Talk:Enigma

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

Animus perspective?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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