Template talk:Spoiler

We should standardise the "OMG SPOILER" warning message. --Talrath Stormcrush 15:04, 6 Aug 2005 (EST)

This needs some serious work, it isn't much of a warning, infact it's easy to miss.. Skuld &Dagger; 07:58, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * How's that? I think that should work for people being able to see it.  The code probably isn't pretty, but I think it works.  --Rainith 08:26, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I like the idea of a color, eye-catching. But the red was just dreadful. I made it a lighter shade so it is still eye catching, but also readable. --Karlos 09:19, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I just wanted to make sure people would see it. :P  It got your attention didn't it.  --Rainith 12:16, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Yeah, but I didn't want to read it. I wanted to close the window! :P --Karlos 12:29, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)

Spoiler Prophecies/Factions
I propose two spoiler templates: one for each campaign. Those who have completed the first chapter and not the second, and to a lesser extent vice-versa, need a more specific warning than 'read at your own risk'. -- Dashface
 * I don't really feel that this is necessary, but a really simple way to do it would be to add right before "PvE" in the template then just change all the uses of the template to be either  or  .  --Rainith 23:52, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

"more general"
What would be an example of a spoiler that wasn't about the plot of a campaign? Arrowsmith 22:29, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I would also like to know the reason for the revert, even though it was indeed me who added that if-then-else statement. If you would like the article in question to not be related to a campaign, wasn't the point not to specify one like; ? My edit still allowed the tag to be used in this way to have a more "general" approach. The edit only changed includes specified as campaign related such as;  (or any other campaign) to have a link to the related campaign. No other part of the template was changed. As such, I fail to realize how the reverted revision have the possibility to be more general, considering they both include the same possibilities/information. &mdash; Galil   23:39, 19 June 2006 (CDT)