I do wonder whether having all the entries in the Codex as subpages is the best method for organizing it, given how expansive the Codex is. Felix Omni 02:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's not ideal, but it was the only method that was proposed. If you have an alternative, I know I'd love to hear it. -- Heaven's Agent 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- We could add an additional namespace for it, or just move the codex off the wiki. Felix Omni 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason to move it off the wiki - it's legitimate content to have on the wiki. And given that it's actual content, I think it's best to keep it in the main content namespace. I don't see why subpages are a bad way to organize it despite of how expansive it is - it's not as if a separate namespace would change much in this regard, aside from it using a colon instead of a slash. The subpages are just a naming convention - what is most important is properly categorizing the pages.
Ausir (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- The main advantage of a separate namespace would be the ability to exclude and include codex entries in advanced searches since codex subpage entries can look like gobbledegook on the search results page to an inexperienced user, but it's not a major point of contention. Felix Omni 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason to move it off the wiki - it's legitimate content to have on the wiki. And given that it's actual content, I think it's best to keep it in the main content namespace. I don't see why subpages are a bad way to organize it despite of how expansive it is - it's not as if a separate namespace would change much in this regard, aside from it using a colon instead of a slash. The subpages are just a naming convention - what is most important is properly categorizing the pages.
- We could add an additional namespace for it, or just move the codex off the wiki. Felix Omni 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)