User talk:The Crimson Eagle - Revision history

Soranin: /* Weapon articles issues */

2026-05-11T15:01:57Z

Weapon articles issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 11 May 2026
Line 21:		Line 21:
	2) I might add here that I am firmly opposed to our practice of using articles that represent general categories titled in the plural. Part of this is because it's a bit arbitrary now. For example, we have [[firearms]] in the plural because users argue that it's a "group" as opposed to more specific weapons, but "pistols" can also be argued to be a group. As well, the distinction between what constitutes a group/category and what does not is purely a gameplay element—the examples brought up by one of the editors being [[mercenaries]]—and also we have extended this practice to many articles in general, a group or not, such as [[foxes]] and [[eagles]]. Moreover, anything can be "grouped".		2) I might add here that I am firmly opposed to our practice of using articles that represent general categories titled in the plural. Part of this is because it's a bit arbitrary now. For example, we have [[firearms]] in the plural because users argue that it's a "group" as opposed to more specific weapons, but "pistols" can also be argued to be a group. As well, the distinction between what constitutes a group/category and what does not is purely a gameplay element—the examples brought up by one of the editors being [[mercenaries]]—and also we have extended this practice to many articles in general, a group or not, such as [[foxes]] and [[eagles]]. Moreover, anything can be "grouped".

	Are maces general enough to be a group? What about long swords since there are several types? I think that it is arbitrary to say that "firearms" is 'groupey' enough to be in the plural, but more specific guns are not, such as pistols, even though there are more specific types of those as well. I think we should just go by Wikipedia or Wookieepedia's practice of not arbitrarily assigning each specific things as a tier in categorization (e.g. would tables be on the same tier as firearms?) that warrants pluralization. We originally had this practice to emulate the way of classification in ''Assassin's Creed'' games, but they are not consistent across all media. ''Unity'', for example, distinguishes "rifles" and "pistols" rather than having the category "firearms". Just like there is an article on [[w:c:starwars:blaster\|blaster]], articles on [[w:c:starwars:blaster rifle/Legends\|blaster rifle]] and [[w:c:starwars:blaster pistol/Legends\|blaster pistol]], and an article on [[w:c:starwars:DC-15A blaster rifle/Legends\|DC-15A blaster rifle]], not to mention an article on [[w:c:starwars:lightsaber\|lightsaber]], [[w:c:starwars:double-bladed lightsaber/Legends\|double-bladed lightsaber]], and [[w:c:starwars:Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber/Legends\|Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber]], we should just have an article on "firearm", an article on "pistol", and articles on specific models of pistols. We shouldn't feel like we have to have two exact tiers: a "group" one and an article on the specific model of a weapon in that group. This is too limiting for our articles to represent the reality and is not the practice of any academic source as far as I know.		Are maces general enough to be a group? What about long swords since there are several types? I think that it is arbitrary to say that "firearms" is 'groupey' enough to be in the plural, but more specific guns are not, such as pistols, even though there are more specific types of those as well. I think we should just go by Wikipedia or Wookieepedia's practice of not arbitrarily assigning each specific things as a tier in categorization (e.g. would tables be on the same tier as firearms?) that warrants pluralization. We originally had this practice to emulate the way of classification in ''Assassin's Creed'' games, but they are not consistent across all media. ''Unity'', for example, distinguishes "rifles" and "pistols" rather than having the category "firearms". Just like there is an article on [w:c:starwars:blaster\|blaster]], articles on [w:c:starwars:blaster rifle/Legends\|blaster rifle]] and [w:c:starwars:blaster pistol/Legends\|blaster pistol]], and an article on [w:c:starwars:DC-15A blaster rifle/Legends\|DC-15A blaster rifle]], not to mention an article on [w:c:starwars:lightsaber\|lightsaber]], [w:c:starwars:double-bladed lightsaber/Legends\|double-bladed lightsaber]], and [w:c:starwars:Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber/Legends\|Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber]], we should just have an article on "firearm", an article on "pistol", and articles on specific models of pistols. We shouldn't feel like we have to have two exact tiers: a "group" one and an article on the specific model of a weapon in that group. This is too limiting for our articles to represent the reality and is not the practice of any academic source as far as I know.

	These are the first two issues off the top of my head. I think there are more though. [[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> 05:50, August 11, 2017 (UTC)		These are the first two issues off the top of my head. I think there are more though. [[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> 05:50, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Soranin: Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

2026-05-10T17:54:37Z

Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 10 May 2026
Line 92:		Line 92:
	==Dates?==		==Dates?==
	What do you mean, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:		What do you mean, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:
	Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)		Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

	:I confused Septimius with Flavius. That's all. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 20:01, October 6, 2018 (UTC)		:I confused Septimius with Flavius. That's all. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 20:01, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

imported>The Crimson Eagle: /* Dates? */

2018-10-06T20:01:14Z

Dates?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 6 October 2018
Line 93:		Line 93:
	What do you mean, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:		What do you mean, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:
	Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)		Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

			:I confused Septimius with Flavius. That's all. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 20:01, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

imported>Sadelyrate: /* Dates? */

2018-10-06T19:55:28Z

Dates?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 6 October 2018
Line 91:		Line 91:

	==Dates?==		==Dates?==
	What do you, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:		What do you mean, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:
	Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)		Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

imported>Sadelyrate at 19:55, 6 October 2018

2018-10-06T19:55:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 6 October 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{User:The Crimson Eagle/net}}		{{User:The Crimson Eagle/net}}

	{{User talk:The Crimson Eagle/Archive}}		{{User talk:The Crimson Eagle/Archive}}

Line 20:		Line 19:
	A compromise might be to have both articles on the weapon in general and articles on specific models of weapons, so [[Spear]] in general and [[Spear (Unity)]]. This would resolve the confusion over how at this point, it would probably be better to have an article about pistols or flintlock pistols in general, but then flintlock pistols of different games are different models. (I personally find that the article firearms is simply too broad).		A compromise might be to have both articles on the weapon in general and articles on specific models of weapons, so [[Spear]] in general and [[Spear (Unity)]]. This would resolve the confusion over how at this point, it would probably be better to have an article about pistols or flintlock pistols in general, but then flintlock pistols of different games are different models. (I personally find that the article firearms is simply too broad).

	2) I might add here that I am firmly opposed to our practice of using articles that represent general categories titled in the plural. Part of this is because it's a bit arbitrary now. For example, we have [[firearms]] in the plural because users argue that it's a "group" as opposed to more specific weapons, but "pistols" can also be argued to be a group. As well, the distinction between what constitutes a group/category and what does not is purely a gameplay element—the examples brought up by one of the editors being [[mercenaries]]—and also we have extended this practice to many articles in general, a group or not, such as [[foxes]] and [[eagles]]. Moreover, anything can be "grouped".		2) I might add here that I am firmly opposed to our practice of using articles that represent general categories titled in the plural. Part of this is because it's a bit arbitrary now. For example, we have [[firearms]] in the plural because users argue that it's a "group" as opposed to more specific weapons, but "pistols" can also be argued to be a group. As well, the distinction between what constitutes a group/category and what does not is purely a gameplay element—the examples brought up by one of the editors being [[mercenaries]]—and also we have extended this practice to many articles in general, a group or not, such as [[foxes]] and [[eagles]]. Moreover, anything can be "grouped".

	Are maces general enough to be a group? What about long swords since there are several types? I think that it is arbitrary to say that "firearms" is 'groupey' enough to be in the plural, but more specific guns are not, such as pistols, even though there are more specific types of those as well. I think we should just go by Wikipedia or Wookieepedia's practice of not arbitrarily assigning each specific things as a tier in categorization (e.g. would tables be on the same tier as firearms?) that warrants pluralization. We originally had this practice to emulate the way of classification in ''Assassin's Creed'' games, but they are not consistent across all media. ''Unity'', for example, distinguishes "rifles" and "pistols" rather than having the category "firearms". Just like there is an article on [[w:c:starwars:blaster\|blaster]], articles on [[w:c:starwars:blaster rifle/Legends\|blaster rifle]] and [[w:c:starwars:blaster pistol/Legends\|blaster pistol]], and an article on [[w:c:starwars:DC-15A blaster rifle/Legends\|DC-15A blaster rifle]], not to mention an article on [[w:c:starwars:lightsaber\|lightsaber]], [[w:c:starwars:double-bladed lightsaber/Legends\|double-bladed lightsaber]], and [[w:c:starwars:Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber/Legends\|Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber]], we should just have an article on "firearm", an article on "pistol", and articles on specific models of pistols. We shouldn't feel like we have to have two exact tiers: a "group" one and an article on the specific model of a weapon in that group. This is too limiting for our articles to represent the reality and is not the practice of any academic source as far as I know.		Are maces general enough to be a group? What about long swords since there are several types? I think that it is arbitrary to say that "firearms" is 'groupey' enough to be in the plural, but more specific guns are not, such as pistols, even though there are more specific types of those as well. I think we should just go by Wikipedia or Wookieepedia's practice of not arbitrarily assigning each specific things as a tier in categorization (e.g. would tables be on the same tier as firearms?) that warrants pluralization. We originally had this practice to emulate the way of classification in ''Assassin's Creed'' games, but they are not consistent across all media. ''Unity'', for example, distinguishes "rifles" and "pistols" rather than having the category "firearms". Just like there is an article on [[w:c:starwars:blaster\|blaster]], articles on [[w:c:starwars:blaster rifle/Legends\|blaster rifle]] and [[w:c:starwars:blaster pistol/Legends\|blaster pistol]], and an article on [[w:c:starwars:DC-15A blaster rifle/Legends\|DC-15A blaster rifle]], not to mention an article on [[w:c:starwars:lightsaber\|lightsaber]], [[w:c:starwars:double-bladed lightsaber/Legends\|double-bladed lightsaber]], and [[w:c:starwars:Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber/Legends\|Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber]], we should just have an article on "firearm", an article on "pistol", and articles on specific models of pistols. We shouldn't feel like we have to have two exact tiers: a "group" one and an article on the specific model of a weapon in that group. This is too limiting for our articles to represent the reality and is not the practice of any academic source as far as I know.
Line 91:		Line 90:
	:That's all well and good, but if Kassandra is the canonical protagonist of the events of ''Odyssey'' (and she is) then that's what we've got to stick with. For the sake of writing, if nothing else. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:44, October 1, 2018 (UTC)		:That's all well and good, but if Kassandra is the canonical protagonist of the events of ''Odyssey'' (and she is) then that's what we've got to stick with. For the sake of writing, if nothing else. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:44, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

			==Dates?==
	What do you, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:		What do you, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:
	Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)		Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

imported>Sadelyrate at 19:54, 6 October 2018

2018-10-06T19:54:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 6 October 2018
Line 90:		Line 90:

	:That's all well and good, but if Kassandra is the canonical protagonist of the events of ''Odyssey'' (and she is) then that's what we've got to stick with. For the sake of writing, if nothing else. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:44, October 1, 2018 (UTC)		:That's all well and good, but if Kassandra is the canonical protagonist of the events of ''Odyssey'' (and she is) then that's what we've got to stick with. For the sake of writing, if nothing else. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:44, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

			What do you, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of [[Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another]]:
			Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

imported>The Crimson Eagle at 14:44, 1 October 2018

2018-10-01T14:44:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 1 October 2018
Line 87:		Line 87:
	Alexios and Kassandra should have equal respect when it comes to story.		Alexios and Kassandra should have equal respect when it comes to story.

	I did research into Greek history and there is no historical records of female heroines except for gods, not even demi-gods, in spartan culture the only way a woman could be given a headstone when she died was to die during childbirth because that was her dying in service to the state and the only reason women had a vote in spartan culture was to give there house a vote cause there husbands were away fighting wars. In Athenian culture women had no rights they could not vote, go to plays, or speak without the permission of men, women in all greek cultures were not allowed to compete in or even attend Olympics games. So it just doesn’t fit well to me yet when you go onto Assassin’s Creed Wikia they refuse to acknowledge any of this and say the developers have said that Kassandra is the Canonical Character because she’s the person that is being followed in the book yet when you look at many other novelizations they have followed other people other then the characters you played like Blackbeard, Haytham Kenway, Elise de La Serre, and Henry Greene so i dont see her being the canonical character as a good reason to wipe Alexios completly from being the main character in the game. So I feel what ever information you guys add to Kassandra's page it should also be added to Alexios' page for both to be seen as the main character.		I did research into Greek history and there is no historical records of female heroines except for gods, not even demi-gods, in spartan culture the only way a woman could be given a headstone when she died was to die during childbirth because that was her dying in service to the state and the only reason women had a vote in spartan culture was to give there house a vote cause there husbands were away fighting wars. In Athenian culture women had no rights they could not vote, go to plays, or speak without the permission of men, women in all greek cultures were not allowed to compete in or even attend Olympics games. So it just doesn’t fit well to me yet when you go onto Assassin’s Creed Wikia they refuse to acknowledge any of this and say the developers have said that Kassandra is the Canonical Character because she’s the person that is being followed in the book yet when you look at many other novelizations they have followed other people other then the characters you played like Blackbeard, Haytham Kenway, Elise de La Serre, and Henry Greene so i dont see her being the canonical character as a good reason to wipe Alexios completly from being the main character in the game. So I feel what ever information you guys add to Kassandra's page it should also be added to Alexios' page for both to be seen as the main character. {{Unsigned\|AndyC89}}

			:That's all well and good, but if Kassandra is the canonical protagonist of the events of ''Odyssey'' (and she is) then that's what we've got to stick with. For the sake of writing, if nothing else. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:44, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

imported>AndyC89: /* Alexios and Kassandra Equal */ new section

2018-10-01T02:05:32Z

Alexios and Kassandra Equal: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 1 October 2018
Line 82:		Line 82:

	I actually didn't dislike ''Unity'' too much. I think my negative feelings at launch were due to the fact that it was quite messy at launch, and series fatigue. Since I took two years away from the series before sitting down and playing the game properly, I think it was easier for me to enjoy. It has its problems, for sure, but it's not a completely awful game. As for ''Syndicate'', I suppose I'll just have to wait and see; I might actually enjoy it, and it's mostly the subreddit that is making me feel uneasy about it. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 15:18, August 15, 2017 (UTC)		I actually didn't dislike ''Unity'' too much. I think my negative feelings at launch were due to the fact that it was quite messy at launch, and series fatigue. Since I took two years away from the series before sitting down and playing the game properly, I think it was easier for me to enjoy. It has its problems, for sure, but it's not a completely awful game. As for ''Syndicate'', I suppose I'll just have to wait and see; I might actually enjoy it, and it's mostly the subreddit that is making me feel uneasy about it. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 15:18, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

			== Alexios and Kassandra Equal ==

			Alexios and Kassandra should have equal respect when it comes to story.

			I did research into Greek history and there is no historical records of female heroines except for gods, not even demi-gods, in spartan culture the only way a woman could be given a headstone when she died was to die during childbirth because that was her dying in service to the state and the only reason women had a vote in spartan culture was to give there house a vote cause there husbands were away fighting wars. In Athenian culture women had no rights they could not vote, go to plays, or speak without the permission of men, women in all greek cultures were not allowed to compete in or even attend Olympics games. So it just doesn’t fit well to me yet when you go onto Assassin’s Creed Wikia they refuse to acknowledge any of this and say the developers have said that Kassandra is the Canonical Character because she’s the person that is being followed in the book yet when you look at many other novelizations they have followed other people other then the characters you played like Blackbeard, Haytham Kenway, Elise de La Serre, and Henry Greene so i dont see her being the canonical character as a good reason to wipe Alexios completly from being the main character in the game. So I feel what ever information you guys add to Kassandra's page it should also be added to Alexios' page for both to be seen as the main character.

imported>The Crimson Eagle: /* Weapon articles issues */

2017-08-31T18:18:43Z

Weapon articles issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 31 August 2017
Line 68:		Line 68:

	:That looks good to me. And yeah, I think using asterisks might be more accurate. I'm sure casual readers will be able to understand it, so it shouldn't be an issue. Excellent work; this is something I wasn't able to figure out myself (though admittedly I hadn't tried very hard). --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:18, August 28, 2017 (UTC)		:That looks good to me. And yeah, I think using asterisks might be more accurate. I'm sure casual readers will be able to understand it, so it shouldn't be an issue. Excellent work; this is something I wasn't able to figure out myself (though admittedly I hadn't tried very hard). --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:18, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

	::There's actually an issue that complicates matters. According to the tutorial entry, the maximum score is out of 6. However, when you look at the meters, its clear that 4 is the midpoint. Furthermore, what is supposedly the max score of 6 is twice the size as the score for 4. What is supposedly the score of 5 seems to be two steps up from 4 compared to the distance between scores of 3 and 4 or 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Since in the main game, there are no weapons that have scores of 5/8 or 7/8, with level 5 weapons jumping in stats from 4/8 to 6/8 and 8/8, I surmise that they decided to just say 6/8 = 5/6 and 8/8 = 6/6 even though the meter does not reflect that. Their error is more apparent when the ''Dead Kings'' DLC ''does'' actually have weapons with stats of 5/8 and 7/8 if you count the progression of points, but taking the tutorial entry by its word, it would mean that these weapons actually have stats of 4.5/6 and 5.5/6 even though its clear from looking at the size of each advance in the meter that it's actually 5/8 and 7/8. In other words, the tutorial entry is wrong. There's clearly 8 points in the meters. This is all so confusing, and I thought that we should explain it, so initially, I actually explained it in a note for the weapons, as can be seen [http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/index.php?title=Ceremonial_long_mace&diff=704961&oldid=704960 here]. However, I'm afraid that might be too pedantic, so I removed it. I'm not sure if it's necessary to explain, but if readers somehow knew from the game manual that the maximum score is actually said to be 6 not 8, they might be confused. I think that cutting down the explanation won't make it clear enough though. [[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> 23:11, August 28, 2017 (UTC)		::There's actually an issue that complicates matters. According to the tutorial entry, the maximum score is out of 6. However, when you look at the meters, its clear that 4 is the midpoint. Furthermore, what is supposedly the max score of 6 is twice the size as the score for 4. What is supposedly the score of 5 seems to be two steps up from 4 compared to the distance between scores of 3 and 4 or 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Since in the main game, there are no weapons that have scores of 5/8 or 7/8, with level 5 weapons jumping in stats from 4/8 to 6/8 and 8/8, I surmise that they decided to just say 6/8 = 5/6 and 8/8 = 6/6 even though the meter does not reflect that. Their error is more apparent when the ''Dead Kings'' DLC ''does'' actually have weapons with stats of 5/8 and 7/8 if you count the progression of points, but taking the tutorial entry by its word, it would mean that these weapons actually have stats of 4.5/6 and 5.5/6 even though its clear from looking at the size of each advance in the meter that it's actually 5/8 and 7/8. In other words, the tutorial entry is wrong. There's clearly 8 points in the meters. This is all so confusing, and I thought that we should explain it, so initially, I actually explained it in a note for the weapons, as can be seen [http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/index.php?title=Ceremonial_long_mace&diff=704961&oldid=704960 here]. However, I'm afraid that might be too pedantic, so I removed it. I'm not sure if it's necessary to explain, but if readers somehow knew from the game manual that the maximum score is actually said to be 6 not 8, they might be confused. I think that cutting down the explanation won't make it clear enough though. [[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> 23:11, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

			Well, that's confusing, and annoying. In my opinion, we should just go by what the game tells us, and ignore what the game guide and tutorials tell us, if they contradict everything like this. --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 18:18, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

	== Games list ==		== Games list ==

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Weapon articles issues */

2017-08-28T23:11:40Z

Weapon articles issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 29 August 2017
Line 68:		Line 68:

	:That looks good to me. And yeah, I think using asterisks might be more accurate. I'm sure casual readers will be able to understand it, so it shouldn't be an issue. Excellent work; this is something I wasn't able to figure out myself (though admittedly I hadn't tried very hard). --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:18, August 28, 2017 (UTC)		:That looks good to me. And yeah, I think using asterisks might be more accurate. I'm sure casual readers will be able to understand it, so it shouldn't be an issue. Excellent work; this is something I wasn't able to figure out myself (though admittedly I hadn't tried very hard). --{{User:The Crimson Eagle/sig}} 14:18, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
			::There's actually an issue that complicates matters. According to the tutorial entry, the maximum score is out of 6. However, when you look at the meters, its clear that 4 is the midpoint. Furthermore, what is supposedly the max score of 6 is twice the size as the score for 4. What is supposedly the score of 5 seems to be two steps up from 4 compared to the distance between scores of 3 and 4 or 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Since in the main game, there are no weapons that have scores of 5/8 or 7/8, with level 5 weapons jumping in stats from 4/8 to 6/8 and 8/8, I surmise that they decided to just say 6/8 = 5/6 and 8/8 = 6/6 even though the meter does not reflect that. Their error is more apparent when the ''Dead Kings'' DLC ''does'' actually have weapons with stats of 5/8 and 7/8 if you count the progression of points, but taking the tutorial entry by its word, it would mean that these weapons actually have stats of 4.5/6 and 5.5/6 even though its clear from looking at the size of each advance in the meter that it's actually 5/8 and 7/8. In other words, the tutorial entry is wrong. There's clearly 8 points in the meters. This is all so confusing, and I thought that we should explain it, so initially, I actually explained it in a note for the weapons, as can be seen [http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/index.php?title=Ceremonial_long_mace&diff=704961&oldid=704960 here]. However, I'm afraid that might be too pedantic, so I removed it. I'm not sure if it's necessary to explain, but if readers somehow knew from the game manual that the maximum score is actually said to be 6 not 8, they might be confused. I think that cutting down the explanation won't make it clear enough though. [[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> 23:11, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

	== Games list ==		== Games list ==