I thought I'd ask first, but then I thought, "it can always be easily reverted," so, whaddaya think? (about the spoiler warning, I mean) --GuildKnightTalk2me 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Never start a sentence with 'because' :). I partially agree with a blanket spoiler warning, however there are a number of problems. Does this mean that every page is free to contain as big a spoiler as it wants with no warning? If so, I will not read any of GTA Wiki until I have completed GTA IV. We can't force people to make the choice between either reading massive spoilers or not reading the site at all.
What would be more realistic is that all pages allow minor spoilers (eg the point of a mission) or things that everyone knows (eg CJ eventually returning to Los Santos). Those are things you either know (because you've played the game) or don't care about (because you haven't played the game). However bigger spoilers detailing big twists in the storyline (eg Big Smoke being bad) should probably still need a warning be protected with a spoiler tag. Spoilers for old games (say.. GTA VC and earlier) don't matter anymore.
So especially with GTA IV we need most of the site to be accessible for people, but they need to know that there will be some spoilers on most pages, but the pages with big spoilers will be protected, and they read them at their own risk. What do you think? Gboyers (?) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns are definitely valid; however, I feel that if we keep "bigger" spoilers on the mission pages, that should be sufficient. Any reader should be able to deduce that mission walkthroughs will contain spoilers. If we want to reference a plot twist, we can always link to the page that details the spoiler.
I like the way you've worded it. We can just use the spoiler warning on non-mission pages, like Big Smoke (which, by the way, doesn't have a spoiler warning), and assume that everyone knows that mission walkthroughs will contain spoilers. --GuildKnightTalk2me 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)