David Gerard wrote:
On 17/05/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
> * Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis,
Story or similar header
What if it's possible to explain the first
4/5 of the plot without a spoiler?
Then it's incomplete and unencyclopedic.
I think what he means is that you'd have:
==Synopsis==
Plot
Plot
Plot
Plot
{{spoiler}}
Plot twist
==References etc.==
ie, a complete description of the plot with a spoiler warning 4/5 of the
way through it.
This doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, it doesn't mess with the
flow of the section and anyone who truly hates the spoiler warning's
appearance can turn it off in CSS.
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?
There's nothing inherently wrong with "just an editor deciding", editors
make tons of decisions about the presentation and content of articles
all the time. If someone disagrees with whether something is a spoiler,
that's Wikipedia for you; it can be hashed out with the usual mechanisms
(further editing, talk pages, RfCs, edit wars, arbitration, hit men, etc.)
And if we do have a source, then the spoiler is itself
something that
should be in the article.
I don't think many people are arguing to omit spoiler information entirely.
> * Articles about fictional characters -
no-one would look them up
> without knowing the stories
That doesn't follow. I can imagine someone
wanting to look up Valen, for
instance and wanting to know more non-spoiler material about him without
wanting to know the spoiler.
Possibly. But I think with an encyclopedia it's fair to assume you're
getting all we've got.
Yeah, content comes before any and all spoiler considerations. If it's
impossible to have an article without the spoilers being obvious, then
the spoilers should be obvious.