Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:49:09 -0400, "Kirill Lokshin" wrote:
I suspect, though, that it matters to our *readers* (you know, those people we're supposed to be writing this thing for).
"You suspect"..? Are you telling me this template was created without any request by the target audiance in question...? This is ridiculous. Who are we...? We're editors of an neutral encyclopedia. Its not up to us to make such assumptions without founded edvidence.
Its somewhat similar to the premise of a mother giving her lad a jacket in the wintertime without asking him if he desired one. Do we really assume our readers are that stupid...? If you see a header called "Plot" and there's three pharagraphs below it, then its obvious what lies within. This template is incredibly redundant.
If there were previously some sort of a mass request where millions of readers requested this nonsense, advocating it assisted them in the informative reading of an encyclopedia, then I could possbily understand. Currently, it gives the entirely wrong impression of what an encyclopedia is and what its attempting to convey. This isn't a networking site.
--------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.