On 5/16/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
All this got me curious - so I took a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler
One problem is it is distinctively patronizing to our readers - of course, if you read material under the heading 'plot summary' - you will be told (guess what) the plot. We don't need spoilers in such cases.
But among the more unexpected uses are:
A Biblical book:
Romeo and Juliet (they die)
Hamlet (he dies too)
My Fair Lady (she doesn't die)
Star Wars (cos someone doesn't know he's Vader's son? )
The Graduate
Casablanca, Emma (FFS!), The Hunchback of Notre Damme, The Wind in the Willows, the Grapes of Wrath, Lord of the Flies, Dorian Gray, The Taming of the Shrew, Snow White (?), Sons and Lovers, Tess, and Petronius' Satyricon (yes, that's a work from the 1st Century AD!)
And that's just with a quick skim.
Now, it is one thing for buffyfans and trekies to protect their secrets. There's a weak case for books just published and episodes yet unscreened in some parts of the world. After all perhaps someone searching us here has just come from some fandom site where spoiler warnings are expected. However, when this crap juvenile starts getting into our mainstream arts coverage - and particularly historical works - we just look bloody ridiculous.
Absolutely. I think we need to start using {{spoiler}} like we use fair use images - only where it is absolutely necessary. It is one thing to slap a {{spoiler}} on, say, a movie which comes out only tomorrow in theatres worldwide. It is another to slap {{spoiler}} on [[Bible]] because Jesus dies at the end and comes back to life - which might actually happen if at the moment we are sticking such tags on things like the [[Book of Ruth]].
We've gone way overboard with {{spoiler}} tags. We should use them only where we're damn sure that the majority of our audience won't have seen the work/otherwise know the plot and probably won't want to know at the moment. Otherwise...really, why are we doing this with every little thing that could present a surprise to someone? Are we going to have to put a {{spoiler}} on the fact that [[George Washington]] did not chop down the cherry tree or that [[Santa Claus]] is not real so we won't ruin the pleasant fantasies of small children who might be reading WP?
I'll admit I've overused {{spoiler}} in the past - this was generally when I was irritated that a book I had been planning to read was spoiled for me - but it's time for a change in our editing habits. Being an encyclopaedia, people shouldn't be surprised that we *gasp* summarise the whole story and its significance.
Johnleemk