Warjay, I refer you to the False Dichotomy page. Nothing says that (to give an admittedly extreme example) tagging a 20-year-old work such as Harry Potter says we have to tag a thousands-year-old work such as The Bible.
The fundamental difference between the two? Time. The older works have passed into the public consciousness or been forgotten; there is very little risk of someone actively trying to avoid spoilers for a work over a hundred years old.
Again with using The Bible as an argument. I've already gone over here
why that's not a fair work to use for this discussion. Obviously The Bible wouldn't get spoiler tags. Why would it?
But Agatha Christie? Some more obscure Shakespeare works? Sherlock Holmes? Those are all works that would, if they were written today, be plastered in spoiler tags.
And just because these works are older doesn't mean everyone has had the same opportunity to read them. What if someone wanted to read Antigone but wanted an idea of the plot, first? Should the ending of the work be ruined for them just because it's older?
And, again, more works get added to the Public Domain every year. Eventually, we'll have so many works to strip the spoilers from, that it'll just become pointless to even draw the distinction- a work that can be spoiler-tagged today may suddenly need their tags removed next month, and that makes no sense. Also, we'll eventually reach the point where there's so many works that expecting everyone to have read and heard of what happens in these "older" works is foolish.
I just can't understand why someone would be pro-spoiler-tags until the work is in the PD, and then suddenly act as though they're unnecessary.
Edited by WarJay77 on Dec 1st 2019 at 8:38:33 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI would prefer spoilers on all pages by default, with a dedicated thread for making specific pages (trope or work) spoilers off on a case by case basis.
As far as why public domain works are currently spoilers off I would assume it was chosen as a point where the work could reasonably be in the public consciousness and, more importantly, was an objective measurement, rather than a judgement call.
Secondly, I've had the same time to read both of those stories because they're both about twice my age. Younger tropers than I have had even less time, but still haven't had more opportunity to read one rather than the other. I'd prefer you (open invitation) to give a reason why "X years" is a good time frame to use rather than defaulting to a legal condition that is only loosely related to time.
Thirdly, the crux of your argument appears to be "people avoiding spoilers for a work". I've not seen good reasons why someone avoiding spoilers would want to look at a webpage devoted to analyzing the way the work reveals events/characters/plots. The moderators have posted, in an unofficial "this troper" role, that they specifically avoid work pages when they are trying to avoid spoilers. Granting the courtesy of hiding plot twists on a list of how different works use a specific narrative convention makes sense, but I don't see how hiding information from people who come to an essay that breaks down the minutia of a work is a courtesy. Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
When we're talking about the "public domain" cutoff, we're usually referring to works in the American public domain by age alone. (In most cases, this means 1923 or earlier, which will become 1924 or earlier in a month's time.)
Night of the Living Dead (1968) and similar cases are not covered under this, because their public domain status is unrelated to age.
2025: the year it all ends?That still doesn't explain why it's a good idea to have this cut-off, though, or why a double standard is okay here.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
The relevant section of the policy is as follows:
- If the copyright has expired, or if it predates the very concept of copyright, it's probably free to spoil. In the vast majority of countries, this roughly coincides with anything Older Than Radio. The cat is out of the bag for all of William Shakespeare's plays.
That's a clear indication that according to whoever wrote the policy, age makes a work worthy of having its spoiler tags stripped. I'm defending that position because I happen to believe the same.
2025: the year it all ends?But why does age make it okay?
Can you guys actually respond to our arguments against this, instead of just saying "it's old so it's okay"? We've given a lot of reasons for why this is a bad or at least silly policy, and you guys haven't really acknowledged...well...any of them.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Exactly. I'm sorry for repeating myself, but you need to give an actual reason as to why it's better, from the wiki reader's point of view, not to have spoilers tagged on older stuff.
Now, Rallybot 2 says that "there is very little risk of someone actively trying to avoid spoilers for a work over a hundred years old." This is inaccurate. Every Sherlock Holmes story, except the last book, is more than a century old. Obviously, the people who read them nowadays still wouldn't want you to reveal whodunit. And speaking in general, and not about mystery stories in particular, I can promise you that people who dislike spoilers don't start to feel completely okay with them just because the book in question is old.
Metroid 26 comments, correctly, that: "As far as why public domain works are currently spoilers off I would assume it was chosen as a point where the work could reasonably be in the public consciousness and, more importantly, was an objective measurement, rather than a judgement call." But whoever originally decided that a hundred-year-old work "could reasonably be in the public consciousness" is, to put it frankly, completely mistaken. Most works in the public consciousness are, by my estimate, younger than 100 years, not older. More people know about Star Wars than about Oliver Twist. Batman is more famous than Don Quixote. James Bond is at least as famous as Robinson Crusoe.
And while I do understand the value of having an objective reference point to go by, such a point needs to be based on something that works, not on something that's just simple.
I think the original misconception here is that since a lot of people know the plot of the most famous classics without reading them, and their plots are taught in schools before people have a chance to read the actual books, then we might as well leave classics with untagged spoiler.
Problem is, of course, that those famous books are the exception, not the rule. So as far as I can tell, the spoiler cutoff point was based on the misconception that old books have entered the public consciousness (which, again, most of them have not done).
Finally, as War Jay 77 states, we need you to provide an actual reason for why somebody who dislikes spoilers would be okay with spoilers about a work that's over a century old. In my experience, such a person usually dislikes all spoilers.
Edited by MichaelKatsuro on Dec 2nd 2019 at 9:48:54 PM
This, for clarity, is the reason I'm arguing equally as passionately for the "strip spoiler-tags" solution as I am for the "get rid of this rule" solution, because at the very least both of these solutions would get rid of the ridiculous double standard of people arbitrarily deciding that "spoilers are good and important...except when they're not".
Either every work should be treated the same under the spoiler policy and get tags on their twists (unless there's too many spoilers to tag them all, in which case an exception is made), or every work page should be considered something someone would only read if they're willing to be spoilered.
Regardless of what we do here, this double standard needs to stop, if nobody can give a convincing reason for why it shouldn't go away, for why spoilers from a work that's 30 years old are somehow more secret than spoilers from a work that's 100+ years old.
If you believe spoilers for these works are pointless, then you also have to at least concede that the same principal could be applied to newer work pages. If you believe spoilers on those pages are necessary, then you have to at least admit that these older works can have spoiler tags for the exact same reason.
I frankly don't care if we have spoiler tags or not. I just want consistency, and that's what I'm arguing for. Removing the rule would make more sense and be a lot easier for everyone, but removing the spoiler tags would still fix the problem just as well, which is why I'm not opposed to it.
Edited by WarJay77 on Dec 2nd 2019 at 3:59:43 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallAnd with that logic, most web original content shouldn't be spoiler-tagged, either, then...
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallIf the public domain thing concerns only age and not things like a lack of a copyright notice, where do you put works like The Three Stooges: Disorder in the Court that had a proper copyright notice but their copyright was not renewed? Note that without renewal, works published between 1923 and 1963 have a copyright length of 28 years + year's end, so everything in this category has been expired since 1992; the film I referenced was published in 1936, so its copyright expired in 1965. That said, the film Lucky Star (no relation to the animanga franchise) was published in 1929 and has a valid copyright notice and renewal, so its copyright in the US shall expire at the start of 2025 (with renewal, the length for it is 95 years + year's end).
Yeah, this is why the age requirement breaks down.
Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!You still haven't explained why the rule is necessary!
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI'd be willing to allow spoiler tags regardless of work age, as long as it doesn't creep into the mythology articles and such.
My concern is that a line has to be drawn somewhere; the Shakespeare example in the current policy is a good one, though it might be a bit early. If 95 years doesn't work, some other cutoff might.
2025: the year it all ends?Why do we have to set a hardline limit? Why can't it just be decided on a work-by-work basis? Why do we need to arbitrarily decide that every work made before a certain point is unworthy of having spoiler tags?
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWhile we're on the topic of a work-by-work basis, I think I should mention this:
Back around October or so I added a spoiler warning to NightmareFuel.The Thing 1982 mentioning how the very existence of the page basically spoils that, yes, this is a horror film. I think we should make sure to put added emphasis into spoiler warnings on specific emotions you wouldn't expect.
It seems Spoilers Off is a free edit. We can just delete the part about public domain works and link to this thread in the edit reasons. We should probably lock this thread after doing that.
Er, no, we can't, not until there's consensus and mod agreement to change the policy. Spoilers Off also isn't a free edit. Either there needs to be a solid consensus for it, or policy to point to.
Edited by WarJay77 on Dec 8th 2019 at 3:00:29 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Does the very existence of this thread not count as agreement? Does the fact that some mods have posted here about not liking the policy count as mod agreement? Does the fact that you can click the little pencil button on Spoilers Off not count as a free edit?
Edited by EarthboundFan on Dec 8th 2019 at 12:31:44 PM
No, it doesn't, because Fighteer has disagreed with the other mods, and there's an equal amount of people who have posted in opposition to changing the rule.
Consensus doesn't mean "a few people agree, even if others disagree".
And just because you can physically edit the page doesn't mean it's a "free edit". You can't just go changing policy or deciding things willy-nilly. That's how you get suspended.
Edited by WarJay77 on Dec 8th 2019 at 3:35:08 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall

There's been no good arguments as to why new works should have spoiler tags, but old works shouldn't. What's the point? If you guys think the tags are useful, then why does this belief suddenly stop applying when a work is a little bit older?
If you think we should keep spoiler tags, then it's ridiculous to also think some works don't "need" spoiler tags, as if just because something is old means that there's no longer any thing about it that could be spoiled for people.
On the other hand, if you happen to think that some works don't need these tags, then you're basically admitting that at some point it might be stupid to protect people from their own curiosity.
So why the double standard? Either spoilers should be tagged across the whole wiki, or they shouldn't be. Pick one, for the love of God, don't just pretend that these works are super different just because one is older than another. If it's okay to spoil the ending of an Agatha Christie work, then it should also in theory be okay to spoil the end of, idk, Doki Doki Literature Club!. If one isn't acceptable to be spoiled for people, I fail to see why the other one is okay.
Edited by WarJay77 on Dec 1st 2019 at 8:19:12 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall