[WikiEN-l] {{spoiler}} vs. writing a goddamn encyclopedia

[Blu Aardvark]

I never thought I'd found myself saying this, but largely, I agree with 
you. When you go to look something up in an encyclopedia, some degree of 
spoilers should be expected.

On the other hand, if it is entirely possible to write a good article 
while minimizing spoilers, than by all means, that should be done. I'd 
submit [[Alundra]] as an example of an article on a video game that 
doesn't explain the plot of the game in great detail, and yet still is 
able to cover it in a rather decent manner. (Of course, the article has 
some other issues, mainly amateurish writing, but that's not entirely 
the point here.)

In a sense, avoidance of plot spoilers should be a guideline - it 
usually makes for better articles - but it shouldn't be a hard-and-fast 
rule, because there are occasions when spoilers are unavoidable. 
Particularly when you are talking about "minor character[s] in [a] 
television show" (ie, cruft).

Philip Sandifer wrote:
> Although this issue has been done to death (though I tend to think  
> the debate has mostly been a matter of people from outside the  
> relevant fandoms saying "Erm, these are totally unencyclopedic" and  
> then the fandoms shouting a lot and getting their way), I'd like to  
> note that the focus on spoiler warnings and on not revealing spoilers  
> in an article is, in a fundamental sense, totally contrary to the  
> process of writing an encyclopedia.
>
> [...]