Secrets on the Wiki -- Seperate?

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

How do we keep a separation of information for those who don't want to
see secrets?

And to go a bit deeper with the question, "...even for the editors of the wiki"?

There are a few solutions we can work with, I'll try to outline the
various ones, before stating my preference.

* We can install another wiki instance.
::: Doing so will allow us the ability to make sure that the
information deemed secret is harder to mix-and-match between the
current wiki. We can set-up "interwiki-links" to make linking easier,
though a bit confusing. Create a template to say "This content has
been deemed a [[Secret]]" with a link to the "secret" wiki's page for
that content. Downsides being of course, user-login, sysop control,
editing itself, among navigating the system becomes a royal Pain,
especially if something stops being a secret, by whatever definition
we give a "secret".

* We can allow all secrets to be "in-page" with one another, but
black-text-on-black-background for example. Downside for this is
that, some pages might become VERY VERY long done that way, with
little to no information present at-a-glance. Searches will still turn
up the information, even though its hidden from "normal viewing".
Editors will be forced to still see the stuff, especially if its
inside "normal text".

* We can create a new "Namespace" for secrets, and provide various
Templates to help control use/presentation when included elsewhere.
This allows us to create small-pages suiteable for the black-on-black
approach, if its just a few sentences/words to deal with. or
full-guides on how to complete such-and-such quest. It allows us to
let editors edit pages even if they have a secret on it, without said
editor needing to READ the secret. It also gives us a way to make
secrets (by default) not searched, and allows the user to select from
searching them

My inclination of choice is for the Namespace approach, while it could
seem odd at first glance to some, I feel it is the most inituitive
way.

If anyone else has another idea on how to approach this, or anything
to add about any of the methods above, I would love to hear them!

Thanks,
~Justin Wood (Callek)

[Hanryu]

I really like the way cleric quests are handled on
http://dr.warcry.com/index.php/content/guilds/cleric/secrets

The 2 level hint is great, though I know it might not always be
applicable, and is more work.

I'm not really sure I have a real answer for how to handle secrets on
the DR Wiki, but I wanted to point out a way to handle secrets that I
though was very well done.

--
Hanryu

[Naeya]

I vote for a separate namespace for the full spoiler (Secrets:)
coupled with in-page broad hints (perhaps), similar in part to the
link Hanryu gave.

The hint could be something like (using the cleric quest as an
example) : you must gather and plant a sirese seed. Then link to the
Secrets:Sirese Seed Ritual page with the full spoiler.

I really don't think another wiki instance is necessary, and would be
too much of a headache to uphold.

~Naeya

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

that black-text-on-black-background as in warcry is partyly where I
got the idea.

I'm also fully in favor of "Hints to solving this", for those who are
simply stuck, (as well as the full solution). So anyone who *likes* to
solve quests, but just is stuck, can get a hint for the next step, and
go on.

~Justin Wood (Callek)

[Wynder/Faethe]

> that black-text-on-black-background as in warcry is partyly where I
> got the idea.

Glad to see I've spawned some inspiration somewhere. :)

> I'm also fully in favor of "Hints to solving this", for those who are
> simply stuck, (as well as the full solution). So anyone who *likes* to
> solve quests, but just is stuck, can get a hint for the next step, and
> go on.

Agreed -- that's why I did the whole black on black thing. It may be
worth the effort to do the separate namespace and have a black-on-
black hint page and a regular 'at-a-glance' page for people who just
want the information up front. It's a bit of effort but, for the most
part, the quests won't change *too* often.

[Farman]

I think namespace is definitely the way to go, with links to secrets
in the main article only. That's very much keeping in the wiki style
and it fully protects editors from reading secrets if they don't want
to.

[Farman]

I've run across an article that might reveal a secret--it's a spell
whose req's are listed on the DR page as unknown, but which are
revealed on the article page. I personally don't know whether that's
supposed to be secret or not since it's not a guild I'm familiar with
(it's the Murrula's Flames article). It got me thinking that it would
be useful to have a template to mark articles for review for
containing secrets so there's one place to check for such articles, so
I made one:

{{CheckForSecret}}

Marks the article with a banner, and adds to Category:Articles that
MIght Reveal Secrets.

[Rob Wiltbank]

Just as a point of order, it's generally known (that is, common
knowledge) that the requirements for the MF spell are resurrection and
50th level (actually, as well as a free spell slot to actually get the
spell), but there is another unknown component that no one is quite
sure about.

Faethe/Wynder

--
"...Quoth the penguin, 'pipe grep more.'"

Rob Wiltbank
Lackey@Large

[Farman]

I figured as much, but I personally had no idea either way. I know
there are a lot of 'secrets' that are officially given the green light
for general discussion after a certain amount of time has passed.

On May 7, 8:00 am, "Rob Wiltbank" <wiltb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just as a point of order, it's generally known (that is, common
> knowledge) that the requirements for the MF spell are resurrection and
> 50th level (actually, as well as a free spell slot to actually get the
> spell), but there is another unknown component that no one is quite
> sure about.
>
> Faethe/Wynder
>

[Celeiros]

Yeah, cleric wise the requirements for anything aren't necessarily
secrets in my opinion. Now figuring out those requirements can take a
lot of pafo. In fact, I think they're still trying pinpoint the
specific skill requirements for MF because some clerics haven't gotten
MF right at 50. Secrets would include actual walkthroughs through
quests. That would be something one might actually want to hide or
disclaimer.

And if I may be so bold, I don't think requirements for anything
should be secret, except for maybe some things in the thief guild.
They're a whole different breed. Thief things may need some debate.

Nikpack
player of Celeiros and others

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

can we move this to the "What Is" thread, for easier discussion, this
really relates to "should we keep secrets separate".

[Farman]

Well part of this does touch on how to separate secrets, so I'm going
to continue in that vein.

There are some people (such as me) who like PAFO, at least as long as
it's not too brutal. Puzzles are a big part of why I enjoy games. So
while a certain piece of game information may not be secret, it might
be a puzzle that someone might want to figure out on their own, or at
least find the answer through IG methods (seeking a guild elder for
example). That kind of information should be shielded or segregated
as well.

Luckily wikis let you do that in a fairly straightforward manner. If
we do go ahead and make a 'secrets' namespace, it's quite simple to
put a link in place of the embargoed information in the article in the
main namespace, that links to an identical copy of the article in the
restricted namespace but with all the secret or puzzle information
revealed. So to the user clicking the secret link, it appears like
you're just expanding those sections of the article.

I also think if we're getting into the specifics of one article, the
discussion should take place on the article talk page.

Actually come to think of it, why aren't all of these discussions
taking place in the Elanthipedia namespace?

On May 9, 2:05 pm, "Justin Wood (Callek)" <cal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can we move this to the "What Is" thread, for easier discussion, this
> really relates to "should we keep secrets separate".
>

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

>>Actually come to think of it, why aren't all of these discussions
taking place in the Elanthipedia namespace?

Because I wanted to allow for (easier) comprehension of the thoughts
and ideas, than is possible on an arbitrary wiki talk page.

[Farman]

I'm going to start a new thread to discuss this, as it's off the
stated topic here.

On May 10, 11:39 pm, "Justin Wood (Callek)" <cal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Actually come to think of it, why aren't all of these discussions
>
> taking place in the Elanthipedia namespace?
>
> Because I wanted to allow for (easier) comprehension of the thoughts
> and ideas, than is possible on an arbitrary wiki talk page.
>

[Stylz]

Maybe just adding a link to the front page to DrSecrets Wik (http://
www.drsecrets.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) would be simplier.

Rollinz

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

Personally, I'd rather not split efforts.

~Justin Wood (Callek)