Talk:Target menu

This is the discussion page for Target menu. Here, you may discuss improving the article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Ordering

I’m not sold on alphabetical order of individuals I think we should order them within there’s groups either mirroring the layout in the menu or by how we find their clues and reveal them. I also think the clues should come before the biographies and maybe left align the flavor text rather than center? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not keen on the current ordering but the issue of the ordering is, for example the cultists from the Silver Vein and Worshippers of the Bloodline. Both of these braches have their layout being "A links to B who links to C, D links to E who links to C and C links to the sage". The clue stuff also has the issue of some of them being killable without finding clues, for example, I killed Melite from the Worshippers of the Bloodline (the C in the example) while exploring Krete, with no warning. Just like, "huh, this enemy is a bit harder than the others."

I will push back on the order of clues-bio however, it would be fine if they had the same amount of clues, but comparing Aspasia and Deimos for sake of example that's 6 to 1. In bio-clues, the bios are set and then you have any amount of clues following. In clues-bio, the placement of the bio would be "jumping" from place to place. Besides that, the target menu has the bio be on top of the clues.

On the alignment, do you mean all text or only the description for the clues? - Soranin (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Format of content

Before I edit more I guess what needs to be discussed is how closely we copy the formatting of the information on the actual menu page and its diegetic nature. For the Kassandra session we use "clue" and "interpretation" while the menu uses "related item" and "clue" respectively; there is no "obtained" field so I'm wondering if we should move that to just the bottom of the text in a parenthetical like with the Altair Codex. The Bio section replaces Clues which to me means it should come after not before. There is also a rewards section for what you get when you kill them. The targets also speak a quote when revealed. If not all, how much of this information should we concern ourselves with and how should we portray it? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. We could change "clue" and "interpretation" to "related item" and "clue", but I don't think we should abolish the obtained field. It's not as loyal as not having it, but I'd argue it's more for our control than anything else. As I've said before, the bio coming first is purely a matter of consistency between tables, because it's better having it be always first rather then first in some tables, second in others and ninth on another, for example.

I'm unsure whether we should include the rewards, but I'd argue the quotes are at least interesting and do give more of a sense of who the cultists were. Found a youtube video with all of them, will start the transcription on my primary sandbox in the meanwhile. - Soranin (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Menu vs clues

What exactly is the difference between this page and both Cult of Kosmos clues or Order of the Ancients clues? Because looking through it, I see all the Kosmos clues are here, as are most of the Order clues in Legacy of the First Blade—barring a few missing notes from Darius and Natakas' prior investigations—even though both clues pages have the older history. Given the similarities, and how so much more thorough this one is in light of Valhalla, shouldn't any remaining info from the clues pages be merged here and the pages renamed/deleted? – Darman (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This does make those other pages sort of redundant but there are some differences I see. Mainly this is about an animus function that just so happens to contextualize IU documents but I think we still need pages for those IU documents for categorization purposes. I am of course open to ideas to lessen overlap. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Lacrosse, there are differences which I feel are enough to justify the existance of both pages, one is about the animus, other about the actual items/conversations Kassandra and Eivor found/heard. Also, speaking from an archivist's perspective, it's fine for some redundancy to exist if it serves a purpose, which I argue it does, at least for us. It's better for us to cite the clues in the clues' pages because there isn't any bloat in that page and particular items can be pointed to and easily found, though I know some people might disagree. While the target page can contain other important information which we can't separate from the target menu, namely the bios and the clues' interpretations. - Soranin (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bayek's section

The flavor text for Bayek's target go through three levels of changes with only the cryptonym known, the target revealed, and the target dead. I'm not sure how to format this progression especially since for the Hippo it also results in the cryptonym changing. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What if you had embedded tabs like this?

Target 1Target 2

CryptonymIdentity revealedTarget dead

Info 1

Info 2

Info 3

etc

Alternately, what about similar formatting to the skill tree charts? You could bold the updated info (Odyssey) or just keep it separate from the original write-up (Valhalla). – Darman (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)