On 5/21/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson
<gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/21/07, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/22/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole
> sections of
> > > articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone
feels
> that
> > > X
> > > is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was
Phil
> Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might
as well mark the
whole
> encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because
virtually every bit of
information
> could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
>
I'm shocked, shocked to find that infomonging is going on in here!
--
Peter in Canberra
*sigh* No one is suggesting eliminating, or even hiding (as in
invisibility), the spoilers. We just want a little template at the
top.
"WARNING: May contain information."
--
Peter in Canberra
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of
the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming
locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will
spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and
unobtrusive system established for that purpose?
Please refer back to my earlier email about the difficulty of defining
spoilers. If you don't want information about the entire movie, then don't
refer to an article which *gasp* has information about the whole thing.
Johnleemk