Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Proposal

A proposal to unify message boxes. See Template_talk:Protected for the proposal. --Cantus 02:42, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Revert to simple format

This generic template does not work on all articles. The "solutions", as discussed above, is particularly problematic. There is no reason not to have more specific templates. Also there is a majority of opinion on this page that the colour and box is too disruptive (in terms of ugliness and breaking the flow). The only counter-argument that has been presented (that I have seen) is that the message "grab attention". Why does this message (the one thing in the article not about the subject) need to jump out as the first thing you see on the page? It only needs attention in the sense that a person reading the article should read it. The old itaticised version is exactly appropriate for this. As there has been a lot of discussion on this page, I want to give people time to respond, but to me it seems like a bit of a no-brainer that we have over-done the template thing in this case. Pcb21| Pete 10:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Bold or italics is enough to make people see it. Angela. 11:11, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. I do think a box is a good thing, as a spoiler warning is particularly sensitive in its need to stand out. As most of us have already agreed, though, it needs not to be ugly or break the flow either. The generic box template is definitely losing my favor, as I think it's too generic and trying to solve too many problems at once, but I do think that a simple box around the spoiler warning (and, imho, a subtle, pale background color) is A Good Thing. — OwenBlacker 11:50, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I am glad there is little opposition to dousing down the colour, and to having a separate "solutions" template (assuming it would be used a lot).
However "a spoiler warning is particularly sensitive in its need to stand out" is still a sticking point with me.
The (background-coloured) box has the effect that it is the first thing the eye is drawn to when the article is opened.
The plain version does not have this effect, but is definitely noticed as the reader reads the article.
Would you agree that these two statements are fair?
If you do, then would you agree that it is actually the latter we want to achieve? A spoiler warning is not so important that it must be read before anything else. — Pcb21
I agree. With box and colored background, it's too prominent and actually distracting from the article text. Italics suffice. Lupo 12:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can a compromise be reached? Given how much this has been discussed, I hope folks are willing to budge some. As for the message, proposals for something both general and non-convoluted would be welcome. I'd propose Spoiler warning: Details follow, but that might be too lightweight. VV 12:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm quite happy with the current text. I've been on the Net too long to opine whether people would recognise the word spoiler, but it seems like a fair point that something a little more verbose than "Details follow" could be in order.
I'm not so convinced that the plain version isn't too subtle. I doubt I'm the only person in the habit of skim-reading articles and it's quite easy to fail to notice a spoiler warning when it's just bold-faced or italicised text, especially given they often tend to be immediately preceding the ToC.
I'm not gonna fight to the death for a box and/or color, but I'd certainly want to express a strong preference for one or both. Whilst I agree that it definitely needs to be noticed whilst reading the article (and not that it needs to be so inyerface that it's the first thing one sees), does it really matter if the eye is caught to the box before reading the rest of the article — surely people who don't care about the spoilers would just notice it, shrug their shoulders and start reading from the beginning? — OwenBlacker 14:45, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • The spoiler warning has never looked better than it does right now (my latest edit on Aug 18th). The background color promotes it very well visually for typical readers. It is a bit more garish than any similar notices, but I believe it has to be for it to be effective. It works very well on non-CSS and text-only browsers (due to bolding/italicizing of the text). It also looks very nice on the printed page (because of the box). While I agree with many of you that in general simpler formatted boilerplate messages are better, it performs the intended function very well, while looking professional at the same time. -- Netoholic 00:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • My contention, and I believe that of a majority, is that it would still look good on any browser, and on the printed page, if it was just the plain old bold or italic (or indeed both, I imagine). You, like Owen, make the asssertion that "it has to be a bit more garsish ... to be effective" - particularly because of the possibility of skim-readers. Seem people agree with this, some people don't. Unfortunately it has to prove objectively one way or the other. One piece of evidence is that no-one has ever complained about being "spoiled" by Wikipedia (at least to my knowledge, and I have more talk pages and policy pages than is good for one's health!). You may well be chasing a phantom problem.
  • Also problematic is the decision is binary - we either have a box or we don't. That there is a majority opposed to a box is a strong point in that direction. Of course mere numbers aren't everything, we need to consider things like the "cost" to each side of going one way or the other. It is my view that the "cost" of enduring a colour-filled box when you don't see the need is greater than the "cost" of having to endure going out without when you think the box would be an enchancement. Pcb21| Pete 12:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic, you seem to be the only person who prefers the generic wording. What's the point of making it generic? No articles which use this template contain "solutions". There is also a separate template for solutions already. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler. --Eequor 17:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Surely that depends on whether or not you get upset by spoilers? In some things (pticly operas and plays), a whole section marked "Plot" is quite sufficient, sure. But in articles such as Pierson's Puppeteers you can't do that. I, for one, would be most upset at reading something I didn't want to know yet… — OwenBlacker 14:28, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Which version would you more likely see in a respected encyclopedia?

Current version

Spoiler warning: The result of this poll follows.

Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow.

Support

  1. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 03:04, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Unless someone wants to create separate templates for puzzles, games, etc. Then we'll talk.
  3. Netoholic 04:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- It's short, simple, clear, and useful in many circumstances.
  4. Mpolo 09:35, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC) -- For better or worse, this is a web project, and so web terminology and etiquette apply. I think that the warning is really only appropriate for works that came out in the last year or two, however.
  5. Angela.
  6. OwenBlacker 14:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  7. ZeroOne 22:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- Wasn't this my idea? I still support it.
  8. Aris Katsaris 02:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Klanda | Talk 03:05, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) -- Spoiler is a perfectly cromulent word. [Kidding aside, it gets the point across, is useful for different categories of information (games, movies, etc.) Don't think it makes the 'pedia look 'unserious'.]
  10. Frazzydee 23:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. PlasmaDragon 13:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Iainscott 13:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Dont like the box, though. Or the bolding. I agree we should probabally be less agressive inserting this template in to pages.
  13. xDCDx 13:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree with the wording, disagree with the boxing and the use of the word spoiler. I think that Spoiler warning should be replaced by just Warning.

Oppose

  1. —siroχo 02:28, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) - The phrasing is perfect, but I'm going to point back to my previous comment on why the main text should not be bold.
  2. Cantus 02:43, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) - The phrasing is hardly perfect. No encyclopedia that aims to be respected would use the word "spoiler."
  3. Eequor 02:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) - the wording is silly.
  4. Geogre 03:39, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) I dislike all graphical objects inserted into literary discussions. To me, these make the articles look like "infobytes" that have become the rage in popular magazines, USA Today, and "crawls" along CNN. They make the discussion look fluffy and non-serious. I also think they disrupt the reading experience drastically, draw attention to themselves, and demand that an article shape itself along the lines of "What it is" and then "plot." Books are not about surprises and plots, and good books aren't ruined by knowing what's going to happen.
  5. -- orthogonal 03:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) what Cantus said.

Proposed version

Warning: Key plot developments are revealed next. Reader discretion is advised.

Support

  1. Cantus 03:02, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Angela. There's no need to advise anything. People can make up their own mind.
    • Duh. "Reader discretion is advised" means exactly "Make up your own mind." --Cantus 02:31, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. OwenBlacker. Too wordy
  3. Netoholic 16:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- Far too long and overly-distracting.
  4. Eequor 02:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Frazzydee 23:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC): I agree with Angela. Also sounds like the warning they give on late-night cartoon shows ("Viewer discretion is advised") :P
  6. PlasmaDragon 13:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Geogre 13:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) All graphical objects inserted into text discussions glare. It isn't like the reader is about to have a coronary or burst into flames, so the level of alert is still incommensurate with the dangers involved.
  8. Andrew pmk 01:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) Too vague and confusing.

Neutral

Comments

In a respected encyclopedia, you would see none of these: spoilers would be expected and no warning would be necessary.

For better or worse, we have decided to not be a respected encyclopedia, but rather an encyclopedia based on web slang. Given this choice, what is the best we can hope for: A calm explanation of what is about to be revealed. No garish colours, no "clever" formatting. And no "one size fits all message"

  • For Play, Operas: a == plot == heading or Plot follows: should suffice
  • For Movies Plot ending follows (only for movies with a "twist")
  • For games Solution revealed below
  • The generic Spoiler! is just too hideous. -- Nunh-huh 06:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's been said before, but Wikipedia is not paper. Most of our visitors come here via web searches and when they do, I believe that warning them of spoiler content is a respectable service we can provide. Out on the web, when spoiler information is presented, sometimes it is preceeded with a warning, and sometimes it is not. I agree that when you pick up a paper encyclopedia, you should expect to be spoiled, but we exist in a different medium, and should accommodate as many people as possible. That is how you become "respectable". -- Netoholic 07:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Spoiler" is web slang and need never be used seriously in an serious encyclopedia. No one reading an opera article needs a "spoiler" warning, for the plots of opera are not "secrets", and an encyclopedia that treats the plays of Shakespeare, the operas of Verdi, Adventure: the Colossal Cave, and Rubik's Cube as equally in need of a blinking multihued danger alert is...not a serious encyclopedia, even if it's on the web. And certainly not "respectable". -- Nunh-huh 07:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper. OwenBlacker 14:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Did someone claim it was? The point is an encyclopedia (regardless of medium, thank you) doesn't need spoiler warnings: an encyclopedia's purpose is to reveal and share information, not to obscure it. - Nunh-huh 19:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This debate is not about whether the spoiler warning belongs in a particular article. If you think it doesn't make sense in a Verdi opera, use a == plot == section and remove the spoiler warning. -- Netoholic 16:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The fact is that no single warning is appropriate for all uses, especially this single warning. And trying to remove a spoiler warning is a Sisyphean battle. Countless minions devoted to "spoiler" warning worship will devotedly plonk a bright red garishly boxed "warning" right after a "Plot" heading, apparently with no thought at all to the ridiculousness of so doing. - Nunh-huh 19:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, indeed. But we can put an explanation on here (or in the Style Guide) as to why that's stupid… — OwenBlacker 12:29, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
One (or both) would probably be helpful. You sound like you might be able to phrase it well, would you care to do the deed? - Nunh-huh 00:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is the polls' question, which version we'd *prefer* to see in Wikipedia if we want it to be respected, or is it just a theoretical and not very interesting (IMO) question about the stylistic preferences of other "respected encyclopedias" or the statistical possibility of non-Internet encyclopedias using language common to the Internet? Aris Katsaris 02:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
LOL. Priceless. --Cantus 03:17, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

The articles I contribute to (often times political or judicial) do not contain the possibility of needing a spoiler warning, so I am going to Abstain from this poll. However, there are definitely two clear sides to this and it depends on how you interpret Wikipedia.

  1. In my opinion, a "respected" encyclopedia would not contain any content that could possibly need a spoiler warning. Even if the article is regarding a movie, book, puzzle or game, it should contain nothing more than information that gives broad strokes or background knowledge and; therefore, will not affect the reader's watching, reading, or playing the subject.
  2. The simple definition of an encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge on any given subject. The first encyclopedias were often collections of knowledge regarding a given subject (e.g. an encyclopedia of medicine). Modern encyclopedias gather information and knowledge on a much broader variety of subjects from history to medicine to biography to law. Wikipedia has developed into a compiliation of knowledge of every subject under the sun. Therefore, a spoiler warning is in keeping as a necessity in some areas of content unless we are to drastically change the format of Wikipedia.

It seems best to keep an objective view of what Wikipedia is and not what you want it to be when considering this question. The current format of Wikipedia is not good nor bad. It is what it is. People should vote accordingly. Skyler 23:08, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

That's all very reasonable, but [1] a "respected" encyclopedia would certainly contain (for example) the plot of Romeo and Juliet, including (!) the shocking denouement (as does Wikipedia), and [2] unlike Wikipedia, the "respected" encyclopedia would not contain the words "Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow" in the article. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your assumption for two reasons:
  1. I don't think a "respected" encyclopedia would have an entry for an individual Shakespeare play and
  2. Where an individual play is referenced in the context of an article about Shakespeare, I believe the plot would be mentioned in passing and the section would contain more about the history or context of the play.
When we are speaking of "respected" encyclopedias, I assume the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition would qualify and it has no entry about the play itself but, in fact, does mention it in passing in an entry for Shakespeare and refers to the historical context of the play with a slight mention of the plot. I think that is a clear enough example, but I expect to be going to my college campus some time soon and I would be happy to check out the library for 5 or 6 other encyclopedia examples if you'd like to dispute my point. Skyler 01:44, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
You're telling me the Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't contain the information that "Romeo and Juliet" ends with dead teenagers? I would indeed be surprised if this were the case with many encyclopedias. - Nunh-huh 02:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
People do not usually look up information in an encyclopedia to find out how a play ends. Even if an encyclopedia does contain the information that they die at the end, I believe it is pretty common knowledge. Regardless, I will collect some more sources and post my results. Skyler 11:14, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
That will be interesting data about general encyclopedias. I do not think, however, that you will find an opera encyclopedia without detailed plot summaries, or a literary encyclopedia that does not discuss the plots of important works (or with a spoiler notice). - Nunh-huh 21:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Aw CRAP, Nunh-huh!! Thanks for ruining it for me!!! Klanda | Talk 02:40, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Beware! For now I tell you of the fate of the Three Little Pigs! - Nunh-huh 07:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Flawed poll

This poll is flawed. Without allowing the original version of the template (prior to Netoholic's total redesign), it insinuates that everyone thinks the prior version was inferior. Consider the Abilene paradox. Without an appropriately wide range of options, and with the old version missing, it's questionable whether this poll has any merit at all. --Eequor 14:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The option I'd like to support isn't even listed! Instead there is a choice of "which pink box". Perhaps not the most well thoughtout poll. Pcb21| Pete 17:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When Cantus created this, I think he meant for the poll to be about the wording of the message, not the visual display. The arqument, I think, was about the inclusion of the word "spoiler, specifically". -- Netoholic 17:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is no mention of that in the poll pre-amble. The previous section in this thread is a discussion about removing the pink box. I think I could be forgiven for not reading Cantus' mind. Pcb21| Pete 20:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you list a new option? Better yet, why not create a new poll that would be specifically about the question of whether there should exist a box around the warning or not? Aris Katsaris 18:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I tried adding another option already. Apparently somebody objected. --Eequor 19:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That someone only objected to your adding "options" that weren't actually "options" but rather subquestions that *pretended* to be options. As I said in my comment on my edit: "You can add further complete versions - but not change the question and pretend it's the same poll". You had added an "option" that said only "The word spoiler", and another point that said "For use in puzzles or games". Aris Katsaris 21:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I dislike premature polls. At the time the poll was added, I was in the middle of a dialogue with Owen and Netholic, trying to understand why they thought the box was necessary, with a view to getting a decent compromise. Pcb21| Pete 20:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It suddenly occurred to me...

...that there really is no need to use {{tld|spoiler}} for everything, its ok to have one for plot elements and one for solutions. So here's Template:Solution, ready for everyone to screw around with. —siroχo 20:55, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

By "solution", are you referring to the solution of a puzzle or riddle? Alex 03:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
In case you didn't realize, you just replied to a message from eleven months ago. :-) —Lifeisunfair 04:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, no I did not realize. Whoops. Alex 05:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of its exact phrasing, should the spoiler warning be enclosed in a box or not?

Yes, it should be enclosed in a box.

  1. Aris Katsaris 21:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Cantus 23:41, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  3. siroχo 01:02, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Netoholic 03:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. mpiff 02:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. OwenBlacker 10:14, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  7. PlasmaDragon 13:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) The box makes it stand out more, so that someone scrolling by doesn't miss it and accidentally read a spoiler.
  8. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 14:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC). But not in a pink box
  9. Goplat 15:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Alex 03:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC) I think white would be the best color to be in the box
  11. Pacroon 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be enclosed in a box.

  1. Eequor 22:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela. Far too noticable. Overwhelms the article. 19:10, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Pcb21| Pete Those saying a box is required for noticeability have provided no proof of their claim. During the two years of the simple italicised message, not one person complained about getting spoiled. The box is getting fancy for being fancies sake. 21:31, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    1. Alex Adding a box around something gives it added importance compared to everything else, which is good when it is a warning.
  4. Nunh-huh 22:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Dysprosia Why should things have to be in a box all the time?
  6. Geogre 03:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) I dislike all graphical objects inserted into literary discussions. To me, these make the articles look like "infobytes" that have become the rage in popular magazines, USA Today, and "crawls" along CNN. They make the discussion look fluffy and non-serious. I also think they disrupt the reading experience drastically, draw attention to themselves, and demand that an article shape itself along the lines of "What it is" and then "plot." Books are not about surprises and plots, and good books aren't ruined by knowing what's going to happen.
  7. -- orthogonal 03:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) What Angela said.
  8. Chris 73 Talk 05:31, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC) The box, especially with a pink background and a "Warning" message is too much. If you read an encyclopedia on a story, movie, or game, you can expect spoilers, an a mild note at the beginning will be more than enough.
  9. I'm new, so I don't know if I can vote, but HATE the boxes, they look ugly and unprofessional. (user:213.206.33.82)
  10. The box is distractingly unattractive in any article, but monumentally so in brief articles. Jwrosenzweig 16:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. A short italicized sentence would more than suffice. A big box is just ugly. -Sean Curtin 00:26, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Keep it simple, • Benc • 06:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Iainscott 13:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Yath 22:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. xDCDx 13:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I think that just the bolded word Warning is enough for noticing it.
  16. Jeandré, 2004-08-30t21:07z

Further Comments

{{spoiler}}

At least the HTML used needs to be changed, because <p> is allowed to wrap. This looks very bad for text with a border, as seen at right. --Eequor 22:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow.
How about this one? It uses a table instead, so the border won't mess up. I don't like using tables for non-tableish things, but it seems to be the only way to make the border work properly when it wraps, without putting the border on a div or p (which would extend all the way to the right, making it intersect floating objects) Goplat 23:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Tables containing one cell are bad form, as text browsers and alternate (screen readers) handle tables differently. I know this can be done with the P tag and CSS. -- Netoholic 01:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, I have another idea. If a P is floating, it's only as wide as it needs to be, like a table. So if a float:left P is followed by an empty clear:left div,

Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow.

it looks just like the table one. Goplat 05:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ooh, that's nice. I think I'm gonna make the change. Aris Katsaris 18:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be in a box (even if that box is just a colored background) because several users desired a more visible notification of spoilers, that could be seen when scrolling through articles. —siroχo 01:04, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but several other users desire a less visible notification, so it shouldn't be in a box. Pcb21| Pete 09:31, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's why we are making the survey. Please put your own vote in the appropriate place above, if you have a preference. Aris Katsaris 18:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I did that. Still don't think polls are an effective way of debating issues though. Pcb21| Pete 22:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Equally, putting it in a box with an easy-to-implement CSS override might be a better solution, though, no? Then people who don't want the box can turn it off in their monobook.css — OwenBlacker 10:15, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
I am happy to have it set up so that can people can add a box using their CSS if they want the warning more prominent themselves, but the default should be without a box and colour. Pcb21| Pete 10:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I so knew that'd be your response *GRIN*
I'd suggest that Net users are more likely to be spoiler-averse than worried about a box, but I know that I would say that. Maybe we should just go with the consensus on Message box and elsewhere, if we ever get one? — OwenBlacker 10:28, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Box/no box: how about you leave it to users to choose? Set whatever default you like in the global stylesheet, not in the template HTML itself. The style attribute definition in the current template is overriding people's personal settings. --Goblin 21:31, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Specific spoilers

It seems to me that one of the original questions in this thread was never answered: Why not have specific spoilers for specific purposes? The movie crowd is obviously more tolerant of, say, certain colors than the novel crowd. So why don't we work separately on

The generic spoiler template could continue to exist, but would increasingly be phased out to be replaced with more specific spoiler warnings. I also think the question of where spoiler warnings should be used should precede the one of how they should look. That's because if we rule out, say, spoiler warnings in classics, some of the main objections to visible warnings may go away.--Eloquence*

I don't know how there can exist a different warning between spoilers in movies and spoilers in books. Different wording wouldn't make any actual sense there -- and I feel that your argument that the movie crowd is "obviously" more tolerant of certain things, is not so obvious to me. Whom have you labelled as movie crowd, and whom as novel crowd? Aris Katsaris 12:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Whilst I get the point, I'm with Aris on this one; I don't think we actually need a different wording for different media. — OwenBlacker 12:49, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
There is clearly something wrong though when Shakespeare plays get spoiler warnings (even some of the histories!) Pcb21| Pete 12:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nothing's wrong. Not everyone is an actor, nor a literary critic. Hope that his works will continue to hold novelty for some people, not that they will all become as insipidly cliché as Romeo and Juliet. --Eequor 15:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the point in having separate templates for each medium. What will they ever say besides "plot details follow"? All of the activity here seems like searching for solutions to problems that don't exist. For example, there are currently no articles using {{tld|spoiler}} where the words ending or solution are applicable, and a {{solution}} template is available.
The history for Template:Spoiler is baffling. Until August, there had been seven edits to the template since its creation in December, not counting a vandalism incident of two edits. From August 9 onward, there has been a more or less continuous flurry of editing, complete with reverts and silly polemic in the summaries, and despite that, the changes have been negligible. Surreal. --Eequor 15:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spoilers not needed

Another question to ask is, are spoiler warnings needed at all? The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English has plot summaries of hundreds of novels and not one spoiler warning. None in the Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction either. If someone turns to an encyclopedia article on a book, play, or film they expect to find a description of the plot.

I see we have a spoiler warning on Shakespeare's Hamlet. Under the sub-heading "Plot summary". (Or at least we did until I removed it.) This is madness. Gdr 13:57, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

I think it's a cultural thing. On the Internet, whilst discussing TV and film, Netizens (or, at least, sci-fi geeks, such as myself) tend to expect spolkers to be warned; in other topics (opéra, plays) or in other media (printed books, newspapers, magazines) one wouldn't. I agree that a spoiler warning on Hamlet (or Les Misérables, for example) would be pretty silly; I do think that they're both necessary and appropriate on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ringworld or Charmed, though. — OwenBlacker 14:41, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that in a discussion spoiler warnings are appropriate because people often read all the articles in a thread, or on a newsgroup or whatever, so spoilers may be unexpected and unwelcome. But in an encyclopedia article? Gdr 14:54, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC) (P.S. I'm not arguing that we delete them all, just that if we adopt a policy it should acknowledge that editors may choose not to have them.)
I'm in two minds, even with an encyclopædia; I guess I've just had it beaten into me that spoilers are just rude. I certainly think they ought be notified in articles about ongoing TV shows; it strikes me as les simportant in things where the universe is complete, like Buffy. — OwenBlacker 15:15, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Hamlet and Les Misérables should both have the plot separated from the overview of their significance. Many people, such as myself, have actually never seen either, and would not appreciate having the plot revealed.
I expect most of the remainder would find it terribly silly and obnoxious to have a distracting bright pink box yelling at them that they ought avoid reading a plot they already know. --Eequor 15:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If someone is going to be upset at learning the plot of Hamlet, they should not read the Wikipedia article about Hamlet. It's absurd to warn them that an encyclopedia article about Hamlet will reveal plot points. It's not a review of a movie released this weekend, where one might expect such a warning: it's an article about a centuries old play whose plot should surprise no literate person. - Nunh-huh 07:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Blow away this template altogether. When someone writes a movie or book review or discussion on paper or on the web (outside of web forums) and wants to warn that some revelations are to be discussed that maybe someone would rather not know before reading or viewing the work, then the writer usually says so in words tailored to the review or discussion. The writer normally doesn't use something as crass and garish as single cheap template for review after review, or for discussion after discussion.
Nor do I see why a warning is any more or less necessary on Les Misérables than it is on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. One might write articles on either in which one avoided giving away matters or which placed revelatory plot details mostly in a particular section marked in some individual way. But anyone who picks up any book or article about a book or film is very naive not to expect plot details to be revealed. Even on web forums a note "SPOILER WARNING" mostly appears on discussions of first-run films or on films to be released where details have been leaked. They are far less likely to occur in discussing a film even two years old.
In quick comments or an argument tossed out on a web forum, a hasty "SPOILER WARNING" at the head of a section excellently fits the type and style of discussion. But such style is not appropriate in an encyclopedia or any more formal articles on or off the web. What other encyclopedia on paper or on the web contains such warnings in standard form? (There are numerous specialized web encyclopedias and dictionaries on the web.) If I come across a full discussion of any book or film on the web outside of a forum, I don't expect there to be any warning that details may be revealed, especially if there are sections called Plot Summary or Discussion of Characters. Because something is used in some contexts on the web and is appropriate in those contexts does not mean it is appropriate in every context on the web.
In any case, is a template that contains as little text as this one worth using at all over writing a few words suited the article in those cases when an editor feels that a reader should be advised about unexpected revelations?
Jallan 15:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Consistent use of sections is probably the best solution overall, particularly for literature, etc. It is realistically probably enough for movies as well, though the netiquette in me wants a spoiler warning... Mpolo 16:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just change policy slightly, For anything with a plot, if the plot is revealed, it should be done in or after a section titled Plot summary. I say "after" so that the media can be discussed outside of plot section farther down the article. Then people will have some standard to follow to warn of spoilers without the template. (All those stubs with spoiler warnings and no sections will have to be given one section) [[User:Siroxo|—siroχo

—siroχo]] 19:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

There also exist character pages. You can't make such pages have a "plot summary". If people didn't feel a spoiler warning was needed in atleast some cases, then one would never have been created and inserted on so many pages. Aris Katsaris 20:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That takes take into account the asymmetry of the situation. It only takes one or two people to invent a new template, then go on a "template rampage" adding it to all vaguely appropriate articles. Removing such information is notoriously difficult within Wikipedia. Pcb21| Pete 06:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the opposite is true. Those one or two people had to manually add their template to dozens or hundreds of pages. Removing templates, OTOH, is simple. There are several ways to do this. For example: a simple bot + Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler = no more template. • Benc • 06:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And then stand back and hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth. - Nunh-huh 07:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You are absolutely right and Benc is mistaken on this. I was originally drawn to this page because another user would not let me remove the spoiler warning on a particular article. I was told to come here and try to get the spoiler changed to look more simpler. Weeks later, and I am still trying! Pcb21| Pete 07:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. You're absolutely correct, of course. I was thinking technically, not politically. (In my defense: I'm a professional software developer.) You have my support for simplifying the tag, by the way. Boxes are bad. • Benc • 08:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Disagree completely. In most articles on books the opening paragraph should explain something about the plot. Not the whole of the plot, but the most important feature of the plot — enough for the reader to understand why the book is interesting or significant. In Hamlet the opening paragraph should say that it's a tragedy; in Moby-Dick it should mention Ahab's obsession with the white whale; in Lolita it should explain that the narrator is an unreliable self-justifying pedophile. And so on (sorry if I've spoiled these books for you!). This is basic encyclopedic writing: put the most important facts about the subject in the opening, then expand on them later. I don't think Wikipedians should be contrained not to say anything interesting about a book until after a "Plot summary" subheading. Gdr 20:39, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Yes, the spoiler tag should exist. Wikipedia is not paper; the lack of spoiler warnings in Encyclopedia Britannica and the like is not an applicable precedent here. Unlike the Britannica, Wikipedia has extensive information about popular movies, video games, and fiction (i.e., entertainment). You won't find a blow-by-blow plot summary of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in a traditional encyclopedia. There are more people reading more information about more works of entertainment. In the entertainment world, spoiler warnings are standard.

As for the suggestion that spoiler tags be deleted in favor of a standardized "Plot summary"/"Synopsis" heading: won't work. First, there's no problem if the majority of articles have a spoiler tag right after their "Plot summary" heading [it might be taken as insulting our readers' intelligence, as Jallan pointed out]. It's just one italicized sentence, quite harmless. Second, as Aris Katsaris pointed out, not all articles will have a "Plot summary" section. The good thing about tags is that they're versatile. They give editors the freedom to make judgement calls in organizing their articles while still maintaining the courtesy of warning readers when transitioning into spoilers. • Benc • 06:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, and Wikipedia is not a UseNet group or a mailing list. I disagree with your assertion that the garish spoiler warning doesn't make Wikipedia look more like an Internet forum (and not a particularly tasteful one) and less like an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 07:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I asserted no such thing; please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't even mention Internet forums in my post. I agree that spoiler tags in their current form are a little "unencyclopedic", though. Especially enclosed in a garish box. But we need to strike a balance. Our articles should be intelligent and academic, but not pompously written to the point that it drives away readers. • Benc • 08:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not paper". Neither is Encarta or Britannica on the web, or the Encyclopedica Mythica or numerous other encyclopedias, some created specifically for the web. I get tired of that bogus "not paper" argument, as though criteria for presentation differed entirely for paper and for screen. There are some differences. But a stiff and garish template looks ugly for both. And sticking it under a heading named "Plot Synopis" or something similar is an insult to the reader's intelligence. If there is a plot synopsis, of course it will spoil the surprises in the plot for a who reader doesn't already know it. That's obvious, isn't it? Most readers can figure that out themselves. The same is true for discussions of character. That doesn't differ between paper and screen. If you want to be surprised by a book or film, don't read commentaries on it.
Yes, we need to strike a balance in various things. So in this case let's strike it by throwing away a template not used by other encyclopedias because that template is not necessary. Your answer is not middle-of-the road balance. It's "let's look like a web forum" balance and let's assume that readers are too stupid to avoid articles that might reveal things about something they haven't yet read or seen or to avoid sections of such an article that are obviously going to reveal such material. Using exactly the same template every time to save typing a few suitable words when an editor does legitimtely feel a special need to warn (say when talking about the ending of the film Citizen Kane is not even web forum balance. The ugliness of this template is not "quite harmless" unless you consider mass-produced and standardized ugliness as harmless. Why not design the template to look like a rubber stamp while you are at it?
Actually the current Wikipeida Citizen Kane doesn't give away the ending and doesn't give away more than an average film review usually does. But there's that ugly warning with the word "Plot, ending, or solution details follow", a crass interruption of reading. What is the word "or" doing here? Are the article editors so ignorant that they don't know what details follow in the article they wrote? If it is felt necessary to give a warning, and I don't helieve any warning is needed on this article, then supply the warning in a sentence that fits the article. Is that too hard for an editor? Or is the ugly and stiff, bold and shouting, mass-produced feel of the template a desirable style? The style of the old Wikipedia contains spoilers message was far less intrusive and just as visible. Just change its text to "This section contains spoilers" if you really need a template. But you don't need a template.
As to articles being not pompously written and so forth, that non-sequitur has nothing to do with anything discussed here.
Jallan
It seems to me that you're caught up in the details about how ugly the template currently looks. That is not the issue here. We're discussing whether the spoiler tag should exist in any form. (Believe me, I'm all for making the spoiler tag as unobtrusive as possible!)
Second, the "pompously written" comment was not meant to be tangential to what we're discussing here. What I meant was: it is pompous to ignore the community desire for some form of standardized spoiler tag for articles covering entertainment topics — in favor of some idealized vision of "encyclopedic". Maybe that community desire isn't as strong as it appears on first glance. This is an issue for a poll to decide, of course. But until proven otherwise, the sheer number of spoiler tags in articles indicates s that the community wants it.
Finally, I agree that the "Wikipedia is not paper" argument has been cited a few times too many, but it can apply here. I'm merely pointing out that we're free to ignore or uphold precedents set both by paper encylopedias and by Internet forums. • Benc • 04:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Judgement call

Maybe the official policy on spoiler warnings is that it should be a judgement call by the main editors of an article. Then if JoeAverage comes along and adds a spoiler warning to Hamlet, the main editors and writers are justified in removing it. But if JoePompous comes along and removes the spoiler warning from Fight Club, the main editors can put it back. —siroχo

—siroχo 20:31, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

In the Citizen Kane article I cited above, I note that two different templates were placed on the article at different times by editors who did no other work on the article. Possibly they did not bother to check how few details were being given away. But unfortunately it is often the case in Wikipedia that template enthusiasts and category enthusiast splash something on article after article and it is not quite bad enough for most to complain even if they don't like it. (Enthusasts are enthusiastic and just don't see why others can't share their enthusiasm. That's a fault common to most of us.) And people don't remove it because it isn't worth the trouble of fighting and if is on so many articles it must be consensus, until it starts getting as ugly and stiff as the current spoiler message and begins appearing on too many articles where it obviously should not be placed. I find that "JoePompous" statement rather insulting when you compare him with "JoeAverage". How about "JoeNoTaste" instead of "JoeAverage"? Some simple italicized words saying "Plot suprises revealed" in italics would do as well as this ugly template as an extra warning to anyone who might not be aware that a plot synopsis section of an article will probably contain a plot synopsis. In any case, after reading a couple of sentences, anyone who stumbles into such material will usually stop reading if they don't want to learn any more details. And editors writing carefully will usually obviously segue into revelatory plot discussion without something so crass as a template. They usually do not start an article with "This is another the-butler-did-it mystery involving a hidden trap door under the wardrobe in the locked room". And if someone does start an article that way and there is a reasons for doing so, just add a preceding sentence like "This discussion will now begin to give away full plot details." You don't need standardized ugliness. Try subtlety and careful writing instead. Jallan 01:32, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry that my choice of made up names were so offensive; I didn't really put too much thought into it. Anyways, I think I generally agree with you. As long as the editors approve of how the reader is notified that plot details are going to be given, It doesn't really matter if they use the template or not. Each article can find its own solution. Anyways, at the rate the template is going I'm not a huge fan of it any longer, especially since people in general haven't been looking for consensus or even "rough consensus" very well, and just constantly changing the template to whatever. —siroχo

—siroχo 02:30, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Polls regarding wording

The following polls are to decide the most appropriate wording for this template.

Use of the word spoiler

Should the template contain the word "spoiler"?

No

  1. Eequor 18:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Wikipedia should avoid colloquialisms.
  2. [[User:Siroxo|—siroχo

—siroχo]] 20:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) We have a separate "solution" template now, so plot details is all we care about here.

  1. xDCDx 13:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Just Warning feels more professional than Spoiler warning.
  2. Jeandré, 2004-08-30t21:06z
  3. Davodd 22:00, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) For many a spoiler is a car part: http://www.spoiler.com
  4. Goblin 16:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) "Warning: plot/story details follow" is quite enough.

Yes

  1. Aris Katsaris 18:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC). Yes. Clarity above confusion always, and "spoiler" is the most clear way to describe what we are talking about, regardless of whether it's "colloquial" or not.
  2. Niteowlneils 03:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC). Yes, gets the point across quickly. Also, it's more likely to be recognized by 'English as a second language' Internet users, than any wording that follows.

Comments

It should be noted that the use of spoiler here is not recognized by http://dictionary.reference.com/.

It wasn't at the time you wrote that (I'm guessing), but it's there now.--Sketchee 05:00, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Content

Which of the following phrases is most appropriate? If you would prefer a phrase not listed here, please add it.

Knowledge of the following details may spoil the initial experience

Plot details follow

  1. Eequor 18:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Siroxo|—siroχo

—siroχo]] 20:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  1. Jeandré, 2004-08-30t21:05z

Plot or solution details follow

  1. Goblin 16:03, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) No need to make "ending" explicit. Isn't the ending part of the plot? Also, I suggest we keep "solution" in the spoiler warning until most articles needing {solution} are readjusted.

Plot, ending, or solution details follow

  1. Niteowlneils 03:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC). Unless somebody voting for the shorter one is volunteering to retrofit all 'solutions' that currently have {spoiler} tags with the {solution} tag.

Comments

Note that there is a {{solution}} template, which expands to:

Warning: Solution details follow.

--Eequor 18:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Warning label

A neutral phrase is used in this poll. A vote here does not indicate endorsement of a particular choice of words. Please note that the following possibilities vary for stylistic reasons as well as for technical reasons. This question shall be construed to have exactly the following options as possible answers, even if it does not.

Should the template be labeled Warning:, or would the above content be sufficient?

Unlabeled

Key plot developments are revealed next.

  1. Eequor 18:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. —siroχo

—siroχo 20:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Alternate unlabeled version

Key plot developments are revealed next.

Labeled

Warning: Key plot developments are revealed next.

  1. xDCDx 13:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) The label makes it more noticeable. With the label, maybe the box can be avoided without danger of someone skipping the while rapidly scrolling.
  2. Niteowlneils 03:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC). Sets it off without needing a box or background color.

Alternate labeled version

Warning: Key plot developments are revealed next.

Comments

Since this poll pretends to ask about one specific question (whether the template should be labeled with a warning) but through the answers it in essense asks two clearly distinct and unrelated ones ( 1- whether the template should be labeled, and 2- whether a link should exist within it that leads to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning), my opinion is that this poll has no meaning or validity. Aris Katsaris 02:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of silly argument that I was trying to avoid. The alternative was to offer a poll in which using the "obvious" choice (#Unlabeled) is not really a valid option (see below). This poll does not ask two specific questions each with two choices, but one question with between two and four choices. It ought to be really clear that the "alternate versions" are basically "throwaway" options which are unlikely to be preferred, but which prevent anyone from accusing me of omitting choices in order to sneakily change the format as I wish. Instead I get this. *thud* --Eequor 03:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So you not only assume in advance people's preferences (the version that you call "throwaways" and "unlikely to be preferred" are perhaps not coincidentally the versions I *would* prefer* -- so there goes your little assumption down the drain) but you are surprised that when you add "throwaway" options in order to make some esoteric point, that people will claim that this distorts the poll. Aris Katsaris 04:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why are you attacking the poll when it contains the choices you would prefer? Just vote on whichever unlinked version you prefer, please. By voting, you would demonstrate that these options are not simply "throwaways". Please note that the poll makes no stipulations about which options are less preferable; the "alternate" versions are only called that because they occurred to me slightly later. --Eequor 05:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Because the poll doesn't ask about the choice I would prefer in *general*, the poll asks a specific question about whether the template should contain a label or nor. Why can you still not get that? Aris Katsaris 12:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The poll asked about the label. It didn't ask about a link, and therefore there are only *two* answers to your "poll" -- labelled or unlabelled. You didn't need to add *any* wording in order to ask about the label, the same way I didn't need to include any wording when I asked about the box. Or you could have added many possible wording and linking options as examples for each actual votable option. But ofcourse your desired solution was to assume people's responses, adding throwaway options, and inserting a defacto second question into the poll instead of do the *obvious*.Aris Katsaris 04:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You've lost me. By including every likely option, how am I assuming what anyone prefers? --Eequor 05:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You didn't include every likely option. You included four likely options. Want me to add some options, with different wordings and different linkage to show how absurd your chosen options were when you decided to violate the idea that a binary question has two possible options? Aris Katsaris 12:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beginning with the basic template:

1. Warning: Key plot developments are revealed next.

we proceed to the next choice by simply removing the label:

2. Key plot developments are revealed next.

This is #Alternate unlabeled version. Presumably the link is still desired, so the choice ought to be:

3. Key plot developments are revealed next.

Noting the duality in the last two choices, a fourth choice naturally presents itself; for completeness:

4. Warning: Key plot developments are revealed next.

Therefore the question to this poll has four possible answers. Q.E.D. =P
--Eequor 03:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, if we add a question about the link, then the poll has atleast four answers and possibly many more (e.g. linking the entire sentence). But the question was supposedly about the label and the label alone. Aris Katsaris 04:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, no. The extra duality arises because removing the label also removes the link. A fair poll should include all options which contain one change to the original if it includes any option which makes two changes.
The "fair" poll doesn't need to include any other option than the word "labelled" and the word "unlabelled". It was *your* choice that besides the bare question you should also include "examples". Regardless of your private rules about what options must be contained, my objection that this poll is meaningless and invalid remains -- but since I'm not getting through to you, I'll cease my participation this discussion. Do it as you will. Aris Katsaris 12:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Referring to the numbered list above, (1) is the original; (2) changes the label and the link, for two changes; (3) changes only the label, ignoring stylistic variation, for one change; (4) changes only the link, again for one change. A poll containing only (1) and (2) would be unfair, just as a poll containing only (1) and (3) would be. So (1), (2), and (3) are all necessary, and (4) is not entirely necessary but should be included anyway to avoid bias. --Eequor 05:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to be an ass, but this poll is a sprawling mess, and that's why I'm not going to add a vote. May I suggest starting a new poll at /Poll? Give it a week for its questions and wording to be hashed out before opening up for votes. We could list it at Wikipedia:Current surveys and/or Wikipedia:Village pump to get input from the wider wiki community. Let's do this poll over, and let's do it right. Forgive me for being blunt, • Benc • 04:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ben. Personally, I find it ridiculous we're being so idiotic here by pushing our own individual agendas and opinions. We have to do what's best for the reader. Most readers who have not read/viewed something will be disappointed if they find out the ending inappropriately. That we should expect our readers to expect this is asking too much of a population that panics when somebody accidentally changes their desktop background. [1] This template should exist, but I agree with the idea of phasing it out and replacing it with appropriate templates tailoured to different kinds of articles to create a better atmosphere of professionalism. I'm neutral on the (IMO) stupid issue of whether "spoiler" is a professional word to use or not, but it's indisputable that we need to warn our readers in some way. Anybody who calls such warnings unprofessional needs to wake up and smell the coffee — unless they'd like to handle the mass complaints from readers turned off by such an approach of pretending everybody's smart enough to ignore such articles. The suggestion that each warning be unique and tailoured for the individual article is, IMO, impractical. The author will need to write his own formatting, which can be complicated. This formatting is likely to be non-standard, which will confuse the user who will not know what to pay attention to because of the unsystematic manner of warnings. That alone, IMO, is enough need for templates. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also told Eequor about the sprawling mess, even tried to fix it (twice!) on his behalf (see the history), but he'd have none of it, insistent that *obviously* 4 equals 2. So, let him have his useless mess of a false poll. He and it deserve each other. Aris Katsaris 11:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Main Page Notice

What about a big notice on the main page saying This is an encyclopedia. Facts are revealed. If you want to discover these facts in other ways, do not read about them here.?

Haha. --Eequor 05:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Spoiler warning in List_of_current_Disneyland_attractions

Now, Disneyland doesn't have a plot, ending, or a solution. It just has rides and attractions. Maybe reword warning there to:

This article details attractions or points of interest which may spoil the experience of people who haven't visited them.

[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:12, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Or better yet, reword it to: "". There's nothing in that article that spoils anything. There is some outdated info though. Mr. Toad took his last "Wild Ride" on September 7, 1998. This just in: Toad still riding in California, replaced by Pooh in Florida only. - Nunh-huh 23:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What a strange place for a spoiler warning. --Eequor 23:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Solution" no longer belongs in the text.

There has been Template:Solution for over a week now, and articles with solutions make up a tiny minority of all articles that use this, so I'm going to remove the word "solution" from the text now. If anyone feels the need to put it back in, don't, instead use the proper template. —siroχo 12:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think you should remove the box in Template:Solution to make it uniform with Template:Spoiler, as the poll shows majority against boxes. xDCDx 13:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New designs?

I'm not a fan of either the full border or the hand. I prefer the warning as it looked here: [2]. I'll leave it for a few days, and if I get no response, I'll revert. At the very least, it will draw your attention. - Vague | Rant 03:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about the box, but being the user that added the hand, I like that one. It's too hard to notice otherwise; there were several pages where I looked around, didn't see a spoiler warning, went to edit one in, and it was there. The version you linked to doesn't have enough to grab attention. I don't mind if you have a better image or another way to improve it, but I think the hand and box not only make it look better/cooler, but also improve it's functionality. Cookiecaper 08:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like there's some rendering problems with the box. It's not wrapping like it should. To the person that added it, please fix that. I'm putting it back to the hand in the old type of container for now, though. Cookiecaper 04:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think, if there is an image, it should be something subtle yet noticeable like, not something that immediately jumps out at you when you open a page. -- Kaizersoze 22:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

The warning is silly enough already; it doesn't need an image to make its point clear. Adding anything more to the template will only serve to distract readers. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the warning is silly. It's useful, and it's pretty hard to notice without something like an image. The exclamation point on Kaizersoze's icons isn't straight and that just doesn't look nice. But I think it needs something more than just text to stand out so that people see it. Hmm. Maybe just a big, bold, red exclamation point instead of an image. Any ideas?Cookiecaper 06:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One idea would be to read the page and note that lots of people think the warning is silly, and lots of people see a need for it to be less prominent, not more. So why not leave it alone? - Nunh-huh 07:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image???

That big red stop sign is distracting. It also doesn't fit with the size of the text. Is this absolutely necessary? Do we need an image at all? It looks like the previous consensus was that we didn't, but if we do, I don't think this is it. Something smaller and less distracting would be more appropriate. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it much either. Takes away from the cleanness of the page. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed it because it was distracting and it didn't even look that good. K1Bond007 16:58, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
This template is already intrusive enough; adding an image would only make it worse. -Sean Curtin 18:48, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Moved code out

I've moved the code from the style tag, which makes the border-lines at top and bottom, over to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. Basically, this means that the bars aren't forced upon the reader, assuming they know their CSS. However, it also means the bars won't appear in other skins. I asked around a bit, and the disappearance of the bars was heralded as a good thing, so I haven't added them to the other skins, yet. Hopefully, we can gather some consensus here, and see whether users of the other skins want the bars or not. For now, people can use this code: 

#spoiler {
    border-top: 2px solid #ddd;
    border-bottom:2px solid #ddd;
}

Add this code to User:[Your Username]/[your skin].css, and the bars will return. - Vague | Rant 10:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I added the bars to the custom CSS of the other skins (except MySkin, which I felt should be left bare, as is its purpose). Least surprise, etc. If you wish to remove the bars, use this:
#spoiler {
    border-width: 0px;
}
Add that to your user CSS, and the bars will go. - Vague | Rant 11:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoilerbox

I've created Template:Spoilerbox as an alternate approach. See Template talk:Spoilerbox for discussion. Bovo-Bukh demonstrates its use. Obviously, I'd love to see technical improvements, but I think it is an idea at least worth considering. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom constitute a great improvement over the earlier attempt with Template:Spoilerbox as an alternate approach. See Template talk:Spoiler top for discussion. Bovo-Bukh demonstrates its use. I think this is pretty darn solid; I'd be very interested to know what others think: should we adopt that as a preferred approach? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

No. -- Netoholic @ 22:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned and detailed argument. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Anytime. -- Netoholic @ 07:19, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)


Yes. -- I just tried this and it looks nice. However, is there a way to ensure that the spoiler space is hidden on opening a page; I opened the test page (with a shift-F5, I'm using Firefox) and the spoiler space was open by default. Also, if there are not plans to try and have this javascript code incorporated into the default skin, then it might be difficult to get broad usage ... which doesn't mean it is not useful, but I thought I should voice my concern. Courtland 21:20, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
Change setup_spoilerbox(true); to setup_spoilerbox(false); near the end of the javascript to have them start out hidden. —Korath (Talk) 05:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Again, I (at least) had no particular intention of making this so that the content would be hidden. Our current Template:spoiler doesn't hide content. My intent was simply to make it clear where one can resume reading. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, but I reckon the giant box is a little bit too much. I still think it's better if the actual plot details are normal body text, with a box (emphasis box but I see everyone's decided against that) at the top... I'm sure there's another way to mark the bottom. But anyway, I think the giant box looks out of place, as it's (as far as I know) the one template of its kind. Neonumbers 00:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again, I'm wide open on changes to how this is physically implemented. The point is simply to have some indication of where the "spoiler" section ends, so those who don't like things "spoiled" can see where it is OK to resume reading. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I count only about 20 uses of the template on the what-links-here page for spoiler-top, about half of those episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. People seem about evenly split on the use of the template at all. I like it, as I said above. What guideline should be placed for use of the template? Should it be recommended that articles with an existing spoiler warning not be changed to the new one? Should it be recommended that new additions of spoilers adopt this new version? Thanks for your thoughts. Courtland 01:55, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

kjlk

kjhgklhlkh

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/old_template_talk/Archive_2&oldid=1144155891"