Anonym Fuck

Do you really think this policy has some kind of logic?

Second try ...

A more moderate proposal now. Of course, I wouldn't want Teeth to state that "Teeth is a film about a girl with teeth". Darren's other examples are equally valid. However, I have seen some utterly careless spoilers on Wikipedia. I would like editors to think twice before including spoilers. Everything else being equal from an encyclopedic perspective , a version without a spoiler should be preferred. As I understand WP:PLOT, complete coverage of the plot is not that high of an encyclopedic priority to warrant a completely careless attitude towards spoilers. Vesal (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Fully agree with Vesal's edit and Kusma's tweak. Well done. Everyme 11:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Do spoiler tags do harm?

The debate about whether wikipedia should have spoiler tags has been raging for quite a while. Just look at this page. The fact that its still raging after all this time and there are 15 archived pages clearly indicates its a heated topic. Lots of people seem upset that there are no spoiler tags, we see the same arguments over and over that despite wikipedia being an encyclopedia that strives for completeness, people expect to be warned before a story is spoiled.

I understand that some people think that it should be obvious that an encyclopedia will have spoilers well clearly its not obvious or this debate wouldn't still be going. Furthermore I see putting spoiler tags into an article a matter of politeness. It says "hey, just in case you didn't realize, here comes a spoiler." and seems to me like its just a nice thing to do.

I'm just curious: Who is harmed by spoiler tags? Why are some people so against them? Not having spoiler tags is doing harm. People expect them and they aren't there so they accidentally get plots spoiled. If we had them what would be the draw back? What harm would they do? Mloren (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SW shortcut

In November, somebody quietly switched WP:SW from this guideline to Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars. However a look at "What links here" shows that the shortcut has little if any currency in that WikiProject, and that on the contrary WP:SW has frequent use as a pointer to this guideline. I've reverted the shortcut to point here. The WikiProject page lists the following Shortcuts:WP:WPSTAR, WP:SWARS, WP:STARW and WP:STARWARS. --TS 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

It is totally inappropriate to include spoilers in the lead section of an article. Readers have the expectation that they can read the lead of an article to learn general information without having the plot spoiled. By including major spoilers in the lead, Wikipedia would only drive away readers, instilling in them the fear that they cannot even look at an article about a film or book which they are interested in but have not yet watched or read. Readers should be able to read an article read with the same comfort they read a review or a summary on the back of a novel - expecting an overview of the story without serious spoilers. Some guy (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers in lead

I'd like to voice my agreement that a spoiler in the lead should require considerable justification. I think a policy such as the following would be reasonable:

Any opinions on this wording? --P3d0 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers definitely shouldn't be in the lead, and most of the time they shouldn't be there at all. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment — I oppose putting spoilers into our lead sections, for two reasons. Firstly, the lead section of the article should exist as an introduction and as a short summary of the important points of the article, so that a reader can understand the topic without having to read through the in-depth coverage of the subject below. Most of our readers don't read much beyond the summary section, therefore they should be considered the most important part of the article. To include more than the summarizing details of the article in a lead section would make it sound prolix, which could frustrate our readers when they want to get basic information on a given topic. Another thing is that our readers often turn to Wikiperia as a guide. It would be a ridiculous assumption that our readers don't sometimes read Wikipedia for what movies they may want to watch, or what video games they may want to play, or what books they may be interested in reading, etc. While it may seem contrary to our "non-spoiler" approach, many of those readers would not like their movie to be spoiled for them prior to watching it; if Wikipedia garners a reputation for doing this, we might end up with fewer readers. Thoughts? Master& Expert ( Talk ) 18:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How come anyone hasn't come forward with examples where they ARE in the lead, and have been kept upon changing that? It seems as if this whole discussion is about some theoretical practice that isn't happening in the first place otherwise. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The reason we have this guideline is to focus on creating informative articles without restrictions; we're here to inform, not to beat around the bush. If you want to read an article that covers a story comprehensively, of course there's going to be spoilers. Also, as others have said, what a spoiler can be is highly subjective. I mean, technically the lead section to Milk (film) has tons of spoilers (including a major one about the end), but it's based on a true story. Also, there seems to be an assumption that including spoilers in the lead of an article "ruins" the subject for others, which also implies some sort of malice in conveying this information. I highly doubt that's what goes through most people's minds when writing lead sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • With uncommon (but not rare) exception, the LEDE of an article shouldn't be detailed enough to give away what a reasonable person would consider a "spoiler". We should probably include a mention of the ending of The Crying Game (as that was the subject of some discussion in RS and should figure prominently in the article), and it may be worthwhile to note the fact that Aieris dies in FFVII or bringing up the ambiguity surrounding Deckard in Blade Runner, but for most cases, the elde should just be summarizing the plot section which should only be a portion of the article. For character articles, this may be impossible, but that might be a sign that the character article is better merged into the parent. As for going out of our way to avoid them: no. Wikipedia contains spoilers and doesn't have disclaimers. If some spoiler is important enough to get mentioned in the lede, some style guideline shouldn't keep it out. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The premise of a film/TV series/episode definately belongs in the lead, but for my articles, I have so far avoided adding plot information of the last few acts to the lead, or have at least been intentionally vague there. That's also what I'd expect to find as a reader (not a writer). So I support to discourage spoilers in leads, but I'd not support the ban of spoilers there (too many variables to consider). – sgeureka t•c 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as the one who started this section, I'd like to revise my opinion based on the discussion above. Given WP:LEAD indicates that a summary should stand on its own, and should include important points (even if they are spoilers), I'd say what is needed here is not a stricter prohibition on spoilers, but rather more editor leeway . WP:SPOILER is pretty uncompromising on this, and I think it could stand to be reworded so that it gives the article's editors more freedom to weigh the importance of informing readers against the risk of alienating them. --P3d0 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • What do you mean more leeway? As far as I can see, this is an editorial decision. No one requires that spoilers be placed in the lede. For most works of fiction, the lede in the main article shouldn't have a spoiler because the "twist" usually isn't important enough to the film itself to figure prominently in the lede. There are (as I said above) uncommon but not rare exceptions to this and WP:SPO

    Talisman Online

    Anonym: Comments: any sin that has plus 7 gears plus can tank the last boss with 1 fairy ... fuck urself nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooob: Time: 2009-4-27

    ...

    Abort - Känsliga rummet - Forum

    Anonym (Fuck) 2009-06-27: 14: Anonym Idag 19:46: Han vill verkligen inte ha barnet... Anonym (osäker) Idag 08:25: 13: Anonym Idag 18:06: Fortsatt kula på magen efter abort?

    ...

    Just Barely 18

    ... 09/06/27(Sat)11:39 No. 1282 i'd fuck her lol. >>... http://anonym.to/http://www.pixhost.org/show/31/392842_x_your_dollface.jpg http://anonym.to ...

    ...

    Destroyer Magazine

    Gay as fuck; Gigi (German) Kaiserin; Kiddiepunk; Koinos; Nothing; QX Sweden; The Guide; They shoot homos don’t they? WLTF; XY; Miscellaneous. Destroyer Map - documenting sculptures of boys

    ...

    AS14 - Fuck a horse, ride a lady - Download Animal Sex - For all your ...

    Fuck a horse, ride a lady ... Klicken sie hier fuer anonym und direkt zugang mit ihre telefon oder handy.

    ...

    anonym's Site @ weekend.lu!

    This is the Usersite of anonym

    ...

    DoCopenhagen: Top 50 Music Videos Of 2005

    Anonym said... Good job. By the way, those who dont like bands that are not on MTV can go fuck themselves! cry you fucking consumerist pieces of shit.

    ...

    Protesttag WM 2006: FUCK • Donnerstag, 01.03. 14:09

    Anonym: Betreff: FUCK • Donnerstag, 01.03. 14:09: Text: Klar, damit sie dann entlassen werden und mit noch weniger Geld auskommen müssen. Spinner!!! ... der spinner bist doch du; du ...

    ...

    anonym@pacbell.net: Guestbook

    anonym@pacbell.net: Guestbook # ... You're not really a shit fuck face babe . . . 8: Thu Mar 4 1999 10:39: who

    ...

    YouTube - nsa3300's Channel

    ஜ۩۞۩ஜஜ۩۞۩ஜஜ۩۞۩ஜஜ۩۞۩ஜஜ۩۞۩ஜ α∂∂ мє αѕ ... Never Heard B4]Anonym - Fuck the distortion

    ...