I see this person didn't use Wikpedia before 2007, it used to have exactly what he's suggesting: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler#Why_spoiler_warnings_are_not_used" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler#Why_spoiler_...</a><p>In addition to the arguments listed there the thing that bothered me most about it was that it imposed a straitjacket on the editorializing of any article that contained spoilers, you now had to bend over backwards to partition it into spoiler and non-spoiler sections.
Because of a very strong community-driven notion that Wikipedia is not censored, (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_art...</a>) spoiler warnings won't make it into articles directly. This has been <i>heavily</i> discussed:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/...</a><p>But <i>indirectly</i>, this functionality could exist in a Javascript widget/gadget/script that users who do not wish to see spoilers can install themselves, into their registered account's settings. The installation process is usually very simple, a small copy/paste into a configuration file.<p>I think that no direct modifications to articles to accommodate the script would be allowed; this includes special templates, <!-- hidden comments-->, or even the existing benign {{anchor}} template (usually used to mark HTML URL#link targets), if it's used to mark text {{anchor|spoiler}} for the script.<p>So the script has to be smart and dependent only the article text itself. It could selectively activate on articles in any category containing the words Television or Film, on sections named Plot or Synopsis, and simply collapse (autohide), or redact (blackout) any paragraphs which contain proper names, or keywords present in a list (die<i>, dead, death, kill</i>, wed, wedd*, marry, married, etc.)<p>A good starting point would be the text selection and redaction functionality as shown in the ProseSize.js script, which also presents a "Page size" link in the left navigation bar and, when clicked, instantly styles all the eligible article text background in yellow. Our widget could just use black.<p>I leave it to Javascript and CSS wizards to go further.
WARNING: Do not read this article if you haven't watched the end of Breaking Bad. (This post is safe though)<p>I, like the author, am very sensitive to spoilers and completely agree that people for whom spoilers ruin the enjoyment of a work should still be able to reap the benefits of an encyclopedia for the work's "metadata" -- information about the cast, running time, season and episode count, production, etc. However, the article, ironically and much to my horror (Edit: actually the author has a warning at the top of the page, which I missed), spoils the end of Breaking Bad, one of television's most popular shows, a show that is/was still on my to watch list.
This is a stupid suggestion that has no place in an encyclopedia, then again wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but still this suggestion belongs on a specialized community forum or website.<p>Wikipedia is already dying a slow and painful agony and has been for a while, no need to accelerate it by adding more trivia and irrelevant features to it.