PathfinderWiki talk:Spoilers/Archive 2

Change Policy Process

Changes Accepted This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been accepted.

Moved discussion from before August 2012 to PathfinderWiki talk:Spoilers/Archive 1.

So that we can start moving forward with some sort of unified policy, can we set forth specific points to agree on or debate individually? I see four current things that need consensus:

1. Should real-world POV articles ever contain spoiler tags?
2. Do we need article-specific spoiler warnings?
3. Where do we draw the line in terms of what is and isn't a spoiler?
4. What form should any page-specific warnings take: a badge or something else.

My take on #1 is that we do not. If you're looking at a product page that's written about the real-world book or an index of that real-world book, it stands to reason that that article will contain information on what the real-world book contains. An article on Moby Dick isn't complete if it doesn't talk about the plot of the book and its major characters, while a specific article about Captain Ahab might be considered spoilery because it would give away his ultimate fate at the book's conclusion, which someone currently reading or planning to read the book might not want to know. As such, I think anything with {{Badges|real}} should be precluded from containing a spoiler warning.

Question 2, I think, is clearly a yes, but it naturally leads to question #4, which is a harder nut to crack.

Number 3 is a much muddier line, but I think we've been too liberal in the past when using the spoiler warning. An article stating that Kendra Deverin is mayor of Sandpoint doesn't provide any spoilers, while an article about Lonjiku Kaijutsu would simply because major events in his life are surprises in an adventure path. The real problem comes, I think, when we start doing articles about locations or organizations. Should Korvosa be spoilered because it references the (now-assumed) results of the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP (Eodred II's death, etc.) or do we not include this page that's mostly not spoilery as "verboten" when players in the CotCT campaign almost need to be able to see it for other background stuff? Furthermore, what if canon changes in a non-adventure/non-fiction source. For example, the leaders of the Pathfinder Society were listed as being one set of folks in Burnt Offerings or the Campaign Setting and another set (Marcos Farabellus, Kreighton Shaine, and Aram Zey) in Seekers of Secrets and since. Do we consider the fact that someone else held these positions previously a spoiler, and who do we list as the "current" Master of Spells? We can simply say that anything that changes due to the events in an adventure or fiction is considered a spoiler, while anything that changes due to the normal evolution of the world do not. That still means that the article on Radovan would be spoilered, even when common sense dictates that an in-depth article about a character would contain information on his exploits across all sources and someone reading an article on Radovan should expect to find references and spoilers to the events in the works presenting him as protagonist.

I think the badge is sufficient as a warning, but perhaps we need to revisit the art used for it to make it stand out more. Can we change the color from burgundy to a more "warning" style red? I think the less intrusive the warning is, the less cluttered the site looks, and that's a bonus to everyone. I'd love some way of users being able to set a "don't show me spoilers" preference and then have a popup or warning appear in a way they couldn't miss it if a page were tagged as being a spoiler, but I don't think such exists. In the meantime, I think as small a warning as we can make that is both noticeable and unobtrusive is the ideal, and the upgrade of our MW software lets us better use mouseover text that we couldn't before.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the only policy update now still in discussion - can we all put final comments here to get it resolved and completed please? The page clearly does need updating as it still discusses a spoiler banner. Let's give it a week and then conclude. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Two years later, this policy discussion is still open. -Oznogon (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Of note, Extension:Spoilers allows for tagging some or all of an article as a spoiler and requiring the user to click a button to view the content. -Oznogon (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the extension, but does if black out lines, or show them in a box like the paizo boards? I'm not sure how it will look if it looks like the government redacted the entire article for some of the pages.

Edit, after clicking the link, it seems like it works similar to the paizo page button, I'd be down for that Cpt kirstov (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Another option would be a toggleable Gadget that would show up on the preferences page. The gadget could change the appearance of the spoilers badge or add a more prominent notice on the page if enabled (or do so by default, and allow users to disable it). (Edit: This was pretty easy to do. There's now an option in the Gadgets tab of your user preferences to toggle an enhanced spoiler warning box on pages with the spoiled badge.) -Oznogon (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of being able to disable spoilers in one's preferences page, and am in favor of this. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume the default and the appearance for anonymous users is to maintain the strictest spoiler censoring? If so, can we let anons know how to register and disable the setting? Might lead to a more active community if it's just annoying enough that people register in order to disable it.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The spoiler warning is currently opt-in; anonymous users don't see it. It's an easy switch to flip, though, if we agree on displaying prominent spoiler warnings with badges as the policy. -Oznogon (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In a bid to rid us of the few policy changes outstanding, I'll weigh in here too but this one is quite a wall of text to get through to here, so clearly a difficult subject. I like the new gadget (though personally I turned it off, but that's a good thing to have the choice). I remember the wise comment below that if someone is out to cheat there are many ways to do that without the wiki, so really we should aim to stop accidental spoilers and the big banner (if people want it) is a good way to do so. I like the idea of it being a default and only removed by logging on with an id. Finally, what is a spoiler? We need to define that too in this policy incorporating some of the good comments on this page. May I suggest to speed this along that a 'strawman' version of the new policy is now written for review, preferably on a new page for clarity, incorporating the comments and discussion here as best as possible. I think that will encourage people to get over the hurdle of reading all this page. Let's set a fortnight's review period then publish. --Fleanetha (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Created User:Oznogon/Sandbox/Spoiler_proposal. -Oznogon (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[Resetting indentation for the discussion of the strawman]

Many thanks Oznogon for setting up the strawman. I see you have just updated it to what is currently true - very simple - I like it. I'd be happy with this as a replacement policy. I'll note a fortnight from you creating the suggested update is over on Monday 5th October, so if anyone have a burning dislike of the new policy wording, please speak up soon and we can delay the publication if you want to debate some more. --Fleanetha (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy approved --Fleanetha (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Campaign Setting material

Hello folks!

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere here, but I've so far been able to find a clear answer on this: what extent should we reveal plot hooks from the various Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting books here? I'm asking because, as I'm trying to de-redlink Magnimar at the moment, I'm encountering a few references to things that could completely ruin a plot hook provided in the book. For example, details into the Seafoam Tribe's hunting method, or the fact that Doolun's Lads have been taken over. Just based on personal judgement, I've said yea to one and nae to the other, but it's a rather uncomfortable position to be in. Any clarity would be greatly appreciated! Thank you kindly in advance The Vizir (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)