Mass Effect Wiki
Mass Effect Wiki

This is the talk page for Codex.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.


Codex entries are to be kept pristine. That means NO information added or taken away from their entries on the in-game Codex. Once these entries are given links, any further edits WILL be rolled back. Please save your points of interest and insightful, useful edits for related non-Codex articles where they'll be safe, because I don't want to have to undo people's hard work.

--Tullis 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Links from other articles[]

How do we want to handle linking to this Codex info from existing articles? I don't want to overwrite existing articles, as a lot of them - mainly the asari and turian articles - have had their transcribed Codex info expanded with additional material. But people should know this is here. Most pages that rely heavily on the Codex have a link to it at the bottom under Sources, but do we maybe need a more prominent link as well? --Tullis 08:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like it's necessary to have the text of the Codex entry/entries on a certain topic on its page verbatim... I'm all for paraphrasing and the like, but straight repetition doesn't seem necessary. While transcribing yesterday, I came across the Mass accelerator page, which ATM is just the codex entry on it. Not sure whether we'd want to Stub it and see about expanding, or just delete it. Regardless, I'd bet there are others in the same boat.
As for your initial question (how to link to the codex entries), I'd say we should make the Codex link a bit more prominent. Looking at the Turian article, it's way down at the bottom as a reference. IMHO, it should be somewhere up near the top ("for the Turian Codex entries, please see link"). There's surely a better way to fit it in / word it, but food for thought. Now back to Virmire. BTW, hope it wasn't too presumptuous of me to add the section heading... just wanna be able to keep this neat, for when there gets to be more on here. Hezekiah957 20:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, my instinct is to redirect where possible and leave delete as a last resort. Codex info should definitely be here, but I want editors to feel free to add information, links, points of interest and trivia to articles as well, not feeling they have to leave out something interesting or relevant because they want to keep the Codex entry pristine. Yeah, I was initially going to add something along those lines under the opening paragraphs for the alien races, but I wanted to open it up to debate before I did anything. --Tullis 20:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We could go with {{see}} and/or {{main}} near the article start. My personal aesthetic preference is for placing these between the (hopefully brief) introduction and the TOC. I am strongly in favour of keeping the Codex text itself pristine, to provide an obvious editorial distinction between "official" and "commentary". (Likewise planet descriptions, survey texts, etc.) I also strongly prefer, in general, that information not be duplicated so as to reduce maintenance burden. Accordingly, I think that substantial quotes of the Codex text ought simply to be linked. If an existing page consists of only Codex text, it should probably be redirected (or deleted if it has no links-here and does not serve as a useful search result). -- DRY 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What if... we could add a line similar to the QuickNavBar template to the top of each race's page, with links for their codex info? That would ameliorate the problem for the main race articles. (I agree with you, DRY: my preference is also to keep links like that between opening paragraph and TOC.) As for articles like Citadel space and Mass accelerator, maybe redirecting is the way to go. --Tullis 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've whipped up Template:QuickRaceBar as a starting point for discussion. Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? Feel free to modify as desired. -- DRY 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ME2 Codex?[]

A lot of the entries in the Mass Effect 2 Codex are exactly the same as their ME1 counterparts, but it appears right now that the Codex only covers ME1 entries. Will we be merging ME2 Codex entries onto this page or creating a seperate ME2 Codex page?

At the moment, we're hoping to avoid needing to split the page and hopefully the high degree of overlap will make this simpler. Most likely the page will be broken into two sections. (This also reduces the odds of breaking any incoming anchored links.) --DRY 17:10, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that for whatever reason BioWare decided to "downgrade" some ME1 codex entries--eg. the Keepers are a narrated Primary entry in ME1 but despite having the exact same text in ME2 are in the unnarrated Secondary entries. Not sure if that would have an effect on classifing the entries, though. 06:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. That sort of thing does complicate things a little, but once we've got the full ME2 codex, we'll try to get it sorted. --DRY 06:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
What should be done if codex entries are in both ME2 and ME, but they differ? I'm thinking in particular about the one for Dreadnoughts, which give the number of dreadnoughts and the names of Earth ones. Between the 2 games, the turians constructed 2, the asari lost 1, and the humans had finished construction of 2 more. —Seburo 02:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Post both entries, making it clear that one is from ME and the other from ME2. SpartHawg948 02:39, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd go with "Mass Effect" and "Mass Effect 2" sub-sections. --DRY 02:44, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's possible to plant a little symbol next to an entry to indicate if it's an ME1, an ME2 or an ME1&ME2 entry. --ShardofTruth 11:39, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
That also has merit. Someone could try it out with the icons from the spoiler banners. --DRY 16:43, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Surprised nobody mentioned it, but here's a proposal for making the page have four sections instead of two. Mass Effect Primary, Mass Effect Secondary, Mass Effect 2 Primary, Mass Effect 2 Secondary. This is just an organizational feature, without actually modifying the articles themselves. E.G. You would get:

==Mass Effect Primary Codex Entries

and further below

==Mass Effect 2 Primary Codex Entries

==Mass Effect 2 Secondary Codex Entries

(Earth and First Contact War were moved to Secondary in ME2, while Systems Alliance seems to be missing completely). The links wouldn't be modified, just the way they are set on this page. Perj 11:58, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

And this conversation was concluded over seven months ago so why bring it up again. The Codex has already been made and updated with ME2 info and I see absolutly no reason to create double the articles for something that works well now. Lancer1289 12:38, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

You wouldnt create double the articles, just type in more links on this page, links which would actually point to the same article. Check out the example, both "Earth" entries link to the same article, they're just organized differently (primary/secondary). Would be a 10 minute job modifying the page. I'm sorry but it doesnt work quite that well, you need to make it clear which is ME codex and which is the ME2 codex. Someone (like me) trying to get an accurate look of what Codex entries should be in the game (ME2) can't really say which is which. Because the wiki articles themselves are just copies of the Codex itself (and no other editing is permited), and it doesnt really say anywhere else whether the entry was deleted/moved/belongs to ME1 or ME2. Been looking all over my Codex for Military Ship Classifications or the Human Diplomatic Relations entries, they've been there in the first game, now they're gone. There's a bunch of stuff deleted or moved in the second game (like the huge "player tutorials" entry with 13 articles, both entries from the DLCs, and more). I see no reason for removing the Region:Terminus Systems entry, since ME2 actually takes place in the Terminus. Or taking out the main Systems Alliance entry, while leaving Rise of the Alliance in there. But hey, I didnt make the game, I'm just playing it. Perj 19:20, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to add more links and eventually wind up duplicating information? I see no reason to modify the Codex and none of these are good reasons to take much longer than 10 mintues to modify each article and basically duplicate information and adding many unncessary links. Lancer1289 19:38, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no reason for this either. Seems like there will be a lot of redundancy, as there are many entries common to both games, and the only accurate way to do it would be to put all entries that appear in each game in the section for that game, which would lead to a lot of duplicates. SpartHawg948 04:36, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Unused Codex Entries ME2[]

When looking at the related videos for a recent link for an argument, I stumbled across this. It contains four primary narriated Codex entries for Thermal Clips, the M-920 Cain, the M-100 Grenade Launcher, and the drell. I just thought I'd share this as it is interesting why they weren't included. Future DLC perhaps. Lancer1289 23:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so that's where the bit about thermal clips holding a bunch of heat sinks came from. Interesting. Nice find. -- Dammej (talk) 23:10, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So yeah... I can conceivably see at least one of those entries needlessly re-opening an old debate, so I just want to point out that, as cut content, these entries are not canon. Info they contain that does line up with in-game content is fine, but any info that conflicts with in-game material is not canon, and as such, not valid for article content. Meaning that, since the thermal clip entry linked here conflicts with the in-game description and Codex entry, the in-game entry is the one we accept. SpartHawg948 23:12, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't meaning to say that this upholds any sort of argument about the Thermal Clip being a feed for heat sinks, just that there was actually a reason for this to be speculated, instead of it coming out of thin air. I agree that this does not trump the Codex entry as it's currently stated. -- Dammej (talk) 23:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I know, I was just trying to get that word of caution out before anyone who wanted to re-open the debate seized it and said 'See! I was right!' Hence my desire to get that up before anyone commented on the thermal clips. Trying to nip it in the bud. SpartHawg948 23:15, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x3)Yes it was a good find. However since this may open an old debate, I have to say this. As these entries are cut content, they aren't considered canon. That said, much does match the information we already have, but anthing that doesn't isn't considred canon, and some of it, mainly the Thermal Clip entry, does conflict with the info we have, which is confirmed, so it isn't canon. Lancer1289 23:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
And Spart said exaclty what I was going to anyway. Oh well, good that we share opinions. Lancer1289 23:18, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I must have misinterpreted you edit summary then. Still, it's a very interesting bit of info. I wonder what made them choose one system over the other... -- Dammej (talk) 23:19, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Can't we at least create a "Codex/Cut Entries" page and transcribe these? It's a crying shame to see these Codex entries and those unused Galactic News reports go to waste. We do have articles for other cut material. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd guess that it was their desire to make ammunition an issue. If you just pop in a thermal clip and then it keeps feeding new heat sinks into the weapon by itself, you aren't constantly looking for ammo. On the other hand, if you have to eject the thermal clip every time and pop a new one in, you become much more ammo-conscious. The cut version honestly doesn't sound much different from the system in the first game, while the version that made it into the game is radically different. SpartHawg948 23:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

As to the issue of creating a page for them, I'd object to a Codex/Cut content page, as attaching it to the Codex seems (to me at least) to give these items an air of canonicity that they do not deserve, as they are not canon. I wouldn't be averse to creating a 'Cut Content' page though (or something similarly titled) and putting them there. SpartHawg948 23:25, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that having it as Codex/Cut Content would be a problem because we can list it at the bottom of the page and have a note both there and at the top of the page saying these aren't canon. Along with that cut content template. Otherwise I can't think of what to call the article. Lancer1289 23:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
If it can't be "Codex/Cut Content", I was thinking something along the lines of "Mass Effect 2 Cut Content", a general page where we could put the Codex entries, the Galactic News reports, and link to the cut locations we have articles for. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:30, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well I was looking for a better alternative. Lancer1289 23:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I like the sound of "Mass Effect 2 Cut Content". The problem with doing it as part of the Codex and just putting notices is that we all know how well those notices work, whether we're talking embedded text, or actual notices on the page. SpartHawg948 23:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Very true, although we haven't had an edit about Kasumi and G0-T0 for a while now. They don't work no matter how many times we try, so I also like the "Mass Effect 2 Cut Content" Article as well. Lancer1289 23:37, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'll get started on it then. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:39, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was a Kasumi/G0-T0 edit five days ago. I don't know about you, but anything less than a week ago doesn't count as "hasn't happened for a while now". :P SpartHawg948 23:40, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I thought it had been longer than that, oh well, a long 5 days then. Lancer1289 23:58, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Can either of you listen to the video starting at 2:45, there's a sentence which goes "M-100 proponents counter that the weapon has a fifty-year track record in reliably accepting ???? ammo, processed via..." and so on. I can't understand the word that comes before "ammo" in that sentence. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:19, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's kludge. SpartHawg948 00:21, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a word I've never seen before. Thanks. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Audio Commentary[]

How about adding the audio commmentaries to the the Primary Codex entries. I would be glad to record some of them and put them up.--CodeMyster003 00:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

There could be something to that idea. Any chance I could trouble you for a sample? It may be nice, as there are some minor differences between the spoken and written entries for a few things, but it all comes down to the quality of the recording. SpartHawg948 00:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Very neat idea. I can actually just extract the files straight from the game, so there's no worry about having loss of quality due to recording. Not to mention the time savings involved. I'll see if I can get a sample up here in a sec. -- Dammej (talk) 01:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Here's the entry on Tuchanka:
I wonder how wikia handles audio file links... hmm. -- Dammej (talk) 01:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Extracting the files from the game sounds like the best idea. I only have th 360 version and planned on recording it from my laptop. I think if it was done as above it would be very neat.CodeMyster003 03:06, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Entering this a little late, but I would also have to agree it comes down the the quality, but I can see this as a good feature. We'll just have work it out a little more. Lancer1289 03:11, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Also don't forget there are some different Primary Codex Entries, so you will need to get both. Lancer1289 03:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I've got them all extracted (Actually I had them all extracted when I posted that sample), so all that remains is to upload them and put them in the codex articles somehow. I'd really like to embed the audio alongside the codex entry so someone can see a "click here to play this entry" button and play it, rather than having to be brought to a different page. I'm running into an annoying problem though, which I'm hoping someone else can confirm is happening: Can someone with Internet Explorer tell me how the "play" button looks for the sample entry I posted above? -- Dammej (talk) 22:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think that how you put it in that sanbox page you made was cool. SoulRipper 22:57, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Well that's not finished. :) I'm still toying with it. I hit a wall with IE though, so I'll ask again if people can tell me what the play button looks like for them on IE. It's right above the little "i" icon. -- Dammej (talk) 23:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
It loos like a big green box, or at least to me it does. Lancer1289 23:48, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. I shake my fist impotently at wikia! I think I can fix that with some CSS as a temporary solution, but really, wikia needs to fix that huge bug themselves. It doesn't happen on wikipedia, so I don't know why the heck it happens on wikia sites. Sigh. :\ -- Dammej (talk) 00:11, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it looks very nice on Firefox and Chrome so I don't know why IE like to mess with things. Especially things that look good on other browsers. Lancer1289 00:18, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, and the sound quality is good, although I did have some significant and aggravating issues getting it to play, which Dammej has been informed of. SpartHawg948 05:58, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Looks nice thats what I had in mind :), but might I suggest if possible that instead on it being within the text it be put underneath the the pic for each entry.CodeMyster003 01:08, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I've tried it out a couple of ways in my sandbox. Check out User:Dammej/Sandbox/Codex Audio. The entry on Aeia has the audio for Tuchanka below the image, and the entry for Tuchanka has the audio for Tuchanka on the right-hand side, seperate from the image. I think there are merits to both styles, so I'll leave them both up to get input from the couple of interested parties here, before making a project proposal in full (including templates). Thoughts? -- Dammej (talk) 18:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to puruse this further, then may I please suggest a new Project Forum page. It will be easier to keep track of everything there. Just a suggestion. Lancer1289 18:29, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
The form exemplified by Aeia looks better and is more intuitive. Although, is there any legal or formal concern for such long audio extractions? --AnotherRho 18:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
It's a very good question. I am in no way a lawyer, nor am I expertly familiar with copyright law, so there should be a healthy serving of salt taken with my comments. It seems to me that the fair use exception to copyright is subject to much interpretation. Fair use only protects usages of copyright material up to the point where the original authors of the work won't be adversely damaged by the "infringing" use of the material. Screenshots certainly qualify. They're a very very tiny portion of the game, which can't by themselves easily replace the value of the copyrighted material (playing the game). Codex audio is a bit trickier, but I think we're still ok. The only justification I have for this is that neither BioWare nor EA have been particularly diligent in taking down videos from youtube that show entire playthroughs of Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2, so they clearly aren't very concerned with the potential damages to their IP that these videos have. I would put the Codex audio in the same category as a youtube video, personally. You also have to consider that we already have their entire Codex transcribed here... the audio won't be particularly more "damaging" to BioWare than just the written words.
As I said, this isn't an expertly informed opinion, though. But I think that we'll be ok. I won't put up much of a fight if people think that we're crossing that gray line into piracy by making the audio of the Codex available, but my opinion on the matter is that we're not. :) -- Dammej (talk) 19:04, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that we have actual BioWare devs and people from BioWare here before, and something tells me that they check on sites like this regularly. As to my knowledge, we haven't been asked to take down the Codex, or any of the pictures. I can also see the Codex as much more troublesome than the audio and or screenshots, considering they are copied directly from the game, and in any of my classes, that would be plagiarism and grounds for both an F in the class and possible expulsion. Since there are full walkthroughs of most BioWare, and quite a number of EA games on YouTube and on sites, I really don't think they care that much about the videos or screenshots. Free advertising anyone?
However, while the game may be owned by BioWare, the audio isn't from someone in the company, and they may hold rights. To that however, there have been videos with full Codex entries on YouTube, and those have yet to be taken down. My thinking is that they aren't concerned because they probably know that it will happen, one way or the other, so they accept it. Some Video Game companies are very adamant about no videos or screenshots outside of certain sites. Also I think they take efforts to take down walkthroughs, whether they be in video or text format. While they can't stop wikis, they try to cut down on independent sources. EA or BioWare don't do things like that, or at least as far as I know. So I would also think that we should be alright. If not, I'm sure we will know. Lancer1289 19:18, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
These arguments are all fine by me. Everything on this wiki is obviously credited, and its use is all for the sake of encouraging or improving the gameplay of potential or actual owners of the game (and no one earns money for the work done here, etc.). I asked about the audio in particular because it involves a voice actor; the issues involving actors can be rather different from quoting text or reusing bites of sound/music. In any case, none of the quotes, nor even the audio, is/would be plagiarism because nothing is passed off as the work of anyone but the original writer(s) or speaker. Asked just to check others' views. Lancer is probably right, that if anyone with rights objects, they will and should let the admins know, sooner or later.
That being said, I reiterate that the Aeia example in D's sandbox is neater and more intuitively arranged (if more work is done on this project). AnotherRho 19:50, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree I don't think Bioware or EA would have issues with the Codex audios being on the Wiki. I am rather active on the Bioware forums and be glad to asked them if this is an issue. Also regarding on the different styles of displaying the audio, I really like the Aeia one.CodeMyster003 02:44, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

The audio has been added to the primary entries now. Enjoy! -- Dammej (talk) 22:36, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

It looks (and "sounds") AWESOME!!! Nice job!!! SoulRipper 22:54, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yay I'm glad to see my idea become reality. I knew those with more experience could get this done. Thanks.--CodeMyster003 19:38, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Noting discrepancies between text and audio[]

I understand and agree that codex entries should quote that game text verbatim. However, in cases where there is a discrepancy between text and audio, it seems like a note is warranted. Thoughts? Blindman25 15:51, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

No because it isn't from the entry, therefore is irrelevant. We already have ways of dealing with this noted on the main Codex page and in the MoS. That is just unnecessary clutter. Lancer1289 15:59, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

More guidelines for listing entries?[]

I was under the impression that if a primary entry is reused as secondary entry in a latter game, it won't be added again here. This is the case with most of the race articles, for example "Keepers" is primary in ME, secondary in ME2 and again primary in ME3. It's not the case with these:

  • "Collectors": Primary in ME2, secondary in ME3. The only difference is the spelling of the Omega-4 (Omega 4) mass relay.
  • "Computers: Artificial Intelligence (AI)" and "Computers: Virtual Intelligence (VI)": Both primary in ME, but secondary in ME2 & ME3.
  • "Body Armor", "Kinetic Barriers ("Shields")", "Mass Accelerators" and "Small Arms": All primary in ME but secondary in ME2 & ME3.

Then there are some case where a entry changes in a completely different category but is also repeated:

  • "Varren" primary entry in ME, moved to secondary in ME2 (not repeated here), and completely changed category in ME3.
  • "Vehicles: Combat Drones" in ME is the same as "Drones" in ME2.
  • "Krogan: Genophage" is a secondary entry in ME and ME2, but primary and called "The Genophage" in ME3.
  • "The Yahg" from the ME2 Shadow Broker DLC moved to another secondary category in ME3 and is called "Yahg" there.

The most problematic category would be "The Reapers" in ME3:

  • "Harbinger": already a secondary entry in ME2, text changed
  • "The Reapers": already a primary entry in ME2, a new paragraph is added
  • "Sovereign": primary entry in ME1 and ME2 both in different categories, text is different in every game
  • "Indoctrination": already a primary entry in ME2, text stays the same
  • "Husks": primary entry in ME1, is moved to secondary in ME2, text changed only in ME3.

Entries that changed categories but are not repeated are "Stations: Gagarin Station" and "Gagarin Station ("Jump Zero")" for example or "Medi-Gel" which is primary in ME & ME2, but changed category in ME3 and is redirected from there.

So I'm wondering if the guildlines could be updated to reflect what should be done with these borderline cases. There is also the possibility to change the whole concept of course, because since ME2 this page doesn't represent any ingame codex anymore. --ShardofTruth 12:16, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

It was only a misunderstanding of biblical proportions. --ShardofTruth 00:50, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Codex entries[]

The Datapad app seems to have several codex entries that aren't currently listed on the wiki's Codex. All of the entries were cut from ME2 and can be found here. Should these be added to the main codex seeing as they were officially released?

A.Bomb.Bill (talk) 18:23, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

If it is listed in the game Codex, it is listed here. If it isn't, then it isn't listed here. It is that simple. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:27, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
That's a little odd considering someone can use the apps Codex entry to add information to a page but the codex itself can't be added. A.Bomb.Bill (talk) 19:30, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
And one more question, the Codex entries I just added Palaven and Menae were actually from Mass Effect 3's codex, not the app. So why were they removed? A.Bomb.Bill (talk) 19:36, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
There are no Codex entries for Palaven or Menae in any of my save files post-Priority: Palaven (the mission I assume where the entries would unlock). The only explanations I can think of are that you have a different version of ME3 than Lancer and I do (we play on Xbox 360, but have little or no experience with the PC, PS3 or Wii U versions) which has some sort of discrepancy in the Codex, or you did something in your game to unlock those entries that we have somehow never discovered in all of our playthroughs.
If you can confirm the details (platform, game progress, and possibly a summary of how and when these specific entries unlocked for you), and other users can verify the entries in their games, then we can add them here. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:08, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
I have it on the PC and the save I used to find those two entries was from after Priority: Citadel II. I really have no idea when they unlocked for me. On the talk page for Codex/Planets and Locations someone had the same issue you and Lancer did. You could try starting a game without using an imported character like he did. Here are a couple of screenshots I used to copy over the entries from the game if that helps. EDIT: I took a look at my original playthrough of Mass Effect 3 and it has the same issue that you two had. So I'm guessing at some point they released a patch that fixed it. A.Bomb.Bill (talk) 22:35, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
this IS interesting. i'm the PC guy here and i saw those codex entries on all my games. just checked now. import and nonimport alike, newest to oldest. patch 1.4, checked on post-palaven saves. and if i recall correctly, i've been seeing them as early as march-april last year.
never noticed any of those are missing on here, i just assumed someone copypasted it months ago. uploaded the extracted proof and it's up to consensus if we should add them or not. no mods, honest. :> T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:30, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

In that case, these entries should be added here. If they're accessible in other versions of ME3, they're definitely not cut material and need to be included. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:13, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. I'd still like to know why the Datapads codex entries can be used as a source but, the codex itself can't be here? A.Bomb.Bill (talk) 20:53, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Wii U exclusive codex entry[] This video walkthrough shows that M597 has its own codex entry. Does anyone consider adding it to Codex section of this site? 07:06, February 25, 2013 (UTC) Thorus

Citadel DLC[]

Has anyone checked if there are codex entries for the citadel DLC? I am sure there are a few things in there that waren't a codex entry ingame.

If there had been new things, then they would have most likely been noticed by now. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:41, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Missing audio for ME3 primary entries[]

Is anyone working on adding these and if so when will they be up -- 16:36, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Missing audio entries for Codex/Known Associates[]

Lately it's come to my attention that the page Codex/Known Associates still has no audio files. Can anyone help put them in please? --MarkRulez711 (talk) 14:11, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Added the audio for this section, also went through and added a few that were missing in other sections too. CodeMyster003 (talk) 23:09, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Anderson/ Udina Councilor Codex[]

There are two versions for Anderson and Udina on the Codex. One as Councilor, one as not. Any suggestions on how that should show up on the known associates section? And currently Udina is on the System Alliance section as well. CodeMyster003 (talk) 23:11, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

a codexentry box for each instance, of course. if you've extracted the audio from the source files themselves it should be relatively easy to find and identify the 4 different iterations. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:20, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

legendary edition codex changes[]

are mostly new pictures, notably something new about the protheans at least in ME1 LE.

an argument can thus be made for extending the codexentry template to accommodate the variations.

as of this writing though, the necessary modding tools are not yet out. early attempts at replacement with files that are obviously not direct rips will be dealt with swiftly. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)