Welcome to Assassin's Creed Wiki! Log in and join the community.

Talk:Assassin's Creed: Initiates

From the Assassin's Creed Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Correct name[edit source]

Hello. I believe this article should be named Assassin's Creed Initiates, with no colon. Indeed, no spelling with colon is present on the site. At the same time, the full name without the colon can be interpreted as a sentence, this is to say, "AC starts". I think it makes sense.

Shall watch this page for some days in case anyone would will to discuss it. 93.175.12.199 00:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

People can also refer to Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed: Revelations as "Brotherhood" and "Revelations" in singular terms, but the games are officially listed with a colon. Also, given Ubisoft's track record of using a colon in the title of their games when not referring to numbered titles, and since Initiates isn't preceded with "Assassin's Creed" and no colon in its title, the article remains as "Assassin's Creed: Initiates".

If the time that the website is referred to without the colon by Ubisoft on an official scale, we will change the article title, but when it boils down to it, what difference does it make whether a colon is used? It doesn't change much. Slate Vesper (talk) 00:42, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Tense[edit source]

Why is everything in the past tense? Initiates still is around. It just began a little while ago. CryptoKiller (talk) 10:07, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Because past tense looks better. Slate Vesper (talk) 10:20, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Plus, it's better to do it now, than come back and reword the page later.

To be honest though, I'd prefer present-tense for pages like this.Crimson Knight Intercom 14:52, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Out of universe articles that still exist aren't written in past tense. And I don't see how it looks better. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 15:01, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the main body of the article, but I don't mind either way if the opening paragraph etc. remain as present tense. Slate Vesper (talk) 15:14, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Blockade order[edit source]

Not sure if it has any place on the page proper, but I (roughly) translated the blockade order from the 15th. It goes as follows:

State Police

Department of Public Safety

Central Directorate of State Police

Order of Mission


[Confidential]
Rome, 15/09/2012
To: ___________
From: ____________
Priority: High
Secrecy: Maximum
Objective: Establish a roadblock on SS1, exit SS223
Four individuals removed laboratory instruments and chemicals from _[Abstergo Industries]_, in _________. The individuals also seized the hard disk of a computer.
The suspects, two men and two women, were aged between twenty and thirty years. One of the men is approximately 1.80 m tall and weighs 88 kg and has brown/black hair. They are all serious suspects wanted for theft and industrial espionage.
The vehicle ________ at their disposal, a white van with no markings, make and model unknown, was spotted on the SS1 while traveling north towards Grosseto.
You have to set up a roadblock on the SS1 to intercept them. Take all necessary precautions: the suspects are armed and dangerous.

Enjoy. ShermTank7272 (talk) 18:00, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

On that note, should we include a translation of the blockade order on the page? ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 18:04, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

If we do, I'd prefer for someone who really knows Italian to polish off this translation. I fed it through Google and fixed some errors, but I still really only know as much Italian as Ezio speaks in the games. Also, what should we put for the censors? I put the blanks in and filled in what I assumed could only mean Abstergo for the first one, plus there were more censored parts below the body of the order. ShermTank7272 (talk) 18:09, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can refine the translation one way or another, I'm wondering what would be the appropriate formatting required when adding this to the article. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 18:13, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Hi. First off, thanks for the translation, Sherm. Next, as to where to include the translation, I'd suggest against the ACInitiates article mainly since it's pretty long as it is. I'd vote for putting it in an article for Grosseto (unstarted at this writing), which can have a section on the blockade order, as well as allow for expansion should that area be referenced further. As to formatting, something that encloses the translation (like that used for the phone transcripts) would seem ideal as it mirrors the bordered look of the document. I'd say go ahead and use Sherm's translation as it stands now; if it's in a separate article, any editing traffic due to amendments to the translation and formatting will be less of a problem. --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 22:54, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Layout[edit source]

Hello everyone! I was going through the page yesterday, and I noticed the ToC has gotten quite big. To fix this, I've taken the liberty of preparing a different format, which you can find here: Δ

As our wiki is community-oriented, I propose a vote between the two formats. Yay - New format, Nay - Current format. Please take a minute to review and compare the current format to the one I've come up with, and voice your opinion below.

Yay![edit source]

  1. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 00:52, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Crimson Knight Intercom 10:11, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  3. -- ACsenior (talk) 11:08, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  4. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 11:18, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  5. -- <choose><option>http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/prototype/images/thumb/4/4f/SigN1v.png/70px-SigN1v.png</option></choose> (<choose><option>http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120508142109/prototype/images/thumb/0/09/SigT1v.png/30px-SigT1v.png</option></choose> • <choose><option>http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120508142108/prototype/images/thumb/4/40/SigG1v.png/35px-SigG1v.png</option></choose>) 11:48, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  6. -- Slate Vesper (talk) 13:03, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  7. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 13:08, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Yay (though I expect we will revisit this later in the year when more info is made known.) :) -- ► Kaloneous ◄ ♣HelpDesk♣ 13:21, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
  9. I suppose I can approve. *votes nay instead* --Teller Words, On my Screen :O 13:49, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Nay![edit source]

Comments[edit source]

  • Also, provided we go with the format proposed, I would appreciated it if someone embedded the Initiates videos and added them to the appropriate sections. I would do it myself but I am currently unable to access Youtube. Thank you =) ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 02:35, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
    • As this page needs updating on a daily basis, the vote will only be open for the next two days. Thank you for your time! =) ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 00:52, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much Vatsa! I've updated Delta to include these. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 12:04, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
      • Another suggestion would be an infobox to pages like this. Project Legacy and so on could use one after all. Only a suggestion though. --Teller Words, On my Screen :O 13:49, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Voting closed. Thank you for your input everyone! ^-^
And Teller, I think that's a good idea, though I think we'd have to make a new infobox template for it. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 20:32, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

E-mails from "William M."[edit source]

Hi. I've read the theory that the "William M." in touch with Lucy is actually not William Miles, but someone else such as Warren Vidic. As workable a theory as it is, isn't this pure speculation at this point? If so, I wonder why it's stated as fact in the September 26 section. --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 04:26, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I was also wondering where people pulled that one from. I read it on here, then I went on to check Initiates itself. I can't find anything anywhere else suggesting this, and am gonna remove it now. After all, no speculation. Eggy2504 (talk) 15:43, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Or on the other hand, I won't, seeing as I can't work the template. Maybe someone else, who knows the wiki better, can sort it out? Eggy2504 (talk) 15:47, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Done. Who added that anyway? Also, I've left it as "William M." since Jeffery Yohalem himself said something was amiss about Lucy's e-mails. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 15:54, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I added that, as I had watched the podcast that included Jeffery Yohalem, though thanks for changing it back. I've since realised that it may not have been Vidic but someone else entirely that wasn't William Miles, though I can tell that by the wording of the e-mail, it's not William. Slate Vesper (talk) 14:34, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

We pretty much know it wasn't William for Lucy's e-mails, but should we say it was for the others? Also, for Lucy's mail, would it be okay to write "an individual posing as William Miles"? ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 14:38, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

If we do put it was someone posing in Lucy's e-mails, put the Jeffery Yohalem podcast as a reference perhaps. However, the timestamp for the other team members' e-mails that show William M. differ, so it's most probably him. Slate Vesper (talk) 14:44, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

So we say Lucy's William was an impostor, citing the podcast, and write the rest of them as William Miles. Anyone have any objections? Also Slate, if we go through with this, could you do that edit? I don't have a link to the podcast at the moment. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 14:48, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the podcast supports the assertion that the "William M." in Lucy's e-mails is someone posing as/trying to appear that they are William Miles. In the podcast, Jeffrey Yohalem is careful to say only this "... the William M.'s are not necessarily the same." I think the Wiki should be just as careful not to attribute any one interpretation of these words as if Jeffrey had said them himself. What Jeffrey said is simply that there are different people who go by the William M. name. To go beyond this and say that the other person's purpose was to impersonate/deceive is speculation. (For example, a hypothetical explanation that does not assume impersonation is that the other is a William Morse.) Whether an interpretation is highly plausible or not, if that's not what the source says then that interpretation is still 'original research' / 'unpublished synthesis' / speculation.
In my opinion, the safest course here is only to label the one corresponding with Lucy as "William M." (with quotes), as this already indicates that it may not be what it seems, without having to refer to a guessed intent. Further, we could also easily note the issue on the real-world side by including it in the Trivia section, even letting Jeffrey's quote speak for itself. --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 13:41, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well thought out statement Merc; William Morse never crossed my mind till now, and you've provided the best solution to this issue. Kudos to you =) ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 17:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Hey people,

It seems I'm missing something here : How can you infer that the e-mails to Shaun and Rebecca were not sent by the same person ? ( BEFORE it was confirmed ) 79.177.142.72 21:11, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure if I understand your question correctly, but the discussion about "William M." all stems from the podcast interview with Jeffrey Yohalem (link to the exact part of the clip in the article's Trivia section). Only Shaun and Lucy received e-mails from a "William M.' so I don't know what you're referring to in including Rebecca as a recipient. --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 02:57, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we definitely know Lucy's William isn't William Miles - who's on a tour of Europe at the moment. The last e-mail was at 8pm GMT and this William M. mentioned "just [getting] back from lunch." Judging from that, I'd place this "William M."'s location somewhere in America. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 04:59, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Updated image for Unmarked Hangar[edit source]

Hi. ACInitiates.com has an updated image for Unmarked Hangar (September 1) -- the third version so far. (Changes described in the Trivia section.) Requesting help from our admins if one of them could please:

1. Move/merge the 3rd version of the image (I've uploaded it here) to the 2nd version here. The intent is to preserve the version history, in the same way that the 1st version was already linked/archived with the 2nd version.

2. If possible, after doing the above, rename the file to ACi-UnmarkedHangar or ACi-TransferToRome or similar. The current name is Desmond-Initiates-Kidnapping.jpg, which refers to the name of a different Desmond File update with its own image (this one), and so is not ideal.

Of course, only if it's not too much to ask. :) Thanks! --Mercury McKinnon (talk) 20:04, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Lucy's gravestone[edit source]

Can anyone translate the writing on Lucy's gravestone?Ao-Persia (talk) 12:01, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

It's a poem from Elizabeth Jane Weston, Here it is in Latin : Audaciae culpam meae Gulielme, lenis accipe Sincera quod mens obtulit, Interpretere mitius.

And here is the translation : Kindly forgive the fault of my boldness, William: and interpret gently what a sincere mind has offered.

Darkvador250495 (talk) 11:16, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Linking to relevant articles[edit source]

I know the wiki policy is not having too many links in an article, but I believe that since this is a page where we "tab" the individual dates, I think we should include links to relevant articles in each tab (i.e. in the October 22nd entry, including a link to Vidic's and Daniel's article, even though they were mentioned earlier in the article, but the reader might not have the tab with their link open). Thoughts?

Forgot sig - ShermTank7272 (talk) 22:47, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Generally, we don't link to the same page more than once in an article. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 08:11, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers tag[edit source]

Hey guys as of now that Desmond has gained his consciousness and the rest of the story is probably the events of the AC3, I highly recommend that we put a spoiler tag on this page and warn people to be careful if they've not played the game.(Who has anyway?Ao-Persia (talk) 14:39, October 30, 2012 (UTC))

since any further content (if we get any beyond release) which may be a spoiler to those who have not played the game would come after the release i do not think it is necessary. Ægritudo Talk 14:46, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you are right or maybe you're not. Let the admins decide about it!Ao-Persia (talk) 15:04, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
Let's just put it up there. Better safe than sorry. Anybody opposed? -- Master Sima Yi Talk 15:15, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
since no one has played the game, I think it'd be nice if we put the tag up there for a month or two!Ao-Persia (talk) 15:23, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Passcode (20 January)[edit source]

░░O ░A░ ░░O░░ A░ ░░E ░O░░A░Y ░A░?

--> It could be : whO wAs knOwn As thE cOmpAnY mAn? The company man is Madeleine de l'Isle, but this response is incorrect.

—unsigned comment by Darkvador250495 (talk · contr)

Sign your posts, and the password is MADELEINE DE L’ISLE <-- with the funky apostrophe. Copy/paste it. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 11:41, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

'Hide' option for decoding answers[edit source]

Hey guys, I think we should somehow implement an option for users to Show/Hide the answers for the DNA decoding sequence that's ongoing right now.  I don't know how to be able to hide a single column in a table, but I think this would be a good idea; I'd imagine many users (like myself) would like to know what the decoded question is, not necessarily the answer.

Thoughts? ShermTank7272 (talk) 03:43, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Passcode for January 29th[edit source]

For some reason, when the question went online, it accepted Ezio as correct answer, with or without his surname(s). Later on, they corrected it to accept only Cesare Borgia. Sadelyrate (talk) 19:49, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about c.tag ?[edit source]

There is this new section on Initiates, c.tag, and the article doesn't even mentions it. Darkvador250495 Nihil Verum. Omnia Licita 11:48, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Because people who are inside AC Initiates are not allowed to talk about it.Diogosanto (talk) 11:51, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Surveillance[edit source]

Is the closed Alpha stage over? --Alientraveller (talk) 17:31, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

No, it's still in the closed Alpha stage. Stormbeast ♉ The Helpful Place 17:34, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Page Restructure[edit source]

So I feel this page is getting a little clusterf*uck. I mean, I think it's good that we have the database entries and all but, do they really belong here. I wanted to suggest that we create a proper page for Initiates and move the Database part to another page like Initiates Database or something like that. While we're at it, maybe we should also create a Initiates Missions page and add those there. What do you guys think? --Sekuiyatalk 15:36, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'm slowly, but surely, working on the Initiates database, with full intention of moving Surveillance and the Desmond Files to their own spot. Stormbeast ♉ The Helpful Place 15:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
I started working on an Assassin's Creed: Initiates missions (page name not final, accepting suggestions) on my sandbox. I would be grateful if anyone could comment on the design of it, if it's good, if you would change anything, and if I can start working on the actual page instead of my sandbox, so it gets more visibility and maybe other people start helping. --Sekuiyatalk 15:51, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Given the site is offline now I can think of no better time to divide up the page: how do we go about it? Subpages or calling each file by its name (eg. The Desmond Files)? --Alientraveller (talk) 18:35, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

I think we could reduce the ridiculousness of the length by just doing tabbers by month, rather than individual dates. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 18:38, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Having in mind that most of the page is just transcripts from the official site, I suggest moving in to the Database, seems like the most proper place to put, at least, Database/The Desmond Files|The Desmond Files and Database/Surveillance|Surveillance. Do we need to make a vote or something? If not, I'll go ahead and move them. --Sekuiyatalk 16:39, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Revamp[edit source]

So, I wanted to basically revamp the page, because I think the page is a bit bloated. My idea was to move the Desmond Files and the Surveillance section to their own pages and leave in the main article a paragraph or two summarizing them along with links to the new pages.

I'd also be adding the other parts of ACI I've been working on my little sandbox. Since it would be a big change I wanted to get opinions on it before I do anything. Apparently this was suggested back in 2014 but nothing ever came of it. Anyway, hope to see where you guys stand on this. Yours in Brotherhood, Soranin (talk) 00:56, May 4, 2020 (UTC)

Revamp redux[edit source]

This is an ongoing discussion.

In finding a lot of archived footage of for stuff like the Missions and Lost Memories mechanics on YT channels such as https://www.youtube.com/@ArtoftheCreed I think we should spin off the Initiates Database to be its own in-universe article as so much of the flavor text is in universe. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from ‘https://assassinscreedwiki.accesstheanimus.com/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed:_Initiates&oldid=579811’