On Fri, 25 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
In deference to the uptothemoment nature of Wikipedia,
I'll support
spoiler
warnings for recent works of fiction and movies.
Shakespeare or Tom
Clancy,
no - they belong to the ages.
I assume then you completely disagree with the claim that spoilers are
original research? After all, we can't allow original research just for
articles about newer subjects, we must completely eliminate it.
At this point, I
hear the unmistakable groaning and sighing sound of a long
bow being drawn.
I'm just sick and tired of specious arguments tossed in as part of an
argument by exhaustion strategy. The "spoiler warnings are original
research" argument is one of the most blatant.
I think it's entirely appropriate to point out when an anti-spoiler person
suggests something that happens to contradict one of the big anti-spoiler
arguments.
Must Wikipedia always be a community of
fundamentalists
battling over which end of the egg to slice?
You (or your side) started the battle. I was fine with things being as they
were. You don't get to walk in, say "oh, I'm going to force you to turn
your
eggs over," and then plead that egg slicing isn't important anyway so
everyone else should compromise by turning them halfway.
(Besides, Swift wrote about breaking eggs, not slicing them.)