On Wed, 16 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote: It seems disingenuous to say "I want to remove spoiler warnings from Snow White and the Three Little Pigs" when those aren't typical. Sure, you want to remove spoiler warnings from them, but you also want to spoil [[Valen]], and that's what people are *really* worried about. Otherwise, you could easily write a policy that just got rid of spoiler warnings on Three Little Pigs. "Don't use spoiler warnings if the vast majority of people who want to look at the article already know the spoiler or won't care about being spoiled".

I see that the RFC is basically being 'owned' by one IP address (proxy?) from Amsterdam. 87.189.124.195's objections notwithstanding, is WP:SPOIL going to get killed finally? Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com

On 17/05/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: Huh. We need to go through that thing, write a tentative policy based on it and see if there's any remaining places a {{spoiler}} template is actually appropriate. Places it isn't: * Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis, Story or similar header ** Anywhere the spoiler content *should* be under such a header * Articles about fictional characters - no-one would look them up without knowing the stories * Any article where almost the entire article would have to go under a spoiler * Fairy tales, Shakespeare, classical mythology or similar cultural canon, under the proviso of "don't be stupid" What's left? - d.

On 17/05/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote: Then it's incomplete and unencyclopedic. Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding? And if we do have a source, then the spoiler is itself something that should be in the article. Possibly. But I think with an encyclopedia it's fair to assume you're getting all we've got. - d.

On Thu, 17 May 2007, David Gerard wrote: That question is like asking "do we have a source for the fact that something is notable enough to have an article?" Meta decisions don't require sources.

On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:40:38 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Brought a wry smile, given today's events. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:51:21 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#Qian_Zhijun and the attendant minor drama. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Ken Arromdee wrote: 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. When you say that these plot outlines, or other facts about the work of fiction, will spoil someone's enjoyment of the work how do you know that? The whole idea that it will happen seems like nothing more than wishful thinking fan-cruft. Ec

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote: Uhh, you do know what an analogy is, I hope? The point is that just like whether something is notable, whether something is a spoiler is a conclusion made about article content. Conclusions made about article content don't require sources in the sense of finding a source that states the conclusion.

Summarizing a plot line from an outside source or re-writing it in one's own words also affects the meaning, and listing the outside source it was based on does not necessarily make it any the more objective. I know we make the distinction, but in practice the distinction when applied to straightforward description is a little artificial; even when direct quotes are used, the selection of the quotes can be used to change the intent. On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

On Sat, 19 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote: So do you believe that figuring out whether something is notable is original research, unless you find a source saying "this is notable"? Come on. Original research has nothing to do with meta decisions about article content. We don't require sources that say "this is notable" (though we do require sources from which a Wikipedia editor may deduce that something is notable). We don't require sources that say "This has enough information to be split out into a separate article". We don't require sources which say "this name is the most common name so it's the one we use to name the article", though again, we do require information (such as a Google search) that lets the editor deduce that. We don't require sources which say "this must be part of Wikiproject:Films". We don't require sources which say "this meets the criteria for being a Featured Article", or sources to say that an article goes on the main page. Why in the *world* would you think we need sources to decide if something is a spoiler?

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote: Perhaps you should let the people who write the article figure that out. There is, in fact, a major spoiler regarding Valen's identity which is one of the big twists of the series. Are you seriously suggesting that there are no significant number of readers who might be watching the series for the first time, because they akll either watched it already or never will?