vorticity Wrote:I'm used to software where deleted pages show up with a big red indicator next to them on Recent Changes.
I'm used to not looking at Recent Changes, so that wouldn't mean much to me. I'm thinking purely in terms of someone finding a link to a spuriously deleted page on some other page. A link to a page that doesn't exist isn't unusual. Existent but blank pages are, and it draws one's attention to something possibly being wrong.
Quote:It was more of a "Hey, I just freed up curly brackets. Should I use them for anything?" moment.
Spoiler coding is actually a fairly hard thing to do right, because it has three competing interests: It's common so it should be short; it should be easy to remember, because it's common; and it should be easy to identify, because people don't always want to read the contents while editing. In the last, [[spoiler:] wins hands down, because it's so big and obviously says spoiler. But it's cumbersome for something that is so common. Evan suggested ((double parenthesis)), because it's like a parenthetical comment that's less important to see, but I think that fails the "obviously a spoiler" test. So I proposed with double curly brackets. Would you feel better with {{{triple curly brackets}}}? Is there another alternative that feels better to you?
I suspect using curly brackets for *anything* that's not at least link-related is going to cause confusion.
As for short vs. obvious, I don't think you can have it both ways. Anything that short is going to be too easy to miss. And given that a lot of people who aren't me seem to actually care about spoilers, obviousness is probably more important. That combined with feeling that keeping the old syntax where possible is a good thing, I'm going to vote for sticking with [[spoiler:] .
(I also feel like spoiler tagging is already overused, and so have my doubts about encouraging people to pile on *even more* of it by making it so simple...)
Sofaspud Wrote:The two I listed (and many more!) say what they mean; they are clear and self-evident.
Here I've gotta respond "Maybe to you." I'd never heard of Deus Ex Nukina before, and what I thought the name *sounded* like before I searched it is... well, *related*, in the sense that both involve nukes. But not all that close beyond that. And the name doesn't really make sense to me. TITM, on the other hand, does, and I have no attachment to The Big O either. (Which I'd have to question actually calling the source anyway...)
Basically, I think what you're saying about TITM could be said about most of the tropes in the wiki, and this is not really a soluble problem. Names that hardly seem to make sense to *anyone*, yes. (I think TVT's existing guidelines on this are actually pretty good.... although I'll make no statements just now about their *implementation* of said guidelines.)
Also, isn't "people who are interested in digging into references" already the target audience here? That strikes me as a bit like complaining that people who don't like racing will have a hard time figuring out NASCAR.
vorticity: Where's the "TakeThat" in the name? It's definitely something that *distinguishes* us from the competition, who have decided that they don't want All of them, but it's not like they're ashamed of their positions...
-Morgan.