2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:26 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:54 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better.
Unproven. Spoiler warnings had the advantage that people actually put in some spoilers.
They also organized articles around hiding spoilers. But more importantly, spoiler warnings just looked stupid. In a fundamental sense, they looked non-serious.
-Phil
So does having edit histories with names like snowspinner in them.
Ah, Geni. You've yet to find a WikiEn thread you can't lower the discourse of.
-Phil
It is widely accepted that many of the names in wikipedia history pages look ah less then professional. If we were to accept your argument against spoiler warnings as valid we would require some serious modification of the pages (creating some interesting copyright issues).
Far less effort to accept it lacks validity and wait for better arguments to come along. Personally I would suggest an argument based around the [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]] guideline and [[WP:NOR]] a bit rule lawyer but at least consistent with wider wikipedia practices.
You could also try and win some appearing constructive points by suggesting a tag along the lines of "this articles fails to include important plot points commonly known as spoilers.If you have adequate sources please add them" although that would probably further damage the "it makes us look silly" argument.