PathfinderWiki talk:Spoilers/Archive 1

Out of date

This policy is no longer current, given that we now have a spoiler template. This should be rewritten to express our current policy on when and how to use this template and how to flag an article which one believes should or should not be spoilerized. -- Yoda8myhead 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And three years later, this discussion should probably be revisited.

I've been unhappy with the obstructive nature of our current template and how it seems to be included on lots and lots and lots of pages now, even some that I wouldn't consider spoilers. I wonder several things:

1. Can we use Template:Badges to distinguish pages that contain spoilers? This would be way less intrusive to the flow of the article visually than what we're currently using, and if we can get some sort of mouse-over text to indicate what products are spoiled, that would be even better.
2. Should we revise the spoiler policy to be a little more lenient? I'm specifically thinking of product pages, which I'd love to be able to have thorough plot overviews on, the same way Wikipedia pretty much spoils all of any movie or book or whatever for folks who just want to use the article as a Cliff's Notes reference anyway. But as the sheer amount of content continues to grow, we could run into a spoiler tag on nearly every page, with comics and fiction and adventures often stepping on each others' toes.

—Yoda8myhead 07:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1. I have implemented a less intrusive spoiler template, converting the large red bars from {{spoiler}} into {{badges}}. The mouseover text lists what sources are being spoiled. Given this, I'd like to change the official policy to direct people to use the badge instead of the red-bar template.
2. Regarding this issue, I propose we only denote something as a spoiler when the topic is an event, person, or item that plays a prominent role in either an adventure product or a work of fiction. I do not feel it is appropriate to flag content derived solely from Campaign Setting material, as this information generally isn't actually a spoiler...it's just information.

Any thoughts on the matter?— Yoda8myhead (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the use of the badge instead of the red-bar banner. It is far less intrucive, and makes an article seem much more seamless and polished. I also agree with only including this for article containing content specific to published adventure content, though I don't think it's necessary for a general work of fiction. This project is, by its very nature, composed of spoilers. It's the way encyclopedic projects present information.

It is good that we use a spoiler badge to identify adventure-specific spoiler content, as we want others to be able to use the project freely without fear of stumbling onto secrets they may want to experience as part of a published work in the future. Other than that, though, this project's readers come here specifically to gain a better understanding of the setting. Perhaps another new badge to indicate content from a fictional work would be a good idea, but I don't such content necessarily warrants a general spoiler tag. -- Heaven's Agent (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to add more badges, as the more we have, the less attention folks are going to pay to them. I think we either include fiction as something that gets spoilered or we don't. I wonder, for example, if one were simply reading about the history of Ustalav and stumbled across information revealed at the end of Prince of Wolves, if that would be as much a spoiler as would coming across information about the end of Carrion Crown. In both cases, I think there's a clear line between having a story (whether it's fiction or an adventure the player participates in) ruined inadvertently is different than having a detail from a different setting book ruined. The Pathfinder Campaign Setting line should, I think be exempt from spoiler warnings unless the specific detail presented is a major plot point of a novel or adventure.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You make a very good point; drawing the line at story vs background may be a better approach than adventure vs fiction; when you put it that way I think I agree with you. If content spoils a published story that a reader might experience, it should warrant a spoiler badge.

I would like to propose some functionality for the spoiler badge. I'd like to recommend we turn the spoiler badge into a link.

The badge would be present on a parent article, let's say Ileosa Arabasti for the purpose of this example. The parent article would be free of story-specific spoilers. For example, the article on the Queen would describe something about her background, the year and circumstances under which she took the throne, that she formed an all-female sect of armored bodyguards, that she dies under unknown circumstances and someone else took the throne, etc.; the basic stuff that average Jo or Jane NPC would be capable of observing in the world. The parent article would not go into any of the specifics of the role she plays in CotCT.

The spoiler badge would link to a subpage, Ileosa Arabasti/Spoilers. This would be a alternate version of the parent article. It would contain the same information as the parent article, but would put that information in the context of the AP's plot, as well as describing details that would otherwise be considered specific to the campaign. In this way we can continue to provide a complete picture of the setting without accidentally spoiling adventure content for readers that may want to experience the content in the future. The spoiled information would literally be separate from the parent article. What do you think? -- Heaven's Agent (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of having two versions of any article, if only because it means we have to edit twice as many pages when we make simple grammar fixes, add new content, or change standard formatting like how we use infoboxes, navboxes, and other templates. We've already got Talk:XXarticle/spoilers, XXarticle/index, and XXarticle/meta, and even that seems to be too many subpages to really be tenable on the big scale. As far as I'm concerned, warning people of potential spoilers should be enough, and if they don't want to be spoiled, the choice is up to them to read the article or not. But deciding what is and isn't worthy of being hidden could get super tedious, while simply saying "Karzoug plays an important role in Rise of the Runelords" is easy on our end, and allows someone reading it to know what they might have spoiled if they read it. I imagine most people won't censor their reading, but I think we cover ourselves by giving them the choice instead of making it for them.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My vote would be to get rid of the per-article spoiler warnings all together. Just find a fairly conspicuous spot on the fornt page saying that any or all articles may contain some degree or spoilerishness and be done with it. No judgement calls required. And really... if somebody is coming to what we bill as the largest collection of canon, they should be expecting spoilers. —Aeakett (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a good point, Aeakett, but it would limit our functionality to our readers. Consider the GM about to begin a new published campaign, and wanting his or her players to create characters that are better tied to the setting. Such reference is one of the reasons why this project exists; some form of spoiler notification on relevant articles prevents those characters from stumbling across details that would spoil their upcoming game, while still allowing them to utilize this project as a resource. Without per-article spoiler notification, GMs would not be able to advise their players to use us as a resource. We would, in essence, be preventing those who want to experience their games, and the surprises within, naturally from using the project. It is both foolish and counter-productive.

Article-specific spoiler warnings allow us and the community to encourage everyone to make use of this project. Without them, this is no longer true. -- Heaven's Agent (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about using the badge as well. To be of any use a spoiler warning needs to be more intrusive, more apparent, so that someone browsing the site realizes when an article they are about to read may spoil content they may want to experience naturally. The Badge is too seamless, and too easy to miss. I would no longer be comfortable with referring my own players to the project to develop their character backgrounds; I trust that they would not intentionally dig into the campaign's plot, but I don't think the Badge provides enough notification to warn them away from unintentionally doing so. -- Heaven's Agent (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued at PathfinderWiki talk:Spoilers.

Spoiler Policy Discussion

The following is a transcription of discussions on this topic originally located on the wiki messageboard.

Is it okay if I also take the spoiler (ie the ruler listed as the queen instead of the king) off the page at the same time? -- tbug 18:08 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remain current with the in-world year. Since King Eodred was king in 4707 and Ileosa in 4708, I think she should be listed. The teaser for the CotCT AP says that he has died in the very first line, after all, so I don't think it's a huge teaser either way. -- Yoda8myhead 18:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the boss.

My players don't know about the king's death yet. This is similarly true of anyone who hasn't yet played the second path. Staying current rather than spoiler-free is certainly a valid choice. :) -- tbug 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to think about the boss comment. We're all in this together. I've just been working on it for a while is all. -- Yoda8myhead 20:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw you logged in and your user name was a different colour, indicating increased authority.

If this is your way of saying that you're not the boss (or at least one of them) and that this ruling is open to review then I vote that we make this wiki player-friendly and spoiler-free, but I honestly don't have a problem with contributing even if that's not true. There's enough work already done that if the decision to include spoilers is firm then we should just carry on, and I'll add information accordingly.

I'm not trying to rock the boat; I'm just trying to figure out out the status quo and fit in. -- tbug 21:10, 13 May 2008

I never even knew my color was different. Huh.

As for the decision to make things player/GM friendly, it's a tough call. The last thing anyone wants to do is ruin the game, but at the same time, if the site doesn't have useful information for people, they won't use it and we're all wasting our time. Because the world itself isn't advancing officially in time, it makes it a little bit harder to do because some things (such as the changing of the monarch in Korvosa) can happen at any time. We can't just put it up there and say that it happened decades or centuries ago. Because adventures can (theoretically) be run in any order, even years down the road, at some point, everything is going to contain something that is a spoiler for someone running older paths.

One option I thought of is to make a Spoiler template that would appear at the top of any page flagged with it, and it would warn players not to read if they or their GM don't want anything spoiled. Again, though, these would probably be placed on so many pages that they'd becoming annoying and inefficient.

The site's still new and growing, so there's plenty of room for changes. -- Yoda8myhead 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I havn't worked on wikis before this one, can we make a spoiler picture that can be put ahead of specific paragraphs - perhaps color code it so the players know what Ap it is a spoiler for, and if they can read it or not? My players don't know of the death of the king yet either, but although it is a major part of the story, knowing that he's going to die isn't a MAJOR spoiler, since it's not really something that the PCs can prevent if the players know earlier. -- cpt_kirstov 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I envision that this site will be a resource to both players and DMs, but probably used more so by DMs. To that end, a certain number of spoilers are bound to creep otherwise the information won't be very comprehensive. Citing Ileosa as the current monarch after Eodred really isn't much of a spoiler since she would be next in line after him anyways.

Concerning a spoiler template, it would be nice but these are my concerns:

1. Defining what is and is not a spoiler.

2. The overuse of the spoiler template in many articles.

3. The fact that it actually would draw the eye of the reader to a particular section when their eye might not have been drawn to it otherwise.

As Yoda said, the growth of the site is very organic and we are all open to new ideas and suggestions. Both he and Heaven's Agent are moderators for this project, but everyone has equal authority to post content, question things, and put forth their ideas. This is and always will be a community project and I want everyone to feel welcome. :lol: - Alfred 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this might warrant a new thread on this specific topic, as I see it being the center of much debate, and will probably never go away. Likewise, I think we might want to use these boards as the place to organize discussions within the community instead of the talk pages, which can be easy to overlook sometimes. It might require some restructuring of the board though. Thoughts?

I think the roles of those of us with titles and colored names should be better defined. I've been on a number of mb's over the years and know that people's conceptions of what moderators are there for, and what authority they actually use, can vary greatly. Our conclusions on this matter might be something we'll want to include in the Community Portal or an FAQ. -- Yoda8myhead 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Added clarification and identification in such things never hurts, that's for sure.

As for spoilers, I like the idea that was mentioned some time ago; information on the wiki should roughly correspond to what a character would know with a Knowledge check. I think we were discussing a DC of 15 as the target range, though obviously the higher we set this target number the more information we can include. The fact that the King had died and that the Queen was now in power would definitely qualify. In any event, I would rather create a comprehensive collection of information, and end up with spoilers in certain areas, than to severely limit ourselves in what we present.

The progression of time does warrant some consideration. Something James Jacobs posted a while ago indicated that the APs are written in a structured temporal progression. In addition, it sounds as if the current AP always corresponds the current year in the Campaign Setting. I just hadn't given much thought as how to apply this, if at all; any thoughts? -- Heaven's Agent 10:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd only learn that the king is dead and that the queen took over if your world had already progressed past that point in the timeline. Before that it doesn't matter what you roll on a knowledge (local) check.

My preference would be that by default pages would have no spoiler information at all. We could even give them a datestamp, for instance saying that the Korvosa page is up to date to the beginning of year 4708. Then we could have a second Korvosa page (called "Korvosa (spoilers)" or whatever this group prefers) and pile all the spoiler information in there. That way we have a resource that players can use (which we currently don't have) as well as a repository of data for GMs. -- tbug 10:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all products published in a given year are assumed to be current up to that game year, including Pathfinder Chronicles and modules. The main issue with trying to not spoil anything while time progresses in more or less realtime, is that we can then, in theory never have information about anything but the earliest information, for fear of spoiling things years down the road.

tbug wrote:

You'd only learn that the king is dead and that the queen took over if your world had already progressed past that point in the timeline. Before that it doesn't matter what you roll on a knowledge (local) check.

This is correct. As a resource document, however, we need to have a consistent "current" for the site. People can run the APs in any order, and it's hardly a comprehensive site if we can only include information from 4707 for fear of spoiling something that comes even a year later. At what point would we consider it long enough since the King's death to update the site so it was current? (In theory, Ileosa won't be queen past the end of the AP anyway, so we might have a more complex issue on our hands than we know now, now that I'm thinking about it). Regardless, someone running a game in 4709 should have easily accessible information on who the "current" monarch is. If players know that they are playing a few years before "current" in the game world, they might not necessarily know whether changes from their perceived world came as a result of the AP or something else in-world.

tbug wrote:

My preference would be that by default pages would have no spoiler information at all. We could even give them a datestamp, for instance saying that the Korvosa page is up to date to the beginning of year 4708. Then we could have a second Korvosa page (called "Korvosa (spoilers)" or whatever this group prefers) and pile all the spoiler information in there. That way we have a resource that players can use (which we currently don't have) as well as a repository of data for GMs.

While I like this idea, I think from an information management standpoint it would be a lot more work. Articles could often be disjointed and appear incomplete, and each person's idea of what constitutes a spoiler and not is very subjective. As I said before, this particular example is spoiled if any player reads the back cover text of the first book or checks out the product description on Paizo's store. If this is information that you as GM are withholding to keep Eodred II's death a surprise, then it seems like it is up to you to provide the information you do want the players to have to them.

Along the same lines, I will soon be running a RotR game, and have considered the issue of spoilers myself. In my group, there are at least two players who have subscriptions to the magazine, and they can find out whatever they want no matter what I do. It just comes down to trust between the player and GM as far as what is a preferred level of meta-knowledge. In my case, I am going to provide them all with the Player's Guide, and a separate document of information that I will be compiling of relevant information. And I will be open to answer any questions they may have without simply telling them to go on the wiki and find out themselves. My feeling is that it is a GM's role to be the spoiler-filter. -- Yoda8myhead 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

Yoda8myhead wrote:

My feeling is that it is a GM's role to be the spoiler-filter.

In that case I think that we should go the distance and put up all the spoilers. If this is a site for GMs who then filter information for the players then let's put up all of the information that we can. My players would certainly agree with you, and they'd be quite put out with me if I pointed them to this site and then they got spoiled about the king's death (or whatever).

The easiest way to deal with this issue, in my opinion, is to either request "no spoilers" or "all of the spoilers" for the site, because otherwise we need some sort of policy explaining how to tell which spoilers we're supposed to put on the site and which we're supposed to leave out. I think that putting up all of the spoilers that someone would get with a certain knowledge (local) check is the worst of both worlds, because users would learn about the death of the king (or the fate of Fort Rannick, or the sinkhole in the middle of Sandpoint, or whatever) and that's enough to constitute a spoiler players shouldn't have, but they wouldn't have access to the tricky plot details that GMs really need to have at their fingertips. -- tbug 11:27, 14 may 2008 (UTC)

I think you bring up a valid point. I think we are just beginning to scratch the surface of this discussion. -- Yoda8myhead 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) If it's okay, I'm just going to concentrate on getting the non-spoiler stuff up for now. There's plenty of it needed, and it's easier to add spoilers later than to try to remember where they all were if we need to remove them. -- tbug 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your help on this. I've been meaning to get a Korvosa article up for some time, so it's great to have someone else working on it as well (gives me the motivation to make edits myself). -- Yoda8myhead 11:50, 14 may 2008 (UTC)

I have added basic text to the Pathfinder Wiki:Administrators page. We might want to include this in a sticky post here on the messageboards as well. -- Yoda8myhead 12:21, 14 May 2008

tbug wrote:

The easiest way to deal with this issue, in my opinion, is to either request "no spoilers" or "all of the spoilers" for the site, because otherwise we need some sort of policy explaining how to tell which spoilers we're supposed to put on the site and which we're supposed to leave out. I think that putting up all of the spoilers that someone would get with a certain knowledge (local) check is the worst of both worlds, because users would learn about the death of the king (or the fate of Fort Rannick, or the sinkhole in the middle of Sandpoint, or whatever) and that's enough to constitute a spoiler players shouldn't have, but they wouldn't have access to the tricky plot details that GMs really need to have at their fingertips.

I think you've hit on an issue we've been subconsciously avoiding up till this point. Ultimately, it boils down to one way or the other, and any middle ground we try to hold becomes too muddled and confusing to stick to. What's more, I think it's a decision we need to make sooner rather than later.

All things considered, I prefer a policy of allowing spoilers in conjunction with a notification template detailing what adventures might be compromised by information in a given article. -- heaven's Agent 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on creating one which could appear as a box in the top center of any page with significant spoilers which would list the Modules or APs that are affected. If someone else wants to do this instead, you're welcome to (tonight's my Savage Tide night!) -- Yoda8myhead 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ok - would it be easier to have a 'Korvosa' and a 'Korvosa - player' and at the top of thiese have disclaimers:

Korvosa "This article include spoilers for CotCT adventure path - if you are a player and would perfer not to have these spoilers please go to Korvosa - player If you edit this page with non spolier information, please also edit that one"

Korvosa -player " To prevent spoilers, this is not the complete history of the city - to view the history with spoilers, see the Korvosa artilce.If you edit this page, please also edit that one "

edit: yes it might give the need for a little more policing, but the paizo community is pretty good at self policing.--cpt_kirstov 00:03 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My only issue with this is that there are currently over 200 articles and it's only going to get worse, and it seems highly redundant. Also, it's highly subjective as to what a particular campaign or player should or shouldn't have access to as common knowledge. My vote is falling on the side of making a comprehensive resource and leaving the decisions on what constitutes a spoiler in a certain situation to the GM. I think a spoiler warning on pages with major and obvious spoilers, like the true nature of Queen Ileosa's evil and stuff like that. -- Yoda8myhead 1:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Trying to have two separate pages of the same information, but defined by what contributers feel are spoilers ... well, it can get real ugly.

I think we simply need to decide to have spoilers, or to not have spoilers, and run with that decision throughout the wiki. -- Heaven's Agent 2:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Faced with that choice I say we should have them.. The DM can aloway copy/paste and edit in the emails he sends if needed. if someone comes in 5 years and is playing CotCT vs playing the AP going on at that tme.... if both are set in korvosa, I would want the person who came for the up to date AP to have a complete history. -- cpt_kirstov 7:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The wiki needs to have complete, comprehensive information about the world. If any player wishes to spoil the story for themselves then they can in any number of ways now without the wiki so I do not think that including information that may be considered a spoiler to be detrimental. In fact, it is essential that we include any relevant information in each and every article both to make the wiki a worthy resource and to ensure the accuracy of the content.

I believe we should continue presenting information as we are now, complete and current without spoiler tags. -- Alfred 8:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)