On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Instead of accusations from the pro-spoiler side it would be interesting to hear from the anti-spoiler side. David or Guy would either of you object to this sort of compromise?
I would consider spoiler warnings in plot summaries ridiculous. In addition, determining what's a spoiler is basically original research.
Original research is *always* going to be in wikipedia. This is the most minor degree of original research I can imagine. Every article has generalisations based on sources, which are original research if you extend the definition to include determining which parts of a fiction related article are spoilers.
In addition, {{spoiler}} is dead as a dead thing. We have {{currentfiction}}, which does a slightly better job of the same thing.
Apparently it isn't, given the discussion so far in this thread. Its militant opponents may insist that there is no support for spoilers but results tend to speak for themselves.
I suspect someone going through to put 45,000 fresh spoiler warnings, in whatever form, on articles is not going to fly.
Deletionism is a fantastical philosophy! I suppose the owners of the articles won't respond well?
That is: there's not a credible position to "compromise" with, despite much repetition.
Compromise relies on people setting aside their personal difficulties in view of solutions. If noone is prepared to back down then things won't happen I guess. But it would be nice to have a compromise since it is pretty clear that the debate is not entirely one way everywhere.
Peter