On 01/06/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/31/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}},
it's defective enough
> it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}.
Is that a change to the guideline, or just your
reading of the
apparent consensus on the talk page? I'd obviously rather remove my
own toenails than read the entire discussion, but I don't want to be
totally ignorant.
That's what it looks like to me when I go through it.
It's a real pity that I feel so strongly at odds
with consensus. That
hasn't happened for me with Wikipedia before. I do feel that there is
a place for spoiler warning tags on most articles about fictional
subjects, and I don't accept that "a plot summary inherently contains
spoilers so don't read it if you don't want the spoilers".
Perhaps it's just me. I have been rereading stuff off Project
Gutenberg and deliberately not reading the Wikipedia articles on the
assumption the articles would, um, discuss the book encyclopedically,
plot and all.
It's entirely unclear to me what "Plot summary" means if it doesn't
include the spoilerish bits. Separate headings "Plot summary without
spoilers" and "Spoilers"? Oh dear.
- d.