Talk:Precursor box

This is the discussion page for Precursor box. Here, you may discuss improving the article. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
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

Embers

This is the same box that Ezio gave Shao Jun? Spanish assassin (Talk) 18:14, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's also the same one Adewale intercepted in Freedom Cry and gave to Bastienne. Apparently it remained in Port-au-Prince until the earthquake. I bet any money the AC Chronicles: China game will explain how the box went from China to Haiti. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:31, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pandora's Box

Since all of the artifacts have been based of ancient legends and myths is it possible that the Box is supposed to be Pandora's Box? —unsigned comment by AndyC89 (talk · contr)

Size

It couldn't be the same box, the size is obviously different, and in the war letters (Family Vacation) it saids that the Templars took it. I saw this picture on how it is used and it opens very differently then a normal box. Shao was going to open it like a normal box but Ezio stopped her Redlotusassassin16 (talk) 22:58, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

As I told you on YouTube, please read the war letter, properly.

"I was unable to find any Precursor sites in the Orient. However, I believe I may have picked up the trail of an artefact thought lost for centuries. The Assassin known as Shao Jun possessed a type of Precursor box, rumoured to contain a strange power. The box remained in China for about a hundred years after her death. I believe that the Assassins secreted the artefact out of China via the Manila Galleons bound for Acapulco.

It will probably be found in the West Indies somewhere. That will be a difficult part of the world for us to infiltrate, as it has been firmly under the control of the Assassins since the murder of Grand Master Torres.

Perhaps if we were to provoke the rivalry between the many European empires, we could search for it under the cover of war?"

It's not different in size at all, and who says it can't be opened like a normal box? Ignoring that, Jun was planning to open it like a normal box but that doesn't mean she would have been able to. This war letter confirms they are one and the same, and the war letter mentioning that it wound up in the West Indies leads directly into Freedom Cry, where the box makes another appearance. You mention that the Templars took the box... and you take the box back from the Templars when you play as Shay during the first sequences of Rogue. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 23:05, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

No difference, hahaha. "As I told you on Youtube"?, I don't know who you are lol. No disrespect but it's silly to think that, Shay can barelly holding it with one hand, and Ezio can hold with one hand. I'm watching Embers and Rogue side by side, It's completely different. I wasn't mentioning that War Letter was I, I mention that they aren't the same, and they said they "believed" they got it, it doesn't mean they have it. Redlotusassassin16 (talk) 23:19, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

You literally said "war letters" there. And you got into a discussion with me about the Precursor box and one of your theory videos that resulted in your insulting me and putting on an all-together poor attitude. I told you there that I was the head of the wiki, but I'll assume your "I'm done talking with you" response made you miss that. Don't start displaying the same kind of attitude here.

You're right about the size being changed for Rogue, that wasn't the case for Freedom Cry. Design changes happen all the time. But saying they're not the same because of that? That would be like arguing that the Apple of Eden from the first game isn't the same one as the one Altaïr had in Revelations because the first Apple was silver and not gold. A design change has zero relevance in regards to it being the same object. There's a very obvious reason they put that war letter in there, and that reason is not to fool everyone into thinking they're the same box, for no reason. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 23:35, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

it's obvious that there is not 1 POE, right? There are a lot of Apples and Swords etc. What if it's the same for the box, they are designed different but do the same thing, or the abilites are different and they called called something else from TWCB Redlotusassassin16 (talk) 23:41, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

~Speculation~

Seriously, you're overcomplicating things. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 23:42, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there are multiple boxes, but so far the existence of multiple of them has not been alluded to so it's not right to assume that's the case. The "The Manila Galleons" war letter backs that up, and confirms Jun's box is the same one that wound up in the West Indies, then in the possession of a French Templar, then Adéwalé, and later François Mackandal, from whom it was stolen by Lawrence Washington only to again be stolen by Shay Cormac. There's no reason to assume it's a different box when the writers are going out of their way to tell us they're the same. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 23:44, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

"attitude"? How? I'm just disagreeing with you, how is that attitude? I see it, I'm out of here, ignored! Redlotusassassin16 (talk) 23:59, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I said correctly. You misinterpret my message and then ragequit. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 00:02, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not rage quiting. metaphorically walking away. and I do not remember you at all. Lots of people come to me in a disrespectful manner and that makes me mad, humans get mad, simple as that. —unsigned comment by Redlotusassassin16 (talk · contr)

If you want I can look up these 'disrespectul' messages I sent you, but I'm sure you'll find they were as civil as they come. However, I would have no problem doing that on your talk page, as I would prefer this talk page stay on-topic. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 00:13, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

You are seriously going to waste your time on that, do what you will do, I'm not coming back this page. Ignoring, and ignoring. Have a nice life who ever you are. —unsigned comment by Redlotusassassin16 (talk · contr)

It looks like @relotusassassin16 was right about the boxes76.2.2.119 01:35, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Considering Richard Farrese said that the boxes in Freedom Cry and Rogue are supposed to be the same, no. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 08:36, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

So you are wrong, there are 2 boxes, the one from FC and Rogue are different from Shao's box 76.2.7.8 16:39, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Nobody denied the fact that there might be multiple boxes, but up until Farrese's statements there was nothing to indicate there were multiple boxes. Even now when he says the boxes from Freedom Cry and Rogue are the same (when the Rogue design is the one that's different from all other boxes) any prior reasoning to that doesn't support it. If Farrese is right, then there are multiple boxes, but he seemed to be unsure of what he was saying. And please act a little more mature; just coming here to get people to say you're right isn't the best of behaviour. This is a wiki, not a primary school competition. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 16:50, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Instead u can say"@redlotusassassin Sorry I was wrong and you were right about the box" instead of ignoring the fact that your ignorace and immaturity got the best of you based on the conversation above, and the ones below of indenial. Not saying redlotusassassin16 wasn;t a douche cause he was but you were one also.76.2.7.8 17:58, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

To entertain your notion, if you read the above discussion properly, I acknowledged full well there might be multiple boxes but there wasn't any factual evidence to support this. It's in our guidelines that we deal in facts, not hypotheticals and theories. Even if I was 'wrong' I wouldn't expect anyone to apologize for being on the short end of a discussion. I don't really see myself display any immature behaviour, unless you see my warning RedLotus Assassin to behave because of his earlier absolutely atrocious behaviour towards me on his YouTube videos sometime prior to this discussion as 'immature'. However, I'm not completely gullible; the fact that you show up here right around the same time as RedLotus Assassin deletes all content from his userpage says enough.

I don't take too kindly to anyone calling another person ignorant or a douche, be it myself or anyone else; you can go ahead and keep doing that on your YouTube channel. Over here, we follow different community guidelines, which you apparently cannot adhere to. With the liberty of taking my personal history with you into account, I'm banning you from the wiki for failing to adhere to wiki guidelines. Have a good day. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 18:12, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

haha wow Redlotusassassin16 (talk) 18:23, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon, the box and the manuscript

Apparently, Napoleon hid a lot more than a silver key in his suitcase. I know it's still speculation but that'd be quite the coincidence, since Arno laid his eyes on what his father was killed for.

TOULOIR, membre du Conseil parisien (discussion) 01:50, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we actually added that Info sometime ago, i mean, they are similar to the actual Manuscript and Box, but, i asked Jeffrey Yohalem (Lead Writer of Dead Kings, and now Syndicate) about it, and he said that they were not the actual Pieces. It was kinda suspicious because he was... evading those questions and when he finally answered that the Box was just a normal box, it looked like he was inventing everything he said. Oh, and he never answered about the Manuscript. So, as far as we know... he might be lying or telling the truth, but officialy, we cant put that info in the Wikia, Thanks for reading. DipsonDP (talk) 03:15, August 11, 2015 (UTC) 

Not only one

Hi!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aNOdYDnogk Richard Farrese confirming that there is not only one Box. DipsonDP (talk) 20:56, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 21:07, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, he says that the China Box is a different one. Also, that we will learn more about the Boxes SOON and we will learn the ACTUAL location of one of the Box (He didn't specified if it was about the Box that Abstergo has in Rotterdam, or another one) DipsonDP (talk) 21:23, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

Could you include the specific point in the podcast they talk about this? I really don't have two hours to search through. Stormbeast ♉ ^{The Helpful Place} 21:30, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

The video description gives timestamps for the subjects discussed. You'll want to look around 50:00 when the boxes come up. It becomes very frustrating to listen to imo, I feel like they're really losing their grip on the narrative. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 21:33, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

The Box is returning in the AC 2016 game- DipsonDP (talk) 21:34, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

They didn't even need to make it that complicated. So far, the story fits well enough with just one box.--Bovkaffe (talk) 23:11, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

I don't really want to complain about this but they did a mighty fine job of making this clear with the "The Manila Galleons" war letter in Rogue and continuously referring to it as a singular Precorsor Box. This really feels like something they've just made up. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 06:27, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

And actually, the Rogue's Box (That is supposed to be the Freedom Cry one) has a completely new designe, while the Freedom Cry one is identical to the Embers one. So that might mean that Farrese made a mistake (He clarified that he wasn't sure about which Box was the same and which was a different one, that could explain the Manila Galleons thing, eventhough that means Mackandal's Box is a different one.). What a mess... oh, and the "Not-Box" of Dead Kings, is identical to Rogue's one. Maybe Jeffrey lied to keep what Farrese just revealed (The Boxes and the Box relation with the 2016 AC)  I hope it turns out the way i said, just make things clearer. DipsonDP (talk) 17:11, September 19, 2015 (UTC) 

So, if there's multiple boxes, should this article be split, or should we wait for there to be more information about which box being which? -- Zero-ELEC (talk) 15:38, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

I say wait for more information, and even then, I would prefer keeping it all in one article under the name "Precursor boxes". -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 16:06, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

As can clearly be seen in these two images, the boxes seen in Freedom Cry and Rogue are different. On top of this, the "Manila Galleons" letter reads as such: "It will probably be found in the West Indies somewhere", to me that indicates the possibility of more than one box being in the area, and the assumption some have made that the boxes are one and the same is erroneous. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:07, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Farrese said that the boxes from Freedom Cry and Rogue are the same while the one from Embers is different, so if we're going by what he says this is a moot point. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 18:46, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who this Farrese is, but I'm going by the evidence in the games themselves. In-game, the box Shay handles is clearly different from the one Adéwalé possessed (which clearly resembles, but could easily be different to the one Ezio possessed). The Manila Galleons letter does not, in my opinion, prove that the two (possibly three) boxes are the same device. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 19:32, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Richard Farrese was the lead writer of Assassin's Creed: Rogue. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 19:37, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Also the person who started this whole "there are multiple boxes" thing, as mentioned above. If we're going by evidence in the games themselves then there aren't any facts saying there are multiple boxes. In fact I think in both conversations and war letters in Rogue it's indicated that the box Adéwalé obtained wound up in Mackandal's hands, to later be stolen by Lawrence Washington. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 19:42, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

The appearance isn't necessarily relevant. Altaïr's Apple of Eden changed appearance in Revelations.--Bovkaffe (talk) 19:46, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

I remember Farrese saying he wasn´t sure about the Boxes, he could had made a mistake, thinking FC and Embers's one were the same. And about the appearance, Altair's Apple barely changed, while the differences between FC and Rogue are too noticeable to be the same. Plus, in Chronicles China the Box has the same appearance as in FC, demostrating the change was intentional. DipsonDP (talk) 01:15, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I highly they were supposed to be different, considering how dialogue in the game refers to the one in Rogue and Freedom Cry being the same.--Bovkaffe (talk) 06:58, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned by Dipson, the change in appearance for Altaïr's Apple's was miniscule, and was most likely done simply to mirror graphical changes (improvements) made since the first game's release; it just looks 'more shiny'. The boxes, however, are completely different shapes, and open in completely different ways. Farrese may well be the lead writer for the game, but we should go by what’s in the game itself (especially when said writer later states that he cannot be sure, and could have been mistaken).

IMO, the boxes are too different for us to consider them the same; we had this same discussion about the Staves of Eden with the release of The Fall. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:15, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

If we're going by the games themselves, then we're following what is said in mission dialogue, that the Rogue box is the same one Adéwalé retrieved. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 14:00, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

Indian Box

Was the box in Chronicles India confirmed to be Ezio’s box? I know Hamid said he thought it was Ezio’s Box, but I don’t remember if it was ever confirmed to be the same one. I looked at the database entry and it really didn’t say it was the one Sleeman had. Should we assume it is his box, or should we consider it a different box until it is confirmed? Given the date, 1841, it could also be Shay's box. Hugues de Payens (talk) 21:52, January 14, 2016 (UTC)

They wouldn't have written in Database: Ezio's Box (India) if it wasn't the same one. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 19:22, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Just because it had a database entry doesn't mean it was in the game. For example, in Chronicles China Ezio got a database entry but he wasn't in the game. Hugues de Payens (talk) 15:21, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

That's being kind of obtuse, don't you think? Ezio was in Chronicles: China in those flashback-esque tutorial sections and he's also mentioned in the database scrolls. What point would there be in including a database for "Ezio's Box" if the box in Chronicles: India is a different one? Crook ^{The Constantine District} 15:27, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

The point of "Ezio's Box" was because Hamid mentioned the box. It is never said that the box was Ezio's. But I guess I don't know Brahman.Hugues de Payens (talk) 00:41, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Since when has one simple mention warranted a database entry in any of the games? -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 09:06, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

So how can the Indian Box be Ezio’s box if according to Russia Ezio’s box hasn’t been seen since the events of China? If it was the one in India shouldn’t it mention that Arbaaz, Francis Cotton, Alexander Burnes or William Sleeman had possession of the box? The entry says "The box's whereabouts have been unknown to the Assassins since then." If it was Ezio's box in India shouldn't it say Arbaaz saw it in Sleeman's possesion, or at the very least that Hamid saw it in Arbaaz's possesion? Hugues de Payens (talk) 23:48, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

Because they just copy-pasted the India entry without adjusting it. The entire timeline of the boxes is one big convoluted mess. You can lay out any scenario and there'll always be something to contradict it. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 21:54, February 18, 2016 (UTC)

Every Box in Chronicles is Ezio's (Except the Modern Day one, which is said to be Shay's). It was India's XVIII, they didn't had any way to communicate. That's why they had a Mentor per country or city, because they couldn't communicate. How can a Russian know what happened in India 70 years ago? And common, they made Chronicles to finally explain the Boxes, it safe to assume that if they say it's Ezio`s, it's truly Ezio's. DipsonDP (talk) 21:59, February 18, 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple examples of Assassins in other Brotherhoods that know about Assassins in other Brotherhoods well beyond 70 years. They pass down their knowledge either orally or written. In 1773, Achiles talked about Shao Jun, they lived over 200 years apart. In 1499, the Italian Assassins reassembled Altair’s Codex which was made over 200 years prior. In Chronicles India, Hamid references Ezio’s box which means he knows a roughly 300 year old story. The Assassins can easily pass down knowledge of something that happened 70 years ago.

Also, part of the Mentor’s job is to communicate with other Mentors, so the Brotherhoods do communicate cross culturally. There are tons of examples of this. So if it was Ezio’s box in India, Russian Assassins would have some knowledge of it.

Finally, “Ezio’s Box” is an Animus database entry, meaning Abstergo or Assassins can update it from their research into the boxes. So if there was a lack of communication in the past between the Assassin Brotherhoods, it wouldn’t matter because the research in the modern day would piece that information together. Hugues de Payens (talk) 03:01, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Really?

Hey,

Aymar said that Shay's and Ezio's Boxes are actually the same, which makes way more sense... How many times will we have to change this? DipsonDP (talk) 23:19, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

It just adds more confusin IMO,how did Gramaitca get his hands on the box if it was last seen in Russia left by Nikolai in 1918?We didn't even know where it was exactly located. Qwert1225 (talk) 09:29, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

This is an ongoing discussion.

The Essential Guide favors capitalizing both words: "Precursor Box". Can we confirm this isn't inconsistent with other sources? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 09:15, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

The new TTRPG also favors capitalizing both words. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

So do you guys think there are one or 2 boxes?

I feel like the theory of there being 2 boxes makes alot of sense actually,I mean Ubi can just forget about the other box left in Russia in 1918 by Nikolai instead of saying that is infact the SAME box that was given to Shao by Ezio.Qwert1225 (talk) 09:38, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

For those who want a reference to the other discussion, refer to here. I'd be in favor of taking Aymar's word as the most authoritative source because (a) he's the head of content (b) I personally think Rogue's writers, including Farrese did not have a good grasp on the lore (c) it's the most recent word on it (d) The Essential Guide does say there are two boxes almost certainly referring to Ezio's box and Shay's box as distinct, but it actually does not explicitly describe the other box, meaning we can assume that the first box is the box that the entire series has shown while the latter simply has never appeared even if this is probably not what the writers of the book intended.

On another note, I have not played Chronicles: Russia yet, so I was wondering if someone could clear this up for me. At the end of that game, Gramática is presented with a Precursor box (according to the citation in the article)? Why did we conclude that the box he is given is Shay's box and not Ezio's box if the game this is shown is in Chronicles: Russia?

I messed up on the Trivia section explanation because I somehow wrote that the box being in Chronicles: India and Chronicles: Russia contradicts its possible appearance in Freedom Cry and Rogue when it doesn't, so I will have to correct that—latest probably Tuesday. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:40, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sol!for your second question,here is the end scene in Russia if you want to watch https://youtu.be/ui4DW3RRQAk?t=48

What basically happens is Laetitia England orders Berg to deliver the box to Gramatica for the Phoenix Project and he specifies the box as "SHAY'S PRECURSOR BOX" 

So there you have it :) Qwert1225 (talk) 06:24, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the explanation of the inconsistency in the Trivia section, but to update the actual pages in line with Aymar's answer would require a major overhaul, not just of this page, but on the two separate articles for Ezio's box and Shay's box. One of our admins said he is contacting them about this issue, so let's await their response first. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 11:34, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah,hopefully this will get cleared out soon!Qwert1225 (talk) 17:07, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Personnaly, I think they are two boxes, because Berg said Shay box every time and not the precursor box.

-If there is one box, it means that it passed to Ezio to Shao Jun, then Chinese Templars and Assassins, send to Acapulco in the 17th century. Discovered by an Templar Admiral C. 1735, recovered by Adéwalé who gave it to Bastienne, took by the Haitian Assassins, stolen by Lawrence Washington who passed to Samuel Smith, reclaimed by the Colonial Assassins, then to Charles Dorian and Shay. A century later it appeared in India with William Sleeman but returned in United states to be used by Ulysse Grant and later finish in the collection of the Tsar, and took by the Russian Assassins before fell in the hands of Abstergo.

-If two boxes, then the box of Ezio passed to Shao Jun, stay in the hand of the Templars for centuries in China and India, took by the Tsar, and reclaimed by the Russian Assassins. It fate it's unknown

The other box is the one in Freedom Cry and Rogue, later used by the American Templars to influence Grant and remained to Abstergo Industries.

-For the War letter of Harrisson, maybe the Chinese Assassins discovered another box, which send to Acapulco. Harrisson wasn't sure about that it maybe only rumours.

Francesco75 (talk) 13:43, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Yup it does indeed make sense that there are 2 boxes instead of the "one box theory"Qwert1225 (talk) 17:07, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I see your argument that by calling it Shay's Box, they seem to be trying to distinguish it from another box. I suppose it's correct in The Essential Guide when it says there are two boxes then, but if not for this point, do you think it would make more sense in terms of continuity for there to be only one box? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:09, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Well it depends if there is some solid info backing this point but from the other thread I posted,the wikia editor gave some nice points of why there might be only one box so I guess it is infact one box?but then why was it specified otherwise in the essential guide?Qwert1225 (talk)

I think you misunderstood what I was writing. John Harrison's letter in Rogue suggests that he doesn't know about or is otherwise unconcerned with the box that was stoled by Adéwalé in 1735. The Templars' plan to send the box to Saint-Dominigue was shown to have been planned out ahead of time, as the Assassins knew when the box was due to arrive, who was transporting it and who was meant to receive it.

If there is only one box, and Harrison didn't known about it, it suggests that the Templars transporting it hadn't informed the British Rite. If Harrison did know about it, then one has to wonder why he didn't mention it in his letter and search for it in Saint-Dominigue, where, at the time he wrote the letter in 1742, it was either in possession of Bastienne Joséphe (the original intended recipient) or François Mackandal, the Mentor of the Saint-Dominigue Brotherhood.

If there are two boxes, then one can interpret Harrison's search for Ezio's box as an attempt to replace the one they lost to the Assassins in 1735, which sounds pretty reasonable to me.

The main source for this confusion is probably because Chronicles makes it seem as though the Templars got their hands on the box when Zhang Yong sent it out of China in 1532 and still had it by 1839, with nothing to suggest that they had lost it in the interim. Harrison's letter in Rogue, on the other hand, states that the Chinese Brotherhood still had the box up to a century after Shao Jun's death and then sent it out of China via the Manila Galleons bound for Acapulco, with the Templars having no idea where it was. It's not unreasonable to assume that the Templars found Ezio's box sometime after 1742, with Francis Cotton having it in his possession by 1839. The Wikia Editor (talk) 19:46, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

It is true that it's far more likely that Ezio's box was recovered by Jun after the end of Chronicles: China even though following only the spin-off series, we would assume that it was in continuous Templar possession into Chronicles: India. It is hard for me to imagine that Jun being as skilled as she is, wouldn't have retrieved it at some point later unless it was transported way too far from China, and she felt she had to leave it to other Assassin guilds while she focused on rebuilding the Chinese Brotherhood. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:31, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

lmao at this point im super fucking confused hahaQwert1225 (talk) 09:10, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, Harrison's letter doesn't really say that the Chinese Brotherhood had the box in their possession the entire time, only that they had it at the time of Shao Jun's death and continued having it in their possession for up to a century afterwards. The Wikia Editor (talk) 11:41, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

        Alright then are you going to  edit the wikia article about precursor box stating that there is only one box?Qwert1225 (talk) 10:54, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to ask for clarification on this matter. Personally, I think it requires less assumptions to assume that there are two boxes. I'd like to how, for example, how Aymar concluded that there is only one box. Was it personal preference? Or did he sit down, collect every bit of information known about the box(es) at that point and reach his conclusion from there? We don't know, and that makes reaching a conclusion difficult, especially since Aymar's statement doesn't seem to be supported by either lead writer Richard Farrese nor The Essential Guide. The Wikia Editor (talk) 21:00, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Aymar can be questioned many things, but not his involvement with the fans. The best option is to ask again and explain our information. Aymar will respond as he has done before.

The positive side of having Aymar is that we can become a kind of lobby. Something like guardians of the canon. Spanish assassin (Talk) 21:14, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Now let's not get carried away Spanish Assassin. :P If you say that so openly or really endorse that position, Aymar and other people at Ubisoft might be put off by our arrogance and be less receptive to us in the future. Wookieepedia has exerted a lot of influence on Star Wars canon in the past as well, but Wookieepedian admins weren't always comfortable by it, and for good reason because some feel it goes against the spirit of wiki—we document lore, not help create it or influence. It's fine if it happens out of necessity, like if they've made a really poor decision, or if it happens inadvertently, but we should be cautious about overstepping our role. In any case, I appreciate Aymar's receptiveness. Master Sima Yi has already told me that he's contacting Ubisoft about this, but I don't know if he has yet or if they just have yet to respond. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:44, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. While the enthusiasm is appreciated, it's important to remember that, at the end of the day, all we can really do is present our argument(s) and hope for the best. We know that Aymar appreciates our feedback, so we can be relatively sure that this will turn out just fine. All we really need to do is ask about the box in Freedom Cry and how it relates to John Harrison's letter in Rogue. So let's just wait and see for now. The Wikia Editor (talk) 01:23, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

     Alright so has anyone reached out to Aymar about this yet?If so,then let me know what he answers!Qwert1225 (talk) 08:31, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

It has been established that there are 2 Boxes. The main issue is which one's which, because nothing is reliable. The appearances vary, there's the doubtful Harrison letter, and several contradicting statements by different writers. It's not a matter of undestanding, but that of Ubisoft not overseeing correctly the additions to the Lore new writers make. Since 2013 this is conflictive subject, and for 4 years they have failed to establish the route of the Box/es. Ubi/Aymar owes the Fans a final and definitive answer to the question.

And now we are talking about Aymar, we also need to know the Canon status pf Identity, cause as Sol previously stated, that's just a huge contradiction. DipsonDP (talk) 22:48, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

      I got an update https://twitter.com/AymarMtl/status/894279606496317440 Probably we will get a definite        answer soon enough!Qwert1225 (talk) 11:26, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Well damn, I checked my mail box this morning and saw my mail was still in my concepts so I sent it a few hours ago. With some luck he'll give a more elaborate response through mail. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 12:13, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know! :DQwert1225 (talk) 04:15, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

Aymar gave me the same response. The plan was always that there are multiple boxes, just as there are numerous PoEs, but the box owned by Shao Jun and Shay is the very same. We'll have to wait for the future to see more about other boxes. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 10:45, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

So case closed?Can we finally edit the main precursor box page stating "both" boxes are infact the same?Qwert1225 (talk) 14:49, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the case has finally been settled. Now I'm wondering what name we're supposed to give to the article containing the combined information about Ezio's/Shay's Precursor box. The Wikia Editor (talk) 17:48, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

hmmm......Qwert1225 (talk) 05:28, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as we only know the history of one Precursor box, I say we put this all in one article called "Precursor boxes", note in the introduction that there are multiple artifacts, and then include the history of the box that we've seen as the article's History section. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 09:02, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

nice Qwert1225 (talk) 06:42, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

We should get right on this, but it seems like it would take some drastic overhauls. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:28, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

Who's gonna edit this?I have no clue on how to edit it,cause.Qwert1225 (talk) 12:21, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

I understand that. I would try to get around to it, but I'm not sure when... I'm seeing that at least if I undertake this task, well, it would actually take days of work. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:36, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

   lol sima did it alreadyQwert1225 (talk) 12:48, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

Name

This is an ongoing discussion.

Shouldn't this be named "Isu data cache" instead? As I understand, the current name comes from John Harrison's War Letter, where he describes it as "a type of Precursor box". Or are we taking this as its proper name since the Essential Guide also did so? – Darman (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it called "Precursor box" in practically every source? I do think "Isu data cache" is a better name though. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Isu data cache comes from Fate of Atlantis iirc. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, Sol. I'm pretty sure it's mostly "the box" throughout Chronicles' historical parts, with Laetitia's lines to Juhani the sole exception I remember, while Rogue is a strange case: its memory descriptions regularly call it a "Precursor box", but characters alternate between calling it "the box" or using the "Precursor" descriptor (see: "One Little Victory"). However, these were all before we learned in Syndicate that the species name was Isu, which is reflected in the other name per Fate of Atlantis as Lacrosse said. But isn't that no different from saying "an American bagel" as opposed to its proper name of "an everything bagel"? – Darman (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, if the box is not named, it's obliquely mentioned like Juhani did in Noob's files on Arend Schut-Cunningham and Harlan Cunningham. We'll have to check any IRL reference books, too. – Darman (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "Precursor box" is a valid name, but "Isu data cache" is definitely a clearer name, and since The Fate of Atlantis is a later source than the others, we should treat it as an updated name. So my vote would be to move this page to "Isu data cache". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race, but I will point out that "Precursor box" is used in the database entries in Chronicles, both for India and Russia. - Soranin (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Almost forgot, there has been a mention after Atlantis, the latest use was in Valhalla's SecureShare files: "I tried to transcribe pages of the Voynich manuscript, by the way, but it's still gibberish. It must use some sort of encryption that Precursor boxes can decode." - Soranin (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

[sigh] Dammit. And that would overrule based on latest name basis, wouldn't it? Yes, it's a valid name, but why are we/the series still using it when we know more info about them now? There's literally only 6 pages that retain it in their titles: the box, the vague relics, the Reflex Bow (ACOD), the Habitation Expedition and Memo (ACU), and a database entry on Temples (ACCI). – Darman (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Or can we still move it and view these mere handful of pages using "Precursor" as exceptions? – Darman (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not that the last used name in the latest source has to be the article title, Darman. Things can have more than one name. It's that in some cases, a later name can indicate a (soft or hard) retcon, a clarification, or an update in general. Clearly, both "Precursor box" and "Isu data cache" are valid names for this thing, and the latter, being a more explicit and newer name that appears in a relatively later source, in addition to an actual Isu setting, is probably a more proper name. In-universe, "Precursor box" is just what humans millennia later call it because they don't exactly know what it is. In-universe, "Isu data cache" should be the more proper name. That having been said, my only doubt is whether all Precursor boxes are Isu data caches. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 00:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You think there's a difference between the boxes that display holographic maps, and ones that are basically the Isu's unusually-large USBs? Interesting. What makes you think there's two different box types? Or is it simply "all caches look like boxes, but not all boxes are caches"? – Darman (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking whether we are sure all Precursor boxes are Isu data caches. I didn't suggest that they aren't. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this resolved? I vote the current lede as is. As for if all boxes are data caches hard to say since we've only seen one actual precursor box (which keeps changing designs) while the data caches only show up in the Atlantis simulation but uses one of the designs for the precursor box. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Split page

This is an ongoing discussion.

This page currently acts as the article for Precursor boxes in general as well as Ezio/Shay's box specifically. Should we split the later topic into its own page? The TTRPG has reiterated that there are multiple Boxes but that the Box in possession of Ezio Auditore, Shao Jun, Zhang Yong, João Machado, Shay Cormac, William Sleeman, Ulysses S. Grant, Anastasia Nikolaevna and Álvaro Gramática are all the same Box. I would suggest either Ezio's Box or Shay's Box per what it's called in Chronicles. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, go right ahead. I'd use "Ezio Auditore's Box" rather than just Ezio's Box, but it's fine either way. - Soranin (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Ezio's Box is better as the Russian Assassins labelled it with this name.Francesco75 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)