Spoilers

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:30 am

James Bond Fans Beware: Wikipedia Reveals Major 'Skyfall' Spoiler

James Bond fans beware -- Wikipedia's entry for the latest 007 film "Skyfall" contains spoilers big enough to drive an Aston Martin through.

Also here.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:17 pm

HRIP7 wrote:James Bond Fans Beware: Wikipedia Reveals Major 'Skyfall' Spoiler

James Bond fans beware -- Wikipedia's entry for the latest 007 film "Skyfall" contains spoilers big enough to drive an Aston Martin through.
Also here.

Well I think if they can publish plot lines on films and books, then we are perfectly justified publishing plot lines on wikipedia characters. Hello Jimmy.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:26 pm

lilburne wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:James Bond Fans Beware: Wikipedia Reveals Major 'Skyfall' Spoiler

James Bond fans beware -- Wikipedia's entry for the latest 007 film "Skyfall" contains spoilers big enough to drive an Aston Martin through.
Also here.
Well I think if they can publish plot lines on films and books, then we are perfectly justified publishing plot lines on wikipedia characters. Hello Jimmy.

Yes, because fictional stories are exactly the same as real people.

I like seeing dirt thrown on Wikipedia admins as much as the next guy, but c'mon, that was just silly.

dotdash · Unread post by **dotdash** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:57 pm

HRIP7 wrote:James Bond Fans Beware: Wikipedia Reveals Major 'Skyfall' Spoiler

The real story appears to be "Bond released late in U.S.". They went for "Wikipedia Publishes Spoilers!" but could equally have gone for "Non-U.S. Press reveals secret details of new film: Times, Guardian reviewers implicated". Or how about "Wikipediocracy leaks spy film plot: bad guy initially successful, ultimately felled by 007"?

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:45 pm

How to Avoid "Breaking Bad" Finale Spoilers Online
NBC, 27 September 2013 link

THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA WAS OFF LIMITS?

The Wikipedia Spoiler Hider provides salvation for the Wikipedia lovers out there. Instead of setting specific parameters, the Firefox add-on uses set keywords to block plot points from any page dedicated to a show, movie, book or story. To see what has been blocked, add-on users simply need to click the "Toggle Potential Spoilers" link that appears in place of blocked information and the page will refresh and appear as normal.

While it might seem counter-intuitive to look at the "Breaking Bad" Wikipedia with the finale so soon, this add-on is a potential lifesaver for anyone who needs to get somewhat of a fix but doesn't have time to sit down and catch up.

Free Wikipedia Spoiler Hider app: link

The pompous Wikipedia Spoiler policy: link

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:46 am

*September 2010: flap over Wikipedia revealing the surprise ending of Agatha Christie's play ''The Mousetrap'' makes the New York Times. Jay Walsh says: "Generally it appears most Wikipedians support the notion that encyclopedias are often exhaustive when it comes to facts, and someone searching for an article about a story should be prepared to encounter a summary of the plot."

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:55 am

A software layer in all browsers, keeping Wikipedian assholery from being seen by viewers. Hmm... now there's a product I could see happening.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:59 am

Zoloft wrote:A software layer in all browsers, keeping Wikipedian assholery from being seen by viewers. Hmm... now there's a product I could see happening.

Why are ALL the pages blank, daddy?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:18 am

Wikipedians won't stand for that. It's effectively censoring the site! WP:NOTCENSORED!! Presumably their expert team of programmers can find some way to fool Firefox, and will give the task their highest priority.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:43 pm

'NHL Revealed' episode guide surfaces on Wikipedia
Less than a day after the announcement of the behind-the-scenes show, the plots of NHL Revealed's six episodes appeared on an online reference site.
SB Nation, 19 November 2013 link

On Monday, the National Hockey League announced NHL Revealed, an upcoming mini-series focusing on the players participating in the four outdoor Stadium Series games and the Heritage Classic outdoor game in 2014. Fans immediately wondered what secret revelations about their favorite teams and players will be put on display beginning with the first episode on January 22nd.

But some eagle-eyed watchers may have gotten a sneak peek that the NHL did not intend. A few hours after the announcement, a page about NHL Revealed -- including in-depth plot points of all six episodes -- appeared on the online reference site, Wikipedia. The wiki page detailing the situations and conflicts the players will face in the different episodes spanning three months, five games and the Sochi Olympics.

The page was pulled down almost immediately, and representatives from Wikipedia would not return e-mail inquiries about the page. It's unknown who posted the information, how they could have known about shows that haven't aired yet or even if it's correct. None of us will know that until NHL Revealed airs in January.

SB Nation was able to capture a screenshot of the page, which we've preserved for you below. Click to enlarge. POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT.

Includes a screenshot of the Wikipedia article that reveals the winner of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics men's ice hockey gold medal game. Shame on you, Wikipedia!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:23 pm

There used to be a spoiler alert system, but it was deleted on the grounds thet WIKIPEDIAISNOTCENSORED.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:45 pm

Nope. It was deleted on the grounds that WIKIPEDIANSAREDUMBFUCKARSEHOLES.

greyed.out.fields · Unread post by **greyed.out.fields** » Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:03 am

Mancunium wrote:'NHL Revealed' episode guide surfaces on Wikipedia
Less than a day after the announcement of the behind-the-scenes show, the plots of NHL Revealed's six episodes appeared on an online reference site.
SB Nation, 19 November 2013 link
On Monday, the National Hockey League announced NHL Revealed, an upcoming mini-series focusing on the players participating in the four outdoor Stadium Series games and the Heritage Classic outdoor game in 2014. Fans immediately wondered what secret revelations about their favorite teams and players will be put on display beginning with the first episode on January 22nd.

But some eagle-eyed watchers may have gotten a sneak peek that the NHL did not intend. A few hours after the announcement, a page about NHL Revealed -- including in-depth plot points of all six episodes -- appeared on the online reference site, Wikipedia. The wiki page detailing the situations and conflicts the players will face in the different episodes spanning three months, five games and the Sochi Olympics.

The page was pulled down almost immediately, and representatives from Wikipedia would not return e-mail inquiries about the page. It's unknown who posted the information, how they could have known about shows that haven't aired yet or even if it's correct. None of us will know that until NHL Revealed airs in January.

SB Nation was able to capture a screenshot of the page, which we've preserved for you below. Click to enlarge. POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT.
Includes a screenshot of the Wikipedia article that reveals the winner of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics men's ice hockey gold medal game. Shame on you, Wikipedia!

Obvious fake. I can see that even without using my supah admin powerz.
If it had ever existed, there would have been a drama-fest over whether to include diacritics in the name of Teemu Selänne (T-H-L).

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:30 pm

Celebrity Big Brother 2017: Wikipedia RUINS final eviction twist by 'REVEALING' who leaves

CELEBRITY BIG BROTHER concludes with the live final tomorrow night, but the final back door eviction twist may have been ruined after Wikipedia reportedly let slip which housemate was kicked out early.

link http://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-rad ... Jemma-Lucy[/link]
I don't suppose that anyone here cares, but it's distinctly not cricket to do that.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:53 pm

It was reliably sourced, I suppose?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:21 pm

As the article doesn't give a link to Wikipedia, it's not easy to check.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:26 pm

"As the Bachelorette finale draws ever nearer, the lucky suitor who wins Sophie Monk's heart is imminent. But has Wikipedia already ruined the ending?"
A great Wikipedia story brought to you by The Daily Mail

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:58 pm

Poetlister wrote:"As the Bachelorette finale draws ever nearer, the lucky suitor who wins Sophie Monk's heart is imminent. But has Wikipedia already ruined the ending?"
A great Wikipedia story brought to you by The Daily Mail

Well, since it's celebrity TV gossip, I believe that Mr. Davenport gives this his seal of approval.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:11 am

Maybe Jimbo is sexting her at this very minute.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:50 am

Earthy Astringent wrote:Maybe Jimbo is sexting her at this very minute.

She looks blonde. It is said that he prefers brunettes.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:53 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Maybe Jimbo is sexting her at this very minute.
She looks blonde. It is said that he prefers brunettes.

His wife is not a brunette, PL. Low blow!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:11 am

A story from Mexico (in Spanish). I can't make much sense of it. Anyone fluent in Spanish?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:28 am

Poetlister wrote:A story from Mexico (in Spanish). I can't make much sense of it. Anyone fluent in Spanish?

La Migala is the point of contention here, it appears.

Here's a video adaptation:
(Trigger Warnings: Big Spider, Excessively Mopey Guy)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:56 pm

Apparently, Wikipedia is the answer. And yes, this is a reliable source so it must be true.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:55 pm

This from a site called Hellogiggles seems to be about a spoiler of a TV show.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:53 pm

It is not uncommon for Wikipedia to give the premise of a newly-released film, and in case of mystery-thrillers, they tend to avoid that as well. But that’s not the case with Rajkummar and Shraddha-starrer Stree. The film released on Friday, August 31, 2018, and almost immediately the full story was put up on Wikipedia.

Latestly.com

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:33 pm

Virtually every edit on Petals Around the Rose (T-H-L) for many years has been either someone deleting the answer, or someone putting it back.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:04 pm

I'm really surprised this doesn't happen more often.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:13 pm

There was a big row once about whether to put "spoiler alert" warnings in articles. It was decided that they were not allowed as they were allegedly a form of censorship.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:28 am

Unfortunately, with Wikipedia now revealing the climax and minute details such as the post-credit scenes, it looks very tough for 2.0 to survive this onslaught of online piracy. One will have to wait for final box office figures of Enthiran 2.0 to come out to find out if the film was a hit or a flop.

Latestly.com

I don't suppose the film producers can seek legal redress against anyone?

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:50 pm

It earned ₹117.34 crore (US$16 million) worldwide on its first day, which was the second highest ever for an Indian film. The film crossed ₹400 crore (US$56 million) in its opening weekend to emerge as the highest-grossing film worldwide for that week. As of 6 December 2018, 2.0 has earned ₹520 crore (US$72 million), and is one of the highest-grossing Indian films worldwide.

2.0 (film) (T-H-L)

Na, there's no law the WMF would recognise banning plot details from their Wikipedia articles.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:59 am

I remember somewhere a discussion about spoiler warnings in film articles. The upshot was that they were banned because NOTCENSORED.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:54 pm

Poetlister wrote:I remember somewhere a discussion about spoiler warnings in film articles. The upshot was that they were banned because NOTCENSORED.

Which actually makes very little sense. Not having film plots at all could be described as a form of censorship, I suppose, but putting them in a hidden section with a warning like 'don't view this section if you don't want to see the detailed plot with spoilers' is really more of a style choice. I personally prefer them not to be 'spoiler tagged' but if I had to 'click to view' I wouldn't much care, nor feel that something had been 'censored'.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:35 pm

Jim wrote:
Poetlister wrote:I remember somewhere a discussion about spoiler warnings in film articles. The upshot was that they were banned because NOTCENSORED.
Which actually makes very little sense. Not having film plots at all could be described as a form of censorship, I suppose, but putting them in a hidden section with a warning like 'don't view this section if you don't want to see the detailed plot with spoilers' is really more of a style choice. I personally prefer them not to be 'spoiler tagged' but if I had to 'click to view' I wouldn't much care, nor feel that something had been 'censored'.

As usual, we two are in 100% agreement. But of course, "upshot of a discussion on Wikipedia" and "actually makes very little sense" are by no means contradictory.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:41 pm

It's been quite some time since "spoiler alerts" were banned on Wikipedia, but I don't recall censorship being the central issue. I seem to remeber it being more about the first of the five pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a place to go to read about things, not for movie previews. While I do think people go to far in trying to provide every little detail I agree with that basic premise. If you want a movie review, read any of the hundreds of websites that do movie reviews.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:43 am

Beeblebrox wrote:It's been quite some time since "spoiler alerts" were banned on Wikipedia, but I don't recall censorship being the central issue. I seem to remeber it being more about the first of the five pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a place to go to read about things, not for movie previews. While I do think people go to far in trying to provide every little detail I agree with that basic premise. If you want a movie review, read any of the hundreds of websites that do movie reviews.

You may be correct. The discussions do cover points such as those you recall. However, if you read WP:SPOILER (T-H-L) it says:

After a series of long, contentious discussions, several issues with spoiler warnings were identified:
1. There was no strong basis to exclude disclaimers for potential spoilers from the "No disclaimers in articles" guideline...
...

...so then, moving right along to Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles (T-H-L) we find:

Why disclaimers should not be used:
They are redundant with the disclaimer linked at the bottom of every page.
Wikipedia is not censored.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...
...

So perhaps not the 'central issue', but one of the main rationales for the item listed first as an 'identified' issue. ('Wikipedia is an encyclopedia' being directly below it in the list)

Anyway, the quoted text above is arguably self-contradictory in that it basically says: 'disclaimers are bad, encyclopedias shouldn't have them - we have a disclaimer on every page.' It does say:

For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages

So perhaps 'disclaimers' with content not already covered in the 'disclaimer linked at the bottom of every page' would not be 'redundant' and therefore OK?

Personally, I still don't really see adding a 'disclaimer' as censorship by its usual definition since addition of a warning is not removal of information. It may be application of a 'house' POV to influence the extent to which a reader is inclined to read, rely upon or give credibility to information, and that may be a "good thing" or a "bad thing", depending on POV and circumstances, but not really censorship.

As I said above, a "spoiler warning" is pretty much a style choice anyway, rather than a 'disclaimer'. I happen to agree with the current style choice (no warning), but if the majority disagreed and felt that giving the reader a choice as to whether to see information that might 'spoil' their enjoyment, and making it less likely for this to happen inadvertently, was preferable, then I'd have no great issue with that. I certainly wouldn't see it as censorship, nor, in my opinion, would it make wikipedia less of an 'encyclopedia' to have a 'warning' or a collapsed box containing the same information it does now.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:51 am

I do recall an incident where the identity if the final secret Cylons on the Battlestar Gallactica reboot were revealed....on the main page. That got removed pretty quick as it didn't fit the whole "if you don't want to know don't read the article" mantra.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:06 am

Not just that, but definitions of what constitutes a spoiler in a particular work can vary.

There have been numerous fan arguments over this.

That is another reason why spoilers are not labelled on Wikipedia.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:17 am

Johnny Au wrote:Not just that, but definitions of what constitutes a spoiler in a particular work can vary. There have been numerous fan arguments over this. That is another reason why spoilers are not labelled on Wikipedia.

Well, arguably, if you haven't seen the movie, then the entire plot section is potentially a 'spoiler'. Quite often these plot sections are unsourced, the argument being that the work is the source. That's a fair argument - if you want to see the results of letting editors construct their own deathless prose based on storylines then have a look at some fine examples here.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:23 am

Beeblebrox wrote:I do recall an incident where the identity if the final secret Colons on the Battlestar Gallactica reboot were revealed....on the main page. That got removed pretty quick as it didn't fit the whole "if you don't want to know don't read the article" mantra.

Those secret Colons were scary.

Spoiler Warning:

Wasn't there a half-breed version of them; the secret Semi-Colons?

My wife thought Adama would end up being the final secret Colon, but I couldn't even punctuate that, so I was glad when she turned out to be wrong:::

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:44 am

Jim wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:I do recall an incident where the identity if the final secret Colons on the Battlestar Gallactica reboot were revealed....on the main page. That got removed pretty quick as it didn't fit the whole "if you don't want to know don't read the article" mantra.
Those secret Colons were scary.

Spoiler Warning:

Wasn't there a half-breed version of them; the secret Semi-Colons?

My wife thought Adama would end up being the final secret Colon, but I couldn't even punctuate that, so I was glad when she turned out to be wrong:::

I blame autocorrect

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:56 am

Beeblebrox wrote:I blame autocorrect

Very wise. Technology is usually the culprit and should not be trusted.

Spoiler Warning:

After all, the only way Galactica managed to survive the initial Colon attack was that Adama was a crusty old technophobe who had insisted that its computers should not be networked. Had he not done so, the reboot would have ended after the two pilot episodes, with the only survivors being the victorious Colons, full-stop...

Spoiler Warning:

...apart from that other Battlestar, the Pegasaurus...

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:55 am

Jim wrote:Anyway, the quoted text above is arguably self-contradictory

Of course, the whole corpus of Wikipedia pillars and rules is not short of self-contradiction!

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:02 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Jim wrote:Anyway, the quoted text above is arguably self-contradictory
Of course, the whole corpus of Wikipedia pillars and rules is not short of self-contradiction!

Not to mention where the rules themselves are contradicted by consensus.

Eric Corbett · Unread post by **Eric Corbett** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:50 pm

Jim wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:Not just that, but definitions of what constitutes a spoiler in a particular work can vary. There have been numerous fan arguments over this. That is another reason why spoilers are not labelled on Wikipedia.
Well, arguably, if you haven't seen the movie, then the entire plot section is potentially a 'spoiler'. Quite often these plot sections are unsourced, the argument being that the work is the source. That's a fair argument - if you want to see the results of letting editors construct their own deathless prose based on storylines then have a look at some fine examples here.

That some editors are weak at summarising is self-evident across the whole spectrum of Wikipedia articles, nothing unique about so-called plot spoilers. Which don't actually spoil the plot at all of course.

An article about a book or a film would be pretty slim without discussing the genres, themes and so on of the plot, which would make rather little sense without an awareness of what the plot actually is. If what readers are looking for isn't an article about the book or film, but rather a review-style article then that's what they should be looking for, not a Wikipedia article.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:40 pm

Summaries vary widely in extent, and there are quite a few, presumably on works that don't garner a lot of attention, which do not go into the kind of narrative detail that leads to spoilers.

It could be argued that all these summaries are OR and ought to be deleted. The argument is not without merit.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:58 pm

Ming wrote:Summaries vary widely in extent, and there are quite a few, presumably on works that don't garner a lot of attention, which do not go into the kind of narrative detail that leads to spoilers.

It could be argued that all these summaries are OR and ought to be deleted. The argument is not without merit.

How would you propose to write about a work of fiction without describing the plot at all? This is an obvious case where OR is an issue, but it is one that has to be winked at a little bit.

Only a little bit though, there are legions of examples of articles on fiction that contain overlong, very detailed plot summaries and almost nothing else.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:05 am

This does bring to mind one my treasured books, Cult Movies by Danny Perry, Most chapters start with a 3-5 paragraph summary of the plot, then move on to analysis of the film. Except the chapter on Eraserhead, which keeps it to one sentence uttered by David Lynch "A dream of dark and troubling things."

Whereas the WP article spends 5 paragraphs actually describing the plot, which is basically pointless in a movie that isn't about plot, but rather about conveying emotions.

i do note with some relief that nobody has added a plot to the article on Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi (T-H-L), although there is a synopsis of what you actually see.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:38 pm

A plot summary need not be OR. You can consult a reference work such as those by Clive Hirschhorn (T-H-L) and paraphrase its summary so as to avoid copyvio. Better still, use at least two sources. It's not as easy as all that, but I've done it a few times.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:36 pm

WARNING: The following article contains minor spoilers for M. Night Shyamalan's Glass, in theaters now.

Uniting characters from M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable and Split, Glass is built on the premise that superhumans should be exposed to the world so that they can live free and accepted. However, if the film's Wikipedia entry is to be believed (spoiler: it shouldn't), the ending includes an even bigger crossover. ... After the plan by psychiatrist Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) fails, the Wikipedia entry contends, "The movie ends with a shot of Alaska, and a naked man with claws runs out." If you're familiar with Marvel's mutants, you'll know that's a reference to Wolverine after he escapes the Weapon X facility in the Alaskan wilderness.

CBR.com