Talk:Master List of Djinn

This page is not up to par with wiki standards, and feels like a Strategy Guide instead. Also, it doesn't talk about which Djinn won't be in Isaac's possession if you didn't transfer, and doesn't even discuss the possibility of finding Djinn in special areas if you didn't transfer every last one of them from the first game. Marandahir 16:31, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Renovation needed?
Two reasons for renovating - for starters, this list looks very bad, as mentioned above. However, I believe plans were also mentioned in another discussion page about making this a list where each djinn in the whole series is listed once and only once. Perhaps we could start a discussion on how the tables would look in such a list?

Personally, I could see it using the Name (with link to page), then GBA icon, then DD icon (both icons if applicable), the stat boosts, then use the short in-game description found in the games. I don't think those changed between games for the djinn that were shared, at least. This sound good, or does someone want to add something? Rolina 16:46, 12 August 2012 (CDT)


 * It sounds good, though I think the best way to discuss how it should look and appear is to put a draft of the table here on the talk page first. But there's definitely plenty of cases where a description like "Strike to reduce a foe's defense." is replaced with "Shatter a foe's defense with numbing cold.", and looking at the articles on the Djinn that appear between generations shows that. It'd have to be determined whether all Djinn sections in the table should actually have two description sections because of this, or if each Djinni with different descriptions lists both of them side-by-side in the same cell, or if only the most recent description for a given Djinni should be posted. Erik the Appreciator 17:59, 12 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Right now, we have a max of two descriptions for each djinni, but who's to say that won't change if/when the next game comes out? making this even trickier if we want to plan for the possible future. If you take that into account, I think I'd go with the most recent description. Another question I have is to the organization of the page. Shall we divide by type then list them in a numerical order of some kind? (when they first appeared perhaps) or maybe list them in alphabetical order. ~ dkpat 18:36, 12 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Bump. lol ~ dkpat 08:28, 19 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I do agree the description should only be the most recent one. For the Master List page, I sort of envisioned it would actually use all organization ideas and have several different lists of all the Djinn within their own segments of the page; there can be a section on all Djinn listed alphabetically, then a section with each element of Djinn in some sort of numerical order. But it occurs to me that all of these ideas can actually be achieved in one big "wikitable sortable" table like the one that's in the Character class page, where clicking on the column headers would allow you to sort alphabetically, by element, by GBA number, by Dark Dawn number... Erik the Appreciator 12:38, 19 August 2012 (CDT)
 * That's a good idea I think. Using a sortable table would allow the user to decide how they wanted it sorted. But It could get confusing with the two different numbering systems. We'll have to plan our columns pretty well. I'll set up a table below to play with ~ dkpat 18:19, 20 August 2012 (CDT)

Table
I've rearranged the table and split the stats to make it look like this. I figure any sortable table that includes Djinn statistics could only be good if the statistics themselves are sortable. The default ordering of all the Djinn data should probably be alphabetical. Erik the Appreciator 18:47, 20 August 2012 (CDT)


 * I added a column for offensive Djinn that shows how much extra damage they deal. I considered adding a field that actually describes the effect (as opposed to the in-game description), but this approach allows people to sort Djinn based on how strong they are (ignoring extra effects, of course). Of course, we could still add an effect column, but I was worried that would be redundant. By the way, should we include "first seen" and "last seen" fields? I don't know how practical they would be, but some people might want to know what game a Djinni first (or last) appeared in. The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 11:38, 21 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I dunno about any of that extra stuff. First of all, one can determine through sorting the game number fields which game it appeared in last. On the effects thing, I figure that the coverage of the table shouldn't be overly redundant with the coverage in the List of Elemental Djinn pages' tables, and that the damage thing is as much extra as we need to add. Besides, I figure that while this table would be the main attraction of this page, the page would also have a separate section underneath that includes what the page currently has in some form - a listing of which order the Djinn can be found when playing each game perfectly. Furthermore, it might benefit various browsers and reader screen resolutions that the table not be more wide than it already is - and hypothetically, for each future game, there would have to be one extra number column added to the table anyway. Erik the Appreciator 12:07, 21 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I have to agree with Erik pretty much entirely here. We have to keep the table moderately sized. On a screen with 1024 width, things can easily get scrunched. I think on the wiki, content gets like.. 800 pixels of space or something close to it. That can get filed up quick. lol I am glad Erik was thinking about trying to keep the current function on the page as well as I did find it useful, we've just gotta find a better way to present the information. ~ dkpat 18:05, 21 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Fair enough. I'll be the first to admit that not all of my ideas are good ones, and in retrospect having "first/last seen" columns when we also have "game order" columns would be rather redundant. However, I just recently thought of a way to add the effects without increasing the size of the table. We can always remove it if you guys still think the table would be better off without, but at least take a look first.
 * P.S. Even if we keep the effects in, I'd like to keep the damage column. For comparison and ease-of-use purposes. If we have to ditch it for space purposes, though, I understand. The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 22:09, 21 August 2012 (CDT)

That sounds alright to me, Hungry. As far as I am concerned, I suppose the table is... complete? ~ dkpat 11:48, 22 August 2012 (CDT)
 * The table, sure, but something else occurred to me: What DD numbers will we give to Isaac and Garet's "bonus Djinn"? I would think that we'd start counting after 72, meaning Sap would be 73, Ground would be 74, and so on until Kindle at 83. Or would we even give them DD numbers in the first place? The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 13:18, 22 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Speaking at the description conflicts, I personally suggest using the most up-to-date description. Another option I can see is using the description from their first appearance.  So, from either most recent game, or first game, which ever you guys like best.  That way, we keep it down to one description, and can easily handle new entries from additional games.  Since they link to their pages, you can very easily host all of the descriptions and encyclopedia entries there, while keeping this one simple. Rolina 14:01, 22 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I'd say the most recent description, which tends to be more actually descriptive. Now, I'd personally leave the guest Djinn of Dark Dawn without Dark Dawn numbers at all, because we're simply trying to convey what's official to each game; readers would be a little more likely to be confused if the guest Djinn have the same-looking numbers as all the Djinn you actually collect. One could possibly say that the guest Djinn might as well not be in the game because they have such an irrelevant gameplay role. The Dark Dawn directory template having that extra prologue row underneath is enough to show which ones make a tutorial comeo. By the way, rolling over the description for the effect is a neat idea. Erik the Appreciator 14:44, 22 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Okay, that makes sense. We can leave out the tutorial Djinn, but we still need to talk about how we're going to number the rest. It would appear that our current sample wouldn't even go up to 72! Flint is number one, obviously, but Bark is number 3 and Geyser is number 17. The problem is that Geyser isn't found until near the end of the game and Bark isn't found until after Rief joins, by which point most people would have more than 3 Djinn. However, I noticed that Bark is the third Venus DD Djinni, and Geyser is the 17th Mercury DD Djinni. I realize these are probably just placeholder numbers that aren't meant to be carried over to the final version. So, are we going to go by Djinn Guide order (Venus Djinn are 1-18, Mercury 19-36, etc.) or by the order they're collected in a "perfect" playthrough? Or does someone have a better idea? The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 10:59, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Hmm. What if each of the rows is colored corresponding to its element? Would having the colors make using a "17th Mercury Djinni" system more appealing to read than a "35th Djinni" system"? I figure the perfect-playthrough order is the purpose of the current list that would be at the bottom of the page anyway. Erik the Appreciator 12:32, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I like the sound of that idea. Aesthetics is a big things we'll need to keep in mind with the table, since one of the big reasons to overhaul the page is because of how ugly it looked before.  Visual Appeal is gonna be pretty important as a result, so whatever happens to be easiest on the eyes would be best.  Rolina 12:37, 23 August 2012 (CDT)  edit:  Hold on, when sorting by number, does the sort take images into account?  If you were to sort by DD number right now, likely all the first, second, third, etc would be grouped together... but if they were preceded by an elemental bullet, would that separate them by element as well, so that it'd sort by bullet name then by number?  I think that'd be a great idea, personally...  The soft elemental background would make it easily identifiable by element, and the bullet would allow people to sort by both element and number order at the same time... Rolina 12:41, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Bullets' syntax probably would count, though it seems like they would fit better right next to the element name than next to both the GBA and DD numbers. Now, I can't be sure right now, but I think that when one clicks a column header to sort column A and then column B, the sort for column A is still preserved even when the column B sort is newly applied, such as when you sort from lowest-to-highest Attack and then you sort by Element, each separated elemental section will have their sets of Attack ratings respectively sorted from lowest to highest. This should give the reader a lot of custom flexibility, so that if, say, they want to see which Mercury Djinn have the highest HP, they would click the HP, and then the Element. So I'm pretty sure you could sort the GBA and DD numbers by element even without having elemental bullets in those number columns. Erik the Appreciator 13:07, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Though, now that I think about it, maybe the same elemental bullet could be repeated three times throughout the Element, GBA number, and DD number columns anyway... Erik the Appreciator 13:10, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Unfortunately, when I test this out by putting the bullets in the number columns and I sort by DD number, the sort is not at all consistent - it's [venus] 1, then [mercury] 17, then [venus] 3. Erik the Appreciator 13:17, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * At one point, I had thought about elemental colors for rows. (one of my earlier comments alludes to it I believe) It is certainly possible, but it would take a bit of work I suppose. There is a few technical ways to go about doing so, I've got to sort through them and figure out which one I think would be best still though. Though this does remove the alternate shaded rows (as is now) which may make readability slightly less. ~ dkpat 13:54, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * So it makes sorting make no sense? Well that certainly sucks.  It's nice to know we can do multiple priorities with sorting, so if I can sort by number then element and get the same result, I'm fine with that.  As for elemental rows, I suggest lighter colors for the backgrounds, and the usual brown/blue/red/purple.  If it's good enough for the djinn bios/tables/whatever, then we should probably keep it consistent here.Rolina 15:40, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * But if implementing colors for these would be both difficult and potentially removes what I think is quite the useful feature with the alternate shaded rows, then it probably is best that we just keep the bullets next to the element names in the Element column; that's already quite visual. I think now there is enough information to create the table in the main page relatively safely. Erik the Appreciator 18:20, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * By the way, I found out that the reason for the odd ordering is that "17" is technically in between "1" and "2"; you'd have to change them to "01" and "02" in order for them to be before "17". But, with that being the case, that proves that the elemental bullets really are ignored when the system does alphabetical sorts. So anyway, the table that'll be put onto the page will be this:


 * Multiple priorities for sorting do appear to work, so I think that set of problems is solved. Erik the Appreciator 18:39, 23 August 2012 (CDT)


 * Whoa... You guys have been really chatty today. I have no objection to the colored bullets, but I still think we need a different numbering system. Maybe I'm the only one that feels that way, though, but just think about how many Djinn with the same number we'll have. I feel like it would cause too much trouble... The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 21:35, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I expect I'll have the full table put up within a few days. I also figure that not having a 1-72 numbering system would really only start being a concern if that multiple sorting priorities thing didn't exist to help matters... What we can predict for certain is that in each of the two number columns, there will be exactly four each of all of numbers 1-18, and that when you sort by those columns, you will get all four elements of number-18 Djinn grouped together right below all four elements of number-17 Djinn, and so on. Then, one just needs to sort the Elements row to separate Venus Djinn 1-18 from Mars Djinn, Jupiter Djinn, and Mercury Djinn 1-18 very cleanly. Erik the Appreciator 01:45, 24 August 2012 (CDT)
 * ...Unfortunately, it looks like we may end up having to go with your 1-72 numbering concept after all. What I'm finding out with the table I'm in the process of filling up is that there's some sort of bug/bizarre quirk where when you do that kind of multiple-sorting, like sorting the DD number lowest-to-highest and then sorting the element column lowest-to-highest (jupiter, mars, mercury, venus), only the Jupiter collection at the top will retain DD numbers in an appropriate low-to-high order - the other three elemental collections underneath the Jupiter rows have their DD number orders all jumbled. I've had this same sorting problem with the List of Moves at Bulbapedia, even though farther in the past it used to actually work with multiple sorts the way I had in mind. I'll probably have to put in all the 1-72 numbers myself. Erik the Appreciator 02:51, 24 August 2012 (CDT)
 * So was it decided to number DD djinn 1-72, going by element basically? ~ dkpat 12:46, 24 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I'm not really sure what organization we're using at this point. I still think that a 1-72 system would be best, but I don't know if we're going by element, by the current list, or whatever. And that's not even getting into GS1 vs TLA Djinn... The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 18:45, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

Renovating Current Page Functionality
Really long title but.. I think it will get the point across. So, how can we better organize the information that is currently presented on this page? We could probably use a table (or a few) for this as well. Any thoughts? ~ dkpat 20:24, 23 August 2012 (CDT)
 * When I put in the table, I'll just change all the headers into bolded sentences or something for starters, so that the table of contents is not very long and cluttered. Erik the Appreciator 01:45, 24 August 2012 (CDT)
 * I think as far as headers, We could have two 2nd level headings One for the above table, and one for this part. From there have a 3rd level heading for each game. However, we still need to find a better way to actually present this information I feel. Using lists isn't very organized. ~ dkpat 12:23, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

I can't think of any non-list approaches, but I did think of something else that could make the list less bulky. Is there any way to make portions of the list collapsible? If so, the collapsed list could show how many Djinn you should have at certain checkpoints, such as this: And the uncollapsed list would be closer to the current version. Now, I realize that we don't collapse things as often as some other wikis might, so maybe this is a little beyond us. Still, I thought I'd share the idea. The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 22:09, 25 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Start of Golden Sun: 0 [[File:Star venus.gif]] 0 [[File:Star mercury.gif]] 0 [[File:Star mars.gif]] 0 [[File:Star jupiter.gif]]
 * Bilibin Cave: 2 [[File:Star venus.gif]] 0 [[File:Star mercury.gif]] 1 [[File:Star mars.gif]] 2 [[File:Star jupiter.gif]]
 * Kolima Bridge: 2 [[File:Star venus.gif]] 2 [[File:Star mercury.gif]] 2 [[File:Star mars.gif]] 2 [[File:Star jupiter.gif]]
 * Lama Temple: 3 [[File:Star venus.gif]] 4 [[File:Star mercury.gif]] 3 [[File:Star mars.gif]] 3 [[File:Star jupiter.gif]]
 * Well, I'm here to say I am willing to figure it out if we want to do that :) and that I think I like it. ~ dkpat 23:43, 25 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Update, I'm going to look into this functionality tonight when I'm not at school. ~ dkpat 11:10, 31 August 2012 (CDT)