User talk:Ficboy
 Welcome to the Order, Ficboy! |
Welcome to the Assassin's Creed Wiki!
We hope you enjoy your stay, and we look forward to working with you! |
| Have you something to say? |
|
 We seek unity, stability and order. |
|
| We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors. Happy Editing! |
Multiple edits
Hello Ficboy,
I notice that you've edited the House of Wessex page a current total of 30 times within 2 hours of your creating it, and that most of the edits are relatively minimal in nature. While we appreciate your contributions, I'd like to remind you to that it is preferred for editors to have as thorough an edit as possible before publishing. Usually, edit spams would be considered a bannable offense as per our Policy's (linked above) Achievements subsection, but since your edits—while numerous—are ultimately useful to the page, I'm acting in good faith by giving a pre-emptive warning before Staff take notice. I see you're using the Source Editor, so that reduces the confusion the Visual Editor typically has for new users, but I still strongly advise you to please proofread your work before saving and posting here, and to properly source your work where/when you can, as outlined in our Policy's Sourcing section. Thank you. – Darman (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, I can't not have taken note of this, and Darman is right to take the initiative to notify you about this. We have a rule against excessive chain-edits because this can cause unnecessary clutter (i.e. spam) the feed and can also be indicative of badge-hunting. For this reason, it is strongly recommended for an editor to proofread their work before publishing. I myself frequently have a bad habit of forgetting to proofread (due to enthusiasm) or proofreading but still catching mistakes and ways to revise my work just after publishing. So I would definitely be lenient with a few minor edits to a page chained together, but thirty chain edits is way too much. If you were making major edits section by section, this also makes chain-edits more appropriate because sometimes editors want to work on sections one at a time throughout a day, but your long series of edits were all very minor. Please remember to consolidate your edits in the future together and plan fully ahead of time what you want to change in the page. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 03:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello again, Ficboy.
I see that you've recently made a number of multiple edits to pages that would have been better if they were done together in a more thorough, single edit, such as your 8 changes to the "Assassin's bureau" page within 10 minutes. I'd just like to remind you again to please proofread your work before publishing, and to minimize your chain-edits by writing your changes all at once when possible. Thank you. – Darman (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)- Ficboy, I do not wish to make a big deal out of this, but I must remind you yet again that we do have a rule against long chains of minor edits. Witnessing the ten that you made to "British Rite of the Templar Order" today, I was still on the fence about letting this slide. But pile that on with the fourteen to "Japanese Rite of the Templar Order, and it is really just too egregious. If you just have a bad habit of noticing more things to correct after publishing, I understand that because this happens to me a lot as well, but there is a limit to that excuse. At some point, you should be making the effort to scan the article for most of the changes you wish to make. When this is happening more than 9 times in a row in an article, it is hard to keep giving the benefit of the doubt that it's not deliberate. It is a matter of not spamming the system. I think that you have the potential to be a good contributor to the wiki, but rules are rules. Please make an effort to condense edits in the future, or we will have to start enforcing those rules. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Given your recent dozen edits to the British Templars page, even if the two main clusters are spaced 3 hours apart, I would just like to reiterate Sol's warning to you about chain-edits from a week ago, and note that if one absolutely had to do these edits individually, almost all of them should have been tagged as minor edits in the summary due to how little was changed; there's a small check box in the lower left corner when using the source editor that reads "This is a minor edit". Thank you. – Darman (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ficboy, I do not wish to make a big deal out of this, but I must remind you yet again that we do have a rule against long chains of minor edits. Witnessing the ten that you made to "British Rite of the Templar Order" today, I was still on the fence about letting this slide. But pile that on with the fourteen to "Japanese Rite of the Templar Order, and it is really just too egregious. If you just have a bad habit of noticing more things to correct after publishing, I understand that because this happens to me a lot as well, but there is a limit to that excuse. At some point, you should be making the effort to scan the article for most of the changes you wish to make. When this is happening more than 9 times in a row in an article, it is hard to keep giving the benefit of the doubt that it's not deliberate. It is a matter of not spamming the system. I think that you have the potential to be a good contributor to the wiki, but rules are rules. Please make an effort to condense edits in the future, or we will have to start enforcing those rules. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Assassin Order
Just checking, but you do know that "Assassin Order" is not wrong and is the way they referred to it on older titles, right? - Soranin (talk)
- Although, the Assassins are referred to as the "Assassin Brotherhood" and that's the official name. Therefore, we should at least use it for any Assassin-related articles - Ficboy (talk)
- Not necessarily. I get where you're coming from, but we don't have to change all usage of "Order" to "Brotherhood". Firstly, not only is using Order shorter, but it's also gender-neutral, allowing for the inclusion of women and other sexualities. Rebecca Crane herself bemoaned the all-male focus of the word "Brotherhood" in [Database: The Assassin Brotherhood]. The same applies to Templars / Templar Order, which I see you've also edited a number of times, but that group doesn't have such a gender focus in its name. – Darman (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, Brotherhood is within the name of the Assassins and we use it very frequently in almost all articles related to the group. Ficboy (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but Order and Brotherhood are interchangeable in their meanings. There is not one word that supersedes the other. Even the intro paragraphs for Assassins and Templars note the alternate name they had for themselves. We don't need to replace every instance of one word for the other if both are listed as possible titles for the same thing. – Darman (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see - Ficboy (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wanted to add to this, but Darman's response was great. I am uncomfortable with being too pedantic about using "Brotherhood" over "Order" because of the former not being gender-neutral. However, the other matter is that even though there is an implied retcon for "Assassin Brotherhood" over "Assassin Order" since we no longer see the latter used, there has never been an explicit statement on this matter. For all we know, "Assassin Order" is simply a more antiquated name that fell out of practice but is still viable. Finally, I think if you're citing to an older source which uses "Assassin Order" rather than "Assassin Brotherhood", depending how closely you're referencing it, it can be incorrect to change "Order" to "Brotherhood". Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify my previous comment, "Assassin Order" and "Assassin Brotherhood" are 100% interchangeable, but it's marginally better to use the variant as used in a source, not that it's downright incorrect to use the variant not used in the source. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see - Ficboy (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but Order and Brotherhood are interchangeable in their meanings. There is not one word that supersedes the other. Even the intro paragraphs for Assassins and Templars note the alternate name they had for themselves. We don't need to replace every instance of one word for the other if both are listed as possible titles for the same thing. – Darman (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, Brotherhood is within the name of the Assassins and we use it very frequently in almost all articles related to the group. Ficboy (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. I get where you're coming from, but we don't have to change all usage of "Order" to "Brotherhood". Firstly, not only is using Order shorter, but it's also gender-neutral, allowing for the inclusion of women and other sexualities. Rebecca Crane herself bemoaned the all-male focus of the word "Brotherhood" in [Database: The Assassin Brotherhood]. The same applies to Templars / Templar Order, which I see you've also edited a number of times, but that group doesn't have such a gender focus in its name. – Darman (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Timeline
Hey Ficboy, I saw your recent edits to the Timeline article. Please pay attention to the commentary I listed at the top of the page when editing the article. I incorporated several notes to ensure the article remains consistent. Namely, to keep the article in past tense. The rest of the article is in past tense, making the recent additions in present tense inconsistent. Additionally, when revamping the article I made sure to keep every bullet point short and concise, both to make everything easier to read as well as to not repeat the same in-depth information you can find on other articles. The Timeline article only needs to list the most important points, not the entire chain of events that led up to it or the motivations for said event. When doing this I made sure to never have the text for one bullet point exceed four lines, preferably three, as displayed within my browser. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 10:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Chain Edits
Hey Ficboy, just a reminder on what Sol Pacificus and Darman stated about excessive chain-edits in a span of a short amount of time, especially in regards to this recent edit you made. Please try to proof read your edits and condense them in at least 1 or 2 edits, because 10 edits in a span of half an hour is way too much. I really do appreciate your contributions and I don't wish to remind you again. XOdeyssusx (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Proto-Assassins
In regards to the individuals memorialized in the Sanctuary, like Wei Yu, Iltani, and Darius, the wiki community had an important discussion on this issue last year. We came to the conclusion that per strict sourcing policy, all the individuals so memorialized should continue to be referred to as Assassins, even those that predate the founding of the Hidden Ones by Bayek and Aya. Iltani, Darius, Wei Yu, Amunet, Qulan Gal, and Lucius are all referred to as Assassins in Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed Encyclopedia, to name a few canonical sources. No source ever refers to any of them as proto-Assassins even if it can be surmised that the former three are not properly called Assassins due to the retcon moving the founding of Assassins to 47 BCE. We are not at liberty to decide how we designate Iltani, Darius, and Wei Yu "proto-Assassins", a significant term, based on the implication of the retcon. Rather, sourcing policy dictates that we have to take both AC2 and Origins at face-value, meaning that Iltani, Darius, and Wei Yu were treated as Assassins long after their time despite predating the official founding of the Assassins. For more information, please refer to this forum thread: "Proto-Assassin vs. Assassin & Proto-Templar vs. Templar" Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)