On 19/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
It's not clear to me that including them was
consensus either. There
were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does
look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to
do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
Doubtful. A group acting on that scale leaving no traceable evidence
at all? I think not.
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler
tags when
writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens?
The kinds of editors who write those articles are typically not the
kind of people who would even think about a spoiler warning, in my
view.
Random new users or the like.
In any event, the result is better for the
encyclopaedia: a
{{current fiction}} template is objectively verifiable in a way that
the concept of a spoiler is not.
"It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, and
focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of
the work of fiction"
Is not a useful statement and merely accelerates the trend of people
thinking every single article needs some kind of "this article is less
than ideal" tag. I mean "proseline" what is that meant to archive.
--
geni