Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies,
where we do need
sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
Not in the same sense. We need sources as evidence for importance, but we
don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important".
Importance
is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly
stated in them.
You aren't addressing the question though. It was about the fact that a
given fact is a spoiler, or that it does in fact spoil someone's
enjoyment. The question said nothing about "importance" or
"notability". Referring to these throws in red herrings for the sole
purpose of having a question that was easier to answer than the one that
was actually asked.
Uhh, you do know what an analogy is, I hope?
Of course! It's as if in the story of the [[Three Little Pigs]] the
first pig had made his house of spoiler warnings.
The point is that just like whether something is
notable, whether something
is a spoiler is a conclusion made about article content.
Ahhh! Now I understand. It's original research.
Conclusions made
about article content don't require sources in the sense of finding a source
that states the conclusion.
Carrying through the idea of being a tertiary source, if the plot line
is available in a reliable source (whether on-line or dead tree) without
a spoiler warning we should put only the information that we find.
Anything else draws unwarranted conclusions.
Ec