13,610
edits
Talk:Karen/spoilers: Difference between revisions
reply
(added my message) |
(reply) |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
::Also, I removed the line you inserted because I felt it to be too much of an obvious "trap" to a naive reader (sorry, I should have been more clear in the edit summary). Personally, I think we should ''not'' link to this article from the Michelle Stone article, as it offers too much of a propensity for people to have plot details spolied, as happened to [[User:KalypsoSig|KalypsoSig]]. As I see it, people are ''going'' to figure it out, one way or the other, either by clicking the link out of simple curiosity, or (more likely) by surmising why that line was even inserted into the article at all. Perhaps we can say, "Michelle has a secret revealed later in the game", or something indirect and deliberately cryptic like that. I'm just concerned that adding a link to here is far too obvious. Besides, anyone reading about Michelle most likely has ''not'' discovered her "alter-ego", or else they would be reading ''this'' article instead, since they would know by then that Karen and Michelle are one and the same. That having been said, I think the Michelle Stone article should ''only'' focus on that ''persona'', whereas this article should allude to both. What do you think? '''[[User:Eganio|Eganio]]<sup>''[[User talk:Eganio|Talk]]''</sup>''' 06:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | ::Also, I removed the line you inserted because I felt it to be too much of an obvious "trap" to a naive reader (sorry, I should have been more clear in the edit summary). Personally, I think we should ''not'' link to this article from the Michelle Stone article, as it offers too much of a propensity for people to have plot details spolied, as happened to [[User:KalypsoSig|KalypsoSig]]. As I see it, people are ''going'' to figure it out, one way or the other, either by clicking the link out of simple curiosity, or (more likely) by surmising why that line was even inserted into the article at all. Perhaps we can say, "Michelle has a secret revealed later in the game", or something indirect and deliberately cryptic like that. I'm just concerned that adding a link to here is far too obvious. Besides, anyone reading about Michelle most likely has ''not'' discovered her "alter-ego", or else they would be reading ''this'' article instead, since they would know by then that Karen and Michelle are one and the same. That having been said, I think the Michelle Stone article should ''only'' focus on that ''persona'', whereas this article should allude to both. What do you think? '''[[User:Eganio|Eganio]]<sup>''[[User talk:Eganio|Talk]]''</sup>''' 06:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
:I agree that the line made by Gboyers was a bit obvious, but if we mention the word secret it'll be more obvious, I don't think that there is any real answer to this. So I agree with you I guess Eganio | :I agree that the line made by Gboyers was a bit obvious, but if we mention the word secret it'll be more obvious, I don't think that there is any real answer to this. So I agree with you I guess Eganio. [[User:Biggest gta fan ever|Biggest gta fan ever]] 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
[[User: | I had made that addition only 3 days ago, so it isn't as if everything had stalled. You also failed to discuss your removal of that sentence, and simply reverted another user's edit without explanation. I also slightly feel that you are overestimating this plot development, due to you not having played GTA IV (I believe). Yes it is a surprise, and yes it totally re-establishes an entire character; but it is only halfway through the storyline that this is revealed, and it doesn't affect anything else. Yes we should protect people from finding out if they don't want to know, but if they DO want to know then we should allow them to find out. | ||
By removing all traces of Karen from the Michelle article, we are adopting the "we know best" mantra - we are saying that our users are not allowed to know this information for their own good. We should give THEM to choice to read on if they want to. Obviously that needs to be done in a sensitive way. For example: ''"Michelle has a secret which is revealed in the mission <nowiki>[[Mission Name]]</nowiki>"'' - that doesn't expose her identity or the fact that she has another one; users that want to find the Karen page know thats where to lookl; and users that want to know her secret (even if they dont know it yet) have the option to find out. It is not for us to decide what to tell our readers - I am totally against witholding information, but I'm fine for hiding it sensitively. | |||
I have protected both articles due to a small edit war that had been going on previously, and to ensure no spoilers or links are added until a decision has been made. [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 12:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||