Talk:Enigma - Revision history

imported>Soranin: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-06T23:32:11Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 7 November 2023
Line 21:		Line 21:
	::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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk:TiagoFF\|talk]]) 14:57, 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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:12, 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-05T15:12:13Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 5 November 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:

	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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)		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. [[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> 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk:VilkaIsBack\|talk]]) 12:30, 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk:TiagoFF\|talk]]) 14:57, 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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>TiagoFF at 14:57, 5 November 2023

2023-11-05T14:57:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 5 November 2023
Line 19:		Line 19:
	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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)		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. [[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> 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk:VilkaIsBack\|talk]]) 12:30, 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk:TiagoFF\|talk]]) 14:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>VilkaIsBack: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-05T12:31:32Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 5 November 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:

	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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)		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. [[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> 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk:VilkaIsBack\|talk]]) 12:30, 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk:VilkaIsBack\|talk]]) 12:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>VilkaIsBack: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-05T12:30:56Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:30, 5 November 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:

	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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)		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. [[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> 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk:VilkaIsBack\|talk]]) 12:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-05T03:32:40Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:32, 5 November 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:
	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.		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, implies an official status to the ~~term, etc~~. 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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)		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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-05T03:31:35Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 5 November 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:::::::::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. [[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)		:::::::::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. [[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> 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:07, 4 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk: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, implies an official status to the term, etc. 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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon at 04:07, 4 November 2023

2023-11-04T04:07:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:07, 4 November 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	:::::::::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'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. [[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)		:::::::::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. [[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> 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-03T14:48:54Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 3 November 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	:::::::::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'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. [[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)		:::::::::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. [[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	[[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Animus perspective? */

2023-11-03T14:48:26Z

Animus perspective?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 3 November 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:::::::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. [[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> 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)		:::::::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. [[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> 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 05:14, 3 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk: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. [[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
			[[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 7 November 2023
Line 21:		Line 21:
	::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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk:TiagoFF\|talk]]) 14:57, 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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:12, 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 5 November 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:

	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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)		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. [[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> 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk:VilkaIsBack\|talk]]) 12:30, 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk:TiagoFF\|talk]]) 14:57, 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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 5 November 2023
Line 19:		Line 19:
	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. [[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> 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)		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. [[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> 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk:VilkaIsBack\|talk]]) 12:30, 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.[[User:VilkaIsBack\|VilkaIsBack]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:TiagoFF\|TiagoFF]] ([[User talk:TiagoFF\|talk]]) 14:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 3 November 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:::::::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. [[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> 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)		:::::::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. [[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> 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 05:14, 3 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. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk: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. [[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
			[[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> 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)