"Plot notice" is a really vague template name to my mind. Perhaps "Plot active" instead? I prefer no spaces in my template names personally, and my first instinct was Activeplot, but I think Plot should come first.
Guidelines for when the template should be removed.
Perhaps uppercase the section names. Production and Reception. Perhaps not.
"Details will be frequently changed, so editors are encouraged to contribute..."->"Details are being changed frequently at this time. Editors may wish to consider contributing..."
Perhaps toss in a link to WP:PLOTSUM for the folks who want to edit anyway but are policy-unaware. "Please review the guidelines before making significant edits."
Just my two cents! Doniago (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cashing in! :) I'm fine with a different name, but I don't think it has to start with "Plot" if it's short enough. What about "Busy plot"? I agree about guidelines about when to remove; the documentation is in its infancy. We can also include Millahnna's suggestions about times when the plot would be busy, such as the DVD release. As for WP:PLOTSUM, it's an essay and not a guideline. Would WP:FILMPLOT be better, or should we say "essay" anyway? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I like to have it start with Plot... is so that if someone is searching for the template in the search box but can't remember its name, the autocomplete will work off Plot. If one doesn't remember the Busy part, they're not going to know what to start with. :) That may or may not be a minor point. That being said, Plotbusy or Plotactive are both fine with me. If one or the other is being used in other cases (articlebusy?) I would consider that a precedent.
Filmplot would be better...that was me blanking on the link name. :) Theoretically I suppose we could include both, but that might be link overkill. Though...if we want this template to be applicable on a universal level, as opposed to just for film articles, we may want to use Plotsum instead of Filmplot, or perhaps another, less film-centric option. I generally favor more universal templates. Doniago (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just verified that WP seems to use "current" in templates used to indicate high activity, so we might use Plotcurrent. For our purposes that might be a little misleading. Doniago (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like "Plotactive" or "Plot active". As for the application of the template, I've really only had films' plot summaries in mind. I'm not sure if the summaries of other media get as bombarded with edits. Have you seen any trends in other articles like those for TV shows and video games? Also, linking to WP:PLOTSUM makes this template pretty similar to Template:Plot. The goal of this template is to get editors to work elsewhere. We may also need to consider that it may not make much of a difference. For example, the template is being used at Saw 3D, and I'm not seeing much of an impact on outside-plot editing. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for "Plotactive" then. If the template is intended to be film-specific, that's fine. I would imagine that films are more prone to these sorts of issues than other media (with the possible exception of popular novels?).
Unfortunately I tend to think the editors most likely to frequently edit plot summaries are also the ones least likely to pay attention to this template. Still, fighting the good fight and all... Doniago (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tv shows definitely get it as well (although they are more plagued by the plot summary in cast listings problem). From what I can tell from the few in my watchlist it is also a problem for popular books, and video games although to a lesser extent. Millahnna (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it really didn't work out on Saw 3D. I'm trying it out on Megamind. MikeAllen 10:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
