Talk:The Hunter's Moon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] spoiler...
however, if people are visiting the page for other reasons, such as, to find out refrences or it it is what number in a series, that warning should stay. People don't only visit the page to get a summary, thanks. ~User: Sophiakorichi
WHAT IS EVERYBODY'S PROBLEM WITH SPOILERS??? ~Sophiakorichi
- There is no problem with spoilers. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover fictional material completely, including the plot. Readers who don't want to learn the plot should avoid reading sections that clearly discuss it. The spoilers in the article are expected, so the spoiler tag is redundant. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I vote for the spoiler tag here. That would be two editors pro-spoiler-tag, yes? We are building consensus! --Jere7my 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what you "vote" for (see also WP:CONSENSUS for what consensus actually is). You'll need to provide a compelling rationale to include the template, that hasn't been done. Matthew 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Only under WP:SPOILER is a compelling rationale necessary, and that guideline is disputed. Returning spoiler tag for the obviously compelling reason that not including them could ruin someone's enjoyment, and because a handful of anti-spoiler driveby editors are collaborating en masse to evade the three-revert rule. --Jere7my 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Eh... nobody is collaborating with anybody :-\. I'm banned from the club, anyway. A few users getting upset that their placebo-like tags have been excised doesn't make a guideline disputed. Matthew 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's more than a few, and the WP:SPOILER page is currently marked as disputed. The pages of heated debate in the talk page would seem to support that view as well. --Jere7my 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Eh... nobody is collaborating with anybody :-\. I'm banned from the club, anyway. A few users getting upset that their placebo-like tags have been excised doesn't make a guideline disputed. Matthew 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Only under WP:SPOILER is a compelling rationale necessary, and that guideline is disputed. Returning spoiler tag for the obviously compelling reason that not including them could ruin someone's enjoyment, and because a handful of anti-spoiler driveby editors are collaborating en masse to evade the three-revert rule. --Jere7my 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what you "vote" for (see also WP:CONSENSUS for what consensus actually is). You'll need to provide a compelling rationale to include the template, that hasn't been done. Matthew 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I vote for the spoiler tag here. That would be two editors pro-spoiler-tag, yes? We are building consensus! --Jere7my 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Then what, may I ask, was the origional purpose of spoilers if not to warn people to avoid plot description? And why, then, should pages have any spoiler warnings at all? ~Sophiakorichi
