FANDOM


Carried over from Template Talk:Spoiler

Since we're tweaking the spoiler tag, perhaps this would be a good opportunity to write an actual spoiler policy akin to the Caption policy page rather than linking to Wikipedia for this. Such an article would ideally go at Transformers Wiki:Spoiler.

As for what would go on such a page, I'll get the ball rolling with the following:

  • Spoiler tags are removed six months after publication/airtime/movie release.
  • Spoiler tags are not used on cartoon episode or comic issue pages. If you read the plot summaries on these articles you should not be surprised if you get spoiled.

Anything else that should go in there?--RosicrucianTalk 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Six months seems excessive (and would cause lots of clutter when people forget to remove them in half a year). One month would be better. Interrobang 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Six months is excessive. For comics, I'd suggest a week, but if some feel a month is necessary, I think that's about the top window. --ItsWalky 19:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I tried to err on the side of caution. I don't mind if it's shorter.--RosicrucianTalk 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with measuring the spoiler-time from when the comic issue is published, is that some of us only buy the trade paperbacks. I suspect, however, if I suggest it should be "one month from when the trade paperback is released", I'll meet with a lot of resistance . . . (And let's not get into those of us who don't watch the shows on TV, but buy the DVDs . . . ) JW 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Are we setting an automatic removal thingermabob of some sort? Or is someone going to religiously purge spoiler tags from articles once a month? 'Cause otherwise, it's relatively moot.
I'd say anything from 2-4 weeks is entirely reasonable. I know I don't always make the trip to the comic store every week, and some people wait for the trades... though if we wait for the trades, nobody's gonna remember to do cleanup. I know I never even see the damn things, let alone know when they come out... -- Repowers 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say two weeks max for comics. In the majority of instances, if you haven't picked up the book within two weeks of publication, it's your own damn fault and I frankly can't work up any sympathy for you being spoiled, ESPECIALLY if you're going to wait the six-plus months plus for a damn trade collection to come out. (And this is coming from someone who sometimes has month-long gaps bewteen comic store visits). Waiting for trades is going back to "well, people in Botswana haven't seen the episode yet" ridiculous extremes. Same for movies.
TV shows are a little trickier, since even with VCRs and Tivo, you're more at the whim of when the channel reruns it. So say... a month? --M Sipher 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving the discussion over here because now that the image policy is done I think I'm going to start working on this next.--RosicrucianTalk 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we go with, I favor a universal window of time during which things are considered "spoilers." Makes things simpler, unless there's a really good reason why one medium deserves different protection than another. A month from general release seems fair enough to me. - Jackpot 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I favor a week. I don't like spoiler templates in the first place, and a month is entirely too much. I'd also make a point to not use the template in stuff clearly labeled "plot", "summary", or the like. That those contain spoilers should be evident. —Interrobang 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think most people really have the time to stay on top of all the fiction immediately like that. I think it's pretty common (and I cite myself as an example) to go to the comic shop about once a month and clean out a subscription box, or let TV shows queue up on the TiVo or in the download folder until free time comes up. I do think our spoiler-window should be a single unit of time for simplicity, but I think a month is closer to realistic than a week for what we can expect of people's habits. - Jackpot 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really work with current television shows, since then you'd be putting several templates (four, usually; depending on how many new episodes are aired in a month) into a small space, making for a unpleasant sight. —Interrobang 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Edit: Wait, no, I think I see what you mean. For instance, the Sari Sumdac "Fiction" section would have a bunch of spoiler tags for various pieces of information, according to the corresponding source episodes (which would each have different expiry dates). Hm. Well, how about a rule like "one month or until the next episode/issue comes out, whichever comes first"? - Jackpot 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess that works. —Interrobang 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a category to the spoiler template, to make it much easier to track down the various instances of it and remove them when the time period expires. This should make it more viable to have longer "spoiler periods" if desired.KrytenKoro 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Animated Cartoon Canadian airdate

So whats the policy of the Canadian broadcast spoilers? So far I've seen spoiler warnings of sections of articles until a week after the North American broadcast, and other times it's removed a week after the Canadian broadcast date, the day of the regular North American broadcast? Come to think of it, what is the policy for the cartoon under normal circumstances? It doesn't seem to be written in stone anywhere. (Undecided) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler expiry

I'm just buzzing through- but I'm gonna volunteer this; it should be possible to create auto-expiring spoiler tags. Ones designed to, after a certain number of days pass, either disappear, or actually change into a green-coded 'Spoilers are okay now!' template instead. (this works because all pages on the wiki are re-cached likw 6 times a day, so you can do date-based calculation.)

The question is whether the spoiler-timeout would be the same for all tags- in which case tou could just put in a timestamp {{spoiler|Autoboot Camp|~~~~~}} and it'd add say, 30 days on to whatever the date you added the spoiler tag to determine the timeout. Alternately- you could make it custom-- {{spoiler|Autoboot Camp|July 18}} (I think that works) if it's gonna change.

The real killer app (IMO) is that after the expiry date passes, the pages could add themselves into 'Category: Pages where Spoilers have Expired' to make cleanup easier, and reduce the # of forgotten spoiler-tagged pages.

I'm just throwing it out as an idea. -Derik 10:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am wholly in support of that. To my mind, making every spoiler tag automatically expire after 30 days is ideal. If we could add customization on top of that, all the better. (I still hold to what I suggested above, which is that info on new developments should be spoiler-protected for 30 days or until the next episode/issue, whichever comes first. And maybe throw in there that if episodes come out over a series of days (such as is happening right now in the UK) there should be a minimum week-long spoiler-protect for each one.) - Jackpot 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Auto-expiry demo

Explicitly set expiration
{{spoiler-dev|Autoboot Camp |June 11,2008}}
or
{{spoiler-dev|Autoboot Camp |June 16,2008}}

Template:Spoiler-dev


Template:Spoiler-dev
Now + 30 days (default length)
{{spoiler-dev|Autoboot Camp|now=~~~~~}}

Template:Spoiler-dev

Now + custom days
{{spoiler-dev|Autoboot Camp|now=~~~~~|days=7}}

Template:Spoiler-dev

No timeout of any sort - color coded red to yell at you and make yous et one.
{{spoiler-dev|Autoboot Camp}}

Template:Spoiler-dev

An expired spoiler tag;
{{spoiler-dev|Autoboot Camp |June 10,2008}}

Template:Spoiler-dev

The final look and feel is entirely negotiable here- we could even stick the clockwork/calculation into the existing template shell. Keys here (I feel) are the color-coding of expired/unexpired/not-set. Also- notices that the 3 different states sort the pages into categories based on their status. If this is thought UGLY, I believe it's possible to create 'invisible' categories: you could still view them- but they wouldn't don't show up at the bottom of the page. I think the cats are important for maintenance- you can go through and clean up all the expired spoiler tags.

The 'hours' thing will always be approximate, the pages on TT1 are 'recalculated' several times a day, which will update them, but I'm not sure how often.

Responses appreciated. -Derik 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, if it wasn't clear, in addition to marking spoiler tags so we don't have year-old spoiler templates hanging around, I imagine this mechanism would be used with our {{comingsoon}} template to tell people "Please do not add information on this until..." -Derik 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I can dig it. I don't know if we need to enforce it with the nag for nonexpiring. if we were to do it I'd say go with the existing spoiler template format, but go with the color change for whether it's expired or pending. Do a border change and a bgcolor change, for maximum visibility.--RosicrucianTalk 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That is an option, yes. -Derik 05:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha! less than 5 minuts to skin into the current look. Thoughts? -Derik 05:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it. I like it a lot.--RosicrucianTalk 06:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So, no one has thoughts beyond 'I like it'? Colors? the categories it sorts you into? Should they be visible or hidden categories? Do we want a simplified treatment of spoilers withotu all these bells and whistles? Should ComingSoon get a similar auto-timeout treatment? -Derik 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
See, I wasn't even aware we could add a category without it showing at the bottom of a page. Given my druthers I'd drop the red nag setting, but still stealthily add it to the "we need to add expirations to these" category.--RosicrucianTalk 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not an article-level template- you can hide the entire category everywhere. It's used for maintenance templates like this. (At least it is on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure Wikia supports it.) I've dumped the bottomnotice if there's no expiry set, and turned the border black for a gentler visual cue. It sorts into a category if the spoilers are expired, or if the there's no expiry set. Do we have a preferred name for these categories? (You can see both at the bottom of this article.) And do we want them visible or hidden? (I prefer to alter a template that's transcluded hundreds of times once, not a dozen times. Server load.) -Derik 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the new template fits our needs perfectly, and locating articles with spoiled spoiler tags is nothing more than viewing a category. (And yes, I think the categories should be visible because it makes it easier to view the category page). A similar thing for "Coming Soon" probably wouldn't be as simple, as there is no set date for people receiving the club magazine. --FortMax 19:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but First Receivers + 30 days would probably cover it.
You know- except for me- I had 6 months pass between issues I received. (I got 2 of my 6 issues delivered last time I signed up- plus one issue of the fishwrap edition. I am now looking for someone who is a member to jsut BUY the back issues for me-- it's about the same price as signing up and then I'd actually get them.) -Derik 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The demo examples above should now be empty- i blanked them and flagged them for deletion (to make sure I wasn't missing a dependency somewhere.) The new spoiler template doc is up and running with only... two hitches. -Derik 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet-another-Spoiler-Concept

I'm also throwing this out as a broad idea Ramjet_(G1) at the head of the comic section. This solution is (IMO) not quote ready for prime time, as it runs into it's fair share of caching issues (and I didn't bother to fix the namespace when I moved it over, so one of the links is broken...) but the idea is simple enough. You hide a spoiler like this; {{hidespoiler|The butler did it!}}, so it's hidden- but when transcluded onto a /spoiler/ sub-page, it detects that it's okay to render the text. Only one page to keep up and edit, but you can have both spoiler-filled and spoiler-friendly pages.

Frankly, I think this is a terrible idea- there seems to be a delay in the update that will drive editors nuts. It would encourage people to post spoilers willy-nilly as long as they do it 'right,' and would generally erode the wiki's moral high ground stance. Plus- idiot editors would still doubtless spoil us with edit summaries because we'd be allowing spoiler-ful edits. Still- I ran into this idea today while working on the other template, and i thought it was worth mentioning- if not for this purpose, maybe someone else can think of a better use for the idea.

(I'll remove the purple thing on Ramjet's page tomorrow.) -Derik 09:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with that one is that there's no really good way to rehide the spoilers in the fashion of Wikipedia collapsing boxes. I'd stay away from this one for now just because it seems a bit inelegant compared to the way Wikipedia does it. Mind you, I'm aware that the way Wikipedia does it is somehow impractical for our needs, as I recall you mentioning the problems with it.--RosicrucianTalk 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the idea is that you'd be aable to click back and hide 'em... it's just broken. But you're right, it's still a lot less elegant than an on-the-fly click-hide system. (The reason we dumped on that is the same reason wikipedia did for a lot of years- it renders the hidden content permanently inaccessible to users with Javascript turned off. ~1% of web viewers.) I wasn't aware Wikipedia had reverses this stance- can you give me an example? -Derik 11:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of Barack Obama and you'll see a metric arseload of show/hide infoboxes.--RosicrucianTalk 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
They're automatically always-showing if you have Javascript turned off. (They 'degrade' well.) That wouldn't work if you were using them to conceal spoilers-- they would fail to conceal. -Derik 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.