves me wondering whether to a) leave the article alone, b) move the end spoiler to follow the second paragraph of "Religious Content," or c) remove the spoiler tags, on the grounds that the only real plot ending detail is who Meg rescues and how, and that's in the plot section and can be avoided by spoiler info-averse readers on general principle. The final complicating factor with that kids reading the book for school may look up the ending to avoid reading the rest of the book, but I don't know that there's anything to be done about that. So....thoughts, anyone? Karen | Talk | contribs 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- A Wrinkle in Time isn't a very good example of what we're looking for. It's just got a tag in the area where one would expect plot details to be. On the subject of "Yet by the same token, many articles' plot sections have nothing that can reasonably be called a spoiler", we should go with the definition of "plot" here (the beginning-to-end framework of a story), which in principle means that the section's purpose is to detail the beginning-to-end major aspects of the setting, characters and story (the three aspects of a plot). As for kids looking up the ending to try to speed up their school work, how people use the informatio here isn't our concern anyway. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think Batman Begins shows a great example in the plot section. --Shane (talk/contrib) 07:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? It's not any different from how A Wrinkle in Time does it. Ryu Kaze 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Henrick Ibsen is an example of an article with vital plot details not contained within "Plot" sections, as the purpose of the information is to explain the commentary his plays were making on society. While I would think it entirely contrary to the purpose of the article to place spoiler tags in such an article, one like this is probably what you would be looking to as an example. Ryu Kaze 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Some proposals for this thing
- It should be emphasised that this is not an official policy, nor something that has to be used
- It should be stipulated that spoiler tags within sections specifically about plot details (marked "Story", "Characters" or "Plot") are unnecessary, as they're merely reiterating what the headers already say (that plot details are contained in those sections)
Comments on these proposals
- 1) This is something that definitely needs to be implemented. Several people (including myself at one point) have been confused into thinking that these things are as honored and sacred as Wikipedia:Verifiability. It should be pointed out that they are not a rule which must be followed. 2) In this particular case, they couldn't possibly be more redundant or unnecessary. Example article: Gladiator (film). We have a section entitled "Plot" there, and then right below it, a spoiler warning that says "Plot and/or ending details follow". Given that a plot is the beginning-to-end framework of a story, and given that the header says "Plot", it's quite obvious that this section is going to contain the beginning-to-end plot details of this film. Therefore, it is a grotesque redundancy. Ryu Kaze 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. And may I also add that Gladiator (film) contains many plot details outside the tags, so we are actually fooling the reader by labeling the plot section as the only one that contains spoilers. I believe everyone can agree in this being worse than having no spoiler tags at all. Shanes 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- While I'm all for such clarification, being mistaken as a policy is a problem that is faced by almost all guidelines. I don't think it's fair to fault the guideline for a general misconception.
- I don't think we can so easily blanket the concepts of Plot and Character headings. The argument that readers should know spoilers are there is not much different than the argument that readers should know there are spoilers in Wikipedia in general. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- It at least needs to be worded such that it conveys that it's not a rule that must be followed. It's a style preference that some have while others don't, so it should be detailed in like manner. And, really, readers should know that there are spoilers in Wikipedia in general. Ryu Kaze 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Ned. If we make the assumption that users know that "Plot", "Characters", and "Story" contain spoilers and thus do not tag them, the only thing that will be tagged are spoilers outside those areas (duh, I know, but bear with me) which should be few and far between (should, not that this is always the case). In effect, this would be almost the same as removing the tags (in my opinion). I don't support that. As far as "not official policy", I'm not sure where you're going with that. Could you clarify? Darquis 05:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are we then to assume that readers are idiots? Or suggest that sections in an encyclopedia article entitled "Plot" are not likely to contain plot details? A section that says "Plot" tells me everything I need to know about that section: it's going to discuss the plot, therefore it will include plot details; therefore, a banner that says "Plot details follow" couldn't possibly be more unnecessary. If we put redundant banners on that, we might as well put a banner at the top of the Gladiator (film) page that says "This article discusses the film, Gladiator". We already know that because of what the header is. I imagine most readers are intelligent enough to understand this.
- What I meant about them not being an official policy, by the way, is that some people have been confused in the past about the nature of spoiler tags, and have misunderstood their presence, believing that they were a rule which demanded that every article on works of fiction contain them. Even an administrator on one regrettable occasion believed this, despite there being no such policy, and Wikipedia's founder actually having great disdain for the things. Ryu Kaze 13:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- A reader who does not always expect to read spoilers in a "plot" section is not an idiot, so please stop saying that as I am one of those readers. And Randall even made the mistake of calling a guideline a policy. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but assuming that a reader cannot ascertain that a section entitled "Plot" will contain plot details is assuming them to be an idiot. I don't intend to do that, and will assume that everyone who comes here has the intelligence to reason that an article or section will contain exactly what its header says that it does. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is the conflation of the concept "plot details" with the concept of "spoilers." One is a subset of the other, and not always present. "Huckleberry Finn travels down the river with Jim, an escaped slave" is a plot detail, but not a spoiler. Many plot sections have plot details that follow the book report / book review convention of saying what the work is about, and some of what happens, while leaving out the Big Surprise at the End. Others have what happens at the end (they all live happily ever after, Tod Stiles gets married), and it's still not a spoiler, because it's not a surprise, or at least, not a surprise that is likely to affect someones enjoyment of the work. If sections like these don't get spoiler tags (and they shouldn't), then it's reasonable to think that many readers will not necessarily expect a spoiler in every Plot Details section. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's really an entirely POV matter in the first place that knowing plot details in advance does spoil works of fiction, and not something we can verify in even the majority of cases. Sure, there's plenty of people paranoid about them, but how many lives are going to be ruined by knowing the plot of The Last Samurai before seeing it? I personally usually read everything I can about a film or game before I get it, and I doubt that I enjoy it any less for knowing its plot. Simply because I have a general idea of what's going to take place doesn't tell me exactly how it will take place, nor what directing or writing methods are used to convey situations, nor how powerfully executed it is. Just knowing what is going to happen doesn't tell me very much, because there's those other aspects still to come.
- A reader who does not always expect to read spoilers in a "plot" section is not an idiot, so please stop saying that as I am one of those readers. And Randall even made the mistake of calling a guideline a policy. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an example, in the manner of presentation, Boromir's death in The Lord of the Rings was presented in a far more powerful method in the film trilogy than it was in the books. The wording used was more in line with instigating an emotional response, the music obviously added a complete other angle and the sense of closure to the character's personal story arc was greater.
- In any event, we're supposed to be known for comprehensive overviews of each aspect of something. In the case of a fictional work's plot, which is by definition its beginning-to-end details, this means that the purpose of every plot section here is to do that, whether all of them are currently up to that mark or not. There's simply no reason for this tag to be used in such a redundant capacity. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you are simply going to debate spoiler tag inclusion then please do so on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC and NOT here. -- Ned Scott 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't avoid spoilers for the sake of not spoiling
I think we should use this guideline to at least mention that editors should not exclude spoilers for the simple sake of not spoiling something or to isolate spoiler information to one part of the article. There are alternatives to this that would "decrease spoiler exposure" and not sacrifice the article. For example, a detail about a character's fate could go under that character's listing, or under a summary heading. One could argue that character sections are about the character rather than a list of things the character has done, and that the information would be better placed elsewhere. This would cover a lot of spoilers, as typically things such as character inspiration by the writers, who was the actor, the basic info and personality of a character fit under a character heading, but things like "Bob found his mom's horrible secret vagina-time machine" doesn't actually tell you about Bob, just what Bob did.
I think such advice should be kept short and sweet, and clearly stated that "even when considering these options, never remove a spoiler simply because it's a spoiler". I know we can all imagine how such advice could go horribly wrong, but I'll try to write up some better examples and think everyone will be pleasantly surprised. But the big thing is to say not to exclude spoilers for the sake of excluding spoilers.-- Ned Scott 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that should definitely be there. However, on the subject of what the character has done, their specific role in the plot is an important aspect of the character, so it should certainly be mentioned within an article about the character. Perhaps not in the "Characters "section of a work that has to detail several characters at once (Final Fantasy X, for instance, where things are kept short and sweet), but within that character's own page. Ryu Kaze 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Simplification of spoiler tags
Another issue I think we should address is the number of spoiler tags we have. Should we "merge" some of them, simplify the templates, maybe use a standard template and a second variable message template?
{{Sgspoiler}} (a "sub" template to {{Spoiler-season}}), is being used by WikiProject Stargate and has even been considered for deletion and survived. I don't think templates like these are a problem, as long as there are some basic guidelines to them and how they should appear. I'm not sure how I feel on the whole image thing yet. On one hand I'd like to reduce the number of templates and make the process more simple, but on the other hand I see the argument for the SG spoiler as reasonable.
I do think we should evaluate all the tags in Category:Spoiler warning templates, but I think it would be acceptable to have such templates as the SG one. ..As long as they have the "notice metadata spoiler" div tag around them, are listed somewhere on WP:SPOILER, and follow some form of basic style guideline for spoiler tags that are unique to a show or other work of fiction. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Spoilers on a case by case basis
On the RfC I suggested the idea that the guideline could include methods to help determine what is or is not seen as a spoiler for a work of fiction. A case by case system should be used for gray areas where a discussion is set up on the talk page of that article. Like most things on Wikipedia, the basic concept of consensus would be used to resolve any disagreements in what is or is not to be tagged. In other words, one user with a weak argument wants to use a spoiler tag vs others who have a stronger argument who don't want to tag that section, they wouldn't include the tag. However, in cases of no-consensus the tags should be used, possibly generalized if the dispute is about the location of the tags. Like all things on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be set in stone, and could always be revisited. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- While the case-by-case thing might be alright, I think the "spoiler tags win by default" thing is the worst possible suggestion, even more so than a demand that spoiler tags be used everywhere a plot detail dares take breath. I say this because at least that's straightforward in the effect it would render, while this would lead to a horrible loophole that would be abused like nothing else ever had been. By what basis would a weak argument be determined? By what basis would a strong argument be determined? More than likely on the basis of whatever value assumptions the debaters and the observers were bringing to the table.
- Even if Wikipedia's policy said in so many words "We do not put readers before our mission. Ever", those who think courtesies are important above all else would never acknowledge an argument against spoiler tags (even in the case of sections clearly marked "Plot") as anything more than blasphemy. Likewise, those who put Wikipedia's indifferent princiciples above all else in constructing Wikipedia would never acknowledge an argument in favor of spoiler tags as anything more than ludicrous. What it would probably come down to is whichever side could rally more people to argue "These guys are right". And, really, how many possible arguments could exist about this subject anyway? There's only a few possible situations that could even arise. Hell, there's only two: "Should spoiler tags be in this section that has a header detailing that it is specifically about the plot or an aspect of the plot?" and "Should spoiler tags be in this section that discusses relevant plot details outside a section marked as being about the plot?" These are the only possible discussions that could come up. All that would vary is the value assumptions being brought to the table (and, really, there's not too many of those either) and how many people were involved.
- Not that I have a good suggestion about how arguments over the matter should be resolved either, really, but I know this one would be an experiment in exploitation waiting to happen. Ideally, in the event of case-by-case operation, all regular editors at a page would agree. However, that's not likely to happen in reality, and new editors are joining articles all the time, and it's even more unlikely that -- even if all the editors there before agreed -- that the new additions are going to agree with them every time. At the least, a stipulation that spoiler tags are unnecessary in sections that have headers specifically detailing that they're about the plot would reduce the number of possible arguments about this from two to one (spoilers outside sections marked as being about the plot), so it would bring a little more simplicity to the matter.
- Anyway, like I said, I don't necessarily have a solution here either. In all honesty, I can't see how there could be one that would work while recognizing that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Wikipedia is supposed to be self-policing, but if its officers are divided, then what's the basis for wrong or right? Ryu Kaze 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
How to hide spoiler tags
Even though there currently is a way to turn off spoiler tags, the instructions are not easily found. I think we should provide these instructions on the guideline. Here's the instructions being provided by CWC (from Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2#Problem Solved):
Those who cannot tolerate spoiler warnings should use the following Cascading Style Sheets rule: .spoiler { display: none; } Any web browser which supports CSS (as almost all do) will then hide the spoiler warnings. (You will still see them in the Wikitext when editing.) There are lots of ways of doing this, especially for Firefox users. Here is one way. It has one big disadvantage: it only works if (1) you are logged into your wikipedia account and (2) you use the "monobook" skin (which most of us do — it's the default skin). On the other hand, this method is simple to explain.
|
-- Ned Scott 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This, I definitely agree with (but I'll reiterate, I think the default should be to "spoilers on"). Is there a way for non-logged in users to implement this? Does this apply to all spoiler templates? Darquis 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe this can only be used by a user who is logged on. Currently, it will hide all spoilers that are formatted like this:
<div class="notice metadata spoiler" id="spoiler">
Template message</div>
, which I believe includes all the templates in Category:Spoiler warning templates. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe this can only be used by a user who is logged on. Currently, it will hide all spoilers that are formatted like this:
- The idea is fine, but I have a couple of (minor) issues with the text. ""Those who cannot tolerate spoiler warnings should use..." is a wee bit too strong, you don't have to be unable to tolerate spoiler warnings to want to turn them off. Perhaps change to "If you wish to turn spoiler warnings off you can use..." On a really purely subjective note I'm not keen on the final line "Enjoy your spoiler-warning-free version of Wikipedia!", like the "tolerate" line it strikes me (again, purely subjective) as being ever so slightly sarcastic. I'd prefer something simple, such as "Spoiler warnings will now no longer show up in articles". --Daduzi talk 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't the proposed text to be included, this is just the message that CWC left that had the instructions :) -- Ned Scott 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Use sparingly
I think there's a place for spoiler tags, but I don't think they ought to be put willy-nilly around every plot summary that appears in Wikipedia.
There's a subset of fiction that depends on surprise for its effectiveness; if someone gives away the ending, it substantially detracts from the experience of reading or viewing the work. Mysteries are the obvious example, where much of the fun is trying to figure out the answer before it's revealed.
This is not true of all or even most fiction. Not only does one not need to be in the dark about Oedipus' relationship to his wife in order to appreciate Oedipus Rex, one really ought to be aware of what that relationship is even if you've never seen the play so that you can understand expressions like Oedipus complex. So I would argue that you don't need a spoiler tag for Oedipus; it should be reserved for things like Citizen Kane, and even there it should be confined to protecting the actual revelation upon which the plot depends. Nareek 13:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Something like the new [Hide]/[Show] tag seems worthy for small and important spoilers (magic trick solutions, Citizen Kane, Sixth Sense, etc). The generalized spoilers on every and all fictional articles just seems like overkill these days, though. -- nae'blis 16:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The generalized spoilers on every and all fictional articles just seems like overkill these days, though. Signed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The hide/show things being used on spoilers is borderline exclusion, as -- rather than just suggesting that people might not want to read it -- they hide information. Not to mention that they would be a layout and formatting nightmare. They shouldn't be used except in things like navigation boxes. What do you mean by "overkill", by the way? Ryu Kaze 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The generalized spoilers on every and all fictional articles just seems like overkill these days, though. Signed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The show hide option should be considered an unacceptable option to treating spoilers. The hiding of any actual content of the article should have nothing to do with WP:SPOILER, because then it really would be a censorship issue. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)