Template talk:Magic-spoiler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image 2 TFD Nomination July 2005 3 Removal of table 4 Extra links 5 Template for arguments? 6 Magical -> Magic 7 Discussion on the guideline 8 The #spoiler-end redirect doesn't work!

[edit] Image

I think the image was useful on this template, and should be restored. DES 16:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The image is FAR too overboard. Such things were rejected long ago on the main spoiler template (see Template talk:Spoiler and archives), and should not be done here either. This template has been aroudn for a long time -- but it's been undocumented and used on so few articles as it escaped earlier discovery. If I had seen it when we achieved consensus on the main spoiler template, I would have made this match way back then. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then discuss it now. I agree that such images are overboard for the standard literary spoiler templates, but i think that this image is useful and appropriate on this specialized template. If the consensus is agaisnt me, so be it. If this tempalte was not being considered when the earlier consensus was formed, then the special nature of this template was not considered then. It should be now. DES 17:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is still an encyclopedia, and spoiler warnings at all are still a courtesy. This template does not need an image to do it's job. It is ugly, and in fact, I think it defaces any articles it's put on. You say this template has a "special nature", and I disagree. It reveals a secret which any adult knows exists, even though they don't know the exact mechanism -- I'd even bet that most people read these magic articles wanting to know the secret. On the other hand, literary spoilers are likely completely unexpected. If we've agreed images are too much for those, then this template deserves it even less. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an electronic encyclopedia, and if we are going to include spoilers (most articles in standard paper encyclopedias would not) then i think spoiler warnings are more than just "a courtesy". I agree that most adults know that there is a secret behind a magic trick, and I am not worried about those who think that "real magic" is going on, if indeed there are any such over the age of 10. As for what readers want, how can one know. Any reader who wants to know the "secret" can get extra assurance from the tempalte that what s/he wants is right here. Indeed a "what links here" could be used to find many articles containing such sectets. Those who don't want to know such secrets, or don't want to know them unawares, will I think be expecting such revelations less than in a literary article.DES 18:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Paper encyclopedias absolutely include tons of spoilers, they just do not label or worry about them like we do. That is likely a result of this being on the Internet, where labeling spoilers is part of netiquette. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

All that said, it is clear that my view and yours differ. I doubt that I will persuade you, or you me. But I hope that I may persuade others, so that a consensus forms. If you persuade others, so that there is a consensus favoring your view, I will of course yield. Thanks for discussing this here rahter than warring over it. DES 18:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for discussing this here rather than murdering a dozen children. (damn you can be snide sometimes) -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we should keep the image, but tidy the template a bit. The text should certainly line up with the center of the image, and the image should be somewhat smaller. Personally I've long held an aversion to the HRs we put in spoiler tags - they're ugly, and are useful only to people who read by dragging their finger down the right edge of the page :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFD Nomination July 2005

Template nominated for deletion on July 16; result of discussion/vote was to Keep. See the relevant entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005. RedWolf 06:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of table

(rv - if you have a plan to vertically center the text (not just the image) without a table, please do so instead of just asserting you do and removing the current solution)

I did. Unless you're saying that my change didn't vertically center the text, in which case I would like to know which browser you're using, as my css should be valid, and displays properly for me in IE, Firefox, and Safari. Although perhaps you're referring to the fact that the text wraps around the bottom of the image if the window is too small (a valid criticsm, and one I didn't notice when I made the change).

- Matthew0028 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Your change didn't vertically center the text for users with the classic skin. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Or any other skin besides Chick and Monobook. —Cryptic (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extra links

I propose that this template contain links to Intellectual rights to magic methods and/or exposure (magic). I don't like template bloat any more than the next Wikipedian, but I'm still optimistic enough to think this might stem the relentless tide of section blanking we see in magic articles. Comments? Bovlb 18:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

Feel free to edit the box above. Bovlb 04:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks better without the third line (even if it's bolded and italicized to look like the others). Perhaps omit the second link; perhaps this: —Cryptic (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Done per your example. Thanks for you help. Bovlb 07:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template for arguments?

I'm a bit ambivalent about this template, as it invokes a certain sensationalism, by using words like "Spoiler", "secret" (twice) and "reveal" - in my eyes, that is almost like an invitation to arguments and flame wars. Would it be possible with something a bit more neutral instead? Something like:

Because, all this chaos about "secrets" this and "information" that.. it's not very constructive for anyone. I myself is a performer and creator of magic, and so far I haven't seen a single argument that has anything to do with me, my work, my rights or my creations. - from neither side.

For example, in my performances I only have one secret. That at the end, my shoe will mysteriously appear on the table. That is the only secret, and that is from a dramatic point as it becomes like a twist end that ties everything that has happened together... But when it comes to the covert choreography behind my creations, I have nothing against that people reverse-engineer the choreography afterwards. Usually they get more impressed if they do, as I usually make use of many layers in my work.

The links to "intellectual rights" and such are not necessary - because they talk about patents which is irrelevant (can't patent a choreography) and copyright which is equally irrelevant (covert choreography is still not defined in the copyright laws, meaning that you are neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright to steal someone's creation within this field of expression). There's only ethics. Meaning, if the creation isn't in public domain, you should ask the originator for permission to upload his creation - because taking his work without permission or against his will would be considered theft had he been a creator within music, dance, writing, graphics etc. There shouldn't be a difference between work and work.

The whole irrelevant business about "secrets" have nothing to do with it. Have the creator given his permission, than it doesn't matter what the secrets-hoarders think (most amateur magicians goes through a phase when they start, where they believe that the workings behind an effect is everything that matters. After a few years, those things becomes irrelevant, but it is a bit annoying when they claim that I don't have the right to give my work to anyone else but them.

Oh, well.. I left the subject. My suggestion for the template? In my eyes, it would be better with less sensationalism in the template, as it look more "proper" and less inviting to arguments. --TStone 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magical -> Magic

I changed this because I feel it better conveys the meaning of the template. The secret itself isn't what's magical, which is what the original wording implied. --Ultimus 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the guideline

There is a discussion on the nature of the guidance relating to this template at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Views welcome. Steve block Talk 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The #spoiler-end redirect doesn't work!

In the spoiler warning, the link "skip this section" is a piped link, i.e. [[#endspoiler|skip this section]] that when clicked, doesn't do anything. It doesn't skip the section and just stays there. Does anyone know how to code this so that it works and goes to the "Spoilers end here" part? Thanks, Brisvegas 23:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)