| Revision as of 21:36, 15 May 2007 editThuranX (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers20,147 edits →[]: the template is hideous now← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:38, 15 May 2007 edit undoDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,121 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :*'''Delete''' or '''Revert'''. I would love to know when the template got changed to a layout wrecking monstrosity. It changes my fonts, font sizes, creates a bizarre box around the entire article, sub-boxes when nested, and generally looks like HTML diarrhea. It used to be a basic text banner. Quiet, unobtrusive, but clearly warning others off. I hit my watchist today, and half my watchlist is suddenly the victim of bad design. | :*'''Delete''' or '''Revert'''. I would love to know when the template got changed to a layout wrecking monstrosity. It changes my fonts, font sizes, creates a bizarre box around the entire article, sub-boxes when nested, and generally looks like HTML diarrhea. It used to be a basic text banner. Quiet, unobtrusive, but clearly warning others off. I hit my watchist today, and half my watchlist is suddenly the victim of bad design. | ||
| *'''Delete''' or '''severely restrict''' to very recent or unreleased ''fiction''. As per the above examples, it not only encourages ludicrously unencyclopedic labeling and article writing - on ], it blatantly causes violation of NPOV, a fundamental content policy - ] 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:38, 15 May 2007
Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning
This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Misplaced Pages:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead. In its worst manifestations, such as The Crying Game, this is used to bury entire perspectives on the movie (i.e. LGBT perspectives) outside of the lead where they belong. The entire policy encourages writing articles in a way that is organized around spoiler warnings instead of sensible portrayal of information, and has gone egregiously wrong (highlights including spoiler warnings on Night (book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet). The policy is overwhelmingly being used to make articles worse, not better, and for that needs to go. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Revert. I would love to know when the template got changed to a layout wrecking monstrosity. It changes my fonts, font sizes, creates a bizarre box around the entire article, sub-boxes when nested, and generally looks like HTML diarrhea. It used to be a basic text banner. Quiet, unobtrusive, but clearly warning others off. I hit my watchist today, and half my watchlist is suddenly the victim of bad design.
- Delete or severely restrict to very recent or unreleased fiction. As per the above examples, it not only encourages ludicrously unencyclopedic labeling and article writing - on The Crying Game, it blatantly causes violation of NPOV, a fundamental content policy - David Gerard 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)