On 19/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It's not clear to me that including them was consensus either. There were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
Doubtful. A group acting on that scale leaving no traceable evidence at all? I think not.
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens? The kinds of editors who write those articles are typically not the kind of people who would even think about a spoiler warning, in my view.
Random new users or the like.
In any event, the result is better for the encyclopaedia: a {{current fiction}} template is objectively verifiable in a way that the concept of a spoiler is not.
"It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, and focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of the work of fiction"
Is not a useful statement and merely accelerates the trend of people thinking every single article needs some kind of "this article is less than ideal" tag. I mean "proseline" what is that meant to archive.