Talk:Tomorrow (novel)

Spoiler warning
''I've copied this from David Gerard's talk page&mdash;in case someone feels there should be a spoiler warning at the beginning of the plot summary. &lt;KF&gt; 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)''

Hi, I may have missed out on some change of policy, but do we always have to carry it to extremes? Why have you removed the spoiler warning from Tomorrow (novel)? Have you read the article? Have you read the novel? Are all spoiler warnings to be wiped out? Best wishes, &lt;KF&gt; 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you see a heading saying "Plot summary" ... a spoiler warning is utterly redundant with it - David Gerard 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd never have guessed you could be so narrow-minded (I do apologize if that word is too strong) as to actually revert my edit and remove the spoiler warning again. So is this "utter redundancy" you are talking about some kind of new insight or what? Were we all, yourself included, completely wrong for five years in adding all those spoiler warnings? Why that zeal all of a sudden?


 * Judging from your reply, it may well be that you still haven't read the article. All the reviewers comment on the fact that the postponed disclosure of the family secret does not seem authentic but that the suspense created that way is the only reason for the reader to carry on reading. I suppose you are aware of the fact that a plot summary gives the plot in chronological order, so before you know it you learn about the family secret.


 * Also, you haven't answered my question. Are you eliminating all spoiler warnings? I think I've read on your talk page that there are cases where they are justified.


 * Once again, best wishes, &lt;KF&gt; 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thing is, when you read a novel the postponed revelation makes sense. But if the reviewers are all commenting on the importance of this postponed revelation, then we should really mention it in the lead.  Unless you're going to insist that reading about the novel should mirror the experience of reading it, it doesn't make sense to hide the revelation.


 * Having said all that, this being a new novel it might make a bit of sense to stick a spoiler tag at the very top for a few months so that the article can be properly developed without upsetting too many people who haven't yet had a chance to read it. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand this. Mention what in the lead? That a family secret is revealed in the novel, that it will take the reader 150 pages to learn what it is all about, or that Mike Hook is infertile and his kids are not his kids?


 * Of course I don't insist "that reading about the novel should mirror the experience of reading it", quite the opposite. But it is exactly because the plot summary should not, and does not, mirror the reading experience that a spoiler warning seems justified.


 * I don't understand the last bit either. Who shouldn't be upset? Those who want to develop the article but haven't read the book? Those who have just paid ₤14.99 for the novel, just look up Graham Swift, see that there is already an article on Tomorrow and cannot resist clicking on it only to be told without any warning that the kids were test tube babies? I suppose the publishers had a good reason not to mention that on the dust jacket. &lt;KF&gt; 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I say, I don't think there's a problem with popping a spoiler tag at the top for a few months while you develop the article. If some readers cannot resist clicking on the link, they'll see the tag at the top and know that they're about to read a proper encyclopedia article and not something from Usenet. --Tony Sidaway 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem would be it would be removed again. I'm sorry, I have to go now. I'll be back in about 18 hours' time and then see if anything has happened in the meantime. &lt;KF&gt; 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing it after a while shouldn't be a problem. People who don't want to know stuff should probably learn not to read encyclopedias. --Tony Sidaway 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not here to protect the readers experience on reading a novel or watching a film or TV episode. But that aside, a section titled "Synopsis" should be expected to contain spoilers. So a warning is unnecessary clutter. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler:

That a few people used admin bots to remove every spoiler they could find is supposed to suggest some sort of actual consensus was reached on this subject is your argument? I mean, seriously?? Well, fuck me, let me and some other like-minded folks use bots to remove every instance of word "peanut butter" from wikipedia because apparently that will prove that some sort of consensus was reached to bar its use in Wikipedia.

BTW - this is exactly why many people have thrown up their hands and decided to stop dealing with Wikipedia. You just get so tired of some folks thinking that "to edit" is to argue minor points to death. I keep coming across far too many user pages from people who used to be happily active that have notes that say in some form or other "Life is too short to deal with this shit and those that sling it." RoyBatty42 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)