[WikiEN-l] Have we ever had a reader complaint of a lack of spoiler tags?

[John Lee]

On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/21/07, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/21/07, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/22/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole
> > > sections of
> > > > > articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone
> feels
> > > that
> > > > > X
> > > > > is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was
> Phil
> > > > > Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might as well mark the
> > > whole
> > > > > encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because virtually every bit of
> > > information
> > > > > could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
> > > > >
> > > > I'm shocked, shocked to find that infomonging is going on in here!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Peter in Canberra
> > >
> > > *sigh* No one is suggesting eliminating, or even hiding (as in
> > > invisibility), the spoilers. We just want a little template at the
> > > top.
> >
> >
> > "WARNING: May contain information."
> >
> > --
> > Peter in Canberra
>
> OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of
> the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming
> locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will
> spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and
> unobtrusive system established for that purpose?


Please refer back to my earlier email about the difficulty of defining
spoilers. If you don't want information about the entire movie, then don't
refer to an article which *gasp* has information about the whole thing.

Johnleemk