Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 11

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 11

Pengeditan ke bagian prospek

I have made the following edits [1] to the first sentence of the guidelines, for reasons that should be clear from the last four months of history:

Before:

Wikipedia uses spoiler tags to mark specific significant plot details ("spoiler") in articles about fictitious works

After:

Wikipedia very rarely uses spoiler tags to mark especially significant plot details ("spoiler") in articles about fiction works.

Above, I've used bold to indicate words removed from the original or added to the new version. This emphasis certainly does not appear in the guide itself. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony: I have removed your edit, for two reasons. One, the change from "certain" to "special" is not grammatical with respect to parentheses - "the spoiler" "defines the spoiler as a very important plot detail, which does not match the wording in the tag, whereas in" certain plot details (spoilers) "words" specify "modify" the details of a significant path ("spoiler") ", so the definition matches the parentheses. I'm not sure I explain it well, but hopefully you can understand its meaning. If you can find a way for that word that equates the sentence tag with brackets, go to!

I also delete "very", because I think one of the problems with previous versions is escalation intensifier. It makes the guidelines more persistent at the expense of encyclopedic tones and "tone guidelines", imho. I am happy with "sometimes", when I leave it, or alternately you can move "[though] they are often [not] necessary at all if the article is well structured" from the third paragraph to the end of the sentence, which I think might convey you mean better. (Please remove a second incident if you do so, to avoid duplication!)

I will not do much editing here - too much of my time! - But I may give up now and then. --Jere7my 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is okay with me. It seems to keep my original edit impression while answering your own worries. --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait! Nydas, Wandering Ghost, did not we just get a new guideline written by a party that has not been accused of being a "spoiler police" member? Is not the new graduate with almost everyone who commented on it? Old guidelines in which some editors constantly object to missing. And you still still complained! --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about a thing, made by someone I think made a wrong judgment, in an attempt to fix something. Perhaps the fact that you've screwed it up by 'complaining' explains why you so often can not or do not want to address your own points. But when I'm discussing this topic, because I have not said it yet, I think the current guideline, overall, is better than the last, although there is still a systemic problem thanks to an uneven editing field. Wandering Ghost 11:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The instructions are as they are. The problem is its enforcement. These guidelines state that the mystery killing may have them, but we can be sure that this will not be allowed.-- Nydas ^(Speak) 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can not be sure until you discuss possibilities with respect to relevant articles. Do not complain until you succeed in doing so. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 11

brief survey and (slightly) scientific spoiler tag in the main room

I tried some sort of 'spoiler' survey over the past week, the part I quoted below. Others have done a less thorough survey on certain types of articles, but I only pay attention to the events on the mainspace Wiki as a whole. Keep in mind that while this is a pretty good example, it is only recommended to suggest usage/removal trends. However I believe in terms of use this is more useful than personal anecdotes. For eight days I did 26 checks at random times (the majority, however, happened very at about 20:00 UTC and in the range before and after). I recorded the number of spoilers, and the new addition noted where they were added; for deletion (which does not clearly violate current WP guidelines: SPOILER), I noted who deleted it. Some conclusions, with minimal allegations:

• There is no significant edited war on the spoiler warning itself, though I did notice a single incident on the content itself, which is tagged. Is this because editors are not recommended when removal is a hypothesis that is impossible to prove, so we will ignore the cause and instead focus on measurable effects.
• The 4.1 tag average is on the wiki mainspace at a time, with a median of 3 tags at a certain point. No time is recorded when there are no warnings on Wikipedia.
• Of all the warnings posted on Wikipedia, 84% are deleted in one day. Only about 8% of the spoiler warnings can be expected to remain for a longer period (in this case, a week).
• Only 13.5% of all notifications are in other places than the section marked 'Plot', 'Plot summary', et.

{{Spoiler}} link

Overall :: less than 2000 events, all spaces.

Talk : 300-400, often as a banner at the top of the talk page.

Users : 600-700, used randomly (see User: Ich; coincidentally, Ich sure we are "fascist" to remove spoiler tags. huh.)

Sample listing

Mainspace : 2007-09-11 19:26 UTC: (2) - Sosuke Aizen, Miles Edgeworth Sosuke Aizen's warning was used in the lead, and was abandoned after discussion; the reason is that the episode will not air on the market (US, I think) until December.

Edgeworth spoilers are used in one part of the look, for no apparent reason.

2007-09-12 1:55 UTC: (3) - Now You Know (episode Desperate Housewives) (not yet aired the inaugural season)

2007-09-12 11:31 UTC: (2) plot part of Desperate Housewives deleted, no edit summary.

2007-09-12 19:27 UTC: (2) Miles Edgeworth one deleted, one added before leading to Akira (character). Editor's explanation on the talk page.

2007-09-12 20:42 UTC: (3) First Love (novella): Added on the section marked special 'Conclusion'

2007-09-13 19:55 UTC: (2) Previous spoilers missing, two newcomers: Slade Carter, which is a serious A7 bio CSD, and I then delete it; and the Holcip Detective Agency Dirk Gently, in the plot section.

At Sosuke Aizen, the spoiler is replaced by the {{Current fiction}} tag by Kusma, returned and replaced with the Joomla maitenance tag. I returned to the spoiler in the lead (leaving the in-universe tag) because of the local consensus.

For Akira, tags are removed by Marc Shepherd as per WP: SPOILER, added back, and deleted by Kusma per content disclaimer.

2007-09-13 22:16 UTC: (2) returns to Aizen, along with Interbang (used to mark the plot). The warning was removed by Kweeket users. It may be worth noting that the spoiler is added by anonymous ip.

2007-09-14 00:51 UTC: (3) Added to the mix is ​​Atonement (film), an unreleased movie (in NA); spoilers appear in the section titled 'the difference between movies and books' and seem to make more sense since there is no part plot on it, although one can still argue that the plot must be by necessity mentioned.

2007-09-14 11:22 UTC: (6) The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, My Sister's Keeper, and 28 Weeks later added. My Sister's Keeper has a tag in the plot summary, in addition to TFTF , the same as 28WL . However, on the latter the tag spoiler is in the section marked 'Plot'; in MSK , it's in "Plot Summary". All tags added by anonymous editor; the latter two are added by the same ip, and are the only single edits.

2007-09-14 19:41 UTC: (1) Return to Aizen. TFTF tags have been removed by Tony Sidaway, such as My Sister's Keeper ; 28WL deleted by user Geoff B - (notes, editable edits on the page, but not associated with spoiler warning.)

2007-09-14 22:52 UTC: (2) added to William Birkin.

2007-09-15 16:28 UTC: (13) kills added, in various places. For example, on The Departed , this is used in the cast section (the table has a section 'killed by'; the players come after the plot). Added by User: Ferengi. In Final Destination , it is used after the plot in the 'death' section. The Last of the Mohicans (1992 film) uses it in a clearly marked 'Synopsis' section. Also used in the plot section of the two episodes of Stargate Atlantis, the plot summary of Owlflight, and Sati (the book).

2007-09-15 19:37 UTC: (2) At Aizen again as well as Chak De India, in the Synopsis section.

2007-09-15 21:36 UTC: (5) The editor added tags to the plot section of an unreleased episode of Desperate Housewives.

2007-09-15 23:59 UTC: (3) Aizen, Saint Leibowitz, and Wild Horse Woman (in 'Summary plot') and Chak de India.

2007-09-16 18:43 UTC: (6) Aizen, Match Point (again), Akito Sohma, From His Eye Corner, Bridge to Terabithia (movie 2007), and, most confusingly, the Cliffhanger endlist. You would think that one would be quite an explanation itself. Spoiler added by IP, except Match Point, which is added repeatedly by YellowTapedR.

2007-09-16 21:25 UTC: (3) Others removed, except Aizen and Bridge to Terabithia; Fracture (film) added; used in the 'Synopsis' section marking the bottom 3/4 plot; It seems that the unmarked part is the plot summary "out of the box" (possibly copyvio?)

2007-09-17 20:00 UTC: (6)

2007-09-18 22:03 UTC: (8) Ayreon (I removed it, as this is not a fictitious subject), Before Sunset (used half way through the plot summary). The eyes of Nui (Great Spirit), Toa Inika/Toa Mahri, (also added randomly, this page must be replaced in many ways), Colby Granger (will not need prolly spoilers, if expanded.) Oh, and La Vie En Rose (film) (used throughout the 'Plot' section).

2007-09-19 21:43 UTC: (5)

Discussions

Just FYI, the tag in Edgeworth because at the beginning of the game mentioned that Edgeworth is "gone" and you do not know what happened to him until almost the end of the game. This is irrelevant now, but you mention there is "no obvious reason", so I give a reason. Kuronue | Talk 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your logs are interesting, but only slightly more useful than anecdotes. Respectfully I object to any suggestion that is even a little scientific survey. I see the suggestion as a failure by your science teacher to convey the basic principles of science: one can not measure anything without influencing it, so the next best thing is to wisely minimize the variables introduced by the observer.
What you actually have is a police log spoiler, or in more neutral terms, a journal of private journalism activists. More useful than previous personal anecdotes? Maybe, but not much.
Because you're participating in the edits you're observing, your logs are not properly called surveys. This is not even an unscientific type as it is found in web newspapers, which does not have static random sampling, but is otherwise not included by editors. It is also too biased to summon samples. I tend to reject anyone who quotes the averages and percentages you provide, as numeric junk. However, I think some things can be learned carefully from it If you want to do this again without personal participation, your work will be much more credible.

I did not add the spoiler tag "repeatedly" to Match Point. I added it once when I thought the revised guidelines made it possible. I think it's appropriate because the surprises are rather high in the plot section, which the reader might check just to get the point. After I returned it, I did not add it again because it was not worth the effort. If you go to The Crying Game article, you'll see I recently re-edit where the twist is taken from the lead.-- YellowTapedR 06:17, September 20, 2007 (UTC)

According to the history of the page, you add it back in the section containing the spoiler, and then do it again. So argue about 'repeatedly', but you are proven to do it twice. David Fuchs ^{( "/> 20/43> September 2007 (UTC)}

Oh, I understand what you are saying, I say you add repeatedly seconds . Sorry, I misinterpreted your action there. David Fuchs ^{( talk ) 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)}

It may be worth noting that the removal of the recorded plot portion of the Now You Know (Desperate Housewives) episode, although recorded as "2007-09-12 11:31 UTC: (2) Desperate Housewives plot section is deleted, no editing summary." discussed by myself and Pjar (content removal on September 12) on September 3rd and 4th [6]. The unassigned plot summary of the unbroken episode has been restored to a clear consensus, without discussion. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, September 20, 2007 (UTC)

You really do not have to defend yourself. There's no editing summary, but I never said it was not discussed at other times (I'm pretty sure you deleted the whole section at least once explaining that without that source it's useless.) David Fuchs ⁽ 21:24, September 20, 2007 (UTC)

src: supergirl.tv

"Local editor" is used and abused

Go back to what's meant by the phrase "local editors" -

The problem I observed here is probably the use of local "slang" meaning because it is confused with "ordinary". If so, non-dictionary editors tend to disapprove of anything with those using dictionaries.
Here are the first two definitions of "local" in "local" m-w.com:

1: marked or related to position in space: has a definite spatial shape or location

2 a: of, relating to, or the characteristics of a particular place: not common or widespread

"Local", adjective, means place in space, in this case the virtual world. The article on the web page has an address known as the URL (Universal Resource Locator). If someone wants to navigate there, the URL is placed in the address bar, and the Go button can be pressed to load the page in that location. When someone is at that location, he is local to it. Whether someone has been there many times or just once, someone is always local while there, but not necessarily a regular visitor The following is the 3rd definition of "regular" in "regular" m-w.com:

3 a: ORDERLY, METHODICAL & lt; regular habits & gt; b: repeated, present, or work with fixed, uniform, or normal intervals

and in inverse, the 4th definition on m-w.com is "irregular":

4: less continuity or regularity especially events or events & lt; irregular work & gt;

Local "ordinary" confusion may arise partly from "local" informal usage as a noun in the local "American Heritage":

4. Informal Someone from a particular area.

(Note: I am replacing the dictionary because m-w.com and COED use adjectives to define nouns.)

In ordinary understanding, an informal "local" is someone who is seen regularly in a particular place. When there is confusion, an encyclopedia must default to a formal language - but - there seems to be a second stacked problem of informality used as a slang. The phrase "local editor", as abused, positions "local" as an adjective, but its meaning appears to be an informal noun (rhetorically understood as someone who is seen regularly in a particular place).
So while I can find out what Samohyl Jan and other editors are talking about, their obvious use of informal noun in the formal adjective position, not what is found with a dictionary consultation. Their use is therefore slang that is not only wrong for use in guidance, but the use of consensus is impossible If my analysis is essentially correct, the simple answer to approaching a closer consensus on this point is for those who speak/write wrongly to educate themselves, because education is the underlying goal that they are working on. Milo 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Milo, silent. ? Melodia Chaconne? 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion will not be the same without you, but it sounds like you need music-intensive Wikivacation for good. Milo 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not really understand this obsession with the term "local" or "local editor", but Wikipedia has used {{maintained}} since December 2005. This template identifies articles that are "actively monitored and maintained for quality and factuality by identified users. "So the terms used are" monitor "and" manager "; "active user" or "active editor" will also work. "Local editor" is too much of a neologism and ambiguous to help. --Viridity | Speak 03:39, September 22, 2007 (UTC)

I must say I have never found {{retained}}. This is certainly not typical for policies and/or guidelines to differentiate "managers" from other types of editors. Marc Shepherd 03:15, September 23, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a great place.Ã, :) {{maintained}} is used on ~ 1600 articles or so, but that's not very much considering we have over two million. Looking at my comments above, you are right on Wikipedia that does not use the term "manager"; however, the term "active editor" does appear quite a lot in the discussion, even though I only see it used on WP: Code of conduct COI and in essay WP: 1RR. If you're looking for talks and project names, you'll find the term "active editor" used quite a bit, and "local editors" are very few. --Viridity | Talk 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm always a bit nervous about the "retained" tag, but it's pretty clear that it's accepted as long as the people listed are understood to be there (to quote the template) "to help with questions about verification and sources." - Tony Sidaway 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the idea of ​​choosing a local editor is a good one. However, I think there needs to be a difference between people with some level of engagement with the work of fiction, and those on patrolling spoilers. There are some fairly non-controversial edits, and for that the spoiler patrol fits. (For example, there seems to be a consensus that spoiler tags should not be used in the Plot section.) For spoilers elsewhere, after reading (watching, playing, whatever) work may be needed to determine how significant the spoiler is. - PyTom (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"there seems to be a consensus that the tag spoiler should not be used in the Plot section." No, it's just an illusion because of the anti-consensus, the uncompromising majority power used in spoiler guides.

This is the return of the plot = spoiler fallacy. There are many types of plots; some plots have spoilers, some do not. As many as 40% of readers who want a spoiler notification say that they are trying to read parts of plots that do not have spoilers. This is a habit that is embedded in it by publisher ads (a kind of "plot"), and the custom among readers who arrive on Wikipedia from Google searches will not change. By deliberately spoiling this reader only makes Wikipedia a "spoiler" site that has been cursed in the outside world.

Currently the position of anti-taggers is the section labeled "Plot summary" means that the may contains spoilers - but that does not help the reader because the section labeled "Plot" or even "Synopis" is also maybe or may not contain spoilers.

Readers who like narrative tensions want to know for sure (in the opinion of a local consensus jury judgment using non-local "local" meaning). Anti-tagger does not want to tell these readers with certainty, because their principal agenda is to punish and expel the entire class of readers from Wikipedia. If you have not participated in a five-million-a-byte debate this year, yes, the proof has been published here. Surprised? If so, you should.

Please tell other editors what's going on here. If the driving-away agenda-this reader can be firmly rejected, a hideable spoiler label compromising on the table can satisfy all legitimate issues. Milo 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

src: i0.wp.com

It was a debate deletion

Milomedes states, inter alia :

In May 2007, a well-written, well-grounded manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from affecting the article's structure, carried into revenge...

Milomedes has the wrong facts. Changes in the spoiler tag guide are derived from debate on the removal of old spoiler tag guidelines, which for policy reasons are changed to Request for comments on the guidelines. [7].

The central allegation of Milomedes, that "a good and appropriate manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from affecting the article's structure, is carried away" is thus difficult to interpret unless you think that the removal of old spoiler warning guidelines only "is intended to prevent spoiler notifications from affecting the article structure. "But that is again contrary to the facts. Phil Sandifer's proposal shows his intentions stated in the removal guidelines:

The worst example I've ever encountered is The Crying Game, where the tortuous ending makes this movie the ultimate film for anyone interested in LGBT cinema. Warning spoilers say that can not lead. Wikipedia: The main part says that leads should serve as short articles for themselves. WP: NPOV says all major perspectives should be mentioned in an article. You can choose one of two policies and successfully apply it to the Weeping Game. Since we can not get rid of NPOV, the spoiler or lead section should go away. [8].

Tony (18:14) writes: "This is a debate of abolition" - "Milomedes has the facts wrong" Hm, if you suggest that the manifesto can somehow not be at the core of the debate removal, it would be a misunderstanding of rhetoric You are not my false fact. COED "manifesto":

noun (pl manifesto) policy declaration and public goals.

"Phil Sandifer's proposal shows his intention as stated in the removal guidelines: 'The worst example I've ever encountered is The Crying Game...'" " Tsk, tsk, you selectively quote Phil's second paragraph with an example expanded instead of the first paragraph in which the original manifesto is located.You also did not do enough research to find that Phil re-edited the original one paragraph manifesto.Next paragraph did not exist until after ThuranX (21:36) & amp ; David Gerard (21:38) has posted a reply: Here are the original single manifesto paragraphs of Phil:

Wikipedia: Warning Spoiler 21:31, 15 May 2007 Phil Sandifer writes: "This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important part of Wikipedia: The main part, and, worse, is used to justify actively writing articles where the key aspects of a topic are buried outside leadership In its worst manifestations, such as The Crying Game, it is used to bury an entire perspective on film (ie LGBT perspectives) outside of the leadership in which they are located.All policies encourage the writing of articles by the way organized around the spoiler warnings instead of deliberate misrepresentation of information, and has been incorrect (highlights include spoiler warnings at Night (the book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet.) This policy is greatly used to make articles more bad, no better, and for that it needs to go. "" Phil Sandifer 21:31, May 15, 2007 "

Ok, now we work with Phil's original source text, let's align your sloping reasoning to her.

Tony (18:14) writes: "The central accusation of Milomedes, that" a well-written plausible manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from affecting the article's structure, gets carried away "is thus difficult to interpret unless you think that removal from old spoiler warning guidelines only "is meant to prevent spoiler notices from affecting the article structure." But that's again against the facts. " Oh? Let us examine what facts Phil wrote in the first sentence.

Phil (May 15, 2007, 21:31) writes: "This [Wikipedia: Spoiler warning] policy is a flat contradiction of the Wikipedia section: Lead Section, and, worse, used to justify actively bad article writing in which the key aspects of a topic are buried outside leadership. "

Milo (15:31) writes: "is intended to prevent spoiler notifications from affecting the article structure." While Phil and the others were "carried away" with the intention of going beyond "only", Phil substantially intended to prevent spoiler notifications from affecting the article structure - a major component in the case - so my main allegations are fact-based in that regard. "Carrying carried away" becomes a metaphor does require interpretation, but with your own analysis it will not be difficult to interpret.
Q.E.D., Phil's Manifesto is written when I summarize it. Milo 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Phil is seen for most of the deletion debate, which begins with the intention to remove Wikipedia: Spoiler (that's why the debate is in Wikipedia: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia: Spoiler Warning). Your decision to concentrate on the first paragraph seems quite arbitrary. Kusma (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your decision to concentrate on the first paragraph seems quite arbitrary" Not at all arbitrary, because the first paragraph contains a principle statement for the manifesto, where one might hope to find in any persuasive writing.

Manifesto is a statement of activist philosophical principle. In writing, the principle is a top-level statement that hierarchically determines the choice of analysis, examples, rules, proposed actions, and other appropriate supporting details. For example, consider the following simple manifesto:

(hypothetical quote) In principle, all human beings are created equal. Slavery makes humans very unequal. Therefore slavery is not principled. Therefore slavery is bad. Therefore we will break the law of the poor slavery to free the slaves.

One writes the first principle (s), because people are more likely to understand and be convinced by the details if they already understand the big picture. If the breaking details of the law of slavery are placed first, and the final principle, fewer people will be convinced that violating the law of slavery is a principle, and therefore civilianly justified moral disobedience.

Sometimes before the principle statement, there is an opening that describes a belief or experience that motivates the manifesto, but a technical opening is not necessary (and Phil does not use it). This top-down writing structure also serves as the most persuasive writing base including encyclopaedic articles. Milo 23:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a debate deletion. --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

src: supergirl.tv

SF Chronicle and spoiler

Marc (11:06, 5 October 2007) writes: "people who continue to propose the same compromise, over and over again, but never anywhere" Hehe, I insist, you are stubborn. Actually, the correct word is "campaigner". Presenting a party of candidates/candidates or public posture positions is how public campaigning works.
"identical" You are not paying attention. Someone can not sell the concept of using the wrong language. Just last week I knew from the debate that "hidden" is a false terminology (referring to the default visible tag), and that "can be displayed" is the correct marketing term for the default hidden tag.
"never got anywhere" If you're so sure about that, you'll be long gone from here. I think that the pro-tag campaign movement toward goals seems like an increase in progress that's too small for you, but you're too young to know that cutting millimeters by millimeter is the normal step of a minority rights campaign. (The best sour humor of the USA Civil Rights campaign of the 1960s is the slogan "A 100 years is a long time to wait into the bathroom".)
"proposal will be adopted now" With that terminology wrong used before? Maybe other things also need to be tweaked. Also, you are getting impatient because you do not have a good understanding of how big Wikipedia is in terms of changing opinions, especially given the common suppression of minorities in access to tools such as AWB. I have stated many times my estimation that this debate is five months into a public issue campaign of 12 to 24 months. Just seven more months before the minimum campaign ends; maybe 12 more after that. Tighten your seat belt Speaking of alarming news to the anti-taggers, Wikimedia announced that they were moving to SanFranciso. [10] Let's see now, is not the SanFrancisco Chronicle announcing that the spoiler is immoral? [11] Somewhat looks like Wikimedia is getting closer to the possibility of confrontation of the "spoiler" site with major publications/Hollywood - on their paper pages soon become locally already taking positions. That's unexpected bad luck, eh? But do not worry, just bow your head in the sand. Milo 09:03, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

Can we straighten this out, Milomedes?

When you declare that the San Francisco Chronicle has "announced that spoilers are unscrupulous" and "take a position", are you referring to comments by Bruce Weinstein, in the op ed column known as "Open Forum "on page B11 of the Chronicle, dated Friday July 20, 2007, along with a note that an older version of the same column has appeared on the BusinessWeek website, businessweek.com? [12] [13] --Tony Sidaway 09:12, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you must be right than the SanFranciso Chronicle. I tried to check this fact, but before I did not pay attention to the sentence near the bottom (not on the side), where he also referred to the Weinstein section as "comment" and "column". The SFC, perhaps inadvertently, calls it "editorial" in the shared box ("Editorial: Spoiling is immoral"). The definition of m-w.com about "editorial" (2, noun) is: "a newspaper or magazine article that provides opinions from editors or publishers as well: expressions of opinion that resemble such articles & lt; editorial television & gt;". The newspaper I read reserved the term for themselves.

So who is Bruce Weinstein? Here is the author's credit of a longer version of the immoral-people-that-deliberately-spoiler column [14] at BusinessWeek.com:

"Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. is a corporate consultant and public speaker known as The Ethics Guy.He has emerged as an ethics analyst on The Today Show, Good Morning America, Anderson Cooper 360, Lou Dobbs Tonight, The O ' Reilly Factor, MSNBC Live, Bloomberg Television Personal Finance, and many other national television programs For more information visit The Ethics Guy.com "

I wonder what he will say about Wikipedia? He will not praise. If he gives WP permission, no credit is given to anyone. I'm not impressed with your position that only has potential losses - because if blamed, fair or not, you Tony, will take the lion's share of a bad performance.

Okay, this is better locally for Wikimedia than I thought, but worse nationally than I thought. It does not matter that SanFrancisco Chronicle is the first paper publisher. Who is important outside SanFrancisco who read BusinessWeek.com? No problem, just bow your head in the sand. Milo 11:00, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

You walk in front of me here. I just want to prove that Chronicle comment is what I read. I'm sure Mr. Weinstein will not be the first to make a critical comment on Wikipedia. I think we will survive. --Tony Sidaway 11:12, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

What a man says for a newspaper is very irrelevant to anything we should worry about when developing WP guidelines. ? Melodia Chaconne? 11:31, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

All Wikipedia is criticized by someone . Marc Shepherd 14:40, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Current fiction tag

What really is the point of adding this tag to the top of the movie when in 99% of cases, the first phrase states "released in 2007" - do we hope that most of our readers can not know that a movie was released in 2007 recently and that by reading articles they can ruin the enjoyment of their movies? I have seen it added to some articles and it does not add anything - so I have removed it as overkill. --Fredrick day 08:54, October 5, 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be better discussed on the talk page. ? Melodia Chaconne? 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the current fiction tag vigilanties have arrived wanting their police badges from clicks. You know, in the real world, when the police are out of control, a police commission can be formed. Milo 06:33, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

src: supergirl.tv

Inconsistencies in arguments against spoiler warnings

I personally want a compromise that will allow people who hate SWs (as editors) and want SWs (as users) to coexist peacefully. But such a compromise would surely require SW to be there, in some form. However, it seems to me that those who oppose SWs collectively argue in such a way as to forbid anyone to exist, and therefore not allow any compromise. For example, there are two different arguments from SW opponents that, when put together, make it impossible for SW:

1. If SW is displayed (by default), they are degrading and can make readers hate Wikipedia when they see it (this argument is very common in the original RfC).
2. If SW is hidden (by default) then there is a problem & lt; paste flavor & gt; because they are invisible (I actually do not understand much of this problem, there are many other comments to the editor in the article that are not visible, but it does not matter to me).

I propose SWs to be hidden to solve the first problem (which is tapped mostly by people in RfC), but then the opponent begins to argue in a second way. Here is a set of similar arguments:

1. If SW is in a paragraph titled 'plot' or the like, it is clear from the title it will contain spoilers, therefore they are overkill.
2. If SW is ahead, it's not good (I personally agree, but can imagine the circumstances when it's useful).
3. If SW are in some other part, they probably will not be there (note that this is an implicit argument - usually, why spoilers will be in the 'production', 'cultural impact' or 'reference'?

So if SW can be there, where should they go? This counter argument covers every possible possibility that SW can be placed in the article. And finally, the third set of arguments:

1. If SW is at the beginning of the section, they do not serve the purpose, because there is a title section.
2. If SW is inside the section, they make it more difficult/impossible to read/write about the plot.

Since I do not agree with those two arguments, I do not know what compromise can be made there, but still, since they cover all possible cases, they are not compatible with SW.

I want people who oppose SW and really want to compromise will choose from three list of options above which they prefer (for example, whether they will choose to see SWs for editing or not seeing it for their reading, if they find them patronizing ). It will be possible to negotiate a compromise on that basis.

I have not seen much compromise from the pro-SW camp. Their main idea is to make a good warning hidden by default (but optionally viewable), or visible by default (but optionally can be hidden). Both versions of the idea are completely insane. Both fail because they start with the premise that as long as anti-SW editors do not need to see a warning, they will stop caring about the issue. The fact is that most serious editors (regardless of their point of view of spoilers) are not easily duped. Editor who does not think SW WP's will not suddenly forget about it because they are hidden. And editors who do think they should not be happy to see them hiding behind a css script. Marc Shepherd 21:20, October 4, 2007 (UTC)

"And the editor did it think they should not be happy to see them hiding behind the css script." They are not happy about it, but they are willing to compromise.

"Editors who do not think SW WP's will not suddenly forget it because they're hidden." Implicitly they are distracted by what they can not see, the example of the freakery-control. This is generally considered a character flaw. IIRC, you are the only one who ever made this claim. Are you crazy control, or are you just defending the untenable? Milo 03:02, October 5, 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Milo, the idea of ​​a visible spoiler tag has been challenged by many, not just me. If I was the only one who said this, the proposal would be adopted now.

Since you seem to be skilled in character shortages, you might be able to label people who continue to propose the same compromise, over and over again, but never get anywhere. Will "stubborn" be a word? Marc Shepherd 11:06, October 5, 2007 (UTC)

The whole policy is a compromise by the pro-spoiler, and a very bad one, which is heavily burdened against spoilers. Many of the pro-warning people try to shift it back in the other direction, but there is a lack of compromise from the other direction.

Source of the article : Wikipedia