Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 12

message: Right now we have a somewhat arbitrary two month deadline. This deadline seems to me to be awfully long for some things and awfully short for others. Does anybody have a good reason why we shouldn't devolve power on this one to individual WikiProjects? The current fiction needs of the anime/manga folks are fundamentally different from the current fiction needs of, say, WikiProject Shakespeare (who I imagine would be puzzled by the decision to put a current fiction tag on a filmic adaptation of Shakespeare at all). Phil Sandifer 13:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a sensible approach. I prefer leaving the tag in place for longer periods of time. I mean, suppose it were there for six months. What's the harm? Marc Shepherd 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It would make sense for the guideline to defer to wikiproject style guides that exist, and give a rule of thumb for articles that aren't covered.  I hope the wikiprojects won't run amok. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they will. It should be noted, in parallel, I'm trying to rephrase Template:Current fiction so it's not a bigger, uglier spoiler tag - have a look at its current form. I think, pleasantly, its current form also implies its own sunsetting - when real-world perspective exists and starts to move into the article, the tag goes away. Or, alternatively, is replaced with Template:Cleanup fiction-as-fact. Phil Sandifer 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil Sandifer, you said "Template:Current fiction is superior in every regard to (the spoiler template)" and at that time, the  template displayed "This article documents a recently released work of fiction. It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." So why are you changing the wording? Was your comment total bullshit? --Pixelface 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've so gallantly redefined the scale of bullshit at this point that I don't even know how to answer you. Phil Sandifer 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, please read WP:NAM, particularly the point I've directed you to.  I also recommend WP:COOL and WP:DR. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The two months are certainly completely arbitrary. I suggested this number from the experience with the Harry Potter 7 release, although it may be slightly longer than what people used there. I don't have problems with the tag being applicable between a couple of days to a year or so depending on the article subject. Kusma (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've worded it now as "typically between a week and a month or two; this is a matter for local editorial judgement" - I think "editorial judgement" is better than "this is disputed", as it doesn't imply "oooh do this and you'll have trouble" and more accurately reflects the way things will likely work - David Gerard 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's better. Marc Shepherd 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added "and you should consult the relevant WikiProject for more guidance" as well. Phil Sandifer 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunsetting current fiction 

message: "flagged revisions" What is the problem with flagged revisions? Milo 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read more about them on the talk archives of Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions and other places. I don't like them.--Nydas(Talk) 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagged revisions 

message: . Per a comment on the ANI board, I am informing you guys about this in case you may wish to comment. Thanks, Davnel03 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Comment opened at [[WP:PW]] regarding spoilers and sources