• Wiki Suggestions
• Coping with spoilers in General Discussion

This page may contain very mild spoilers.

MayLith: Okay, brace yourself for a train of thought. You have been warned.

Something needs to be done. Right now we have no discussion section earmarked for spoilers, and there are too many unmarked spoilers cropping up in General Discussion.

Marking them as Spoilers is the obvious thing to do, but it's very easy to forget about that when one is editing a thread. It's especially easy to forget when you're just clicking on a link from RecentChanges and you don't remember to go back and annotate the parent page if you introduce a spoiler into a previously non-spoily thread. I'm not saying that we all can't learn new habits (dubious as that may be ;-)), but it would be very useful for the wiki structure itself to direct the desired behavior.

Here is an idea:

1. Rename "General Discussion" --> "Discussion"

2. Discussion page contains two links (and only two links, aside from an explanation of why you should pick one vs. the other for your post) to:
   • Non-spoily (general) discussion
   • Spoily discussion

To clarify, general and spoily discussion pages (main pages, the ones the threads lead off from) should be separate.

My rationale for that is this: Someone skimming a page of non-spoily discussion threads should not be hit in the face by some ultra-Spoiler thread topic like "How do I beat <insert Monster name here>" or what-have-you. That, IMHO, is the worst part about combining spoiler and non-spoiler threads on the current General Discussion page. Case in point: There is currently a *huge* spoiler in the name of a thread on the GD page.

If we do not change the current situation, we will likely be doing a lot of policing/marking spoilers (even with the help of many devoted general users), no matter how many impassioned pleadings/warnings we may make. I don't know about you, but I'd just as soon not blow any more time on policing than I have to, when I could be doing other things for the game (or...gasp...for RL!)

If we do split it up somehow, yes, I'm sure spoiler-policing will still be necessary, but hopefully the need will crop up less often as most of our community knows to go to spoilers over on the forum when making a spoily post. Still, here on the wiki, if spoiler discussion becomes a visible destination then I'm sure it will be sought out. (Or, in the immortal words of someone I can't remember, "If you build it, they will come.")

NeilStevens: This is no solution to the problem you pose. If users can't be expected to mark a thread as a spoiler when they add a spoiler comment, how can you expect them to rename the page and move it from General Discussion to Spoiler Discussion?

No policy will work without considerate users. Let's just start an education campaign for the current practice first, before trying something new.

MayLith: Well, several things here:

1. I certainly don't object to the logical progression of trying an education campaign first; that's absolutely fine with me. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong (and if I am, that's great, I'll learn from it.) I simply don't think it will solve the problem, for assorted reasons given below.
2. Nitpick: My suggestion is a solution. Perhaps a flawed one to be discarded, but it is a solution.

3. I wasn't expecting any users to rename a page and move it. You know as well as I do that general users can't move a page. They can copy content to a new page, yes, but must file a DeletionReqeust to finish the job. We have some very excellent helpers who have made outstanding contributions, and for that I am grateful and I hope they continue.

4. OTOH, I would expect most users to pick the proper sub-page to post in, exactly as they have been doing over on the ToME forum for years now.

5. Marking thread topics as spoily completely fails to get around inherently spoily thread subjects themselves. While spoily thread topics could be renamed, that reduces the information content. We are inevitably going to get thread topics such as:

   • "How do I beat <censored monster name>?"

   • "How do I use/where do I find <censored item name>?"

   • "How do I cope with <censored special dungeon and/or quest level name>?"

   • etc.

   I am very concerned about that situation. IMHO, our users deserve the ability to freely ask for help on any subject. OTOH, our users should *also* not be subjected to spoilers of any variety if they don't want to be. If we have to censor spoiler subjects in General Discussion thread topics, then that seriously decreases the usefulness of this wiki. If some alternative method of coping I can't imagine exists or can be evolved, then great! Please tell me.

6. I would expect considerate users to mark their threads properly, yes. But naming spoily threads in a non-spoily, reasonable manner that can still be searched with ease seems an awfully tall order. Maybe I'm missing something about wiki structure / search format here. If I am, I would appreciate having it explained so I can make better suggestions in the future.

Again, I'm all for moderate changes first; I'm just concerned that it won't be enough.

NeilStevens': You're neglecting an important dynamic that I'm all too familiar with on the ToME forum. Discussions started simply end up spoily, either by a new user asking for some extra advice, a bunch of experienced players discussing finer strategy, or even just by accident. Separating the spoiler and non-spoiler discussions to two pages makes handling these kinds of discussion very hard. Keeping the filing correctly WOULD require pages to be moved from one to the other your way, while they just require a simple edit to GeneralDiscussion my way.

MayLith: Alright, I can see that, and even agree with it, though I predict that if we go that route, a huge percentage of GD will end up being marked spoilers. That process has already begun, in fact.

NeilStevens': As for the topic issue, I agree, and I already set the policy to deal with it. As for the inherently spoily questions, how can we deal with those without running into the page moving problem, though?

MayLith: My point/question exactly; it's a very difficult situation. See my blathering below.

SoulWynd: Just because I have to give my opinion: First, as Neil pointed out, I don't think normal and spoily discussion should be separate for the exact same reasons. And second, this is the wiki, not the board. You don't need moderators to go and change threads, anyone can do it (if they do it wrong, you can just revert it). With that in mind we all should realize that new users and even old ones will forget to mark the thread as spoily but the beauty of the wiki is that anyone reading it can go and make sure people know is has spoilers. Another advantage of the wiki is the ability to have subpages, for an example, we could have a /spoilers page inside a thread. That's for the most considerate users who can keep the chatter clean and only make the spoily comments inside that subpage and even if someone posts spoilers ouside that page the next user can go and move it in. Anyway, that's just my opnion.

NeilStevens: Putting spoiler side notes on a subpage is a very good practice for this wiki to get into.

MayLith: I like that idea very much. However:

1. Creating a subpage is very akin to moving stuff, which idea you didn't like. (And I don't, either.) But I'd rather have a subpage than move stuff.

   • NeilStevens: I don't hate moving stuff! Refactoring is part of the wiki! Renaming pages I would rather avoid, and that's what would have to happen if we had to move pages from GeneralDiscussion/SomePage to Spoilers/GeneralDiscussion/SomePage. Besides, if people are considerate and use subpages for spoily tangents of a main discussion, there won't be any moving to begin with.

     MayLith: I should have been more specific. When I said moving stuff, I meant moving a page (not just content), which involves renaming a page.

2. I don't see that helping the "asking a spoily question" problem. I'm not complaining here, just asking for ideas. How does someone ask for help on spoily object 1 vs. spoily enemy 2 vs. spoily dungeon 3?

Perhaps part of the answer is in creation *of* the answer in the appropriate place in the SpoilerArchive, then linking to it from the question. (I like that even better than creating spoiler side notes, but I can see breathing room for the use of both methods.) That takes care of the answer part of it, but not of the question-asking, which is what I remain worried about.

SoulWynd: If they're on the page's title, they can be renamed and besides knowing that monster X and item Y exists aint exactly spoily if you don't know what they are and what they to. I'm not sure why people who don't want to read spoilers would be searching for something that hits a spoily page. Granted several things are discussed both with spoilers and without, but anyone wanting to avoid spoilers will be able to. Another useful idea would be to either include 'SPOILERS' to the page name or to add it on top of the page in a very noticeable way so it will be the first thing read.

MayLith: I think you are overgeneralizing. That rationale may be good enough for you, but a truist would consider even knowing that monster X, item Y or area Z exists to be a major spoiler, even if he/she doesn't know what they are exactly. I'm going by my standards for Documentation, which require (among other things) that some things should not be mentioned.

BTW, SoulWynd, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. This whole post is just thinking (typing) aloud after a long and tiring day. I appreciate your input on a difficult problem.

Maybe those standards are too strict for the wiki General Discussion, but (case in point) anyone who posts a GD question thread about B* from Moria (just as an example) over on the forum is going to get a free ride to Spoilers from me if I see it first. However, a free ride is just that: the thread gets transferred, and the thread heading is unchanged at its destination. If you are desperately trying to find information about B*, skimming the forum will bring it up if B* is mentioned in the thread name. Yes, even if you eliminate B* from the thread name you might find the thread (eventually :/) from searching. It might not become an issue on the wiki, but I'd prefer to eliminate euphamisms wherever possible...it's just a waste.

Renaming is the problem. If you rename a thread, you lose information in the wiki hierarchy. (By the way, the proper English contraction is "isn't", not "aint".) You tell me: How do you post a specific non-spoily question about (random example) the guardian of Moria? And then, what's worse, enforce it and/or come to some common format? IMHO there's no good answer to that question. Maybe we need to fall back on the self-healing property of the wiki. I'm not averse to that, but what I am averse to is not kicking over as many stones as possible first to see if there might be other alternative.

IMHO, adding "spoilers" to the page name is not a good idea. Adding "spoilers" to the top of the page is better, but doesn't help the thread name.

Brainstorming time. Evade (or at least warn) of spoilers, obvious/easy-to-learn/remember format. Ability to tier or co-exist with non-spoilers....buhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (listen to MayLith's brain go tick, tick, tick....)

Kneejerk reactions w/ critique:

1. Set up tiered threads within GenDisc:

   •   Moria discussion
        * Moria dungeon
        * Moria unique features
        * Moria guardians
        * Moria chatter

     But this just does not work:
     1. It's trying to force the wiki GD to act like the forum, which is stupid and counterproductive

     2. It (at least partially) duplicates the SpoilerArchive itself

     3. It will create extra work for mods and helpful others

2. Create a subpage for spoilers as in SoulWynd's suggestion. (I just deleted a huge paragraph after realizing I was suggesting something similar. ;-)) Thing is, it requires more extensive training, as if you have a spoiler request (in essense) for something for which a base thread doesn't already exist, you'll have to post twice:

   1. establish base thread (empty but for link to spoiler thread)
   2. spoiler sub-thread

      And THAT type of structure is going to start duplicating SpoilerArchive and/or Documentation as well. Certainly it can be deleted/modified as need be... but what an upkeep!

Again, I'm not saying any of these ideas is right or perfect; I'm just trying encourage further discussion.

RavenRed: To add my mild 2cworth, a "/spoiler" subpage to already existing discussion thread is the best basic solution. It also means that spoily bits can be "moved" and discussed in a flagrantly spoiled environment, whilst leaving the original non spoily discussion. I stress that it should be for DISCUSSION. Actual answers to questions about spoilness should simply be a reference to a spoiler page (which a reader can follow or no, as they please) which would not duplicate the already existing spoiler structure. However, if a thread is INITIALLY marked as being spoily, then anyone who reads that thread will know what they're getting in for. After all, what is the key reason for isolating spoilers (apart from classification integrity)? For mine it's allowing players who choose to to discover parts of the game on their own time and initiative, rather than having casual references pushed in their face... the explicit naming of spoilers and the lovely wiki ability to make a separate sub-page IF WARRANTED should alleviate the issue...

SoulWynd: No hard time at all. I'm trying to help and find a solution as well. Perhaps we could have a Spoiler subpage in GeneralDiscussion page. This way threads that are mainly spoily would be inside the GeneralDiscussion/Spoiler page. I'm not saying that the threads should be created inside the /Spoiler page but rather, created inside the GeneralDiscussion page with the /Spoiler/ prefix. Example GeneralDiscussion/Spoiler/SpoilySubject ... At least on searches it would show the page is inside a spoilers subpage. Might not be the easiest solution and in fact, I don't really like it but it can work. And about the 'aint' thing... That's too bad, I think it sounds nicer than 'isn't' and it's the only reason that I ever use it :p

NeilStevens We have several independent problems here:

1. What happens when a thread turns spoily? Answer: Start a subpage for that spoily tangent, or mark the whole thread as a spoiler.

   • MayLith: I agree.

2. What happens if I want to ask for a particular spoiler? Answer: We need a new page, Spoilers/Requests

   • MayLith: I agree. (I think I may have mentioned that at some point somewhere. Or maybe I didn't and was just thinking about it.)

3. What happens if I want to talk about something that is inherently spoily but isn't a request? Answer: This I'm not sure of. What kinds of questions do people have in mind here? With some examples a solution might come to mind.

   • MayLith: Examples:

     • Someone wants to brag about a unique they just killed or an item they just found.
       • Solution? Mark the thread as spoily.
     • Someone wants to discuss post-game, not just read about it.
       • Solution? Create a spoiler page on post-game, then users can post discussion threads there.
     • Someone wants to discuss spoily aspects of a character race or class.
       • Solution? Post on a spoiler page of the race or class in question.
     • Someone wants to give a blow-by-blow account of a special encounter.
       • Solution? Post a mini-entry in the DitL section.
     • Someone wants to discuss artifacts.
       • Solution? Post under spoilers/artifacts
     • Discussion of spoily alchemy
       • Solution? Post under spoilers/classes/alchemist.
     • Discussion of spoily wizard mode
       • Solution? I haven't done it yet, but I intend to add a wizard mode section to documentation. That page can have a threaded chatter area in which spoily threads can be marked.

       If we can come up with more examples, then we could just add a notice box at the top of GeneralDiscussion recommending where to go for assorted types of questions. Does that help??

     BsVeteran: Can I add one suggestion on the General Discussion page itself? Split it into two sections (no new pages): == General Discussion == and == Spoily Discussion ==. Post threads in the appropriate section and move new or updated threads to the top of the section. Also, Maylith, your examples above make the spoiler posting issue look very complex. Actually it is very simple:

     1. Post under the appropriate Spoilers page if the topic is of broad interest for that spoiler page (races, classes, artifacts, other)

     2. Post under the DitL Archive if the topic is character-specific

     3. Post under a /Spoilers subpage of the relevant topic under General Discussion, for existing discussions that have turned spoily

     4. Post under the Spoily Discussion section of General Discussion otherwise

ReenenLaurie: Well, I assume it's like, how do I create the one ring in wizard mode... it's not really spoiler, because most people won't be using wizard mode, but the fact that the one ring gets mentioned makes it spoily.

NerdanelVampire: I don't think mere names of monsters and items are really spoily. For someone who doesn't know anything about Tolkien, the One Ring is just an interesting name. Someone who is familiar with Tolkien would not be very surprised that the One Ring appears in a game that likes to include every item in the game categories alluded by Tolkien and then some, but they wouldn't know if the One Ring was important to the plot or if it was just a rare artifact like in Angband.

MayLith: We have to remember, Nerdanel, that some folks are more purist than others. Plus, some who are familiar with Tolkien still might forget about some aspects of the game (I'm not saying the One, here) or not realize that a Wraith might show up in a certain area, etc. Also (and here is a huge, unopened can of worms) the modules will all have their own variations, as some artifacts/monsters won't exist yet, whereas other races/etc will. For example, I have not played Theme yet (I'm chomping at the bit to do so, though), but I don't *want* to be spoiled about it.

Andrey Egoshin: I have stumbled into a possible solution not long ago on one of the russian forums. I have made something similar to what I have seen in a WikiSandBox. But a MUCH better solution would be a special macro(s) that makes letters color similar to background. Just a start and an end macros, and a text such as "To spoil all the fun, mark a text below with a mouse."

NeilStevens: Depending on color is not reliable, and shuts people out.