Online talk:Antiquities

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Where to find what[edit]

So, it's not clear where each one comes from, if it's random per zone or what - at least one I know has a fixed location. So let's use this page to mark where we've found different leads. ~ Alarra (talkcontribs) 18:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Alinor Allemande - Found near the stream in Rellenthil in Summerset; a ghost can be found dancing there
  • Branch of Falinesti - chopping wood in Greenshade
  • Hollowbone Wind Chimes - dolmen boss (Dread Bone Colossus) in Malabal Tor
  • Face of the Wolf Beast (part of Ring of the Wild Hunt) - River's Edge world boss in Malabal Tor
  • Echoes of Aldmeris - treasure chest in Auridon
  • Ruby Dragon Skull - ore (or runestone?) node in Bleakrock Isle
  • Brazier of Frozen Flame - mudcrab in Bleakrock Isle
  • Seat of the Snow Prince - mob or boss in Kyne's Aegis
  • Void-Crystal Anomaly - mushroom node in Coldharbour

Added by AllHailPinwheel :

  • Maormeri Serpent Shrine - Soulfire Plateau world boss in Auridon
  • Sweet Khenarthi's Song - Psijic Portal in Khenarthi's Roost
  • Jewelled Skull of Ayleid Kings - Imperial City Overland Boss
  • Malacath's Brutal Ritual Dust (Malacath's Band of Brutality) - Big Ozur's Valley World Boss in Reaper's March
  • Hollowbone Wind Chimes - Dark Fissures in Malabal Tor
  • Sacred Chalice of Ysgramor - Looting safeboxes in Fighter's Guild, Eastmarch
  • Spellscar Shard - Celestial Rift near Elinhir Wayshrine
Here's a link to the Royal Antiquities College guild's Lead spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZJoizCuvNa4zYHI3FySqFJ5vvsuUnd3hS6GvZ_irOKE/edit?usp=sharing 婉曲 Circuitous (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Branch of Falinesti is definitely 100% from chopping wood in Greenshade, I got it on my very first time. Some of the others.... Seat of the Snow Prince is from any mob or treasure chest in Western Skyrim, I've gotten it many different ways and multiple different times. Echoes of Aldmeris, as well, I've gotten in several different zones, not just Auridon, so I don't think those are static. I can't speak to the other mobs, but presumably the Brazier of Frozen Flame is similar to seat of the snow prince, in that it isn't specifically from the mudcrab, it just randomly happened to drop for you there. I can check our the Ruby Dragon Skull and Void-Crystal Anomaly, and see if that's a static drop from those sources. Jeancey (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I definitely didn't find the Ruby Dragon Skull after a while of harvesting everything possible. I did find the Void-Crystal Anomaly the very first wood I chopped, so it's possible that lead is tied to simply harvesting things in Coldharbour, rather than mushrooms specifically. Jeancey (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm gonna make a separate page for leads and probably these furnishings as its too much info and this needs broken down a bit. --Jimeee (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Codex Entries[edit]

TIL has all codex entries (some PTS version) on a page - so we can see what the volume is we are talking about.

I think there are two approaches of documenting codex entries, one centering on the codex entries (putting those on a cluster of pages) and another centering on the items found (putting codex entries on pages about those items).

There was already some discussion of this on discord, and a plan using a split approach. Putting codex entries for items that have a good target on those pages (we already have examples for mythic items like Ring of the Wild Hunt or styles pages like Ancestral Orc Style) and the rest on codex specific pages. I guess by slightly modifying that, we can make it completely item-centric. We currently have no documentation for treasure that isn't contraband on the wiki. If we document the antiquity treasure and put the codex entries there (split by zones like planned), we are just left with codex entries for two dozen furnishing items that have no natural home. We could just make a page for those furnishing items and put the codex entries there. --Alfwyn (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, one giant page of codex entries would be an unreadable wall-of-text disaster, which is why I started adding them to individual pages. Also, this makes it much better for sourcing in lore pages. Legendary furniture listed on this page should have its own page - I've just not round to make it, and on that page I would add the codex entries in an appropriate manner. The goal is to NOT centralize codexes from antiquities in any way whatsoever, so other codex entries (like antiquity treasure) will need to find a home or its own page - and I'm confident that they will. --Jimeee (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
My initial plan was for Zone pages to house the treasures as well as some of the other codexes for things that exist in our framework already (for example, the Body Markings antiquities would be on the zone pages, because the actual reward information can be housed on the Body Markings page that we already have). Using this method, the codex entries for the furniture could potentially be found on the zone pages as well, but at the very least a link to the pages where they do exist should be found there. My goal with this is that someone can go "Hey, I'm about to level through Grahtwood, what antiquities are found there?" and they can find the Grahtwood Antiquities page that lists all the antiquities in the zone, and how to find the leads for them.
I think this will cover all the existing antiquities and provide for a good scaling method for future antiquities when they are added :) Hopefully that makes sense! Jeancey (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
People questing for antiquities by zone is a valid use case and I saw what you did on Eyevea Antiquities and I think that works well. Of course, there is "I want to see all the new antiquities furnishings available" and "I'd like to read all the codex about a certain category of item" etc. There will be some overlap of content appearing on different pages, but it's not a huge deal. We should try to cover the major use cases. --Jimeee (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't Duplicate Information[edit]

Because if you do, you'll forget to change one thing and everything will get out of sync. There should be one page for each Antiquity, from which information is grabbed for whatever templates need to use. --Enodoc (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently, we seem to have information headed for 4 different pages, all of which have different templates (or will) and none of which currently play nice with each other. Antiquities are currently being listed on zone pages like this one which uses this template. They are also being listed by type, like this page for maps, which uses this separate template. The furnishings, of which the maps are, will also need to be listed on Furnishing pages, which is how the system works for all furnishings currently in the game, so it would make no sense not to do it for these. That uses two more templates. For Enodoc's suggestion, we would need separate pages for each individual Antiquity, which seems to necessitate a fifth template, just for housing all this information and feeding it into the other 4 templates. Oh, we also have Mounts (which have another template), pets (another template), other collectibles (a template needed for each type) and Mythic items for another template. That's 8-10 templates needed for antiquities if we store it all on a single page.
As an added bonus, if we do use a single template on a source page, we wouldn't want Antiquities to be the ONLY items using templates for collectibles, so we'd likely be looking at 7000+ new pages for all the existing collectibles as we convert all of them over to a brand new system. Basically, this isn't a small job, this is would kick off a MASSIVE effort, and leaving it partially complete would be worse that not even starting it at all, in my opinion, and make already difficult to edit and update pages even more so. Jeancey (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
First and foremost, I appreciate the concerns with duplicating info and the nightmare of keeping it up to date. I would also like to keep that to a minimum. To be clear, I DONT want 4 different pages with the same content written and maintained my hand. But my other big concern (and how I approach all my work on this wiki) is if the content and structure is serving the normal readers of the wiki in the best way possible.
The latter is why I have taken the approach to Antiquitues and split the content as I have. First, we need to look at Antquities themselves - they are not normal, run-of-the-mill items and that have been included. A single piece of furniture contains 8 or so seperate pieces of information - some of which can be several bullet points. Motifs are not like other motifs, furniture is not like other furnitures, how they're obtained is different. Almost all are special items. Its simply different.
So why should these new items be required to be shoe-horned into a framework or use older templates that were designed and created when Antiquitues wasn't even concienved? There is no rule that says we must and sake of convience at the cost of the user's experience isn't an argument. It doesn't have to be a "one solution fits all" - but a solution that's appropriate based on content and context. I do think an individual page for each antiquity is overkill, so the next best solution is group them by Category. That's why Online:Antiquity Furnishings is laid out this way.
I'll call the individual tables on this page "Cards" - mainly because they remind me of Google's Material Design pattern. These Cards are easily-identifiable, stand-alone, self contained units that dont rely on external information. My position was that these Cards are the hub of the content. This is where is makes most sense for our readers for all the key info to live. Its also massively useful for sourcing in our lore articles as I did here and much clearer than how we do it currently with contraband items.
It also clearer in displaying Leads - one of the most important pieces of info. Leads information is so intrinsicly tied to the Antiquity itself that they should not be seperated or have Leads live on a different page for large multi-piece items that people need to navigate to. And this takes me onto my next point: Use-cases.
Using valid use-cases (or user-scenarios) are key to making the Antiquites information useful to people - otherwise its just an unusable database of information. Use-cases need to be realistic, like below. Apologies if the following is obvious to anyone:
  • A realisic use-case for Motifs is: "I want to collect the new Ancestral Orc motif - what do I do?". They way I structured it, we can easily support this use-case:
    • User searches the term "Ancestral Orc"
    • Clicks on Online:Ancestral Orc Style
    • Scroll down to the Antiquities table.
    • Lead information is right there. No need to go anywhere else unless you want to see specific maps. Same for the new Mount.
  • A realisic use-case for Antiquity Furnishings is: "I want to check out a few of the legendary new furnitures and read the lore behind them.". They way I structured it, we can easily support this use-case.
    • User start from the Online:Antiquities overview page
    • Scroll to Furniture and click Antiquity Furnishings
    • They are presented with the TOC or can scroll down.
    • They can see a good image of the furniture embedded in the Card. They can easily read each Codex. If they want to collect it, the Lead information is right there. No need to go to any other page.
Jeancey's use-case of "I'm in Deshaan and I want to collect all Antiquities in this zone.", is also vaild and I agree with it - and its supported by the page Antiquities by Zone - but where I disagree is the suggestion that all the info (especially leads and codex) should be stored primarily on this page. The reason goes back to context and findability.
Sort by Category is by far more useful than Sory By Zone. What's a more likely use-case?
  • A person looking for all the pages of an Ancestral motif or Mount or collecting all special furnishings?
  • A person methodically going through every zone, collecting every single Antiquity - be it random green treasure, mount component, motif chapter, etc?
To me, its obvious that only hardcore completionists will choose the second option of "Let's do everything in Deshaan today". More likely is "I want that mount".
But the thing is, we are still serving the hardcore completionists with these By-Zone pages. One point is that Codex info isn't really needed here, because the page's intent is sort stuff by zone. Lead info is of course needed here - so why not house all info on the Cards and if wiki-magic allows it, have the appropriate info pulled to these Zone pages transcluded from the Cards (if a Card exists).
What I absolutely dont want is the Codex and Lead info spread across different Zone pages so a person needs to visit numerous different "Antiquities by Zone" pages just to find Leads or read all the codex. At the same time I DONT want 4 different pages with the same content written and maintained my hand.
The Leads page should be scaled back drastically to reduce info duplication, because realistically it would be enormous and thats not the place people should go to find the Leads. When I created it, I thought it would work as a list page, but it wont and Lead info is being duplicated - so I stripped it out. I started doing this already with Antiquity Furnishings and Antique Maps. At the moment Leads will link you to the respective Card pages where all relevant info is found to support the above use-cases.
Instead the Leads pages would serve as a launch-pad to the Cards where Lead info is found. Cards should be the main source for the information - and other pages take the relevant pieces (not the entire Card) from it.
So to be clear how it would be mapped out. Antiquity-by-zone pages could transclude info from all of the below:
  • Antiquity Furnishings - The dedicated mother page for each piece of furniture info. Other pages could pull info from it.
  • ON:Antique Maps - Same as above. While its correct that these maps are also Antiquity Furnishings, I split them off because they are clearly their own sub-category and its makes it easier for user to navigate two seperate pages vs. One giant list on Antiquity furnishings. The maps can of course still be listed on Online:Library_Furnishings/Maps, be it by pulling info from the image summary or by transcluding from the mother page.
  • ON:Deshaan Antiquities, etc - These pages can be stripped back slightly. Lead info is vital, so transclude it from the mother page. Remove the Codex (at its more appropriate on the mother page anyway) and the coloured item name now links to the mother page - either by linking to the header or a Linkable Entry - instead of esoitem.
  • Mythic Items - The mother page for these should be the item set page itself (Online:Bloodlord's_Embrace#Components).
  • Motifs - The mother page for these should be the Style page (Online:Ancestral_Orc_Style#Antiquities). .
  • Mounts - Only 1 mount, so the Ebon Dwarven Wolf would have its own page with a variation of the table here: Online:Antiquity_Leads#Ebon_Dwarven_Wolf. This info can be transluded to other pages, like Leads.
  • Treasures - Possible all in a large table. They are nowere near as important as the above items, so dont need prominance.
Will this need some template work? Yes, probably. But once the info has been added, antiquity info is unlikely to drastically change, so maintenance would be fine.
I've wrote too much here tbh, and I'd rather be working on the pages, but discussion on Discord doens't work. Its too fast and multiple people are speaking at the same time - so I'd prefer to explain things here. I've wrote a lot because I feel strongly about making the information and pages as usable and findable for readers as possible. I honsetly believe we as a site sometimes slavishly follow methods and techniques from years past to the detriment of our readership. There are several areas that suffer from this, like Crown Store info, various lists, dialogue formatting etc. --Jimeee (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


Just to talk about a couple of the things here: The system is set to expand. Every single release will see new antiquities, so we shouldn't be designing the system for NOW but for the future as well. This means that we should never go "there's only one of these so we can just make that page and not worry about a system for that type of item". There WILL be more of all of these items.
In addition, I would like to push back on this: "First, we need to look at Antquities themselves - they are not normal, run-of-the-mill items and that have been included. A single piece of furniture contains 8 or so seperate pieces of information - some of which can be several bullet points. Motifs are not like other motifs, furniture is not like other furnitures, how they're obtained is different. Almost all are special items. Its simply different."
This is 100% verifiable FALSE. The furnishings are identical to existing furnishings, the motifs are identical to existing motifs, there is ZERO difference in the actual reward item. What IS different is the leads. Leads are brand new, and they are the ONLY thing new. The 8 pieces of information you mention are from the LEADS, not from the resulting item. There is zero codex information connected to the Motifs themselves, or to the mount itself. None.
The initial plan with the zone pages was for LEAD information to be stored on one page, and for ITEM information to be stored on another. That's two separate pages with little to no overlap of information that would need to be updated. What you propose, still, is 4 separate pages (for furnishings), as you are not remembering the resulting item which also needs to be documented. We still have the Single Page For Every Item, The zone pages, the Separate From the Furnshings but Sorted by Furnishings pages you have created and the Furnishings Pages But Actually Furnishings pages that exist now. The only reward items that have multiple components are the Mount and the Mythic Items. The mythic items are new, and thus we have zero issue there, they don't have an existing framework where the information is duplicated. That's what we should be aiming for. The Mount, there is only one, and it does seem unlikely that they would be adding dozens of new mounts with 8 components every time, so we're likely looking at a small enough number each release to document them individually. None of the other items have multiple components, so we should document the single leads separately from the single resulting item. Having 100+ treasures on a single large table should never happen, because when they continuously add to it, we'll have the same problem we've had with contraband, where it takes forever to load every single time. Those should live exclusively on the zone pages and aren't really needed to live anywhere else. No one is going to go "I want all these, how do I get ALL of them". They don't need to be combined into a single page and if they are, the page will become unimaginably large fairly quickly.
All in all, there has to be a trade off between "easily findable for users" and "So large and unmanageable that it never gets updated correctly and no one uses it because it isn't accurate". I fear that we are leaning towards the latter. We also shouldn't ever have all leads or all codexes on a single page just because "Some people might want to read them all at once". We don't do that with literally any other thing, why would we start now? And having them all on a single page just because some people want to read them all like a dictionary is going to become too large to load, like many other pages on the wiki have become (like some of the contraband pages I mentioned). If people want to read the lore on items, they will find the items and read the lore on them, like they always have. We don't have lists of every single book on every single topic, just in case someone wants to read all nautical books or all books involving wolves. We just can't cater to every possibility like that.
Lastly, I would like to request that we finish this discussion before moving forward with any particular plan. I don't want to tell anyone to NOT do work, but having a discussion about whether to do it one way or another while one person just does it the way they want often results in "Well, I guess we're doing it that way because one person didn't wait for the conversation to end before just deciding to do it their way" (this was a generic example that I've seen in the past, I really don't mean you specifically). I would also want input from other people that just us replying to each other every time. Jeancey (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The important thing here I think is to work out how people will be looking for the leads. The leads are the main thing someone will come to us for - will they be looking for it by zone, or by type? By zone would seem most logical since that's how it's presented in game, but I don't think that's actually logical in practice because a lead only appears in a zone list once you've found it. Does that mean it's most logical to search for it by type? Possibly, and it's more likely that you'll be able to work out what type category it's in than what zone it's in, since there are significantly fewer types. Something else we seem to have done is conflated the Leads with the Antiquities, and the Antiquities with the final Items - they are technically separate, so don't need to be combined together.
I maintain that a separate page per Antiquity makes the most sense, and no, that doesn't mean we suddenly need to go to 7000+ new pages for all Collectibles; Antiquities are a completely new system which result in items from existing systems, and therefore we don't need to change any of the existing pages for them. (We need to fix Furnishings because they're a mess between categories and sources, but that's a different topic.)
Whether we have separate pages for each Antiquity or not, based on what Jeancey said about the original plan for Leads on one page and Items on another, I think what would make the most sense is that we list Leads and their sources on a single page by Type (because nobody will know the Zone), and the information about the Antiquity on separate pages by Zone (because by that point they know what Zone it's in). The resulting Items and Collectibles go where they would go anyway within the existing pages. That basically means Antiquity Leads as it is, because it already does what it needs to in listing the sources of Leads by Type; Antiquity Furnishings should therefore only exist if it's too long to sit on the Antiquity Leads page (it's otherwise just an expansion of that page; no need for fancy tables, no need for codex information); and Antiquities by Zone is the place with the codex and everything else about the Antiquity. The only duplication of info then would be if the Lead source is repeated on the Zone page, but if they were originally intended to be separate, then that wouldn't be the case (although I assume it would still be linked). --Enodoc (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
So a few things. I'd also appreciate a response to the suggestions I'm making and why you think it won't work.
"The furnishings are identical to existing furnishings, the motifs are identical to existing motifs, there is ZERO difference in the actual reward item. What IS different is the leads. Leads are brand new, and they are the ONLY thing new. The 8 pieces of information you mention are from the LEADS, not from the resulting item. There is zero codex information connected to the Motifs themselves, or to the mount itself. None."
No, the 8 or so pieces of information relate directly to the resulting item itself - NOT the lead:
  • Description: This is a description of the resulting item, not a description of the Lead.
  • Codex: Three lore codexes talking about the resulting item, not a codexs about the Lead.
  • Furniture Image: An image of the resulting Furniture item, not an image of the Lead.
  • Furniture Icon: An icon of the resulting Furniture item, not an icon of the Lead.
  • Name: Name of the resulting item, not the Lead.
  • Value: Value of the resulting item, not the Lead.
  • Lead Location: Information about where to find this item's Lead.
  • Dig Site Location - Same zone as the Lead.
Jeancey said: "Leads in the data have codexes". While this may be true from a technical standpoint - stop thinking about game data for a second and read any codex. They all refer to the resulting item. NOT the Lead. And that is exactly how our readers will understand and expect this.
"What you propose, still, is 4 separate pages (for furnishings), as you are not remembering the resulting item which also needs to be documented. We still have the Single Page For Every Item, The zone pages, the Separate From the Furnishing but Sorted by Furnishings pages you have created and the Furnishings Pages But Actually Furnishings pages that exist now."'
I dont see it like this. I see it as:
  • Single Page For Every Item?: No, use Online:Antiquity Furnishings which has all the furnishings in tables, This is the resulting item page.
  • The zone pages: Yes, keep these and pull only the relevant information into them from Online:Antiquity Furnishings.
  • The Separate From the Furnshings but Sorted by Furnishings: Yes. This refers to Online:Antiquity Furnishings.
  • Furnishings Pages But Actually Furnishings: The old table based pages. These are currently not best suited to display antiquity furnishings information (see below). So instead maybe have a link on the main furniture page to lead to Online:Antiquity Furnishings - or find a way to support all the antiquity info.
I mentioned above how the old furniture pages are not best suited to housing the antiquities. The reason is because the tables cant support all the antiquity info that I believe is vital and intrinsically tied to it. Lets look at Online:Library_Furnishings/Maps. Some of the new Antique maps have been added here and immediately you can see the problem:
  • The source "Other: Lead" info links readers off to a seperate page. Users now need to scoll around on Leads until they find the map again and then find the lead info. Terrible user experience.
  • It doesn't include codex information that is literally related to that item because its deemed as "Lead data" and shifted off the the zones page. How one would find their way to the Zones page from the furniture list page God only knows... Can someone tell me?
  • Legendary furniture will be scattered across numerous furniture pages: statues, maps, etc. They won't have a useful, single page that lists them as "Antiquity" - which is what Online:Antiquity Furnishings does. You can argue that this is not required, but I'll ask you how would you meet the original use case I mentioned of "I want to check out a few of the legendary new furniture and read the lore behind them.".
"We also shouldn't ever have all leads or all codexes on a single page just because "Some people might want to read them all at once". We don't do that with literally any other thing, why would we start now?"
This is absolutely not the reason for having all codexes on one page. The reason as above is I believe there is a real use case to group the new furnitures by what they are - Antiquities, because there absolutely are people out there who will want an easy way to browse through this content. Secondly, just becuase something worked for one thing in the past, it doesn't mean it will work for another thing in the future. You know this.
"And having them all on a single page just because some people want to read them all like a dictionary is going to become too large to load"'
I'm not even proposing anything close to Contraband. Load up Online:Antiquity Furnishings. How was that? Dont pull them in from the Zones page. Keep them there. Also, don't we follow's wikipedia guidelines of Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance?
"We don't have lists of every single book on every single topic, just in case someone wants to read all nautical books or all books involving wolves. We just can't cater to every possibility like that."
Our Lore:Books by Subject page absolutely does this to a degree. And in fact, I want it to go even further with tags like "Books about Nords" etc. You dont know how helpful that would be when writing lore pages.
I still dont understand why my idea of having the furniture Cards on Online:Antiquity Furnishings as the main hub of the info (that is then transcuded to other places) can't work. Don't say 7000 new pages because it doesn't need to be that. Can Jeancey or Enodoc give me a breakdown user's flow/steps for your proposal regarding the main use-case - "I want to check out a few of the legendary new furnitures and read the lore behind them." --Jimeee (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
OK so I'm looking for a new furniture. Case 1, I have no idea that it's come from an Antiquity, so I go to the Furnishings page and I'm screwed, because that page is a mess. That goes off to the "fix Furnishings" discussion which makes sure one way or another that Furnishing sources are well-documented, after which, you'll get directed to whichever page has the most information about the Antiquity. Case 2, I do know that it's an Antiquity, so I go to Antiquities and then Antiquity Furnishings, or I go to Furnishings and then Furnishing Antiquities. I see a list of all the furnishings that come from antiquities, and where to find the lead. If the codex lore is not directly transcluded here from another page, I click on a link that takes me to the page with the codex on it.
Yes from a practical perspective the codex is about the item, but Gamespace works with technical as its core, and the codex technically belongs to the Antiquity (not the Item, and not the Lead). The only way that works viably for any type of Antiquity, because the way we display Collectibles, Furnishings and Items is so different, is to link to a page specifically set up for Antiquity information.
To run through your list again, with a Furnishing as the example:
  • Description: This is a description of the resulting Item, and therefore belongs with all the other descriptions of Furniture Items.
  • Codex: This is a new feature, practically related to the resulting Item, but technically related to the Antiquity. Since the Furnishing list is not set up for it, the entry for the Item links to the Antiquity details.
  • Furniture Image: An image of the resulting Furniture Item, which belongs with the other Furniture Items.
  • Furniture Icon: An icon of the resulting Furniture Item, which belongs with the other Furniture Items.
  • Name: Name of the resulting Item, which belongs in a list of Furniture Items.
  • Value: Value of the resulting Item, which belongs in a list of Furniture Items.
  • Lead Location: This is a new feature, related only to the Antiquity, but the entry for the Furnishing Item either directly mentions it in the Source, or links to the Antiquity details.
The Zone pages are set up as a mirror to the Antiquities display in-game, and therefore require all of the information that you would find there, including the codex, difficulty, quality, type, etc. Pulling that off various pages such as Antiquity Furnishings and Antique Maps for transclusion into different zone pages is an {{#lst:}} transclusion nightmare (like Crown Store), and isn't practical.
The codex information must be on the Antiquities by Zone pages, and cannot be on the Furnishings pages. The Furnishings pages must have a useful Source link which goes directly to information about the Antiquity, not just to a generic page about Leads. The most flexible solution remains to have separate pages for each Antiquity, because that is the most practical way to get the data out to other pages. --Enodoc (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
To follow up:
"The Zone pages are set up as a mirror to the Antiquities display in-game, and therefore require all of the information that you would find there, including the codex, difficulty, quality, type, etc. Pulling that off various pages such as Antiquity Furnishings and Antique Maps for transclusion into different zone pages is an transclusion nightmare (like Crown Store), and isn't practical."
Ok, I get that and I agree that codex should live on Zones. If pulling codex info from a different page is a transclusion nightmare, what about the reverse? If other pages pull codex from Zones into them - or is that still a nightmare. Do you see any value in the Antiquity Furnishings page?
"The Furnishings pages must have a useful Source link which goes directly to information about the Antiquity, not just to a generic page about Leads. The most flexible solution remains to have separate pages for each Antiquity, because that is the most practical way to get the data out to other pages."
I'd much rather there not be a link at all and just present the Lead information in the table itself. Can't that be done without having a separate page for each? And by separate page - do you mean like the furniture images with game data written into them? --Jimeee (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

() I realized I won't have much energy left for Antiquities pages, so I didn't follow this discussion very closely and haven't a detailled opionen on several aspects mentioned here. I like how Antiquity Leads or Ancestral High Elf Style don't mix codex information with other stuff. Codex information is important for Lore interested people, but if I just want to know about other information, I don't want to have to filter out all that text. I don't think that having to follow a link is bad user experience - it gives me the choice whether I want detailled information instead of forcing it upon me. But that's just some personal preferences, I wanted to say a bit about seperate furnishing pages.

As already mentioned on Online talk:Furnishings and encouraged by discord discussion, I want to move each furnishing item onto it's own page (traditional infobox style, asking a bot to do the brunt of the work) - once I'm done with the bulk of adding furnishing from Greymoor. Among other things it will give us the room to put other stuff like codex entries on those pages. If we still want to have a "Antiquity Furnishings" page, I probably would move info onto the seperate pages and pull them onto the "Antiquity Furnishings" page - but that's a technical thing. And having just "Lead" as source for furnishing now is a temporary thing, till Antiquity documentation has settled enough to decide for better links - or probably just include lead info at the furnishing pages. --Alfwyn (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Pulling from multiple pages into multiple different pages is a nightmare whichever way around it goes. The value I see in the Antiquity Furnishings page is as a list of where to find the leads for all Antiquities that are Funishings; i.e., an extension of the Antiquity Leads page which may get too long if it was all there. Yes, a separate page would be to write the data into like we currently do with furniture images (or, shortly, furniture pages). --Enodoc (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)