See [[WP:POINT]]. You are delibarately disrupting a reader's experience of WIkipedia by removing spoiler notices when the consensus is clearly for keeping them. This sort of thing when done with malicious intent is called vandalism.
Molu
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:59:11 +0100 Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
What's the reliable source for any particular detail from any particular article being considered by reputable authorities as constituting a spoiler?
Guy (JzG)
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2ยข/min or less.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Molu
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:59:11 +0100 Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:What's the reliable source for any particular detail from any particular article being considered by reputable authorities as constituting a spoiler?
See [[WP:POINT]]. You are delibarately disrupting a reader's experience of WIkipedia by removing spoiler notices when the consensus is clearly for keeping them. This sort of thing when done with malicious intent is called vandalism.
Consensus can be an ass. If the section is headed "Plot summary", then if it *didn't* contain details about the plot, it should be called something else. Why do we need a spoiler warning in such a case? It's like picking up a packet of peanuts and seeing a warning notice: "Caution, may contain nuts."
I'm not against spoiler notices where appropriate, but surely common sense should come into where they are needed and where they are not!
Pete, wondering if King Kong gets the girl
On 5/19/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Consensus can be an ass. If the section is headed "Plot summary", then if it *didn't* contain details about the plot, it should be called something else. Why do we need a spoiler warning in such a case? It's like picking up a packet of peanuts and seeing a warning notice: "Caution, may contain nuts."
I think it's quite possible to give a pretty detailed plot summary of movies like the Sixth Sense and Fight Club without giving away the spoiler. For that reason, the fact that {spoiler} gives the text "Plot and/or ending details follow" is poor - plot details are fine, spoilers are the problem.
I'm not against spoiler notices where appropriate, but surely common sense
should come into where they are needed and where they are not!
Again, if the text produces "Plot...details follow" it does seem perfectly logical to put it where you're giving plot details!
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
I think it's quite possible to give a pretty detailed plot summary of movies like the Sixth Sense and Fight Club without giving away the spoiler. For that reason, the fact that {spoiler} gives the text "Plot and/or ending details follow" is poor - plot details are fine, spoilers are the problem.
I'm not against spoiler notices where appropriate, but surely common sense
should come into where they are needed and where they are not!
Again, if the text produces "Plot...details follow" it does seem perfectly logical to put it where you're giving plot details!
It's perfectly sensible to give away the ending of a movie. It saves people from having to waste two hours of their lives waiting for the end. That time might be better spent editing their favorite site. That and they don't need to gorge themselves on overpriced popcorn.
Ec
G'day Molu, [Gah! Top-posting again! It's not that hard to send an email, man!]
See [[WP:POINT]]. You are delibarately disrupting a reader's experience of WIkipedia by removing spoiler notices when the consensus is clearly for keeping them. This sort of thing when done with malicious intent is called vandalism.
That has nothing to do with WP:POINT. I suggest that you, and everyone else who repeatedly cites it without actually knowing what it means, actually *read* the damn page instead of simply falling in love with the name.