Template talk:Safe

From Ultronomicon
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:spoilerlinks was not enough? -- SvdB

But this one is new, and longer, and green! Don't you like the shiny template? ;) Really though, I agree. "safe" is a better template name than "spoilerlinks", so I think we should delete spoilerlinks, spoiler, and some others and make this one a bit more concise. --Jacius

I don't think we will ever actually need Template:Spoilers. If you have reached a page with spoilers from a non-spoiler page, you will already have been given a warning (you don't want to mark every page as containing spoilers). Template:spoilerlink is meant for a single link that leads to a page with spoilers, which makes it different from Template:spoilerlinks and Template:safe which say that every link on a page may lead to a spoiler. But Template:spoilerlinks and Template:safe seem to have the same function. And you're not marking a page as safe, you're marking a page as leading to spoilers, which to me means that the former would be a better name. -- SvdB 09:20, 19 Oct 2004 (CEST)

The purpose of the Safe template (as I thought we agreed on in the editting essentials talk, but I guess that's not true) was to mark all of the (very few pages) which definitely did not have spoilers (i.e. the pages that were safe). The addition of the last clause (not guaranteeing the links) is a nod to the reality that I don't think it's feasible to to give any stronger guarantee (such as that the page and everything linked from it is safe). The intended usage is that all safe pages get the Safe template and that everything else is just left alone. (again, see Ultronomicon talk:Editing Essentials for that discussion.) A new reader gets his warning on the main page and knows that any page lacking the happy green color is something he wants to avoid and hit the back button when he finds. Sorry for any confusion; as I said, I thought there was a concensus and I'm sorry if I jumped the gun. Mmrnmhrm 17:22, 19 Oct 2004 (CEST)

My last remark on that page (which I appearantly forgot to sign) was "Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?". Also Jacius seems to have been saying something to that respect. Noone else replied after that. -- SvdB 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (CEST)

(In response to SvdB) It seems easier to me. It's a matter of preference. I can't give a good reason other than this: Each page is a distinct unit, and the less we have to worry about the interactions of those units, the better. If a page is marked Safe, future editors know to keep it that way. If a link is marked Safe, then people editing its target may not be aware of that. Maintainence seems easier with this scheme. Again, just my opinion. Mmrnmhrm 14:49, 20 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I see where you're coming from. Perhaps we can compromise by including a REM statement at the beginning of each safe page, visible to editors but not to readers, ex:

 <-- This page is intended as spoiler-free. Please be considerate by
 not linking to articles which contain spoilers. If you feel you must insert
 such  links, please denote them with with a {{spoilerlink}}. -->

-Fadookie 16:54, 20 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Fadookie, that's a great idea. Now, is there an easy way to do that, that doesn't involve typing or cut/pasteing that whole bit into every safe page? My guess is no... well, time to get crackin'! Mudlock 17:05, 20 Oct 2004 (CEST)

A {{spoilerfree}} tag with an empty template attached may also remind the editors while not showing anything to the readers. And if at some point we decide we want to show something after all, all we'd have to do is fill in the template. -- SvdB 22:09, 20 Oct 2004 (CEST)