Talk:Enigma

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

Animus perspective?

I know Sol is wary of this kind of language but what about writing from a more in universe animus perspective ie "Enigma" was an animus designation for a series of puzzle found and solved by Basim during his time in Baghdad and the surrounding areas in the early 860s. Otherwise we might as well merge this page with Papyrus Puzzles, Ainigmata Ostraka, Treasure Hoards, and possibly even the Nostradamus Enigmas. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing about this topic that involves bringing in the Animus at all. These are simply riddles scattered across Baghdad as part of a scavenger hunt. Our interpretations of the Animus aside, one of the issues with leading with "Animus designation" is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Writing as though the subject of the article is the word as opposed to the thing itself is supposed to be avoided as much as possible. I am open to a discussion on whether a merge with the riddles in other games is warranted though. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Well if we are going to do it this way, then I do think we should merge them as the only appreciable difference between the various iterations is the animus designation in my eyes. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean the name. And a more appreciable difference is the setting of each scavenger hunt set. So it depends whether we want all riddles in Baghdad to be merged with all riddles in Greece with all riddles in Egypt, etc. in one page. And I think the main question is just whether we think that is good for navigation and organization or not. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes the name which we are only told via the animus interface. But I disagree with the setting being that important to the topic like we have deer that occur in the US and deer that occur in England but they are still just deer. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

My point was that "Animus designation" is a term you came up with, and it's not necessarily the most natural-sounding term either. I want to avoid accidentally and prematurely popularizing another term that turns out to be a mistake again. From what I understand, you were just talking about the name/article titles "enigma" vs. "ainigmata ostraka" vs. "Papyrus puzzles", etc., so it came across as so extra to say otherwise. In this context of article organization and navigation, we're not even necessarily talking in-universe.

If you don't think setting is significant, I suppose you would want them all to be merged then? Personally, my concern is just ease of navigation, like whether the page would be too bloated, and the logic of organization. They're different riddle sets even if similar types of riddles. Nostradamus Enigma stands out as more distinct as well, and I wonder if it'd be confusing for readers searching for it specifically to have to come to an "enigma" page then scroll through it. The temptation to merge them all I think may be influenced by the generic name of the Baghdad riddle set being just "enigma". I think we could alternatively consider moving this to "Baghdad enigmas" or "Enigmas (Baghdad)". Pluralization can also be appropriate since it would be an article about a closed set of things. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean we are told that the menus represent how the animus appears in universe and haven’t been told that is no longer the case so I see “animus designation” as term I came up with insomuch as I’m applying the logic of the worldbuilding. And viewing them as closed sets can only be done via an animus or OOU perspective. Well the Nostradamus and Papyrus Puzzles can be seen as closed sets in universe but for the others “sets” there is nothing inherent that connects one with another in the same group. It’s not like we can say they were written by the same person or that all of them have been found. In light of this I don’t think using the phrase “animus designation” constitutes a violation of wiki as a dictionary. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The violation of Wikipedia as not a dictionary has to do with syntax. "An eagle is a bird" vs. "Eagle is a word for a species of bird". "A Hidden Blade is a weapon" vs. "Hidden Blade is a term for a type of weapon". "Enigma is a riddle" vs. "Enigma is an Animus designation for a riddle". Animus designation here is analogous to saying "Enigma is a term [used in the Animus] for a riddle". The subject isn't the word enigma. The prescription isn't absolute since there can be exceptions, but it's heavily discouraged and should be avoided whenever possible. And I mean "Animus designation" is awkward in that I really think there should be a more natural English way of referring to what you mean.

Nostradamus Enigmas would be a closed set, like Rifts and Clusters I think. Ainigmata ostraka, papyrus puzzles, and enigmas from Mirage not necessarily so. (The way we define papyrus puzzles in its page right now as what Bayek finds make it sound like a closed set, but the lede could've been written differently). But it could potentially be confusing organization for readers if we were to treat some of the games' puzzles as closed sets and others not. Saying that, I would be open to merging ainigmata ostraka, enigmas, and even papyrus puzzles together as much as it's not my current preference, but I think Nostradamus Enigmas should remain its own page. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said earlier I agree with Nostradamus Enigmas being separate since they can be argued to be a closed set outside of the Animus due to sharing an author and purpose. Likewise Papyrus Puzzles are different due to their completion of the set generates an in world event. The others, treasure hoards, enigmas, ostraka, don't have that and so can only be considered closed sets via the animus saying so. And I think the fact that it is the animus that tells us we have collected all in the set is important to the topic. As a compromise could we try formatting this similar to the Target menu page? Also for the record I don't find "animus designation" awkward at all but if you can think of a less clunky term I'm all ears. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've probably mentioned this before as well, but I think that leading an article topic by describing it as an "Animus designation" also makes it sound like its name is original or unique to the Animus. The claim is not technically or explicitly being made, but the implication is there and can be misleading to our audience. For example, describing "an enigma as an Animus designation" to me implies that we know that it wasn't also what Basim or the Baghdadi outside of the Animus called it. So even before coming up with a better term, I'm still opposed to approaching articles this way. If I had to, I wouldn't try to coin a standard term for it but to just describe it as what the Animus uses. I think "Animus designation" is awkward because it's wordy, unwieldy, and at the same time, I don't think someone unfamiliar with the term could necessarily understand what is meant by it, so it's unclear. While I don't mind helping you to come up with a less clunky term, I'm also putting this out there to encourage you to try as well. Again, I myself am opposed to inventing a new and specific term for this concept in the first place.

I actually don't remember what world event solving all the papyrus puzzles triggers, and our article doesn't seem to mention it. I think you do make an interesting point about how these sets can only be considered closed as collections in specific Animus sessions and that treating them as closed is important. At a glance, the target menu page looks really messy to me right now. I wouldn't feel comfortable going through with the merges unless others assent to it. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Papyrus Puzzle has it under the tab Mysterious Papyrus. It's a signed note generated when you solve the last one (before THO added new ones). My current idea for the page would be a very generic intro to the concept of puzzles, riddles, enigmas etc as a whole and then subsequent sections dealing how they are named, appear, and dealt with in each relevant animus session. As to the terminology, I'm not sure how a two word nominal phrase is wordy or unwieldy. I find it very concise and clear. Nor do I think of it as coining a new term I'm just being descriptive as succinctly as possible. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If we do do the merge, then I agree with you about how the lede should go. As I said, I won't support the merge unless there are more users giving their express approval for it, but you can ask around.

I just think there's a probably a better word for your meaning than designation. I mean you might as well say "Animus term" or something. It becomes coining a new term when you use it repeatedly until you're normalizing it as your standard way of referring to the concept everywhere. As a descriptive phrase, it's even more awkward and unclear in my opinion, inviting the questions "what is it designating" and "for what", making it easy to construe that the name is necessarily unique and original to the Animus, implies agency to the Animus, and implies an official status and common usage to the term—i.e. it kind of sounds like "Animus designation" would be a defined series of coded names or something, as opposed to just a term we see come up in certain Animus sessions. You might as well just say "term that has been used in some Animus sessions" or something, and it would actually be simpler and clearer. I understand we would have to agree to disagree regarding this. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll disagree with having it as any sort of Animus designation, theres nothing to really suggest or support that Basim didn't go around solving riddles from mysterious parchments in his spare time. But I'll also disagree with merging it with others. Gonna merge Treasure maps from AC4 and Rogue, Nostradamus Enigmas from Unity, Papyruses from Origins, and Ainigmata Ostraka from Odyssey cos they're all riddles/puzzles?? I'd say keep them all seperate, and all IU descriptions.VilkaIsBack (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Vilka here. As there is nothing defending the contrary, Basim did go around Baghdad solving the riddles. Besides, the Animus "term" for them is just what they are, just as Ainigmata Ostraka is a type of designation for a riddle in Odyssey. But instead of defining Enigma in its page as if it was a dictionary, I say that we put them simply as "riddles Basim solved during X time, etc."; and I would also go against merging all of them, since they differ in some cases. - TiagoFF (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is this idea coming from that I am arguing that Basim didn’t solve them? I’m just saying the full IU description would be to include that these puzzles are only ever referred to as “Enigma” in the animus interface and that should be noted in the article. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No to the merge, I'm fine with saying "Enigma" was a "term that has been used in some Animus sessions" for these little scavenger hunts Basim did. Or however better we phrase that. - Soranin (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)