[WikiEN-l] So what was the outcome of the spoilerwar?

[David Gerard]

On 01/06/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Net outcome: If your article needs {{spoiler}}, it's defective enough
> > it may as well be tagged {{cleanup}}.

> Is that a change to the guideline, or just your reading of the
> apparent consensus on the talk page? I'd obviously rather remove my
> own toenails than read the entire discussion, but I don't want to be
> totally ignorant.


That's what it looks like to me when I go through it.


> It's a real pity that I feel so strongly at odds with consensus. That
> hasn't happened for me with Wikipedia before. I do feel that there is
> a place for spoiler warning tags on most articles about fictional
> subjects, and I don't accept that "a plot summary inherently contains
> spoilers so don't read it if you don't want the spoilers".


Perhaps it's just me. I have been rereading stuff off Project
Gutenberg and deliberately not reading the Wikipedia articles on the
assumption the articles would, um, discuss the book encyclopedically,
plot and all.

It's entirely unclear to me what "Plot summary" means if it doesn't
include the spoilerish bits. Separate headings "Plot summary without
spoilers" and "Spoilers"? Oh dear.


- d.