Talk:Spoiler (media)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Citations Needed

"Because enjoyment of fiction depends a great deal upon the suspense of revealing plot details through standard narrative progression[citation needed], the prior revelation of how things will turn out can "spoil" the enjoyment that some consumers of the narrative would otherwise have experienced. Spoilers can be found in message boards, articles, reviews, commercials, and movie trailers.[citation needed]"

I swear this website is the poster child for empiricism run amok.

Doctor Who

I am removing the Doctor Who section. It is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the article. It serves no other purpose than to advertise for the series and was likely put there by some fanboy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.178.225 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too much "any"

I feel like the word "any" is repeated more than strictly necessary in the first sentence of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:419E:815A:19D1:38A8 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Kane Spoiler

Wasn't it Lucy who spoiled it for Linus?

The Sixth Sense

This should include how everyone spoiled that movie for me...I've never seen it but I know the ending...assholes... Subversive 06:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FF7 Spoiler

A fairly recent issue of EGM mentioned Aeris's death and said that by now spoiler warnings are void. I guess because like whoever-wrote-this-article said, everyone knows by now. (And yet it still managed to surprise me. o.O)

Spoiler warnings

Do we really need a load of spoiler warnings all over this article? Honestly, spoilers are what this page is about. When we list spoilers for a collection of games and movies, these spoiler warnings feel pretty redundant, to say the least. It should be pretty d*mn obvious to each and everybody that a page that list spoilers will contain spoilers. /Magore 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we remove them and place an "advanced" spoiler warning, like the one at The Crying Game's wiki article. Calicore 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of the article

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if the language in this article could be brushed up a bit. For instance, in the introduction it takes as its example movies, which seems a bit limiting. I also agree with the poster below that all of the redundant spoiler warnings ought to be removed.

Aerodynamics

I have removed the line about there being different meanings of the word "spoiler" as this article is clearly about the word "spoiler" when used about the media and there is a completely different article for "spoilers" used on cars, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_%28automotive%29. --Stenun 07:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of word?

When and where does this word come from? If anyone knows this should probably be included in this article. I was surprised to find that usage goes back to at least 1984. Check out this thread about the movie gremlins from 1984 [1] . Uselesswarrior 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this specific usage, but it's an old term for any situation that ruins the fun or the good effect of something. To give away the ending of a book, play or film "spoils" the fun. Vaguely similar to what your Mom probably told you once: don't eat candy at 5:00 in the afternoon, you'll "spoil" your supper. Baseball Bugs 00:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The [Etymological Dictionary] gives this:

c.1300, from O.Fr. espoillier "to strip, plunder," from L. spoliare "to strip of clothing, rob," from spolium "armor stripped from an enemy, booty;" originally "skin stripped from a killed animal," from PIE *spol-yo-, perhaps from base *spel- "to split, to break off" (cf. Gk. aspalon "skin, hide," spolas "flayed skin;" Lith. spaliai "shives of flax;" O.C.S. rasplatiti "to cleave, split;" M.L.G. spalden, O.H.G. spaltan "to split;" Skt. sphatayati "splits"). Sense of "to damage so as to render useless" is from 1563; that of "to over-indulge" (a child, etc.) is from 1648 (implied in spoiled). Intransitive sense of "to go bad" is from 1692. To be spoiling for (a fight, etc.) is from 1865, from notion that one will "spoil" if he doesn't get it. The noun meaning "goods captured in time of war" is from c.1300. Spoiler "one who ruins an opponent's chances" is from 1950. Spoil-sport attested from 1801.

Those could possibly be the origin, in that a spoiler strips the user of the enjoyment of the work. Any suggestions? - Redmess 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think this article needs more reliable references. I mean, this is Wikipedia, so we should not cite Wikipedia a source, as wouldn't this be circular reasoning? Though Wikipedia is a good place to start research, I have also heard many times that Wikipedia is not always reliable and should not be used as the only source. --AcademicBrain314159265 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is editable by the public, so it is not a reliable source. That fact is implied in the guidelines for wikipedia: It's OK to refer to other wikipedia articles for further reading, but not as a source. Wikipedia is primarily useful as a outline for anyone wanting a starting point on a subject. Baseball Bugs 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially not since anyone could freely and rightfully edit those articles, making them not so usefull as source. - Redmess 18:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

Somebody should mention at this article that Wikipedia is today world's biggest spoiler. Just check out any movie article.

Random

This seems a bit random "The Doctor Who double part episodes Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead from the 2008 series made use of the concept of spoilers." might be useful for further expansion and further discusion, but isolated by itself as it is, just seems odd. Jasonfward (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I came to the talk page to post about this as I have seen/heard it somewhere (but no idea where hence why I'm not editing the main page) claimed that River Song's appearance in Doctor Who seems to approximately coincide with a huge uptick in society's aversion to spoilers, the same source suggesting that it could be the case that it was a contributing factor. To be honest this probably wouldn't make much sense for 2008 as at that stage it was just a character that appeared in one two-parter - albeit a character that is implied to be extremely important to the Doctor in ways that were then unclear - however, since then the "spoilers" thing has been a recurring theme for this character who reappeared several times between 2010 and 2013 (with a one-off final appearance for Christmas 2015) and has been firmly established as, frankly, iconic. So in retrospect I do think inclusion of a small mention of this could be deserved if there is indeed a decent source for it (being totally honest, I can't remember if I read/heard it in an article on a respected website such as the Radio Times or just in some random YouTuber's video, so...) but in 2008 it would certainly have been very out of place. Anditres (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the Internet.

"The appearance of spoilers on an internet website is not considered a violation of terms and conditions by any ISP." Seriously? No one in their right mind, would consider this a violation of T&C's 98.28.68.59 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Spoilers

"...but if the posting of "spoiling" information was unavoidable, it be preceded by a warning ("SPOILER!"), or the spoiler itself has to be masked so that it can not be visible to any but those keen for details and not fazed at the thought of such potentially plot-revealing information."

But its being done everywhere on Wikipedia without a care in the world. Shouldn't it apply here as well? Shouldn't relevant sections carry a spoiler alert? IMDB does so responsibly.

Johnnoelbose (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that someone would have enough common sense not to look up the plot of something they don't want spoiled. If you haven't read Half-Blood Prince yet, don't look it up, or at least skip to the part of the article you need to read (publication information , for example). 98.220.211.83 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles could summarize in ways that do not give away the whole plot, especially for books that are often used for teaching children. Students that do not yet like to read can think they are getting away with something by reading Wikipedia summaries of books. For example, Percy Jackson & The Olympians is often recommended to young students with attention deficit or dyslexia, but if the students think, "It is easier to cheat and look it up on Wikipedia", they could miss out on all the fun and learning they would have gotten from reading a long series. OliveEverett (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)OliveEverett[reply]

When I discovered Wikipedia in early 2007 I noticed there were spoiler alerts for plots. Although I have used Wikipedia regularly since then I have no recollection of when the spoiler warnings stopped. When I check the history of articles that had spoiler warnings I see red text where the warnings were suggesting that the warning templates were deleted. Does anyone know when the spoiler warnings on Wikipedia stopped? Tk420 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Pornography Spoilers

What is the proper etiquette to not spoiling the endings to pornographic films such as the ones found on brazzers.com or Two Girls One Cup? Don't most films end in a cumjizzshot to the face? Is this generally assumed or are spoiler alerts still needed? Calicore 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.187.186 (talk) [reply]

Wikipedia guidelines call for not removing info simply because it is a spoiler or adding a disclaimer. I don't see any reason why porn should be any different.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Events?

The term is often used in regard to recorded sports events as well. Is there a graceful way to include this in the introduction? The way it currently reads repeatedly specifies this as relating to fiction.

Research

Dunno where the results of this experimental study were published, but it may be useful in the article. Basically says plot may be overrated, spoilers don't ruin a story, and knowing the ending of a story can make the experience more enjoyable. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This study should 1 be followed up and 2 is in dire need of being mentioned here and its results known by a broader audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.139.55 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many internets

The first section currently begins: "The term spoiler was introduced in the early days of the internet, on the internet, and is often associated with specialist internet sites". That is truly horrible wording and I've got no idea what the "on the internet" clause is supposed to mean nor what "specialist internet sites" are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spoiler (media). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203105208/http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2009/01/how-soon-is-too-soon-for-spoilers.html to http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/tv/2009/01/how-soon-is-too-soon-for-spoilers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mari

Fhrteieu 178.134.226.88 (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Mass Media and Society

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Schwammy1, Birdbeck55, Ses21f, Dannyx12377, Ggreenley (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Icarlee3338, Izzyabella2003, Flamenquera, Ks20ga, Ylt22, Tallahasseesportscaster.

— Assignment last updated by Iamclandestined (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]