[WikiEN-l] Workable spoiler solution?

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sun, 20 May 2007, Steve Summit wrote:
> NOR and RS are very nice tools for getting rid of stuff we don't
> like, but they don't apply to *everything*.  As Ken Arromdee was
> just pointing out in another thread, "Original research has
> nothing to do with meta decisions about article content."

Hey, I get quoted by having my name taken in vain.

But seriously, something else along these lines just occurred to me:

Anyone who *really* believes that spoiler warnings are original research
can't accept them at all.  There's no point trying to compromise.  There's
certainly no point in saying "you can have your spoiler warnings if it's
less than two months".  If spoiler warnings are original research, we can't
have them even at the two months level, since allowing just a little bit of
original research isn't an option.

Yet so far I've seen nobody say "spoiler warnings are original research, so
we must not have them at any level, and that is utterly nonnegotiable.
Original research is completely prohibited."

This makes me wonder how sincere the original research objection really is.
It seems like the anti-spoiler people are just throwing a lot of objections
against the wall in the hope that at least one sticks and escapes people's
notice because there are so many of them to argue against at the same time.
That's almost happened in several cases already; as far as I know I was the
only person who bothered to argue against "spoilers don't go in a plot section
since it's obvious that those contain spoilers".