On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:53 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If the whole thing was limited to removing spoiler warnings from nursery rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler warning removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
No, the *typical* spoiler warning was one that warned that the ==Plot summary== might reveal important details about the plot.
I don't think anyone is defending the spoiler warnings ahead of plot summaries either. However, given that, I'm having trouble thinking of what sort of spoiler uses the defenders are still in favor of. Examples might be helpful.
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
1) Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non- obvious that plot sections contain spoilers 2) Recoding Wikipedia to have spoiler tags that can be hidden or shown via user preference (as opposed to via an ugly monobook setting, presumably) 3) Polling about spoiler warnings in the site notice. 4) Returning to the use of handmade spoiler tags because the TfD result is obviously a consensus to do it that way, and anyway then people can't find them via "what links here" 5) Including spoiler warnings whenever a reviewer can be found who uses a spoiler warning because then it's sourced information and it can't be removed
When I describe the utter repetitive frustration of dealing with this for six months, I am not exaggerating. Policy formation should not be that tortuous.
-Phil