Template talk:Faction Infobox

Database Entries

Should there be a line for Database like we have with Individuals for pages like Followers of Romulus? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:46, September 17, 2020 (UTC)

Related groups

With several back-and-forth counter-edits to the list of "related groups" in the infobox, I think we should have a discussion on how we each interpret criteria for inclusion in this list. Hopefully, it doesn't evoke too many memories of the former "notable member" list :D.

My main concern is the inclusion of related groups who only briefly cooperated with the Assassins as well as a lack of distinction between an individual cooperating on behalf of their group and an individual who does not represent a group they belong to. My primary cause for this concern is just that it may be misleading for our readers, and I have seen this problem recently in the "Templars" article as well. For instance, a lot of groups which have worked with the Assassins or Templars have oscillated in their alliance with either. I think the clearest example might be the choice to list the KMT in the Templar article, I am not entirely comfortable with listing the KMT because that Chiang Kai-shek rejected the Templars is a significant lore detail. On the other hand, Sun Yat-sen, who founded the KMT, was a Templar Grand Master. The KMT is definitely related in this way, but I wonder if listing them based on this technicality makes a misleading, generalized statement for the KMT being necessarily Templar-affiliated. This problem in this particular case might be solved through the addition of a date range, as Sima has just done with the items he added to the Assassin list, but I don't think this sufficiently patches the issues for other cases.

With the Republic of Pirates, Edward ended up cooperating with the Assassins incidentally at first. As I understand it, Mary Reed was only affiliated with the pirates as an infiltrator, spy, or informant. Even if Mary’s involvement with the pirates was genuine, which is unlikely given how critical she was of Edward’s lifestyle, I think to list the Republic of Pirates as related to the Assassins would suggest some common foundation between the two groups or a conscious alliance. Yet Calico Jack, Charles Vane, Stede Bonnet, Blackbeard—none of these individuals were allies of the Assassins nor were they even aware they exist. Edward becomes acquainted with the Assassins not on behalf of the Republic of Pirates but through his own individual adventures, and he and Adéwalé only join them when they leave their pirate lives behind. The Republic of Pirates not being a consolidated group complicates this, but I think the lack of association with and awareness of the Assassins by the vast majority of the pirates makes designating them as associates of the Assassins highly dubious.

The Jacobins is another problematic case. The Jacobin Club was a broad group of the radical wing of revolutionaries which included some allies of the Assassins, but it was also a stronghold of the Templars. Meanwhile, the Assassins supported individuals from across the political spectrum, including constitutional monarchists, Girondins, and the Jacobin Georges Danton. Do we list all of these groups? (Now, personally I won’t entirely mind adding the Girondins since I think they aligned the most with the Assassins).The date added “until 1791” actually raises a few more questions. Danton was evidently considered an Assassin friend right up until his execution in 1794 at the height of the Reign of Terror, but obviously extending the date into the Reign of Terror by which time the Jacobins had been completely co-opted by the Templars would cause more confusion. On the other hand, 1791 is quite early in the French Revolution and makes me doubt whether any Jacobin connection with the Assassins is significant enough to be mentioned in the infobox. Even if it is, the point remains that the Jacobin Club consisted of a diverse group of radicals. Robespierre, one of the leading Templars was already an influential presence among the Jacobins by 1791 and many of the extremists had been affiliated with the club from the start of the revolution.

The point I am trying to make is that just because a member of a group or several members of a group cooperate with one faction, it doesn’t mean that there’s enough to say that the group is collectively associated with that faction. I don’t think that just because some Jacobins were friendly with the Assassins, it means that the Jacobin Club as an organization was really related to the Assassins. I am more accepting of the Patriots being on this list because besides the close ties between Connor and George Washington, the Assassins he recruited were all active supporters of the revolution.

How do we determine that a group is actually associated with the Assassins or Templars? One easy answer might to look at the leadership of the group. The leaders of the Jacobin Club, after all, were predominantly Templars not Assassins, but even relying on leadership still may not be so simple. This leads me to another example: the Tang dynasty for the Templars. While it is true that the Golden Turtles were able to manipulate their way into controlling the court through the chancellorships, the Emperor himself was not a Templar. I am also wary of the implication in Dynasty so far that Wu Zetian, who had previously usurped the Tang dynasty, was the founder of the Golden Turtles, which also contributes to how listing the Tang as a group related to the Templars can be misleading.

What about listing the Ottoman Empire for the Assassins? Personally, I am more open to this because it was clear that the Ottomans’ alliance with the Assassins spanned for more than one generation. Despite the interlude of Selim I’s reign, both Bayezid II and Suleiman the Magnificent had close association with the Assassins. That Suleiman is commonly regarded as the greatest ruler in Ottoman history bolsters the case for the Ottomans’ inclusion in the Assassin list.

The danger, however, is treating centuries-long governments as monoliths. Not every Ottoman ruler supported the Assassins, as we know from the example of Selim. This is why I’m usually nervous about adding state governments to these lists because it is quite a generalization to make. As governments pass from one generation after another, its domestic and foreign policies shift and morph because former allies and enemies of Assassins and Templars die off and new ministers and rulers may have different positions.

Through these examples, I hope I have presented a clear idea of the care we need to make when we add to the “related groups” list. I would ask that we be more conservative with what we include. Personally, I think this is more problematic than the “notable members” list we had removed. With the “notable members” list, the worst is that we give a character more relative in-universe importance than others. With this list, we can mislead our readers about the affiliations of entire historical factions.

So I must ask everyone: what do you think the “related groups” list mean? To me, a related group is a separate group which has close links, whether historical, social, political, or economic with the subject organization in question. It does not include groups which fall entirely within the Assassin Brotherhood or Templar Order because I see these as subgroups. I therefore think that the list should exclude dynastic houses of the two organizations like the House of Auditore, but I am open to hearing any objections to this. The list should obviously also exclude subgroups, i.e. branches, which fall under “subsidiaries” field (although I’m not sure subsidiary is the correct term for non-corporations). By historical links, I think that the strongest case would be any group whose origins were directly connected with the Assassins or Templars in some way, such as sharing a common struggle, despite being a distinct group its own right. I don’t have an example of this off the top of my head though.

Above all, we should take care to identify cases where individuals or several members of a group cooperating with the Assassins and Templars might not necessarily be representative of the groups they are normally affiliated with. It is for this reason that, again, I strongly object to the inclusion of the pirates and Jacobins in this.

I also would recommend that the association be unambiguous. For example, inclusion of the Haitian revolutionaries is good in my opinion. Inclusion of Napoleon’s empire by virtue that Arno had some ties with Napoleon should probably be avoided. I would rather just err on the safe side. When necessary, I agree with using date ranges to clarify that the association did not necessarily extend beyond a certain period.

Aside from offering my own interpretation of this parameter, my alternative recommendation is to remove it altogether as we did “notable members”. It is possible that it is simply an outdated field.

But most of all, I am curious how others are interpreting “related groups”, so please feel welcome to provide your thoughts on this and these examples. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In my lowly opinion, I hate it and my vote is for removal. - Soranin (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In a less jokey answer, I really don't see the point of that section, the parts in an infobox are meant to be exact and for quick reference, however, like you brought up in the Great Text Wall of Wiki above, there's so much nuance in ascribing association between the Assassins/Templars and other groups that it's no longer exact nor useful for a quick reference. The very point of having that section in a infobox is lost. This is the reason why I support the removal of it altogether. - Soranin (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You make a very good point. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I too support the Great Culling. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Soranin just wants me to be hampered from my projects, stuck removing more outdated infobox parameters, don't you?! XD) More seriously, I also think it should be removed. While it may have served a point earlier in AC with clear connections from, say, the Houses of Auditore/Pazzi, there's now too many organizations that meet and briefly ally with Assassins/Templars—whether aware of either group or not—but are ultimately unaffiliated with either Order's end goals and/or were only allies for a brief time, and sometimes just for convenience's sake, eg. Napoleon during the Revolution vs Napoleon's rule as Emperor. You summarized it perfectly using the Ottomans and the Pirate Republic, Sol. – Darman (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice the previous edit summaries on the page. The related groups on the Templars page did not seem to have gone through the same thorough removal as the Assassins page had earlier last month, so I assumed the previously listed groups were wrongfully removed from the Assassins page. As each group can require a discussion to warrant their inclusion in the list, it is preferable to just remove it altogether. On another note, I would also suggest getting rid of the "Date founded", "Date collapsed" and "Date reorganized". Replace it with something like a general "Active" parameter that will clearly show a timespan of activity instead of jumping back and forth between multiple parameters that list singular dates (like on Chinese Brotherhood of Assassins). The infobox parameters are at least a decade old and are due for a major overhaul. Perhaps this discussion is better suited for [Template talk:Faction Infobox]. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 13:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, jumping about from the three date parameters is confusing, especially if a Assassin chapter had multiple purges and/or periods of relative inactivity. Using the Chinese Assassins as example, would you rather the dates under "Active" be organized something like this?

• Estd. pre-8th century CE (As the Hidden Ones)
• 1402 ([[1402 Chinese Assassin purge|collapsed]])
• 15th century (reorganized)
• 1524 ([[Great Rites Controversy|collapsed]])
• 1532 (reorganized)
• 2000 ([[Great Purge|collapsed]])

I'm pretty sure I know enough from my recent work with infoboxes to add the new parameter and clear the old ones. I could edit it later today if you want, unless you want do it yourself. – Darman (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I experimented a little bit with a test infobox earlier to change a few other things as I have some suggestions. Regarding a new parameter for years, I would suggest naming it either something like "Active" or "Years active". I actually think listing a timeframe, or multiple timeframes, as opposed to singular dates might be preferable, something like this:

• 700s – 1402 ([[1402 Chinese Assassin purge|collapsed]])
• c. 1424 – 1524 ([[Great Rites Controversy|collapsed]])
• 1532 – present

I'd encourage others to share better suggestions though, or maybe others find your example preferable. My other suggestions are to move the "Founders", "Predecessors" and "Successors" parameters to the Historical information header. Another thing I'd like to stress is that, at least on my end, many of the parameter names do not fit the infobox. "Predecessor(s)", for example, gets cut off at "Predecesso" and then has "r(s)" on a new line. I would strongly suggest this be changed as well -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 15:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, your timeline bullets are much more concise than my list, as they follow dating conventions for years-long events like wars. And of course, I'll wait for other users' suggestions, I was just tossing my hat into the ring. – Darman (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The parameter name thing is a bit difficult to control, cause it's based on letter size rather than number of letters and (1) making the infobox bigger does not always fix it, (2) altering the size of the column where the parameter names are also ends up altering the previous/next sectiopn on memories infoboxes, and (3) if we work hard on fixing it, it's probably getting all messed up once the new FANDOM update hits. The latter point is why I stopped looking for fixes. - Soranin (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, I support the timeframe idea proposed above. - Soranin (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)