Editing Template talk:Appearances

{{Talkheader}}
==Categories==
As everyone is probably aware, we had based this entirely on Wookieepedia's template with almost no modification but obviously it should be adapted to the ''Assassin's Creed'' universe. For example, I was wondering if we should just merge "creatures" and "sapient species" into "species". For one thing, the only two sapient species in ''Assassin's Creed'' are Isu and humans. For another thing, this precise terminology may be a bit awkward for ''Assassin's Creed'' fans. ''Star Wars'' makes a point of ''misusing'' the term "sentient species" to mean "sapient species" and always referring to non-sapient species as "creatures" not "animals".

Apart from this, I am wondering if we should distinguish between geographical locations and political locations. While editing the appearance box for ''Assassin's Creed: Dynasty'', it felt a bit imprecise to list all the locations in China under "China" rather than the actual name of the country at the time, the Tang. So I was confused about this. And yet then again, I also listed geographical locations like mountains which were within Tang territory, so within a state, political and physical geography maybe can blur.

By the way, I noticed that sometimes we list the planet Earth (again, after ''Star Wars'' practice), but I would argue we should just omit Earth since essentially all ''Assassin's Creed'' settings have been on Earth, so it basically cancels out. It would also remove a level of indentation.

Finally, I want us to consider what other ways we should reorganize our categories for this to tune it to ''Assassin's Creed''. For instance, there is a miscellaneous category, but could we group some things that would go under there into another category? [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
:Honestly I have always felt this section unnecessary given our use of the navbox at the bottom of the page covering all the important elements much more succinctly imo. [[User:Lacrossedeamon|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon|talk]]) 04:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
::Agree with Lacrosse on this. [[User:XOdeyssusx|XOdeyssusx]] ([[User talk:XOdeyssusx|talk]]) 04:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
:::The appearances section for media articles was introduced at the same time as the same section for in-universe articles, but we only ever made partial efforts in implementing it. I am not sure if the navigation boxes fulfill all the functions of having an appearances section for media pages because the navigation boxes are not comprehensive and contain within them probably less than 1/100 of the subjects that do appear in a source. This section may be helpful for editors and readers trying to identify all the subjects that have appeared in a source or what has or has not appeared in the source. Certainly, it has proven incredibly useful for me on Wookieepedia, but I do not know how much benefit it could provide for ''Assassin's Creed'' and whether it is necessary. For the latest games, I can imagine that it could be too challenging for us to make the lists complete although it might also be helpful for readers wanting to have a ready-made list of ''everything'' in those games. So I am 60/40 on this. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 07:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I would also add that I do fear that the appearance section for media pages would be too overbearing to really work on, but I also disagree that the navigation boxes have been succinct. I almost never rely on navigation boxes anymore precisely because I think they've become too messy and inconsistent, but this is more a problem with updating our formatting standards of navigation boxes and our criteria for inclusion in them. But we should settle all this quickly because I think the half-implement section in media pages look really unprofessional. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 07:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
:I personally have always found these types of appearances sections incredibly helpful, especially on the Wookipedia. It's my go to section on a media page there. The main reason I haven't been using them as much on the AC Wiki is because they are not complete. That however for me, is more an incentive to complete them than to remove them. I do not agree with Lacrosse that the templates at the bottom are anywhere near a good replacement, as they only cover a tiny fraction of the things in a game. It contains a very limited number of subjects, and to me it always felt like we're deciding for someone else what they must deem an important part of the game. I'm fine with how they currently are, with it not containing more subjects to keep it tidy and uncluttered, but that does mean that to me it's not (meant as) a replacement for this template. Someone could be more interested in the animals, or all the locations, or something else not covered in there, instead of the Isu or just the main/most important characters. I have several friends who don't care at all for the modern parts (Animus, Abstergo, Layla, etc) nor the Isu parts of the series. Just trying to put things into perspective/give food for thought.

:To get a good view of what a game contains, whether you're there for weapons, animals or characters, there is no real replacement as of yet. Pages are neatly split in the categories to keep things organized, which is great and I love it and would keep it that way. But it does however not make it a great source for complete views of certain things, especially when things are split per region, country of birth etc (aside from the Animals category). It is however a great source if you just want a list of Norsemen, but not if you want a list of all characters in one specific game. For me, a complete appearances section on for example a dlc page would be incredibly useful. So you can quickly see what the dlc precisely adds.

:As for the merging of sapient species and creatures, i'm all for it. With just two types of sapient species it doesn't really warrant separate headers and the terminology does indeed sound a a bit too Star Wars-like and a not enough Assassin's Creed-like. As for the re-grouping, that's a bigger step that would require more deliberating on my part before I can answer that. [[User:Kennyannydenny|Kennyannydenny]] ([[User talk:Kennyannydenny|talk]]) 11:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
::I was actually just about to say that we could remove the section in one week from all media pages due to incomplete implementation but keep around the template to be revisited at a later time or to be continued to be worked on behind-the-scenes, but if Kenny is making a case for its retention, then I think we can consider reworking it now instead. Maybe Odey and Lacrosse can provide some more arguments about its removal?
::The section definitely needs to be adapted to ''Assassin's Creed''. Apart from merging "sapient species" and "creatures", I want to ask if we would like to divide "weapons" from "technology" and maybe also make a separate category for "armor" or "equipment" ''or'' have "weapons" and "armor" under the category "equipment". Other categories might be resources, cultural works, Animus-related concepts, and maybe there should be a specific section for Isu things. I think perhaps we should have a quota for how many categories we can have. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
:::We could move the lists to a user name space for the time being, removing them from the media pages for now, until we are able to complete them/rework them in a way that's agreeable by everyone. I don't mind if it's in my user name space (editable by everyone of course). I've been working on the appearances section of AC Valhalla last year, giving it a major expand. I don't mind trying to make it a complete list. But we'll have to get a set of good pre-defined sections we can use as a blueprint/template (for lack of better words).

:::If we do split weapons and technology, and then add an Isu related section, were would draw the line? For example Isu tech, like the Apples of Eden. Would that go under technology or Isu? I don't think both would be the right answer imho. We could just make tech all tech except Isu tech. Same goes for characters. Would Juno go under Isu or characters? Characters could just become non-Isu characters (so gods that aren't confirmed as Isu yet would go under characters and the rest under the Isu section).

:::As for the question related to Equipment, what would be counted as part of that? And were would the line be drawn with the separated technology? Just food for thought, I don't have the answer myself (yet). [[User:Kennyannydenny|Kennyannydenny]] ([[User talk:Kennyannydenny|talk]]) 21:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
::::You're right about the overlaps that would arise from an "Isu" category. For "equipment" or "armor", I was just considering that there tend to be a lot more focus on gear in ''Assassin's Creed'' than in ''Star Wars'' due to its nature as a game, so they might be more significant to set apart from other technology. But again, you're right about overlaps. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 02:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
::::If we must keep these I agree with Sly on the discord that we do it as a subpage of the media similar to how we do gallery pages. But I still think it’s going to become an unwieldy mess. Every location and point of interest all the way down to specific buildings, every single piece of armor and weapon, every species of plant animal and fungus, every holiday/festival, every quest item that gets its own article, every written work that doesn’t fall under the Viking era notes, and even conceptual things like assassinations and fyrds or ranks like jarl or ealdorman. And if we are setting a quota how is that any different than what we already do with the navboxes, arbitrarily deciding what we deem as most important?[[User:Lacrossedeamon|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon|talk]]) 01:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
For clarification for everyone who weren't present for comments on this made by our Fandom representative, SlyCooperFan1, he expressed concern about how these extensive lists could affect the SEO ranking of the pages. That is why Sly suggested moving appearances to subpages tied to their corresponding articles.

Regarding quotas, you misunderstand Lacrosse. I was referring to a quota for how many categories (e.g. "characters", "locations", "weapons") for the appearances box, not quota on how many items in the list.

I think a rebuttal you can use is that open-world RPGs like ''Origins'', ''Odyssey'', and ''Valhalla'' could be way too much compared to the older ''Assassin's Creed'' games, novels, or the ''Star Wars'' films. It often works out with ''Star Wars'' because it is a massive, sprawling franchise that needs content to be organized and yet the lists do not become too excessive relative to the need for content organization on most pages. But when we take a glance at ''Star Wars''{{'}}s one, currently active open-world MMORPG, ''[[w:c:starwars:Star_Wars:_The_Old_Republic#Appearances|Star Wars: The Old Republic]]'', then yes, it might be too much. For pages on the early games, spin-off games, or individual comic book chapters, like those in ''Dynasty'', it would be pretty useful. For the RPGs, I can admit that it is disputable. 

I can attest to the fact that at this very moment, it would be useful for me as an editor if we already had such a comprehensive and complete list for ''Assassin's Creed'' and ''Assassin's Creed II'', so I can keep precise track of every article from those two sources I need to review, rewrite, or create. There are many articles from those times that have long lain forgotten and are missing even from the navigation boxes and which are desperately in need of updates to conform with our in-universe writing policy and a lore-based direction. Of course, I could just try to create a checklist as a user subpage for my own use, but if it had already been there and organized by categories, it would be so much easier. Moreover, the appearances section helps editors track the real-world chronology of subjects across sources. In my experience, it can be incredibly useful when needing to do review and research on Wookieepedia. Navigation boxes are entirely useless in this way as a tool for editors.

In my opinion, the utility of this section for editors is unquestionable, but its utility for readers I am less certain about. So the main question is whether or not its utility for readers justifies the work of creating these sections.

My current stance right now is that I think I do prefer Kenny's compromise of removing the section from all articles while we continue to work on them and evaluate them behind-the-scenes. I think this is low on our list of priorities to work on. I am even considering that we can try to complete some appearance boxes on user subpages first, to test their feasibility, and not import them back to the actual pages if they aren't completed and determined to be beneficial. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 02:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
:Want to add that the issue of the list being way too unwieldy was indeed raised years ago on the [[w:c:starwars:Talk:Star_Wars: The_Old Republic|"''Star Wars: The Old Republic''" talk page]], along with the suggestion of moving it to a subpage. Thinking it over, if we do choose to retain this section, I would be open to using subpages after all (or perhaps only for the big RPGs) since we can organize the categories by their own section which could improve accessibility and readability. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 02:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not opposed to making them subpages like the gallery, sounds like a great option to me! Then it'll be there for people that would want to use them, but it won't hurt SEO. I agree that the lists of Origins/Oddysey/Valhalla might become extensive, but it would be weird to only make this lists for the older games, and completely remove them from these three due to the game containing 'too much'. Imho it could really be of value. I cannnot attest this for everyone of course, but for me personally I've always used such lists, also as a reader, not just as editor (I almost never edit on the Wookipedia but use the sections constantly).

::My suggestion is to move things to a user name space for now, work on it until it fits the views everyone has, and then move it to a subpage of the media article. That way we can keep things organized, whilst making it available for people that like to use them, without hurting SEO or having incomplete lists in the main space for long periods of times. [[User:Kennyannydenny|Kennyannydenny]] ([[User talk:Kennyannydenny|talk]]) 10:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)