Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20200504004330/@comment-4801149-20200504053501

I agree with the sentiment. We call them "Assassins" because it's appropriate given the context we have so far. But for the sake of maintaining objectivity and consistency in our writing, we ought to have official arbiters of canon—i.e. members of the Ubisoft writer's room—weigh in and provide guidance on what constitutes an Assassin or Templar. That way, if they choose to refer to this wiki in the future for developing their expanded materials—as they have in the past—there won't be any miscommunications. The current impression I'm getting is that they're simply deferring to the fanbase to sort out their canon for them, when it should be the other way around.

To add to that, I'm also not 100% on how we should characterize the Hidden Ones as "proper-organized-Assassins-by-an-earlier-name" if not with the proto- prefix. To my knowledge, no Hidden One ever referred to themselves as "Assassin," so where would the word come from to make a logical application in that time period? 1000 years later, during the events of Valhalla, did Eivor call themself an Assassin, a Hidden One, or something else? Were they even affiliated with the organization, or did they just pick up a Hidden Blade and start shivving, like Edward at first? From our future-looking-back perspective, calling them Assassins makes sense, but there may be more appropriate terms to use for that interim period, terms that can be introduced at any point during any future game at the writers' discretions. So, we ought to have the writing team clarify pre-Hidden One, post-Hidden One/pre-Assassin, and post-Assassin labeling, if they're inclined to provide clarification. Ditto the Order labeling.

As to the first point, it seems I did misread it, my apologies.

EDIT: It seems Cris replied while I was typing. I'll look through it now.