User talk:68.205.26.246

Encyclopedia articles are not stories[edit]

I don't know what makes you think so on Arjuna. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to contain information, even though it may contain spoilers. Drop your battleground, please. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edit stating the exact same reason without discussion and stating the same reasoning is disruptive and borderline edit warring. I'm not going to revert your edit per WP:3RR, but take WP:SPOILER into consideration, in particular "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." --SHB2000 (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you get satisfaction out of ruining someone's surprise birthday party, and try to look up a rule book for why it is okay to ruin someone's surprise party? 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a portion of the story spoiled for me. I'm trying to protect readers from having a similar experience so that they can maximize the value and enjoyment of reading Bhagavad Gita. A reader should be able to google a character, or read the first 3 sentences of a character's wikipedia page without reading such a spoiler. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica, New world encyclopedia, World history encyclopedia have the common sense and decency to provide an informational summary on Arjuna in the first paragraph without including a spoiler of the Bhagavad Gita story in the first 3 sentences of the encyclopedia page for the character Arjuna. I'm not implying that the information shouldn't exist anywhere on the page. But, to include it in the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph, it robs a reader of a spoiler in the book. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would allocate so much effort to contrast such an obvious common sense sentiment, as protecting a reader from a spoiler, so that a reader can do a google search on a character without having the story spoiled. Wikipedia is something like the second search result on google, and the first paragraph of the wikipedia page shows up on google without even clicking the wikipedia link. It seems beyond reasonable that a person should be able to google the name of a character in a book without having a later portion of the story spoiled. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance."

- Wikipedia:Spoiler

Including this spoiler information in the first paragraph is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia being served, it's borderline malicious to readers. An encyclopedia page can be informative and serve an encyclopedia purpose without the first 3 sentences spoiling such a significant part of a story.

I'm not suggesting that the page couldn't contain any spoilers anywhere on the page. But if someone is using judgement, it seems pretty obvious that such a detailed and specific spoiler of the story should not be included in the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph. That's just being courteous and tasteful. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.