Forum:Codex Entries

Forums: Index > Wiki DiscussionCodex Entries

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5237 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Codex: Creatures - duplication with creatures pages

I'm currently reformatting Codex: Creatures and have an issue I'd really appreciate input on. Info on the Codex: Creatures page is sometimes duplicated on the page for the creature (see, eg, Abomination). Should the lore appear in both places, or should there simply be a link to the codex entry on the creature page? I'd favour the latter, though if there's interesting general info in the entry it could be summarised on the creature page. --Zoev 17:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

And whilst I'm posting anyway, I'll mention I left a post about how the Demons page relates to Codex: Creatures on Loleil's talk page as follows: I've come up against the Demons page, which people have already noted is a bit of a mess - it also duplicates a lot of the Codex: Creatures info. I've left a message on the article's talk page, but I'm not sure whether that would just get lost. How do you recommend I go about getting an agreed approach to sorting out the Demons page? Or are you happy if I just go ahead and create individual demon type pages (or merge info from Demons into individual demon type pages where they already exist) and make Demons a general page with only an overview and links? I'd like to get this sorted so I know where to link the creatures codex entries to/from. Thanks! --Zoev 16:39, December 16, 2009 (UTC) If anyone else has any views on this, I'd love to hear them.

I am all for includes if the same info is used on more then one location, like creatures and the codex creatures. Or alternatively a link to the codex, but that would make the information one click further away. And if people want to read about wolf or bear etc. I think they would want to see some codex info at least too. As for the demons page, just like the beasts, dragons and darkspawn page, those are overview pages of all of the general type groups. Having once again more or less the same info and often codex quoted. And then there are the sub-sub groups, like skeletons, hurlocks, genlocks, etc. And at the end the creature pages themselves (those usually don't have that much of the codex on them, just a few lines often, unless there is a codex specifically for the creature itself, like Desire Demon, but most of the specific creature pages are about stats, strategy, spells. If the option would be to just leave a link, I think a lot of those pages would be barren and unattractive, so preferably they should get either includes or at the very least small stories of some kind. But I think includes will be easier, if you just look at the darkspawn page e.g. that is basically a quote of codex and a picture + links --Mytharox 07:06, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

Okay - I've not completely finished the Codex: Items page as there are some fiddly bits and pieces that I need to play through parts of the game again to verify which will take a while, but it's getting closer. I've even put some pictures on the page to liven it up. My question is whether finalising the items page is really what I should be doing next, or whether folk think the priority is getting the other codex category pages into the new format. I'm happy to go either way - whatever you all think is most important.

I have to say it really does look great, and I'm glad people are leaning towards having one well presented category page. Hmm I think it's going depend what would make it easier for you. If finishing up the Items page will make it easier to complete the other pages, then I'd do that first. If it's just a matter of finishing off minor things (pictures, other non-crucial information) I would suggest applying the template to all pages, so they may all look as good as Codex: Items does. Loleil 05:58, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just non-crucial things that need to be done on the items page - pictures, validation of entries and location information, etc. And after a couple of days of this I'm already showing off my character flaws: I hate doing the fiddly, finishing off bits! So I will begin reformatting the other category pages. The location information will be a lot patchier, but I can at least make a start. And I promise I will contribute to the boring finishing touches bit, I'll just do it in fits and starts rather than as a concentrated effort. --Zoev 06:57, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Part II

So, just so we can keep track of what remains to be decided:

(a) Individual pages vs summary pages. I think we've narrowed it down to either (i) individual pages for codex items included into a single page for a codex category for ease of browsing, or (ii) no individual pages but have content on an overall page for the category. I like (i) for its modularity and purity, but as a user I think I'd only ever look at the summary page (especially if that did include location info as I think it should) so perhaps the modularity/purity of (i) is outweighed by the fact it involves a number of pages people are unlikely to look at directly and the added complexity of editing for newbies like myself. I've persuaded myself that the pros and cons of the two approaches are exactly balanced, so all I want is a final decision!

(b) Numbering. I agree that we can't just use the highest number available at the time the article is edited as this will become out of date. The only way citing a number makes sense is if it's cited alongside info about what DLC is loaded (or if it's the number in the original campaign with no DLC). In my sample boxes, I've stuck (OC) after the number - DLC doesn't make any difference to item codex entries. I was thinking that, where a difference does occur, this section may look like, eg "101 (OC), 103 (OC+WK), 105 (OC+TSP+WK)" (with initials being links to relevant DLC). Will that do? We could have longer descriptions, but I was worried about clutter. It's prefectly possible that at some point the available permutations will make this approach too complicated but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I think we're all agreed that entry numbers should not form part of the name of sections or pages (I have taken numbers out of the item codex entry titles and will try to track down any broken links this may have caused once we've finalised the approach).

(c) Format of codex entry sections. (i) I've suggested that the text of the entry alone appears in the body of the section, with additional information appearing in info boxes but am not particularly attached to this. (ii) The main alternative seems to be having standard sub-headings (Text, Location, See also, etc) for codex entry sections. Despite the spoiler risk, I do think locations should appear on the summary pages, though possibly this is because it was to track down the locations of missing codex entries that I first looked at the codex pages! However, there is at least one other option as previously demo-ed by Mytharox (iii) to have only the text of the codex entry on the summary page and have additional info on an individual page for the codex entry. What option do you prefer?

(d) Screenshots of codex entries. I think we're agreed that we don't need journal page screenshots (at least where someone's already transcribed the text onto the page). Do we agree, though, that there should be an option to have an image for a codex entry for interest and where relevant - eg shots of characters in character entries or NPCs wearing items mentioned in the codex, or as someone said, map locations - I'd have included a couple as examples, but for some reason my PC is currently refusing to take screenshots.

(e) Legendary Items. Today I found a Legendary_Items page which also duplicates codex item info. This is already flagged as needing tidy up, and I think, deciding what do do with it can wait until we've sorted the codex, but just thought I'd mention its existence here so we know it's there and needs some work.

OOf. Sorry for the long contribution. --Zoev 22:11, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

I like Zoev's idea. List the base item codex value and a modifier. But I suggest that instead of 103 (WK+TSP), it can be something like 100 (+2WK) (+1TSP) to imply, "it has a base codex of 100, and becomes 102 if you have Warden's Keep and 101 if you have The Stone Prisoner, and 103 if you have both". It might be possible to code that in too. I also agree with the rest of Zoev's well written analysis of the situation. I have no other opinion on the layout of the codex. --Tierrie 22:37, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, cunning! That is surely the most elegant solution and I like it. Just for completeness, I guess in this situation, if a codex entry comes as part of DLC its original number would need to be quoted as, eg, "101WK (+1TSP)" - ie the first number would be that if only the original campaign and the DLC with the codex entry were installed. --Zoev 00:01, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

The way the items are now setup is more pleasant to read then before, and I would like to keep it as it's handy to find a location or things involved on an overview page. However I still think we should use include when the info is used on multiple locations. Like a quest or location or item citing the codex entry as well. But those are really not all that many as Loleil already noted before, so most could probably be done just the way Zoev is already doing it. And with the layout he makes, it will be easy if we would want an include made out of it later.--Mytharox 22:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mytharox. It looks as though we're coming to a consensus that we stick with category pages for now, but implemented in such a way as to enable easy breaking down into individual pages later if it becomes clear that's desirable. --Zoev 00:01, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Codex Entries

About codex entries, just like items, they can be found at a certain spot, a screenshot of the exact location, or a screenshot of a map with the codex location marked, and/or screenshots of the actual in game text. They also have a value of XP (when read). In light of that one page per codex entry might be handy. And a central page linking to each/every codex entry. The codex entries could get a category and so on.

What I would like best is a central page, just like the in game journal with icons/names of every entry that you can simply click to go to. However the numbering has and probably will change further. As DLC moves the numbers a little bit, it is to be expected that more DLC will move it even further. And for every player with different DLC installed (or none at all) the numbering will be different.

So I propose a central page with all the Codex as links and separate pages for every codex. And skipping the numbers as they can change. At least the numbers not in the title of the page. Perhaps in an include field or auto calculated field. Perhaps we could use 2 numberings, 1 without any dlc, 2 with all dlc installed, that would at least work for a lot (most?) of the players.

We could set it up, perhaps like:

• Codex (containing categories) to ->
• Codex Categorie (containing codex links) to ->
• Codex Page (containing screenshots, xp, location, map, see also, etc)

I'm not really sure about it, as it would be way easier to set up at a webpage with some php ;) But I hope something nice would be possible in wiki code to help out here. I would love to hear some reactions to how we can solve that number problem. (And if we should put one codex per page or just bunch them all together.)

You're correct about the numbers being able to change, but its not with/without DLC. Each DLC adds a certain shift to the Codex entries. For example (this are not actual numbers) Warden's Keep adds 6 history codex entries, while The Stone Prisoner adds 1 character entry and 1 location entry. The shifting depends on whether you have either, or both. And that goes on for every DLC installed. So numbers are not a great way to keep track of it. --Tierrie 23:43, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Here is what's I know - codex entries will always remain in their sub section. There is a set order if you have ALL the DLC installed. People will want to know what codex entry they are missing (either, "hey i am missing codex 101" or "missing the codex before Elves of Ferelden"). Since the numbering system depends on their DLC - we can keep track of a seperate page for each permutation of with/without DLC and link them or include them to the actual codex entry (which remain unnamed). Alternatively, we can not keep track of each permutation and just keep a master codex entry per section and let the user find "that codex entry right before Elves of Ferelden" --Tierrie 23:47, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

(CC part from Codex entry) As I also explained on the other codex entry page and the wiki-forum I prefer one codex entry per page, just like 1 item or 1 location per page as reference, it helps me read better. I am not one to read through a whole page of text and find it more pleasant if it is separated, has some easy to read location tags and some screenshots as reference for if you doubt that it was spelled or written that way in game. Say just like items and objects with a CodexInfoBox preferably :) We can then always include the parts we need in the other pages so we don't have to maintain it at 3 spots. (Just like one specific longsword and the longswords overview.) Either way if you would like to delete this page fine, my adding of codex entries was already on hold, I don't like to do work for nothing and I didn't want to add more till there was a consensus on the forum so it's clear for all ;)--Mytharox 11:53, December 13, 2009 (UTC) --Mytharox 13:17, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Just to be more clear, I finished work on an example Codex Entry: The Life Drinker we could include the text of it (or other parts) in the relevant quest, object, overview etc, of course if it's not wanted we could delete it later anyways :P .--Mytharox 14:00, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

I've also made the include examples in Lifedrinker and Codex: Items.--Mytharox 14:43, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if the information is one paragraph long I prefer to see the Codex in a list the way it is. However, I understand that there's some people who want to see them individually on a page. This gives the codex entry a way to provide more information - such as "where do I find this codex?". The best solution is of course to write once (in one page) and read many (include the file in many places) - just like what Mytharox did. My most urgent concern with Codices is the variable numbering system that it uses - because if someone is missing Codex 42 (and he doesn't have Warden's Keep but has The Stone Prisoner) - and the person is a perfectionist, then he will need to know which codex he is missing, and how to get it. And its our jobs to make sure that whatever it is is cross referenced easily.

All other things being equal, I don't think codex entries need to have a complex inclusion - let its text be the included portion. Everything else can be written to the individual entry. --Tierrie 18:12, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'm a newcomer to this discussion, but had volunteered to do some work on item codex entries without realising that it existed (thanks for flagging it Mytharox). Having read these comments:

(a) I agree the initial proposal makes most sense for structure, ie:

- Codex page with links to categories

- Category page with links to individual pages (which means removing codex text from these category pages - EDIT NO it doesn't, sorry folks, just realised what Mytharox has done with inclusion in the Lifedrinker section - that seems to make more sense)

- Individual pages for each codex entry

(In the case of item codex entries, there would then be a further link to the item page, for characters, a link to the NPC page or whatever)

(b) The numbering issue is a problem - including numbers in page titles/document names seems to be asking for trouble given that with future possible DLC permutations which number refers to which entry is likely to become very tangled. But, at least until it does get that confusing, I'm sure users would find it useful to have the numbers at least mentioned prominently. As long as the entry numbers aren't used as names of entries, then it gives flexibility to review the approach to using them in the wiki later.

(c) With respect to what subheadings each Codex page should have, do we think every page should have the same headings, or that the headings should vary depending on category? I ask, because having all the info such as location, map, etc for item codex entries would duplicate information on the item's individual page - it would be cleaner to simply include a link to the item page. It depends on how much we value consistency across the codex entry pages versus minimizing duplication of data. My preference is for minimizing duplication, but happy to go with the majority.

(d) On use of of a CodexInfoBox: having browsed through some of the item entries, the use of this box seems pretty inconsistent and info seems to be duplicated elsewhere (no doubt due to developing thoughts about how best to structure item pages). As a newbie to wiki editing - I hope you'll bear with me, I promise I'm a quick learner - I don't quite understand Mytharox's comment "We can then always include the parts we need in the other pages so we don't have to maintain it at 3 spots." - does this mean that if we use an info box it can effectively function as a database and other pages can simply include a reference to the CodexInfoBox name and section that will pull in the text in the box? If so, then that definitely sounds the way to go, but it sounds like magic to me!

(e) Finally, as Mytharox says, we just need an agreed approach before it's worth doing more work. As a newcomer I'm happy to just do what I'm told, but am unclear on the mechanics for making judgement calls. Do we just need an admin to settle the way forward?

(f) PS I just realised that I was assuming that I could be of some use working on this area, but now it strikes me that you folk who have already contributed above were ready, willing and able to sort out this stuff and were just waiting for a consensus. If I'm interfering rather than helping, just tell me to butt out and I will! Don't want too many cooks.

--Zoev 18:42, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with just about all the things you and Tierrie said ;) Just the CodexInfoBox template, was just created by me today as example, just like the fixes today at the lifedrinker page, my work concerning the codex pages was on hold pending on a consensus we might get here at the forum ;) But as my initial comments might have been unclear, I thought an example and a few example pages might be a good way to show what I meant. In the template btw, you can put a link to an item/quest/codex number and so on Template:CodexInfoBox and as it is a template it can be easely changed and adjusted to what we like. And I am glad to have you on board and willing to help out :D --Mytharox 18:55, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually spotted that you'd added the CodexInfoBox after I made my post and am currently just trying to figure out how it all works. I think what I'll do, if no-one has any objections, is have a go at applying a similar approach to one of the item entries for which there currently isn't much info (perhaps Katriel's Grasp) and comment again once I've done that. I find that actually trying to apply an approach is the only way I can really come up with a sensible opinion on it. --Zoev 19:03, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Go for it Zoev!

Ideally, I'd like to have all codex items dealt with consistently, and leave things largely as they are, but I think that might be room for compromise and you make a compelling case Mytharox. I'm still worried about creating redundant info though. This is a particular problem on the items pages. We have one page with a list of entries and one page putting the entry in context often with the location of the codex item, to then have another page just seems unneeded. Individual entries in Codex: Spell Combinations, can easily be merged with spell combinations and I would argue that all the entries in Codex: Controls are too short and easily obtainable to warrant their own page. Also, many of the entries in Codex: Creatures are again in two places, in some cases three places (such as ogre, which appears on the codex page the ogre page and the darkspawn page). As the creature entries are obtained by defeating them, I'd again question the need for individual pages in this category. I think I'd rather that detailed information about the Codex: Quest Related went into the relevant quest and I don't think the Codex: Characters needs further explanation.

However for Codex: Magic and Religion, Notes, Books and Songs there does seem room for expansion, mainly to provide their location.

So possible solutions to my mind are to deal with the categories on a case-by-case basis, and exclude items, controls, creatures, characters, quest related and spell combinations from getting individual codex pages, but to do it for everything else. Or to remove the individual entries from every Codex: Category page and just make it a link collection.

Just one thought about pictures, if we have the text written down, do we need a picture of the text? Loleil 01:50, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree screenshots of pages seem redundant (obviously the text is better than a screenshot only as it can be hyperlinked and searched). And I know I keep flip-flopping on the single page per entry/multiple entries per page, but I've been thinking about how I'd use this info, and I think I'd more likely be browsing to see various codex items I'm missing and where to pick them up, which would be less fiddly with a single page for multiple entries. If I can get this working with the items page, then we can all take a look and make a final call. I think that's going to take me longer than I hoped though - I underestimated the learning curve in getting up to speed with editing. I like the info boxes, and (so as not to mess up Mytharox's work whilst I'm learning) created a copy Template:CodexInfobox. However, when I try to insert this, Mytharox's initial Template:CodexInfoBox or any other Dragon Age-specific info box template into a page using the dropdown box and search template functionality, it only seems to work about one time out of 10 and I can't see what I'm doing differently each time. The standard wikia templates seem fine. Can anyone think of a stupid mistake I could be making? I'm going to go away, restart my computer and try again tomorrow! --Zoev 05:39, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

If there is community support for individual pages, then that is alright with me, but I'd still like to resolve what to do with all the repeat info. As to how to use the template, I still edit without the rich-text editor enabled and I found it a quite good way to learn as it makes the coding much more transparent. So I'd recommend switching it off from your preferences, then you can just copy/paste the codex template (i.e. this code)

 
{{CodexInfoBox
|Name               = '''Required:''' Name of the codex.
|Image              = '''Optional:''' Image of a codex page or page(s)
|px                 = '''Optional:''' The size of the image.
|Image2             = '''Optional:''' Image of a codex page or page(s)
|px2                = '''Optional:''' The size of the image.
|Icon               = '''Optional:''' Icon of the codex if any.
|DLC                = '''Optional:''' DLC required to get this codex entry.
|Category           = '''Required:''' Category of codex, item or quest related etc. 
|Location           = '''Optional:''' Where it can be found.
|Involves           = '''Optional:''' Quests, items, objects, locations involved.
|Appearances        = '''Optional:''' The games, books etc where the item appears.
|Number             = '''Required:''' Entry number of the codex with all DLC installed. (So the highest number we can find.)
}}

into the page, and fill it in as needed. For example Lifedrinker looks like this

 
{{CodexInfoBox
|name     = The Life Drinker
|image    = Codex-45a_The_Life_Drinker.jpg
|image2   = Codex-45b_The_Life_Drinker.jpg
|location = [[Dragon Egg]] in the [[Mountainside Caverns]].
|Category = [[Codex: Items|Items]]
|Involves = [[Lifedrinker]], [[Dragon Egg]]
|Number = 45
|appearances = ''[[Dragon Age: Origins]]''
}}

"Optional" means that you can delete that line, and it won't appear in the template box, "required" means that if nothing is written after = it will still appear anyway as a blank field. Hope that helps (at least a little). Loleil 06:27, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

|Number=XX

This line is going to cause problems. Lets say the highest number we can find now for Codex: History of Chantry is 78 with all the DLC installed. Every time a DLC comes out - eg. Return to Ostagar, there is a chance that this number will be bumped. And when it bumps, it will also bump every number after it - making the edits time consuming. Let me think about this a bit more - and see if I can find a good (and hopefully simple) solution to this problem. --Tierrie 07:27, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

For the info that appears on multiple places like Ogre or Genlock or that Lifedrinker I was working with includes. So it only has to be maintained on the codex - single page. Just adding a line like :Codex Entry: The Life Drinker includes the whole text portion on the Codex: Items page and the Lifedrinker page. So in fact you only maintain the text at one page, as for pictures of the pages, as soon as the info is in text form, I don't see why they would have to stay, other pictures like a mini-map showing the location or something else relevant might be nice though. I would recommend the include way of handling for any codex that right now, appears on more then 1 location, as with includes you would only have to maintain the text at 1 location.--Mytharox 07:29, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I feel like having an image of a codex is rather redundant - it adds no value to the article. However, I see no harm in leaving it in either - so if someone wants to go and take 300 screenshots to prove the texts, then, alright :) I basically feel like a codex needs to answer these pressing questions - what is its text? what order is it in? which section is it in? where do I find it? (collorary to this is - what dlc do i need to have to see this?) if it is about something else in game, eg items, can i get a link to that item?

Thanks, Loleil, for the info about using the plain text option. Much, much better! I've now had a bit of a play around with the Codex: Items page and added info boxes for each of the entries (and removed location from the text where it appeared and increased the specificity and added in links to areas and side quests - though there's still stuff I need to verify). The idea is that only the text of the codex entry appears outside the box, and any other info, such as location, appears in the box. At the moment, there's not actually much to put in the box for items except location info (I know this may duplicate info on the item pages, but having it all collected together on one page is, I think, useful). However, further info could be added later, as well as images. A problem I have with multiple info boxes like this, though, is (apart from it potentially being a bit busy) that I can't work out how to force the next section heading to appear below the info box when the codex text is short. Any pointers gratefully received!

TOC

Is there any other way we can represent the TOC of Codex: Creatures? Because as you notice, the lengthy TOC pushes " Abominations" codex entry to the right side. -- Snfonseka 02:08, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

See

• See Codex
• See Codex:_Books_and_Songs
• See Category:Codex_entry
• See Codex Entry: The Life Drinker
• See Codex Entry 207:Death of a Templar
• See Codex: Items - latest example of proposed format