[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 182

[Molu]

Corollery to Loom91's First Law ([[WP:RAUL]]) states "Whatever must pass for the Truth on WIkipedia is necessarily determined by consensus". As for obviousness and common sense, Wikipedia's article on [[Ball]] begins with "A ball is a round or spherical object that is used most often in sports and games." Should that be removed because it's obvious (much more obvious than Plot Summaries containing spoilers, which is not particularly obvious)? An encyclopedia necessarily repeats the obvious for the sake of completeness.
   
  Moreover, there are supposed to be two separate Plot sections in an article on a novel ([[WIkipedia:WIkiProject NOvels]]) one of which is spoiler while the other is not. Expecting the reader to make the call is unfair and totally unnecessary. Any editor is bound to abide by consensus even when he/she disagrees with, otherwise consensus becomes meaningless. I'm sure no one will approve if I suddenly go about recreating userboxes deleted under T1. I again appeal to the editors who disagree with spoiler notices to give us a list of articles form which they have removed spoiler notices as a token of their good faith.
   
  Molu

  On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:22:49 +1000 "Peter Mackay" 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'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
			
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the  all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.