Jump to content

User:Brianjd/Spoiler (media)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe that spoilers without spoiler warnings are unacceptable and cannot see the slightest problem with the warnings, except for a negligible space/bandwidth/etc. cost.

I came back to Wikipedia after a while to read the Bee Movie article, and was disappointed to see a spoiler with no warning, and even more disappointed to see that {{spoiler}} was deleted. I have happily used {{spoiler}} in the past and cannot understand any of the arguments against it.

Use of {{spoiler}}

[edit]

Changing use of {{spoiler}}

[edit]

Changes between revisions of MiszaBot's page

[edit]

MiszaBot maintains a list of pages using spoiler templates. I don't know which templates MiszaBot is actually tracking (I just assumed initially that it was only {{spoiler}}).

The following list contains all changes between revisions 180879205 [2007-12-29T23:15:16 (GMT)] and 185148015 [2008-01-18T05:15:24 (GMT)]. All times are in GMT.

Pages edited by me

[edit]

Now that {{spoiler}} has been deleted, references to it should be removed. For this reason, and this reason alone, I have removed {{spoiler}} from the following pages/sections of pages:

On the talk pages, it was being used a spoiler warning for the discussion. The talk page for The Amazing Race also has a section on spoilers.

Current use of {{spoiler}}

[edit]

{{spoiler}} is used on the following non-talk pages (list is incomplete):

It is linked to from the following non-talk pages (list is incomplete):

Discussions

[edit]

I have contributed to the following discussions:

Arguments for and against spoiler warnings and {{spoiler}}

[edit]

Here are the arguments, followed by my responses:

Arguments for and against spoiler warnings

[edit]

For

[edit]
  1. They assist people to avoid spoilers, which most people want to.
  2. If reliable sources have used a warning, so should we, in the same way as if reliable sources have included the plot, then so should we (NPOV).

Against

[edit]
  1. Aesthetics (is that spelt correctly?)
    1. Spoiler warnings that are only visible to users who choose to see them are better than no warnings.
  2. They are "unencyclopedic".
    1. I agree that this is rather like a medieval shipwright calling metal ships "unshiplike" (see below).
  3. There is a lack of consensus on when they should be used.
    1. Surely there are some articles where there is a consensus.

Arguments for and against {{spoiler}}

[edit]

For

[edit]
  1. It provides a standard spoiler warning.

Against

[edit]
  1. It's unused (for the reasons above?).
    1. Apparently, a small group of users have been removing them all faster than a large number of users have been adding them. "It's far easier to remove tags than add them." [PyTom (talk)]
  2. It's better to use {{current fiction}}.
    1. This has also been deleted.
    2. Why should warnings be restricted to recent releases?
    3. What is "current" anyway (see below)?

"Unencyclopedic"?

[edit]

'Unencyclopedic' is a just a coded way of saying 'I don't like it'. The claim, offered by the anti-spoiler people, that encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, is unsupported by any known definition of encyclopedia, and seems to just have been made up by them. It's rather like a medieval shipwright insisting that all ships must be made of wood, and a metal ship is fundamentally 'unshiplike'. The reason (most) other encyclopedias don't have them is technical limitations or niche audiences.

According to WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, "... is so vague, it gives no information on why the article should be deleted." (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) Therefore, I recommend that your vote be appropriately discounted by the closer.

"Current"?

[edit]

The film Rescue Dawn premiered September 9, 2006 at the Toronto Film Festival.[1] Its first wide release was July 27, 2007 in the United States. It won't be released in Russia until February 21, 2008.

See also

[edit]