From: "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com
This is so simple. Read the back of a DVD cover. Read a movie review in the paper. Read the blurb of a book. All contain a rough outline of the plot. They don't mention:
a) What the outcome of the major plot climax is. b) Any secrets that change your understanding of the story, but that are only revealed at the end. c) The deaths of any major characters that take place late in the story.
What's hard to get about that?
Now, I'm not even suggesting that Wikipedia avoid mentioning these. But it's so incredibly easy to use spoiler tags judiciously. This wilful ignorance to understand is quite annoying.
Example:
==Plot summary== In the story, John marries Susan, but they are separated as he is sent to war.<more plot describing his antics in the war, the adventures he gets up to etc >
{{spoiler}} Ultimately, John's leg is blown off and he returns an amputee, only to find that Susan has married his brother. {{end-spoiler}}
==Some other section==
It's not complicated. It's not a slippery slope. Can we drop the childish attitude please?
Very well said. Hear, hear!
I have two things to add. First, spoiler warnings are only appropriate in the case of storylines that are reasonably _current,_ so that there is a reasonable probability that the plot twist is not already well known. It would be absurd to have
Della sells her hair to buy a watch chain for Jim.
{{spoiler}} But, meanwhile, unknown to Della, Jim has already sold his watch to buy jewelled combs for Della's hair!!!!!! {{end-spoiler}}
Second, if something is so surprising, so current, and would be such a spoiler that a warning is actually needed, some mechanism for hiding the text is needed as well. It's just absurd to suppose that readers who does _not_ want to have the story spoiled will be able to avoid glancing at perfectly visible text.
IMPORTANT: *Please* do not read any further in this posting. Really. I mean it. I'm absolutely serious. Look, I'm even putting some "spoiler space" here, like they do in alt.puzzle. Just stop here. Please.
Snape kills Dumbledore.
On 6/2/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com
This is so simple. Read the back of a DVD cover. Read a movie review in the paper. Read the blurb of a book. All contain a rough outline of the plot. They don't mention:
a) What the outcome of the major plot climax is. b) Any secrets that change your understanding of the story, but that are only revealed at the end. c) The deaths of any major characters that take place late in the story.
What's hard to get about that?
Now, I'm not even suggesting that Wikipedia avoid mentioning these. But it's so incredibly easy to use spoiler tags judiciously. This wilful ignorance to understand is quite annoying.
Example:
==Plot summary== In the story, John marries Susan, but they are separated as he is sent to war.<more plot describing his antics in the war, the adventures he gets up to etc >
{{spoiler}} Ultimately, John's leg is blown off and he returns an amputee, only to find that Susan has married his brother. {{end-spoiler}}
==Some other section==
It's not complicated. It's not a slippery slope. Can we drop the childish attitude please?
Very well said. Hear, hear!
I have two things to add. First, spoiler warnings are only appropriate in the case of storylines that are reasonably _current,_ so that there is a reasonable probability that the plot twist is not already well known. It would be absurd to have
Della sells her hair to buy a watch chain for Jim.
{{spoiler}} But, meanwhile, unknown to Della, Jim has already sold his watch to buy jewelled combs for Della's hair!!!!!! {{end-spoiler}}
Second, if something is so surprising, so current, and would be such a spoiler that a warning is actually needed, some mechanism for hiding the text is needed as well. It's just absurd to suppose that readers who does _not_ want to have the story spoiled will be able to avoid glancing at perfectly visible text.
This is why I suggested we mark spoiler content with some form of semantic markup, just as I once suggested marking images containing nudity with some semantic markup to identify them as such. Users who don't like spoilers or nudity could then just set their clients to apply the appropriate CSS to hide such content. Of course, the "QMG WIKIPEDIA FREE SPEECH WE CANNOT LET OUR USERS DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE HUR HUR" group nixed the idea.
Johnleemk
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
I have two things to add. First, spoiler warnings are only appropriate in the case of storylines that are reasonably _current,_ so that there is a reasonable probability that the plot twist is not already well known. It would be absurd to have
When a TV episode has gone into rerun purgatory it would be difficult to consider it current.
Ec
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
When a TV episode has gone into rerun purgatory it would be difficult to consider it current.
I probably agree with that, depending on the definition of "rerun purgatory". Remember that series released in one country often take years to reach another.
Steve