FANDOM


InfoboxEdit

I removed several spoiler protected entries from Shimmer's infobox with some hesitation so I figured I'd see if anyone had any opinions on the topic. I feel we should generally avoid turning the infobox into a resume/CV of every occupation and affiliation the person has ever had. It should be more a snapshot of who the person is when they are introduced in the series and perhaps include additions as the books move along. I think multiple (and especially contradictory entries) just serve to confuse.

I'm also not a big fan of spoilered out entries in the Infoboxes. The spoiler tags were added as a stopgap measure until some better idea came along. But as we later found out, they don't work in mobile.--ArchieVist (talk) 14:47, February 2, 2020 (UTC)

I've thought that the Shimmer/Iko issue was going to be difficult to address ever since DL & KR were published. It is mentioned in BB - in a blink and you miss it section - that Shimmer was called "Iko" - twice - by her father when she was a young child[1] but only on the one occasion and in a daydreamy flashback. As far as I know that's the only time the 'Crimson Guard Shimmer' is referred to as Iko. The name "Iko" is then not mentioned again until DL.
Iko is referred to as "Shimmer" (as a nickname) in DL.[2] In KR Iko is called "Shimmer" by the boy-king, Chulalorn the Fourth once,[3] and never by anyone else in KR. In fact, during the whole last section of KR in which Iko appears, she is referred to as "Iko" throughout.[4]
My point is that with other characters these mentions might be covered in a "Trivia" section and left at that. But with the Shimmer page, it's essentially 'etched in stone' in the infobox - which - by its nature - is probably the first thing that a reader notices when looking at the page and carries a 'this is canon' feel about it. I would prefer to see the Shimmer (as Crimson Guard) page and the - still to be fleshed out - Iko (as whipsword dancer) page as two separate articles. They could both then have an "Alias Spoiler Alert" section added to the end of their pages - Iko already has one. They would not even be "Speculations", as it is clear that the same woman is both Shimmer and Iko, but in very different times/situations of her life.
Then there is the single reference in RCG to Shimmer/Iko as having eyes that were as blue-Napan as her face.[5] This strikes me as being more likely a continuity issue - it seems unlikely that someone with Napan blood would show up - as a young child - on a "farm in one of the more rural Kan provinces", although possible, of course. And this blue complexion is then never referred to elsewhere - very strange.
Well, I'll stop. The bottom line is that I agree with what you said above, AV. I think that the infoboxes - being so attention-getting - should include only the basic facts from when we first are introduced to the character. The other material could/should be included elsewhere in the article: the intro; the book section in which it is mentioned; or a "Trivia", "Speculation" or "Continuity" section. If material seems to need to be blanked-out as a spoiler, then perhaps it shouldn't appear in the infobox, particularly since a surprising number of people read the wiki on their mobile phones - the majority, according to a poll that Egwene once ran.
Sorry to be so long-winded but this has been on my mind for some time. Pcwrcw (talk) 05:37, February 3, 2020 (UTC)
Joining the chorus line. Have been uneasy about spoilers in infoboxes, too, for a long time for the sole reason Pcwrcw has mentioned - they are visible in mobile view. Maybe we could add a line to the template instead: ‘Information containing potential spoilers is omitted from infoboxes’?Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 08:51, February 3, 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm going to start working my way through the character infoboxes and removing spoiler material. I started by removing family members from Anomander Rake. It's a shame because it's really the only place that info is collected and easily viewed. I'm going to think about it some more before editing others.--ArchieVist (talk) 00:38, February 12, 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, the spoilered entries are utterly useless to me as my tablet is incapable of highlighting and unobscuring them. I have to click on a grey box, hope for the best, and see where the link takes me. So maybe it isn't that much of loss.--ArchieVist (talk) 01:22, February 12, 2020 (UTC)

I think youre being too overprotective over spoilers.if someone doesnt want spoilers or is tooo worry about them he wouldnt be reading so much a wiki. And some things you mark as spoilers arent really spoilers, for example anomander rake having brothers and a son is so spoilery? , specially because i think they mentioned by name before they appear and say the fisrt apperance that  they are family, and most secret identities are too obvious or you really dont have a reason to care that they have that identityAkleo (talk) 14:28, February 12, 2020 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent. Other wikis certainly do not operate under the same spoiler constraints as our own. (If you have finished watching all of the Game of Thrones TV show, check out the Jon Snow entry and imagine having a similar first sentence appear anywhere in the Malazan wiki)! But then again I have finished reading all the books, so stumbling across something doesn't bother me.
The Malazan community, however, has shown that they are VERY concerned with spoilers. A lot of people use the wiki as something of a reading aid to help them make sense of what can sometimes be a confusing read. Especially when key details are spread across tens of thousands of pages and thousands of characters. We certainly don't want to ruin anyone's enjoyment. Additionally, people who have stumbled across spoilers warn others to avoid the wiki. There is at least one large online community where the wiki's reputation on spoilers is often toxic and where users reflexively warn new readers to avoid the wiki. Years ago that reputation may have been somewhat deserved, but much has been done to clearly identify which parts of the articles are ok to read depending on which book you are reading. Despite these efforts, the old reputation lingers.
So to sum up, our spoiler policy is designed to: Provide information to readers in the format they are most likely to need it and avoid choices that restrict the number of people who feel comfortable using the site.--ArchieVist (talk) 19:04, February 12, 2020 (UTC)
I think it's  pretty extreme this antispoiler policy so I don't think I'll be adding any more contributions in the future so byeAkleo (talk) 16:26, February 15, 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to hear of your intention to leave the team, Akleo. Our mission is to promote the Malazan universe and to be a research tool for the fans. By adopting a rigorous spoiler policy, we can cater for the old and the new readers alike. Believe me, having to consider spoilers is a pain in the neck for all of us editors - having read the books over and over, it is sometimes difficult to identify one - but the positive feedback from new readers makes it worth it. Knowing there are fans out there who stuck with it because of the Wiki.
Regarding infoboxes, we are still working on finding a better solution but until spoiler hide functions work across all platforms, we need to be careful with what we add there.
Hope you’ll have a change of heart and we’ll see you again in the future. In the meantime, stay safe as they say these days.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 20:58, April 6, 2020 (UTC)

Notes and referencesEdit

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.