User talk:Sol Pacificus/Archive 1

Welcome to the Order, Sol Pacificus/Archive 1!

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?

You can always ask our beloved administrators! Our local staff members can always lend a hand! You can also visit the wiki's community portal! We also have the Discord if you're ever in the mood for a chat! There is also our forums, where all users can help you out. You can also check out the blogs, where you and other contributors can voice out your opinion.

We seek unity, stability and order.

Not sure where to start? You can always help out by sharing what you know on some of our stubs. Got some useful pictures? Share them with us on these articles. Got a useful concept for an article? Why not help out in some articles in need of a revamp? Always remember to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to avoid any confusion between users. You can also refer to the wiki's help pages if you're ever in doubt. Please remember to read our wiki policies to avoid gaining any unnecessary attention.

We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors. Happy Editing!

Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you need anything. Master Sima Yi (talk) 12:39, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

Might I suggest this if you plan on doing an article revamp. It insures that all edits, between now and when you take the template down, are done by you alone. Stormbeast ♉ ^{The Helpful Place} 06:33, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
:Hey, I appreciate your suggestion though excuse my ignorance, I must confess that I'm confused as to how a sandbox works and whether it is necessary and/or mandatory. Thanks! Sol Pacificus (talk) 08:26, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
::To quote a friend: "It's best to put into mainspace when it's good and ready, rather than half-done" and "it stops random people from screwing up plans." As to how it works, you just open the link I posted, create it, and copy the code from your project into your sandbox. It's not mandatory, but it is recommended. Stormbeast ♉ ^{The Helpful Place} 16:39, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

If I may make another suggestion, and I'm aware you've already put it on the Assassins page, try to refrain from these extremely long paragraphs. Five to eight line paragraphs should be the max, since that makes for easier reading. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 09:54, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
: Yes, I'm aware I have a very bad habit of writing too much or being wordy, a problem that's pretty much dogged me since elementary school. Helpful reminder nonetheless though, thank you. I actually need to check some of my older edits for word cruft. By the way, did you mean only in discussions, or also in my edits? In terms of the articles themselves, I'm not sure if this wiki favors inclusionism, hyperinclusionism, or prefers to be more concise than comprehensive if they ever contradict, especially in regards to character articles. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 21:52, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about your edits. I'm not telling you to cut stuff out, just to use more paragraphs. Paragraphs that stretch over 20 lines are just way too long. Turning one paragraph into multiple will make things a lot better to read and easier to go through. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 21:55, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
: Ohhh that's different then from what I was thinking. Alright, I'll be sure to refrain from excessively long paragraphs from now on. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 22:12, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

Hi, as for the grammatical errors that may have been in my Altair page edit there was nothing wrong with the facts I provided as it came from canonical sources. I suggest leaving my edit alone as all the facts deserve to be posted on a informative web page such as this. If I don't hear a response from you explaining yourself I will re-edit the page (and be mindful of the grammar) Thank you.ConmanWAR (talk) 04:37, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for bringing it up with me as I myself was a bit concerned I was too hasty. So here's my explanation:

I noticed that on the Assassins article you modified a sentence with a similar statement, that Altaïr decisively changed the direction of the Assassins towards the goal of absolute freedom. While Altaïr was indeed responsible for a great reformation of the brotherhood, I fear that such a statement is far too generalized. For one thing, we know that the Assassins predated Al-Mualim in other parts of the world for centuries (probably originating with Abel by the way), and the Roman brotherhood called themselves the Circles of Liberals which implied that they already believed in freedom and liberty to some degree. Although the Levantine Assassins definitely advocated strict obedience to their Mentor, which was abolished by Altaïr, it is actually not known with exactness how much of the ethos of free will already existed before Altaïr's reforms. This is because even in Assassin's Creed I, they talked of "freeing the minds of men" and that "peace must be learned, rather than forced."

Most especially, however, it is a misconception that the Assassins believe in absolute freedom as their highest goal. Notice that in the sentence you modified in the Assassins article, it was specifically worded to note that the Assassins came to emphasize liberty more throughout the centuries, until Haytham accused them of no longer believing in peace, just freedom. Beyond this accusation by Haytham and the transgressions against the Assassin code in Rogue by the Assassins in that game, this has never been substantiated, and even in 1794, at the end of Unity, Arno repeats this line:

"The Creed of the Assassin Brotherhood teaches us that nothing is forbidden to us. Once, I thought that meant we were free to do as we would. To pursue our ideals, no matter the cost. I understand now. Not a grant of permission, the Creed is a warning. Ideals too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgment of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions. Only we can decide whether the road we walk carries too high a toll."

―Arno Dorian

The fact that the conflict between the Assassins and Templars is simplified as freedom vs. order is a prevailing misconception among characters in the story, and fans themselves, to the point it's almost like a hidden, overarching theme. There are other lines given by Mary Reed, Altaïr, etc. which I can provide if you want.

In brief, Assassins emphasized liberty and freedom more as we moved closer to modern times. This trajectory began with Altaïr's reforms, but we should be careful of proclaiming it happened outright from him as he himself repudiated that the Creed meant freedom simply and continued talking about peace being a goal in his writings. Ezio's goal in the games is shown to be not freedom as an ends, but social justice, freeing the cities from corruption, but not necessarily freedom per se. The transition seems to have been a gradual process.

We should make a distinction between free will and freedom, however. Free will, a component of liberty, was probably always endorsed by Assassins from the very beginning, as far back as Abel, which was another problem with your edit that it began with Altaïr. Free will and/or freedom as a main goal, with peace no longer a goal (as your edit implied), simplifies the goals of the Assassins too much. We see even in the French Revolution, that the Assassins didn't fight for freedom for freedom's sake, and fought against the anarchic revolutionaries.

I personally thought that your edit didn't necessarily mean that the Assassins only cared about freedom, period, but it was far too general of a statement, such that that could easily be construed as the meaning.

This has become a long explanation so here I will try to list out the factual errors:

1. Free will likely had always been a core tenet of the Assassins, going back to the Roman era, the Qin era, etc. evident by the name "Circle of Liberals." It did not begin with Altaïr's reforms.
2. In spite of this, the Assassins did not make free will or freedom the one supreme goal, nor did they starting from Altaïr. There has always been many other components of their goals, and it's too bold of a claim, especially in light of how many characters have said that freedom being the only meaning of the Assassin is a misconception.
3. Even if the Assassins came to emphasize freedom/free will more after Altaïr, it is more likely that it was a gradual process (and it's actually possible that this was only an isolated case in the American colonies).
4. Your edit implies that the Assassins no longer fought for peace or the end of tyranny (because of their shifting towards free will more), that this shift, if it did occur, sacrificed the goal of peace or the goal of ending tyranny is almost certainly untrue (esp. since for the freedom-fighter, ending tyranny and freedom goes hand in hand).

That only covers the factual errors. The citation error is the format of your referencing, though I don't really know how to explain it as I just follow the format, and I'm not the best with coding. More notably though, I pay very close attention to each and every last line in every game, and I don't recall Rogue actually explicitly saying that Altaïr's reforms shifted the Assassins to free will as the main goal. It's already dubious if the Assassins in Rogue actually believed in freedom as an ends (in all technicality, while their actions implied it, their intentions were never explained), but where was the specific statement that Altaïr made this specific revolutionary change of making freedom as a goal above everything else they stood for? I would've asked you first instead in case I really just missed it, but because of the multiple issues of the edit, I chose to revert it entirely.

I would very much have tried to modify it accordingly instead rather than reverting it outright, but the deciding reason was that the article is a featured article, so I assumed the community already considered it to be in a "perfect state". Because of that, I would be very wary of editing it, though I'm not sure what's the policy around editing featured articles. Your edit was far too general of a statement, and could easily lead to the common simplified understanding of the Assassin vs. Templar conflict as freedom vs. order, when it is far deeper than that. It implied that Altaïr's reforms instantly brought about that shift, when it is more likely gradual (or even never happened and was an isolated case in the American colonies). Because it was such a contentious statement, I decided that even if I modified it, it might still be incorrect, and I didn't want to mess with that state of a featured article.

I apologize if my reversion seemed capricious. I myself was very concerned it wasn't the best call and later decided I should've just waited for a more experienced user to deal with it. I also greatly appreciate you being so prompt in checking in with me about it. :) However, my points about why I think the edit is flawed stands. I have no opinion about the latter line about Altaïr changing the order to allow women into the brotherhood, as I do not have the encyclopedia and cannot corroborate whether this is true or not. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 06:41, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I thank you deeply for getting back in touch with me and offered me a valent reason as to why you made the edit. While you offer a very intelligent and deep reason I must counter some things. The first being the freedom debate. When you bring up the Liberals argument the term does not equal liberty. Liberal by definition is "open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values" which the term for the Roman Brotherhood was stated through not liberty. Furthermore, in AC1 when being lectured by Al-Mualim he says "do you remember what the Assassins fight for" in which Altair responds with "peace in all things" so this is saying the Assassins didn't have the goal of fighting for free will prior to Altair especially since the targets that Altair was forced to track down were oppressors to the poupulation and tyrants. Another case in point is that through various game dialiogue it says the Assassins and Templars both wanted peace and we know the Templars wanted control but the Assasssins went against them beause they believed against tyranny not because they wanted free will at that time. Other evidence is when Illtani poisoned Alexander the Great because one, he was a Templar puppet and two because he was bringing war and the Assassins killed him in order to restore peace, just like Altair killed his targets to restore peace by ending the third crusade.The Assassins fought for peace and the pursuit of knowledge, not necessarily freedom, though sometimes in pursuit of these two things would end with liberty but it was more on the back burner so to speak and wouldn't go out of there way as they do now to accompish it. Another piece of evidence towards this is that in The Chain comic the Mentor says that the Assassins once used to kill anyone who got to greedy which ties in with the other evidence provided. Also there is a difference between free will and freedom (which often people don't understand and why Altair is the one that brought free will) because the Assassins like Illtali, Altair, Darius (who killed Xerxes to bring peace) freed people from tynanny and corruption not free will until Altair made it so. After however (in Bloodlines especially) Altair starts discussing the importance of freedom (because he saw what lack of free will causes when he battled Al-Mualim) to Maria which is drastically different dialogue from him only a couple weeks ago. During the rooftop scene Haytham says "it's your lot that partakes in freedom. Time was the Assassins professed a far more sensible goal, that of peace". Which means at some pointh the Brotherhood adapted to the ideogy of free will but that does not mean they gave up on peace because Connor says "freedom is peace" which can also be attributed to the Assassins mindset before Altair as well as I've said before freedom and free will are different in most aspects. Furthermore, Altair's understanding of the Creed which is in AC1 and AC:Initiates is that he says "our creed does not command us to be free, it commands us to be wise" which speaks to the mindset that I already discussed of the Assassins at this time that knoweldge is one of their sole goals. Another proof (which is the most canon apart of the in-game universe) is when Otso Berg during AC:Rogue (Berg's Inspirations) says "it was only after Altair reformed the Brotherhood with it's new ideals of "free will" that the conflict truly escalted and spread across the planet". This is proof in itself that Altair was the one who brought the basic ideology and importance of free will to the Assassins. I know this is long and I apologize but this is all the evidence that prove that Altair gave the ideolgy of free will to the Assassins during his reformation especially the in-game proof of Berg.

Moving on, why did you remove The Three Ironies? This is not only described in the encyclopaedia (which you said you don't but I copied almost the same wording as said in there) but also the codex. This is undisputable fact which I suggest putting back on to the main page.

And yeah the encyclopaedia says that women were allowed to rejoin thanks to the councelling of Maria during Altair's reformation.

I apologize again for the length of this reply but I am a huge nerd when it comes to the lore of the series, I have every game, DLC, novel, graphic novel, comic book, even the short movies and I have done a lot of research regarding Altair's reformation of the Brotherhood and everything I originally posted on the main page was backed by in-game facts. With your help I want to add these things again but I would like if you could properly site them and reword them if necessary. You are very informed but I don't know if your a huge follower of the lore but the evidence I provided is all canon. This is a community for truth and I would very much like if you could repost my previous edits and help with the references and things like that. Thank you. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 07:42, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I just recieved your other two notifications and I'm sorry if I sounded mad or anything I just wanted to talk to you about it, you're a good guy and if you read my above reply hopefully it will make more sense as to why I made the edits in the first place. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 07:49, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry you didn't sound angry to me at all :). A lot of what you pointed out seems to only prove that the Levantine Assassins' goal before Altaïr's reforms didn't revolve around freedom, their main goal being peace. This is not in contention, as it's actually part of my point, only that I'm convinced that the Assassins never deviated from that being their main goal, as by the time of Mary Reed and Arno, they also discuss freedom as not the real meaning of the Creed, and you can tell by all the Assassins actions save that of Achilles' that anarchy was not their pursuit. If freedom is their absolute goal, if freedom is their ends, this technically means that they are for anarchy, because anarchy is essentially freedom taken to the extreme such that it is the ends. They opposed anarchy in the French Revolution because they fought against the extreme radical factions such as the Hébertists and Enragés, and supported the Girondists, who were moderate revolutionaries. There is nothing in Assassin's Creed III to suggest that Connor support anarchy over the republicanism of the Patriots. The only thing that keeps people thinking that he wanted freedom as an ends is because of his simple exclamations of "All should be free!" but in the context of the American Revolution and if we look at what he did, it was much more likely that he supported democracy and a republic (e.g. the United States) over a stateless society completely, which is what absolute freedom technically means. Making this distinction is very important, which is why I thought your edit was far too general, and I made a massive revamp of the Assassins article correcting it. When you mention the lines given by Haytham and Juhani, you have to really take note that these are Templars speaking, who have always misinterpreted the Assassin's creed to mean "do whatever you wish." This is why when I wrote this sentence that you modified: "For this reason, the Assassins identified with the ideals of liberty over the centuries, to the extent that by the American Revolution, many Templars, notably Grand Master Haytham Kenway, believed that the Assassins had abandoned their goal of peace in favor of freedom as an ends [...]," I worded it specifically that Haytham believed that the Assassins abandoned their goal in favor of peace. This was something very notable to mention, but I left it ambiguous as to whether this is true or not (I can bet you though that it certainly is not true if you asked most of the Assassins). The conflict between the Assassins vs. Templars has never been so simple as freedom vs. order. The roots have been about the idea that it is irrational and unethical to act that any person has the Truth vs. the idea that the Truth is order. That Templars do not understand this and simplify it into "Truth is Freedom vs. Truth is Order" rather than the reality that it is "there is no Truth_{(nothing is true)} (by extension, we can only understand it through perspectivism, & by extension we can only learn it if people have free will) vs. the Truth is order." Finally, even if Juhani's words were completely true, that the Assassins' had shifted totally to freedom as a goal over peace, he was referencing the material from Shay, and Haytham took his interpretation from the same colonial Assassins. It's not impossible that they (and we the fans) have been basing this evolution purely from the deviation from one particular branch, using it to generalize all the Assassins. Finally, the fact that the Assassins shifted more towards emphasizing freedom doesn't necessarily mean that they replaced global peace with it as a goal completely. It could just be rhetorical. Templars like Juhani and Haytham would easily misinterpret it as such (because they'd see Assassins as anarchists).

Oh okay so it seems we're on the same page then, I must have interpreted it wrong, my apologies. Yes it's true that the Assassins didn't completely abandon their goal for peace because as you've said Assassins after Altair still killed in the name of peace. My argument and the evidence that I provided was to say how Altair gave the free will ideology to the Brotherhood as another goal to strive for in order to better humanity (I shouldn't have said they replaced peace with freedom in my orignal edit) and how Assassins before him didn't fight for free will. You and I are both correct in saying that the Assassins fight for both free will and peace now instead of just peace.The Assassins also fought to open the minds of men that would eventually lead to peace, not free will until Altair. There's the mixup I think even the biggest fans get confused over. I'll try to put it simply: Prior to Altair- fought for peace and/through knowledge/ Post Altair- fought for free will that would lead to knowledge and peace. Not that big of a difference but a differnce all the same. I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you originally said. Do you think we can add that part back in then and say something like "during Altair's reformation of the Brotherhood, free will was was focused upon as well". That way we are both correct and it stays true to the lore of the series. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean by the Three Ironies. Do you mean that was mentioned in the Paradoxes of the Assassins page? I was the original person that suggested it be introduced years ago actually, but at the time lacking the time to write it myself, someone else did. I realized that it left it open-ended, making it appear to many that the Assassins therefore are irrevocably hypocritical and irrational (and indeed many fans I met online were citing from the page). That was also before Black Flag where Edward gave his answer to these paradoxes, as did Ezio in Revelations. I never removed the section. I updated it with new information from Revelations and onward that it was lacking because characters had answered the ironies. It's actually dubious in itself because the irony of obeying the Mentor (i.e. implicitly without question) in spite of preaching free will likely dates to just before Altaïr reformed the brotherhood and so it may have been in reference to Al-Mualim, and knowing him the contradiction existed because he was manipulating the Assassins.

The Three Ironies are stated in the codex and in the encyclopaedia (was created by Altair) and it basically created a contradiction to the Creed's Three Tenets and created a sense of uncertainty and balance to the Brotherhood because it allowed the Assassins to meditate and think upon what the Creed stands for. And the free will vs obedience woudn't have come up as free will wasn't adopted until Altair but it contradicts opening the minds of men (meaning knowledge) compared to strict rules from the Mentor. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

I would honestly recommend not touching the Altaïr article for the moment as it is a featured article, and I'm afraid to mess it up. I already asked a bureau member what's our guidelines on that so I'm waiting for his feedback because I'm not sure what is appropriate to edit on a featured article. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 09:42, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

I disgree, we are fans and equals on this wiki page and basically the admins are trying to create a sort of dictatorship here without putting the facts on certain articles (I've had this happen before). As long as we have legitmiate canonical sources they can't argue against it. We are hardcore fans and facts should be told in this truth-based forum. I say we put up the facts that we've discussed here because they're all canon and factual. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

And yes, I am an enormous fan of Assassin's Creed. As I said, I take note of every single line (although not flawlessly), and the philosophies in the franchise speaks to me so much. If you take away the killing portion of the Assassin maxim, it can very much just be adapted to life in general: wisdom starts with the understanding that true knowledge is unattainable and no one is absolutely right, and nothing can be perfect; because nothing is perfect, we can choose nihilism or we can choose to strive our best towards the unreachable to make the most of what we can; to therefore redefine success by the journey not the destination (a huge part of the reason why Assassins have faith in humanity but Templars believe they are inherently corrupted so we have to control them); anything is possible in nature theoretically speaking so we must be open-minded; we are responsible for the lives of ourselves and the lives of others whether we like it or not because our actions will speak volumes on the world at large and of course ourselves so we must be ever mindful of our potential for great success or great disaster; that peace can only be achieved through education not force; and more. Assassin's Creed has literally helped me a lot with my ordeals in life, so yes it is my favorite franchise. Beyond the philosophy that matches me perfectly, which helped me refine all the ideas I had growing up, I'm also a huge fan of parkour, stealth, the ninja archetype, history, swordsmanship, and cultural diversity. It seemed like a video game just made for me xD. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 09:42, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

That's so good to hear, it's good to know that AC fans like you exist in the community. AC is my favourite series too and I've done a lot of research on the lore through the canon and lore material, just as you have. so I am confident that what I post on these wiki pages deserve to be told as again they are facts. I'm glad we have this discussion with a fellow hardcore AC fan, and again sorry for the mixup about the peace vs. freedom thing. We are both correct that they adopted free will through Altair but also get the ideolgy of peace. I look forward to hearing back from you. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
:: Hey Conman/SnapperHead, so the bureau member I contacted regarding the extent that we can modify featured articles has yet responded to me. At this point, feel free to edit "Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad" (and of course any other article) as you wish. I have decided that if I do happen to disagree with any of your edits on Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad (even grammatical errors), I will refrain from touching it in any way for the time being, or at least I would discuss it with you first. This way, I give others a chance to review or provide their input as well. :) The only article that I'll be watching over strictly in terms of quality edits is the Assassins article since I'm actually still in the process of revamping it and just haven't found the time to commit to it enough for it to warrant a {{working revamp}} tag. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 22:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I think it would be in the best interest if we do edit the Altair page together, such as I would bring forward an edit and you could double check it and make sure everything's in order. Does that soung good to you? That way we can ensure that maximum clarity and facts are brought forth. Continue doing a great job and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposal. Have a good day,
:: SnapperHeadAC (talk) 11:49, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
::: That's a good idea, but I actually don't have Altaïr on my checklist of articles I have time to commit to at the moment. It's a featured article, so it technically shouldn't really need that much more, if any, work, which is kind of the point of why I didn't want to modify it unless a bureau member tells me it's okay. I'm fine with you editing it with whatever you wish, I just don't want to intrude on it in any way. I really want to give others in the community a chance to provide their input on it if any. Also, I hope I hadn't intimidated you with my reversion of your edit at the time. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 03:57, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Corruption

I'll make a page for Sergei's corruption from ACCR once I get a, he's a minor case but his operations that he did is stated to not be in line with the traditionalist Assassins ideals and methods by Nikolai. Then there is Abbas Sofian and Jack the Ripper, both are major cases of corruption like François Mackandal and Achilles Davenport. Point is that while I'll make the pages themselves(when I got the time) I'll let you rewrite it to a higher quality as you're a more eloquent writer. As for the expansion of Ezio's corruption, it's as pointed out in the article itself. His lack of precision and the casualties and damages caused by his methods. Arguable the assaults at the arsenal after Yusuf's death can be included as it was a massacre to get to Ahmet. While guards isn't innocent per say, it's still another offensive action that result in a massacre. Like him burning the Ottoman navy, although that events biggest mistake was blowing up the tower(s) holding the Great Chain. Like other corrupted, his actions are closer to terrorism than the standard vigilantism by traditionalist. As said arguably, but that's not what this message is about. But the expansion of the corruption part by including Sergei, Jack and Abbas.--ACsenior (talk) 18:36, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

I just would like to clarify that I removed the last sentence concerning how Ezio's corruption was never punished for the following reasons:

1. I was wary that the tone of it verged too close to bias, or even if not bias, merely opinionated. This is trouble with articles such as this, which is why my preference was to not have a "Corruption" section at all, but that was not the opinion of other contributors. It would seem that Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, which is in many ways the role model for franchise-specific wiki, tries to avoid discussing the philosophy and the controversies of Jedi and Sith altogether, in spite of the fact that both sides have far more explicit faults than the Assassins and Templars. In any case, my stance is that we should still keep the Corruption section as minimalistic as possible, and to trim it right down to the most factual of statements, and to avoid if possible, any rhetoric that may seem to verge on being opinionated, even while that may not be wholly possible to do.
2. As well, technically-speaking, we do not know if Ezio ever faced any reprimand from the other Assassins after these events. Even as Mentor, it's not impossible that he could have reflected on the incident and judged himself or be judged later to have erred and been punished in some way, whatever degree behind-the-scenes. It is unlikely, and I certainly don't believe he was (though I would bet some Asssassin would have at least criticized him for Cappadocia), but in connection with my statement above on minimalism, I think we should be as technical as possible.
3. I fear that we are going too far with cherry-picking here. I already disagree entirely with mentioning the destruction of the Great Chain. The reason is because we have to remember that Assassins, in spite of their stance on precision, are still a militant faction in its own way, and that they are in the midst of a war against Templars, even if the battlefields they fight upon are not clearly defined as in conventional wars. As with any war, even for those seeking to be precise and minimize collateral damage, they may find themselves in open conflict which necessitates that they use greater force or more overt means. In this case, if we argue that the destruction of the Great Chain was a terrorist act, then I would argue that the belligerents of any conventional war become terrorists as soon as they bomb a city and kill innocent lives in the process. Indeed, such an argument can be made (hence why I personally oppose wars). This should not excuse Ezio's actions in Cappadocia, but in the case of the Great Chain being raised by the Ottomans, who were hunting him and putting Ezio's life in danger, and with the danger of the Byzantines lurking about, I would say that we simply shouldn't be too quick to judge. Civilians were not targeted during the destruction of the Great Chain, and the Great Chain's destruction itself and the Ottoman fleet do not constitute as collateral damage because the Ottoman fleet is a military force seeking to harm Ezio and the Great Chain was an instrument they could use to accomplish this purpose. I find that citing this as another example verges far too close to cherry-picking and is also awkward for the article because readers might notice this cherry-picking given that the Great Chain and the Ottoman fleet cannot constitute as collateral damage. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 20:37, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

On another note, I would like to keep the size of the "Corruption" section proportional to the other sections. This falls in line with what I said about cherry-picking. Honestly, if we were to add such sections to the "Jedi" and "Sith" articles on Wookieepedia, at some point, I will stop short of mentioning every last example that the Sith committed an atrocity or the Jedi behaved in a way that was detrimental to the mental health of their students or hypocritical, and instead summarize them. I am at present, quite behind in Assassin's Creed, and I have not yet played the Chronicles series. I also have still not yet played Jack the Ripper; I just finished installing it the day before yesterday in fact. So I will not be reviewing those if you write anything concerning them, though I would feel pressured to be in greater haste to catch-up. xD Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 20:37, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

1. That's why discussing these things are important. Now that, at least to me, also sound close to bias. The wiki is mean to inform people of anything AC related, so not explaining the corruption of the Assassins can be looked at withholding information to maintain the stereotypical image of all Assassins being good guys. Showing all sides and all ideals of the Assassins is a more neutral way as it's not taking any side, but rather showing both. Your part explaining the Assassins traditionalist ideals and methods are a perfect example, however it's also missing a corruption section of it's own to explains the ideals and methods of the corrupted. Showing one side only isn't neutral as it's only painting one imagia of the Assassins without a critical and flawed side to balance it. The corruption section so far shows examples of it more than it explains their general thinking and methods like the philosophy section at the begging. What can be trimmed down are small cases of corruption that can only be explained in 1-3 sentences, like Sergei's corruption shown in ACCR. Where we have little ideology to go with but some methods. To solve this we can have a others section for those cases or not write about them all given how small it was. I may come of opinionated or/and biased in my writing of it but my only aim to have the wiki explain things with more depth.
2. Beyond that I agree with you taking away the line of Ezio never getting punished for his corruption. Wether we know or not can be explained by someone that have read the Revelations novel as it deals with his story after the game to Embers.
3. Cherry-picking would be using a single even like Altaïr using the Apple on civilians in Bloodlines to accuse him of being corrupt. So because of that there's no reason to mention Sergei, despite his methods as it wasn't a major or minor case but so small it's not worth mentioning. Obviously this contradiction what I've said earlier about him but that's the point, he's an example of what cherry-would be. There's no need to include him. Star Wars is bigger than AC, so mentioning all unorthodox Jedi and Sith would be ridiculous but AC isn't that big. So a corruption section wouldn't be to big. Unless we start cherry-pitching and stretching it, however major cases like Jack, Abbas, Achilles, Ezio and François Mackandal are worth writing about as we have enough philosophy and methodology to explain what that saperate them from the traditionalist Assassins. As for the Ottoman fleet and the Great Chain, you've said it yourself. Their war is not clearly defined. And that's why it should be judged as one, rather a conventional war. With idealogical backing of course as it's their own ideals that determine what's right for an Assassin to do and not do. Circumstance where they are forced to act out of their ideals should only go unmentioned when it's only one instance and the individual isn't corrupt. Like Altaïr in Bloodlies unlike Ezio in Revelations that purposely destroyed places and got civilians killed. You're rite it's not collateral damage but it's still an act going against the traditionalist methods in his time of corruption. Wether justified or not since guards isn't innocent does't change the methods he used and the damage he created. Them trying to prevent Ezio from leaving isn't an offensive act like his attack of the place. They was on the defensive from a guy that just killed their leader. And no it's not awkward, if anything people have said that the destruction of the Great Chain was missing and some are arguing his attack of Ahmet at the arsenal should be included. The danger of the Byzantines isn't relevant to the Ottomans trying to defend themselves and the city from Ezio. They didn't raise the chain to prevent him hunting them but to try to catch Ezio for his actions.

It's not cherry-picking if we stick with major cases and explain their ideals. Well I'm trying to prevent a half-assed mention of every corrupt Assassins, as it's something that should be dealt with in the same depth as anything else on the Assassin page. Refusing to explain the other side itself can be looked at as bias as doing so would only explain the traditionalist Assassins way without showing other perspectives of them and their creed. So in this case bias is a double edged sword, wether it's cherry-picking or refusal of showing anything except the good side of the Assassins. What is it the Assassins use to say? Nothing is true. I'll let you know when I've started writing about Jack, I need to replay it and refresh my memory before writing it. As for Abbas, I havn't read The Secret Crusade, so I can't explain Abbas corruption in depth. Someone else has to write it.--ACsenior (talk) 10:31, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, I have not even begun to review the Templars article which doesn't even have a Corruption section. While you may argue that it does not need one as the Templars are the antagonists in the series and therefore are inherently at a moral disadvantage, this is something that I very much disagree on. I want to go back to Rogue to explain my thoughts on this matter. See, with that game, I was very hopeful that the producers would create a game that would portray Templar ideology in a sympathetic light while showing the defects of the Assassins. At the same time, knowing that this would have to be handled delicately, I was fearful that they could end up making the game too shallow, one that only made it seem like Templars were good and Assassins bad. This is exactly what occurred with the game. The Assassins blatantly violate their tenets while the Templars are portrayed as good only because they help to fight crime, save civilians, and improve cities, actions that Assassins of previous games performed. The one greatest crime of the Assassins, the Lisbon earthquake, could not have been written as obviously deliberate because that, at least, would have been enough to make even the failed producers of that game understand that they have severely broken characterization. So, they made the earthquake an accident, but then proceeded to depict the events that transpired about that in such a way as to twist it so that it's treated like it was deliberate when it was a product of a series of immature misunderstandings from all parties involved, Achilles and Shay. While Shay does have some quips against the things that are taught to him, none of them are particularly intellectually profound on the level of most every past Templar and Assassins. It is entirely ignoerd that the Templars would have caused the earthquake had they only reached there first or that they only ceased their search for those sites because Shay communicated his understanding of them to them in a matter-of-fact way rather than throwing a temper tantrum. Finally, Achilles' motivations are completely censored, leaving us to run with Shay's assumption that he had meant to use the artifacts for power rather than as was the policy of every, last Assassin in the entire series, to hide or destroy from the Templars. Most egregiously, the Templars in the modern-day of Rogue are still every bit as psychopathic, forcing the protagonist at gunpoint to join their cause, which makes it seem as though the producers really were insincere and did not give a damn about the grey-and-gray moral balance of the game. Why am I going into all of this & what relevance does this have to this discussion? Because Rogue made the mistake of switching the labels around (while also relying on superficial appearances to serve its point). The Assassins essentially do what Templars did in previous games, the Templars do what Assassins did in previous games, to the point that Shay's criticism of Achilles is actually a criticism of Templar ideology. The game relies so heavily on making the Assassins into political strawman, that it did justice to neither side. And my point: I want us to be wary of making this same mistake. Every time someone tells me that the Assassins are commonly seen as the perfect, white heroes anyways and that we must "neutralize" this with virulent criticism, I fear that people do not understand how delicate this is. Two wrongs do not make a right, and portraying one nuanced viewpoint of multiple perspectives is better than portraying two polarizing extremist perspectives. I like to use the example of Gandhi and Hitler as the former is upheld as a saint and the latter the epitome of pure evil in our society. In my mind, Rogue was tantamount to "neutralizing" the benevolence of Gandhi by making him into a terrorist that launched nukes everywhere (hehe Sid Meier's Civilization reference) while explaining that Hitler was a man who believed in non-violent movements, when how it should have approached it is to expose the relatively unknown sexual scandals in Gandhi's private life and question whether that contradicts his principles of human rights, while being upfront with Hitler's genocidal ideology but show how he, as a human being, came to embrace such evils. I understand that in this article, we're not lying about Assassins beliefs and flaws, but I still fear that we will end up doing something similar: trying too hard to make Hitler seemed justified and humane that that takes precedence over the Holocaust and WW2 while trying too hard and focusing so much on Gandhi's hypocrisy that that takes precedence over his philosophy of pacifism. You can argue that at the current moment, we have a healthy balance, but I still think that this preoccupation of contributors in trying to "neutralize" Assassin's moral ground is a slippery slope that is unhealthy. Before I reworked this article, one user who was a professed Templar and understood nothing of Assassin philosophy simply filled the page with biased, vitriolic criticisms of the Assassins, which is how this "Controversy" section even began. I also must not forget to mention how in the idea of AC being a game of grey-and-gray morality began because the first game did not show the Assassins as unquestionably good, but strove to give each and every last Templar victim a compelling argument as their last words. This is the balance we should look to. Not the example of Rogue, where to "neutralize" Assassin morality, you have the Templars seem good, then when the Assassin victims are killed they leave no profound last words and only mock Shay with "you're a monster", "you are dead, Munro is already dead", "sooo you're still convinced that you are right?" where in attempting to make a balanced game, only ended up making one of the most black-and-white games in the entire series, except the labels were switched. Two wrongs do not make a right. Now, I understand that my whole lecture here isn't necessarily applicable to you. I understand that you have been very attentive to balance and NPOV, but I really felt the need to go into this as a cautionary reminder. When we try to "neutralize" the moral ground of the Assassins, we have to make sure that we're not so focused on this task that we forget that the series has always tried to show that the Templars are not pure evil anyways, and to be careful that we don't just switch around the labels and make the Assassins evil and Templars outright good. Currently, "Templars" is a featured article when it lacks a Corruption section, and that is simply not balanced. Either both articles have an Ideology section that explains their ideology or neither articles have a Corruption section. Our balance shouldn't be dependent on our preconceptions of popular perspectives, but on non-bias, period. We shouldn't skew our balance so that a side that is more unpopular is lifted higher; that would be tantamount to Wikipedia trying hard to make the Taliban and KKK good. We must also be wary of the Golden Mean Fallacy, where we assume that when given two options, both sides have to be equally wrong and equally right. If we are given the Jedi and Sith, while the Jedi do have many cases of questionable practices including a strict policy of censorship, a culture that at times restricts open discussion, and forbidding love and are not the best of people overall, we can't expect that they are as immoral as their opponents that have no qualms about destroying entire planets and enslaving entire populations. In the same way, I fear that in striving for NPoV, people are trying too hard to force the Assassins to be as equally wrong with the Templars as possible, which is a manifestation of the Golden Mean FallacySol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for splitting the discussion like this. Simply making easier to focus on the point of all arguments. Actually the Templars page need 3 sections as there are 3 kinds of Templars that fundamentally are different. There should be a Corruption section dealing with Templars doing stuff for selfish reasons, an Extremist/Fanatic section about Hitler-like Templars willing to do anything and a Moderate section about more Gandhi-like Templars with that tries to avoid/end conflicts while also doing stuff for innocents. Despite their methods not always being clean, so I don't disagree that the Templars page does't need a corruption section, if anything, it needs that and more. And this is where we disagree entirely, Rogue did would portray Templar ideology in a sympathetic light by letting us play a Moderate Templar while showing the defects of the Assassins by having them portrayed as the same corrupted way as Abbas, François Mackandal and Jack The Ripper. All corrupt Assassins blatantly violate the creed, it's what makes them corrupt. Templars have fought crime, saved civilians, and improved cities before. Moderate Templars do it because of the way they intemperate the Templar philosophy. Therefor it is in line with the characterization of both orders. Destroying cities does not go against the Extremist Assassins ideology because their ideology is closer to both anarchism and terrorism. It's what makes who they are and Achilles Brotherhood is no different than Jack's and Mackandal's. And that's why Ubisoft has a greater understanding of both the Assassins and Templars characterizations because they know all this and have portrayed both orders like it before. The only difference was that we played a Templar in a time the Assassins was corrupt rather than an Assassin like when we played corrupt old Ezio, Evie fighting Jack and Altaïr fighting both Al Mualim and Abbas. It's nothing new. Unlike you I'll avoid taking any sides when writing about the Assassins and Templars, easier to be objective when neutral rather that avoiding establish lore and misinform because of an opinion created by it. Like claiming Ubisoft switched labels despite there already being Templars and Assassins like those in Rogue. That's how Rogue gave both sides justice, by showing the Assassins in the anarchistic way they did with Abbas and Jack while showing the Templars in the liberal fascist way moderates like Haytham, Ahmet and Torres operate. Only less worse but in terms of ideology and methods it's still in line with established lore. Claiming they switched titles contradict that lore, what I'm saying is facts over feels. This isn't the current US election. Shay's criticism of Achilles is actually a criticism of the corrupted Assassin ideology that's an anarchistic Mob Rule that usually involve themselves in terrorism. They operate that way by ruling a city bottom up rather then top down like all the Templars have, even in Rogue this is correct. Had they switched labels, then things would be other way around with Templars using gangs(ex: Brotherhood and Syndicate) and the Assassins using the high society(ex: AC2, Brotherhood and Syndicate) to fight crime, save innocents and restore the cities. A noble goal but you are making another mistake entirely. Basically: taking a side. Something this wiki has rules against(if I remember correctly). Being neutral and objective is being delicate as bias won't be as much in the way, like it would if you took a side. Thing is that by taking a side you'd be saying a side is more right, that's why having the Assassins and Templars philosophy from multiple perspectives as not all are the same kind of Assassin. Therefor there is no right way of writing this as not all view their ideology the same and therefor has different rules and principles. Hence why it's better to virtue the methodology and idealogical of all views, the only way to have one nuanced viewpoint is by having a General ideal/characteristics section that points out the similarities all the Assassins have and one for the Templar page as well doing the same. No need for me to go into your Hitler and Gandhi example as I've deal with it's point already. Beyond that we are not doing what your suggesting with your example, as you've said. We currently have a healthy balance but that's because of the neutrality since we have avoided taking sides so far and sticked with established lore instead of feels. It's unhealthy to take a side and not showing all perspectives. I've read the "controversy" section by that user, I get your point and his fault was takes a side when writing rather using established lore. That's also something I'm trying to prevent, bias has no place here. AC1 was not gray, it tried to portray Hitler in a good way by trying to justify mind-control(genocide) while showing the Assassins as unquestionable good as Altaïr unlike old Ezio never did anything bad. He was silent, precise and there was no casualties. It's grayness is fake and only rely on a deathbed conversation rather actions to prove it. That's AC1 doing the mistake you try to prevent, AC3 is gray as they have both actions and words to make it gray while Connor does questionable stuff like starting a war. Rogue is balanced in an unorthodox way as the fist 2 of 3 Templars we kill are evil(making it the grayest black and white game in the series) while showing a moderate view of the Templars and a corrupted view of the Assassins. Just like AC2, Brotherhood and Syndicate did by showing the Templars as evil and the Assassins as good with no profound last words. They are the most black and white games in the series and two of them switch labels by having Templars ruling bottom up rather than top down. Regarding those games you'd be right that two wrings make no right but not Rogue. Because I try to stay neutral rather than taking a side. An outside view can deal with two opposing view better than someone taking a side. Thank you. But you're also forgetting we are dealing with the corruption of the Assassins with the section. It's meant to be an in depth explanation of their ideals(ex:anarchism), methods(ex:terrorism) while offering an in depth description of cases of corrupted Assassins. Their corruption is what makes then inherently bad unlike the traditionalist Assassins that are inherently good. All because of their different views of their ideology. The corruption section deals with the evil Assassins and Assassins being evil is by no means switching labels. As it's nothing new. Yes both articles need an ideology section, and as said. The Templars one need 3 sections, extremist, moderate and corrupt, all who are fundamentally different Templars. That's what I've been saying, we should be non-biased and being natural is the best way as we'd not take a side while showing the rights and wrongs of both the Assassins and Templars philosophy by showing all perspectives and methodology of their ideologies. To do this we should stick with established lore and only use times we know for a fact someone was corrupt rather than cherry-picking or refusing to go in depth of corruptions. --ACsenior (talk) 20:10, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that I have not "taken a side" in terms of editing. While I may have my own ideological views, which cannot be helped because the Assassins simply align almost exactly with my real-life ideological views, I am capable of not taking a side in professional work on a wiki. I have striven so immensely hard in the ideology section to not include my own personal extrapolations of the Assassins philosophy and using only what can be cited, and I was even wracked with guilt that I even had to make this comprehensive rework, but I had to correct what was a factually incorrect interpretation of the Assassin creed that has been debunked repeatedly: that they believe in freedom as an ends and nothing but. My analysis and opinion of Rogue is not at ALL about "feels" and based on rigorous critical analysis. If my ideology is Assassin-like, it is so because I strongly believe in the principles of NPOV and perspectivism which is core to their code: trying to understand and humanize the perspective of the enemy and knowing how to play Devil's Advocate. I approached Rogue with excitement, wanting that game to portray a very sympathetic viewpoint of the Templars. Even if you disagree with my opinions, such as that on Rogue, it is not respectful of you to accuse my analysis as based in emotions rather than hard logic, just as how I have not accused your analysis of Ezio's actions in Constantinople as based in subconscious bias even while I have my doubts that they are. Remember that I gave you a detailed critical analysis of the entire exchange between Shay and Achilles, how it was brimming with misunderstandings at every point, and not one-sided. This is what it means to be able to view something from different perspectives. You do have a fairly competent point in arguing that Rogue does achieve its purpose, but I think you focused too much on whether it works In-Universe, when I was talking about it from a purely Out-of-Universe perspective especially when I said "switching the labels around" which I meant from an OOU perspective, not an IU perspective. Yes, you can try to "even out" the Assassins moral ground by showing that they are capable of corruption and the Templars are capable of goodness, but it's not as effective as showing the errors of their traditional philosophy while showing that Templars only seek to be a proactive force in their society and have legitimate reasons to believe why they are the best to guide humanity. But I think the main point of contention here is that you are assuming, again, that both sides must be equal, and that even as I say this, I am "taking a side". Therefore, I strongly advise that you read Golden Mean Fallacy because in assuming I am "taking a side" by saying that the two sides aren't necessarily equal, you are making this logical fallacy. If I am given two sides, the Jedi and the Sith, will I prefer the Jedi? Yes that is true because given 2 sides, it doesn't mean that they are perfectly, morally equal. But I fiercely disagree with the Jedi but would never want to be one, but I understand that a faction that supports genocide is not preferable to a faction that explicitly forbids it. Note that even when I describe to you the Golden Mean Fallacy, I am not saying that Assassins are morally better than Templars, but that we shouldn't be trapped in the thinking that they have to be morally equal. I think the issue here at hand is that you have the perspective that the Templars aren't fundamentally defined by genocidal tendencies, and you believe that if I think that they are, I am, again being biased. I never said that I don't believe or acknowledge moderate Templars such as François de la Serre, and the argument can be made, but it is complicated because the actions of individuals can change the identity of a faction. In the case of Assassins, this can occur too, but the difference that they have with the Templars is that their code and tenets have been solidly written out, so we can see exactly when the Assassins' views deviate from their written tenets (such as "stay your blade from an innocent") and know that genocide goes against their foundations. In the case of the Templars, we do not have clearly written tenets, so my perspective is taking from a generalized analysis of all Templars in general, while your perspective seems to be taking only from moderate Templars while believing that any time a Templar does anything bad, it goes against their codified philosophy. How do we know that Templars do not traditionally believe that innocent lives are expendable for their great cause? We don't, and I'm not assuming that that isn't their position (that innocent lives are expendable), but I think you are assuming that that it isn't when it simply has not been codified. If Templars in every game but Rogue and de la Serre's faction in Unity have been callous towards innocent lives, how do we know that it isn't their traditional belief that innocent lives are expendable in their great cause.
:::::My response here is far less organized than the one that you replied to, so I doubt you would understand what I mean as I am speaking rather haphazardly now. So I will try to now be more clear. You missed my entire point that I am striving very hard to uphold NPOV and respect both sides and not favor a single side, but I cautioned that this is a delicate matter, and you can do it in the wrong way. We have different opinions on Rogue and AC1, but if you even begin to think that just because I have a different opinion than you in regards to whether they achieve being grey-and-gray or not, that I must be motivated by emotions and bias rather than my own critical analysis, then you are not being respectful of my perspective. I think AC1 did it better because every character had a different perspective shown whereas Rogue just made characters seem blatantly bad or blatantly good: thus, 2 polarized, clear-cut, positions rather than a nuanced perspective of everyone. That is the simplest I can explain it. If you disagree with me, that is fine. I acknowledge where you are coming from, but if you can't acknowledge that my opinion is based on my reasoning rather than my "feels" then I fear for our cooperation. If you continue to doubt my sincerity to neutrality or if you approach my words by doubting my devotion to neutrality, then I don't see how we can cooperate in a healthy manner. I suggest you reread the response you replied to, this time with a different lens: that I am not taking a side, and not motivated by my "feels".

I just asked for the advice of Wookieepedia. I have thus far only received one reply, but the editor said that he personally thought "Controversy" sections are a "terrible idea, as the only path that can go down is anarchic edit-warring between people with opposing points of view. If you intend to be encyclopedic, a "Controversy" section should only cover verifiable real-world controversies (the Unity debacle, for instance). Discussion and debate is fine, as long as its kept to its appropriate venue—not crept into articles that are meant to be factual descriptions and explanations". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:59, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

So many fans fail to understand that it is possible to dislike with Rogue without being offended by the fact Assassins are bad in the game and Templars are good. I dislike Rogue because it didn't portray the defects of Assassin ideology. It avoided Assassin ideology because the Assassins in the game didn't remain faithful to it. Yes, Assassins can be corrupt and violate their tenets, but that is a given. It happens in every faction in real-life no matter how benevolent. It is such a given, that it just would have been better had the Assassins shown to be bad people while staying true to their creed so we can tell what is wrong with their philosophy. I disagree with Rogue because I wanted the Assassins' flaws to be revealed. And I wanted the Assassins to be shown in a negative light because my beliefs are like the Assassins: that we should see things from different perspectives, a core foundation of their creed. Showing that the Templars are capable of being moderates that stop crime and help civilians is a step forward but it is not good enough. The game is based on superficial appearances of their actions while cleverly shrouding deep characterizations. We don't know what is the Templars' higher agenda in the game, to the point that it's possible (not saying that it is) that they were lying to Shay the entire time and putting on false appearances to convert him. It's because that I think it didn't do justice to the Templars or show the defects of Assassin ideology that I disagree with it, not because of what is your assumption: that "I side with the Assassins". If the Assassins in the game are bad because they violate the creed, doesn't that mean that Assassins are normally good? The producers of the game were so focused on making Assassins as people bad and Templars as people good that they missed what was the real target: showing that Assassin philosophy can be bad and Templar philosophy good(of which "stopping crime" & helping the city is not good enough b/c that is something that is shared by moderates of virtually any philosophy). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 00:29, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

I think in the case of the Destruction of the Great Chain, we may have to ask ourselves, what could Ezio have done to be able to properly judge his action. You shouldn't make the Ottomans out as purely on the defense against Ezio. From what I understand, they were hunting him although I don't think it was very clear at all. From the dialogue, I'm not even sure it was explicit that it was in reaction to Ezio's assassination of Tarik Barleti, though that should be our inferrence. He needed to stop the Byzantines and get to Cappadocia as soon as possible. I feel like at this point, you are arguing that not all Ottomans are bad, many obviously being enlisted soldiers who have families and are only doing their duty. But in this case, we could bring that up with pretty much every war and every last conflict in any media. Most stormtroopers were enlisted personnel who were not even aware of the Empire's oppressive measures. The Jedi in the Clone Wars have killed the soldiers of hostile planets even though they understood that they were not evil men, but people with their own political beliefs or loyalties to their planet's affiliations. The Jedi do reflect on the morality of even just fighting in a war as a result, but then in another conflict, the Mandalorian Wars, the Jedi for this very reason opted out, and as a result, turned a blind eye to genocides taking place in the Outer Rim. And when they fought the Mandalorians, even though some Mandalorian commanders were bloodthirsty psychopaths, not all were, and of course in the middle of the battle, the Jedi and the Republic killed all Mandalorian soldiers. That is the nature of war. When there is conflict, you can't expect that there is a perfect, moral decision, and I see the Destruction of the Great Chain in the same light. It may not be a conventional war, but the same applies. It is a conflict, people have taken the opposing side, obviously each and every last individual has their own stories, their own redeeming qualities, but you have to stop the enemy faction. The Assassin philosophy is to minimize collateral damage and be more precise in their selection of targets, but I don't think one can realistically expect that this ideal is always achievable. I have to be honest, and I mean this in not at all a condescending way, I cannot believe that I actually have to explain all of this :/, the fact that when you are in armed conflict, conventional war or shadow war, such hard decisions such as this are inevitable. I mean obviously the question at hand isn't whether or not the Assassins are right or wrong to make hard decisions per se, but whether it violates their ideology. Certain hard decisions, like whole-sale massacre or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly are on the scale of moral event horizon and if the Assassins had perpetrated them, they would have clearly violated their creed, but destroying an enemy blockade? I really don't see how that is a violation. Probably could have said this simply. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
:::The assault of the Arsenal certainly does not count because all the hostiles in that situation were Templars, or Byzantines aligned with the Templars. (Again you might object with the same argument that one can make about how most stormtroopers are just citizens doing their job). What can be argued about that case is that Ezio did it out of passion or vengeance for Yusuf, which as taught by Mario, is not the way of an Assassin. However, Ahmet's forces was also holding Sofia hostage, and Ezio was also clearly motivated by his love for her and fear for her life. This should be one of the clearest examples of a case of a direct clash between the Assassins and Templars, period, not a case of terrorism or massacre. At this moment, what is traditionally a shadow war happened to be an open conflict, where one military committed a direct assault on another, partially in retribution for Yusuf, yes, but also in response to a hostage crisis, and with no civilian casualties or property damaged. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Jedi and Sith, it's not so much about unorthodox Jedi and Sith, so much as moments of hypocrisy committed by the Jedi in general and atrocities of the Sith (not hypocritically as they endorse such atrocities). Most unorthodox Jedi, such as Qui-Gon Jinn and Revan, tended to be more light-sided than the Jedi themselves. Wookieepedia does cover this in those character's personality sections anyways. The argument that Wookieepedia has for not including controversy sections is that it's too opinionated and also constitutes original research. I think from their perspective, one can simply narrate all their actions, when a character has specific objections, and that would be enough to factually explain their actions without going into judgment. Their position is likely not to be one of censorship, but the idea that descriptions of events are enough without a dedicated section about In our case, our Corruption section slips dangerously into judgments, original research, and personal opinions and interpretations. We argue about this event or that, whether it constitutes corruption or not, but in strict Wiki policy, this isn't allowed because at the end of the day, we are giving our own personal interpretations. We make an exception for the ideology sections because those are necessary to even explain what the Assassins and Templars are (Wookieepedia doesn't even include ideology sections for the Jedi and Sith), but strict Wiki policy would draw the line against a Controversy section. Did any character in-universe comment on the destruction of the Great Chain as violating Assassin ideals, for example, or is it our own personal interpretation? Neutral point-of-view can be achieved by only giving objective statements without delving into interpretations of them, which is probably what Wookieepedians and Wikipedians would argue, but I understand that this isn't Wookieepedia. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

First or last names

Hey Sol!

I saw your message on the IRC this morning, so here's my response. As far as I know, we do not have a policy on names, no. I understand some other wikis prefer to use last names primarily, but personally, I feel like that creates an unnecessary formality for characters we primarily know by their first name (e.g. Ezio, Evie, Edward, etc.). I'd find it very weird to continually use "Frye" to refer to Evie on her article.

How the characters are primarily referred to in-storyline (be it a game, comic or novel) is usually a good guideline. More often than not, antagonists or characters in a formal/superior position will receive the last-name treatment (e.g. Laureano Torres, Sophie Trenet), but this is not really a rule and there are plenty of pages who do the opposite (e.g. Haytham Kenway, Madeleine de l'Isle, Robert de Sablé). The only real rule is that the page should be consistent in whether it chooses to use first or last name.

Basically, pick the name that seems right to you and stick with it :p Crook ^{The Constantine District} 10:05, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
*Very helpful response Crook, thank you! :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:13, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Assassin Turncoats

Hello there! I assumed she could be classified as an Assassin turncoat because not every individual sorted in that category joined the Templars: just look at Al Mualim, Hiram Stoddard, Baptiste, Jack the Ripper, Nikolai Orelov. I thought 'em being turncoats was simply about defecting the Order at a certain point, even if that doesn't mean outright working against it (e.g. Stoddard, Baptiste). So was I mistaken? --Piero.schiavone1994 (talk) 16:36, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Crook just seemed to have changed the description in the category page. Anyways, when I check the dictionaries such as: Dictionary.com, it seems that the definition should involve a reversal of allegiances, or at the very least becoming an enemy. I think it's not realistic to say that a turncoat must always choose the opposite side because not every conflict has two exact polarized sides. Instead, a turncoat should at least be an enemy. Helene Dufranc did desert, but she didn't exactly "defect", which is different from desertion as desertion is more about abandonment while defection is about choosing an opposing side. It was more like walking out of the family or quitting a job. Anyways, it was most glaring because Helene was a friend and ally to Ezio and since she targeted Templars on two occasions. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:46, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
::Okay, I do agree that definition of "turncoat" does fit all individuals in the category, but isn't for Helene. Thanks! --Piero.schiavone1994 (talk) 16:48, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

I did change the description slightly, but it was a wording issue, not a meaning issue. However, maybe the description could include something like "and actively worked against the Brotherhood's interests" for the Assassin turncoat category to truly apply. As Sol has pointed out, while Helene Dufranc left the Assassins, she did not go out of her way to sabotage them or ally herself with the Templars (even if she apparently entertains the idea at one point, if I've read her article correctly). Crook ^{The Constantine District} 18:08, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
:::Yeah, side-note. that line about entertaining helping the Templars I actually wasn't sure if it was even significant enough to add to the article :P especially since nothing ever comes of it. I think it's entirely possible she said it because she was frustrated with Ezio foiling her mission, so I could never tell if she was sincere. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:53, January 24, 2017 (UTC)

IRC

Hey Sol,

Can you join me on the IRC for a minute? Crook ^{The Constantine District} 09:59, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Same question. Come find me on the IRC when you've got time :p Crook ^{The Constantine District} 10:40, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

I believe you dropped by earlier, but if you have time now please do so again. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 20:12, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Assassin cell or cells?

Given that the Assassin Guilds are in plural, shouldn't the cells be in plural as well? The Wikia Editor (talk) 22:31, February 14, 2017 (UTC)
:Yes, but I don't think our policy should be to pluralize page names because that is kind of unprofessional. We do it for factions to be consistent with the games, which pluralize them because they refer to them as collective groups for gameplay purposes. However, I disagree that we should be extending this to other subjects, like swords for example. It's rather unprecedented for encyclopedias to pluralize subjects. I don't really know how to describe it, but it's not really grammatical. When we refer to a subject, we use the subject in its base, unmodified form, just as a dictionary might. Check out Wikipedia, for example. Our article at "Guilds" should be singular, as should our article on "cell" is my opinion. I asked on the IRC, but no one replied, so I went with the singular for "cell" to bring forth the issue. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:07, February 14, 2017 (UTC)<

Alright, I understand. I hope this gets resolved. The Wikia Editor (talk) 23:33, February 14, 2017 (UTC)
:::Well what are you thoughts on this though? Do you think I'm being too finicky? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:54, February 14, 2017 (UTC)
::::I think you've got a point. It makes sense, grammar-wise. The Wikia Editor (talk) 11:24, February 15, 2017 (UTC)

Guilds vs. Branches

I noticed that several Assassin branches are being reffered to as guilds. I don't think that's accurate. An Assassin branch can have several guilds, the Italian Brotherhood, for example, had guilds in Monteriggioni, Florence, Venice and Rome. The Wikia Editor (talk) 11:31, February 15, 2017 (UTC)

Very good question. I had thought a little about it myself and on the different terminology used by the Assassins for their bases such as Dens, Bureaus, and Guilds. As I recall, the bases at the other cities besides Venice were never referred to as "guilds" specifically. As well, the base in Venice is only ever called the thieves' guild, which may suggest that in spite of functioning as the Assassin base at the same time there, guild referred to it being a thieves base, not as a guild of Assassins independent of Assassins in Florence, Monteriggioni, and Rome.

Furthermore, Mario Auditore is noted in The Essential Guide as the leader of the overall Italian Brotherhood, a position overtaken by Niccolò Machiavelli afterwards, which would suggest that there was unity across the Italian Assassin bases. Because it is also noted that each Guild has its own Mentor, and that the Mentor of the Italian Brotherhood was Mario Auditore, then Machiavelli, then Ezio, this seems to suggest that guilds do correspond with these branches called "Brotherhoods".

Then, I thought over about the "Assassin's Guild" and "Mediterranean Defense" systems in Brotherhood and Revelations, and in both cases, there's only one base per country, which doesn't really help us clarify if the guild in that city is taken as having jurisdiction of the entire country or only has jurisdiction over that city. Individuals bases within a city are called Dens though.

However, in Assassin's Creed II: Discovery, the thieves' guild that Ezio searches for in Barcelona is referred to as the Assassin's guild as well, but it's unclear if this guild was meant to have oversight over all of the Spanish Assassins.

Maybe the nail in the coffin though is that in the "infobox" for each Assassin character's page in the book, there is a parameter called "Guild Affiliation" and it is under this parameter that is listed "Italian Brotherhood", "Ottoman Brotherhood", "Parisian Brotherhood", "Chinese Brotherhood", "British Brotherhood", etc. For the Templars, it is replaced with "Rite Affiliation", suggesting that Assassin Guilds parallel that of Templar Rites. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:30, February 15, 2017 (UTC)

Forgot this point though: do you remember what they called the various Assassin bases in Black Flag? Whether the ones presided over by Rhona Dinsmore and Antó for example were called guilds in their own right or just bureaus? Because I know Ah Tabai is said in The Essential Guide to lead the entire West Indies Brotherhood. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:32, February 15, 2017 (UTC)
::The Assassin bases in Black Flag were referred to a bureaus. I suppose if the Essential Guide calls them guilds then I guess it's what they are. Still, I would have liked for these kind off things to be better explained, as it occasionally seems contradictory. The Wikia Editor (talk) 18:17, February 15, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Proofreading the Rites articles

Sure, I was planning on doing so anyway. Not to mention the fact that many of them need to be expanded as well. The Wikia Editor (talk) 11:34, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Puts me to ease. :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:31, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Portable infoboxes

Hello,

I hope I could solve the problem (Changes).

Could you please take a screenshot for your version? Because for me it looks fine.
::: Upload the picture on imgur and send me the link or upload the picture on my test wiki. Cyanide3 05:55, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Religion of Organizations

Yes, I agree that the religion of individual members is not reflective of the stance of the organization itself, which, in the case of the Assassins, is irreligious. As you mentioned, some members were religious. Altaïr's father Umar was a Muslim while his mother Maud was a Christian. But the organization as a whole has always emphasized a rational and generally non-religious view. I also agree that most of these cases don't seem to even have a reference to back them up. Even they did, the point still stands that the religions practiced by individual members does not reflect the stance of the Assassins as a whole. The Wikia Editor (talk) 02:17, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Re:A Complete list of Dates for the Film

I don't have the novel, I mostly got the dates from this article on Access the Animus. However, the general rule of thumb still stands that the novelizations are secondary to the main sources, in this case, the movie. As such, the contradictory dates in the movie novelization is not considered canon unless it's something the movie didn't specify (i.e. the movie doesn't say how long it took Aguilar to travel to Cadiz and give the Apple to Columbus, whereas the novel specifies that it took him 5 days).

As for the novel's timeline: The events occur in 1491. First we have the prologue (Aguilar's initiation), then the first regression to when the Assassins try to save Prince Ahmed, which is stated to occur a "few months" after Aguilar's initiation. This leads directly to the second regression in which they escape from Torquemada's auto-da-fé (during which it was also stated that Aguilar, Maria and Benedicto were the last remaining Spanish Assassins, in obvious contradiction to Discovery). Afterward, we have the third and final regression, said to occur during the Siege of Granada (November 1491), in which Aguilar ultimately escapes with the Apple, giving it to Columbus 5 days later.

Personally, I think the movie's events occur during the timespan of January 1-2, shortly before Discovery's Memory Block 7. The only issue would be the fact the Sophia explicitly orders for Cal's second regression to send him to "the sixth", although I think that might have been one of those script mistakes mentioned by Aymar during the Reddit AMA. The Wikia Editor (talk) 00:35, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

If the film takes precedence over the novel though, and the film clearly gives a date of January 6 for one of the regressions (not sure which one, their attempt to rescue Ahmed or the auto-da-fé?), then, in the absence of Aymar explicitly clarifying that this was one of the script mistakes, doesn't this mean that we have to accept that the ransom meeting occurs after January 6 and thus after Granada is handed over to the Spanish? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:13, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

The auto-da-fé is the second regression. However, it's pretty much impossible for the events as shown to have occured after January 2. Mostly because of the fact that Muhammad is still referred to as the Sultan and is still depicted as residing in the Alhambra, whereas historically he is said to have left soon after the abdication ceremony. There are also several instances of both the Assassins and the Templars explicitly stating that Granada was close to being, but was not quite yet, fully under Spanish control. Admittedly, this would not be the first time that the Assassin's Creed series took some artistic license with historical facts. But this would seem like a pretty big blunder if it's meant to be later than January 2. The Wikia Editor (talk) 10:21, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much every source I've seen seems to agree that the abdication ceremony occured on January 2. After all, the whole point of the Treaty of Granada is that the period between November 25 1491 - January 2 1492 would involve the transition of power from the Moorish Emirate of Granada to the Catholic monarchs of Spain. Christopher Columbus, who was apparently there on the day of the abdication ceremony, described it as such: After your Highnesses ended the war of the Moors who reigned in Europe, and finished the war of the great city of Granada, where this present year 1492 on the 2nd January I saw the royal banners of Your Highnesses planted by force of arms on the towers of the Alhambra. The Wikia Editor (talk) 11:12, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

I think Ezio's absence is better explained by saying that he arrived shortly after (or, at best, during) Aguilar's escape. I can understand Ezio not knowing about the Assassins' rescue attempt of the prince because of some kind of communication barrier. Maybe they didn't send a message to Luis and Raphael's faction because of fear that the message could get intercepted and they might lose the element of surprise during the rescue. However, Ezio definitely would have been aware of the auto-da-fé and Aguilar and Maria's subsequent escape, given how much attention it drew. The most likely scenario is that Ezio heard about the Assassins being captured following the failed rescue mission and then set out from wherever he was to Granada hoping to save them. But by the time he arrived, either after or during Aguilar's escape, he was too late. I'm imagining a scene in which Ezio arrived just in time to witness Aguilar leap off of the bridge with the Apple and then returning to Luis to inform him of what he saw. With no time to search for Aguilar (or even confirm that he was still alive), Luis and Ezio would then decide to focus on more immediate matters (protecting civilians, assassinating Juan de Marillo, etc.).

Also, I'd gladly like to read your message to Aymar. I don't really have an IRC, aside from email, I guess. You could perhaps post it on the thread, I could easily reply to it there.The Wikia Editor (talk) 10:45, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the General(s) of the Cross

I've noticed that you wish to revert the Generals of the Cross page to the singular General of the Cross. I'm guessing you've probably figured this out already, but the plural page refers to the rank itself whereas the singular page refers to the individual who, as of 2014, held this rank. The same thing was done when the Black Cross was first introduced, the page for the character was "Black Cross" and the page for the rank was "Black Crosses". Once his name was revealed to be Albert Bolden, we adjusted accordingly and moved the information to his name page and changed the rank to singular. I'm pretty sure we'll do the same thing to these pages once the name of the General of the Cross is revealed. The Wikia Editor (talk) 11:36, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

I did already notice that, even when I was writing the message on the talk page, and I disagree. I don't think we should intentionally violate proper formatting or grammar conventions for the sake of disambiguation. I know I have also pointed out that I think it is improper to have article names in their plural forms. To be exact, the specific General of the Cross of 2014 should be named either "unidentified General of the Cross" in the manner of Wookieepedia, as unwieldy as that is, or "General of the Cross (2014)". The name "General of the Cross" itself is still most properly reserved for the actual rank, and pluralizing it is, in my view, an incorrect way of disambiguation. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:20, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it would be in the same vein as Mentor vs. Mentor (2000). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:28, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I guess "General of the Cross (2014)" is the best option for the character page, not to mention the fact that it's consistent with our naming standards. Not sure how to rename the Generals of the Cross page to singular though. The Wikia Editor (talk) 16:37, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

RE:Trivia edits

Hey Sol. This is Jack whom you sent a message earlier. I appreciate of you seeing my work but could we just work together as a team rather than , no offense to you, somehow criticizing instead of correcting what I do? I could add some facts but you modify it wether it is ok or not and I would totally appreciate it if it were the case. I like the way you modify my edits so it could be more interesting to read at. Tnx!

P.S Could you check if the ' outfit special effects in Rogue'are true? Because I read it in the website and I'm not sure if theyre right. —unsigned comment by Jackdawvsaquila (talk · contr)

Hello there :D

Hello Sol Pacificus. I'm here to ask you a few questions. But rather than ask them directly, i want to have a conversation with you. Do you have some account like FB or something like that? I assure you that I'll not share it if you don't want to. You don't know me, but you can trust in me. I'm really interested. You answer about history are so accurate. Please, answer me as soon as you can.

I can give you a glimpse of why: It's a little proyect of mine. —unsigned comment by Cristophorus35 (talk · contr)

Cristophorus35 (talk) 06:13, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind at least giving a little hint of why? o.O You sound like a total creepy stalker right now (jk jk :P). And in typical stalker fashion, you neglect to sign your name. xD Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:57, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

"You sound like a total creepy stalker right now". Yeah... I kinda am in real life. XD Just look my avatar! Hahaha.

And about the signature. I forgot about that... I'm such a newbie here U.U

And yeah. Of course: About a fanfic of AC like none have written before. An ambitious project that seeks to link the AC lore with an episode of Latin America and the conversation about God and the destruction of humankind. Tell me... what do you know about the pacific war?
:::Cristophorus35 (talk) 06:18, May 19, 2017 (UTC) Confidentiality

Not much at all I'm afraid. :( I'm assuming you're referring to the War of the Pacific in Latin America not the Pacific theater of World War II. I'm also assuming that you might be asking because I gave a positive impression of my expertise in history maybe? xD But in truth, my understanding of Latin American history is still very poor. My goal is to have a comprehensive understanding of almost all of world history, but it is a daunting task, and one that is far from finished. I do have list of designated countries for each region of the world whose histories I plan to dedicate to learning 100% of aside from lower, more realistic studies of all other countries, and for South America, that is Peru. However, I still haven't gotten around to it. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:25, May 19, 2017 (UTC)
::::Waiiitttt... why would this conversation necessitate my Facebook? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:26, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the war I'm talking about. And yeah... to me you are the Shaun "Danger" Hastings of the wiki, althought so much more friendly ^w^.

Oh, I see. Well, if that's your goal, don't you worry. If Peru is your main aim for South America you'll find at least 3 interesting points of history: The Inca Empire, the War for Independence (in which my country helped) and the War of the Pacific, being this last more important here in the region. ;)

And for the facebook: It'd be more comfortable for us, instead of talking in the usertalk. To prove that I'm talking seriously and that I respect your confidenciality, you'll find mine in my profile ^w^ just send me a private messege. And... we can be... friends?... no? :( Oh well hehe.

Just if you want and you're interested. But I'll gladly accept your help if you do.

Cristophorus35 (talk) 06:37, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Please

I'm sorry if I'm being a little too cringy or too invasive or... annoying, but I'd like to read your answer as soon as possible. I know that your FB profile is personal stuff and I understand it's a thing not everybody should have. If you have other ways we can talk between us in secrecy (because my project is kinda... confidential, yes it is) please, tell me.

It's just that... I had never met a person whose likes for history were big ones... and were fan of AC at the same time.

I think you can help me in what I want to achieve. I'll give you credit if you accept to help me. Just a few questions and a favor.

Think about it. Well, I won't push you any further. Whatever your answer is, I'll respect it.

Cya around ;) Have a nice day (Yeah, I won't forget to sign the message this time).

Cristophorus35 (talk) 05:37, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

My bad for the delayed reply. I figured it wasn't urgent. I just sent you a message on FB. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:36, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Gaius Julius Caesar → Julius Caesar

Pretty much, yes. As far as I'm aware, his full name has never even been used in any AC sources. Typically, we use the regular name of the figure unless an alternative spelling is overwhelmingly dominant within the AC-verse (i.e. Edward Thatch instead of Edward Teach). The Wikia Editor (talk) 01:40, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

Origins pages

Hey Sol, long time no speak.

With the impending announcement of Origins, expect to see me a little more around the wiki again (if only to delete articles lol) - sorry for my overall non-presence, I've found it hard to stay invested in the franchise. Here's hoping the new game can reignite my interests at least a little. Anyways, I've deleted the articles you marked for deletion, let me know if there are any others that need to be removed as well :) Cheers!

Crook ^{The Constantine District} 07:59, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait, wait... did you really think they should've been deleted? o.O Honestly, even I wasn't sure. I thought they should definitely be marked to show respect for proper sourcing, but I wasn't sure if we should really go through with it. I even worked on them ironically enough. :P Though they can be restored when the game is announced right? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:10, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. In this case, it's looking pretty clear that the leaked material is actually accurate, but we're sticking to our principles here :p No leaks as sources in our articles. No worries though, I'll put the pages back once the announcement has gone through. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 08:14, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

The "unknown" thing

Hey Sol,

Forgive the clumsy (and ominous-sounding) headline I chose, I couldn't come up with anything better. I was genuinely surprised to hear we used "died [date]" instead of "unknown - [date]". Maybe this is a silly request, but can you link me to a page or two that use this formatting? I don't remember when this change occurred (maybe it was during my absence lol) and I'm a bit iffy on whether it was a necessary change. Cheers! Crook ^{The Constantine District} 11:21, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Leandros, Georgios Kostas, Cyril of Rhodes, Madonna Solari, Xavier Chen, Castor, Hannah Mueller, Raşit El Zübeydi, Vali cel Tradat, Medeya Voronina, Cahin, just to name a few. And yes, I have always found leaving birth dates as "unknown" to be awkward under the reasoning that it may be unknown to us, but necessarily for in-universe characters. As a general rule in wiki writing, it's better not to state that something is unknown when writing from an IU-perspective. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:37, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Was there a discussion regarding this?

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the change, but I suppose I don't have a lot of right to complain since I (and the rest of the administrative team) kind of neglected my mod duties. The "d. [date]" also isn't very clear imo, it doesn't immediately communicate to me "oh that person died on that date". Maybe that's just because English isn't my mother tongue though (kinda prefer the "died [date]" you used on Tjinder's page). Crook ^{The Constantine District} 15:46, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, there wasn't a discussion on this. I was quite concerned that a lot of policy and manual of style changes can't be introduced, discussed, and implemented due to the inactivity of a lot of users and because we still lack a formal procedure for it. In fact, I've introduced quite a few issues to the forums, but most have never even received a reply, and the one that did, regarding singular vs. plural naming convention has grinded to a standstill. Instead, what we were doing was just initiating the changes and seeing whether people object or follow through. In this case, people followed through and started making the change on their own accord. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 15:56, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with making a change and then seeing what sticks. It's a 'follow the leader' kind of thing and that feels very arbitrary to me.

I understand where you're coming from though. As far as I remember, when changes to policy needed to be made in the past (back then we didn't really have the forums we do now), it'd be someone presenting their case and then other editors'd sign their names under "yes" or "no" depending on their opinion, with a "comments" section (it had a more talkpage-y structure to it) if people had issues or remarks to make. Unfortunately, as you've said, a lot of users are inactive or only semi-active atm.

To me, policy changes are difficult because it always immediately feels daunting to me that these changes have to be enacted and we don't really have the manpower to do that fast. I get a little stuck in the mindset of "our articles should come first and there's still so much work there, we don't have time for all this organizational stuff". Like the Appearances thing: I've really soured on that and I don't think it "brings" enough to the articles to warrant the work their addition requires (imo they also still look really out of place on the articles for the games themselves).

Anyways, to come back to the death date thing: part of me wants to undo the change, but I think the more productive thing to do would be to have an actual discussion on what to use, maybe have a vote on it or something (personally I'm not a fan of the polls because there's no way of telling who voted) and then enact changes. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 16:35, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your feeling about the Appearances change. The section is enormously helpful, even necessary, in Wookieepedia, but it does not feel that way for his wiki probably because the quantity of sources is not nearly as vast. Well actually, I would argue that it will over time prove more useful for media pages, not necessarily article subjects. My main reason for supporting it though is a matter of integrity. I want this community to show that it can decide upon a course of action and commit to it. Sima Yi has given the go-ahead, and I feel that it would expose a lack of cohesion and resolve if we were to falter through this. Moreover, because of the dearth of contributors around here, I wanted to support Roger so as to provide encouragement for him to keep on contributing, to show that his efforts were being appreciated. The change does feel daunting, and so far, sometimes it feels redundant, but I think over time, as the franchise continues to expand, its merits would become clearer. It actually doesn't look out-of-place to me for the games, but the other articles where they seem woefully redundant. For the games, they seem like almost a necessity to me because it provides fans a convenient list of everything that appears in that game.

I agree with you on how the "follow the leader" approach is arbitrary, however, I think a counter to that is that in many ways, that has already been how we have been acting since the decline in administrative presence and voting procedure. That is to say, it has always been influential editors approving or disapproving certain edits to articles, and then this setting a precedent. There is no codification of manual of style. All of it seems to rest on precedent and the opinions and personal preferences of more prominent contributors or admins, so I think arguably, this has already been how it's like.

Finally, I think that in regards to this mentality you mentioned: "our articles should come first and there's still so much work there, we don't have time for all this organizational stuff", the issue is that I think that without some newer policies, these article can't be of great quality anyways. They have to be consistent with one another for one thing. They have to have better organization to stand as good articles. They should also be consistent with grammatical conventions, like singular titles... and we should have a clear idea what can stand as article and what cannot (e.g. Sima Yi told me he does not think Plato should have been an article). There's so many issues, but I think that focusing on our articles is very much intertwined with focusing on establishing a consistent manual of style and organization. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:46, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

And right now we have a user in the midst of removing character infoboxes from the articles of many minor characters, arguing they're unnecessary, and Sima Yi had told me before when I asked that preferably, any character with more than one parameter that can be filled should have an infobox. :-/ Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:51, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Proposed Deletion of Assassin Guilds & Templar Rites pages

I didn't really know about the policies regarding the Deletion templates, Thank for the info. And yes, I was actually worried that an admin might delete them all before the discussion was over. That being said, I believe that Bovkaffe should have discussed this first before putting them up. I've written on his talk page, but he hasn't replied yet. I've also made thread so that everyone can discuss this. The Wikia Editor (talk) 13:30, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

Kumi Berko

it said you made a change to Berko aka The Mercenary but has not answered my question would you like to answer it for me?Commandochief99 (talk) 03:23, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand your question on the talk page. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:24, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know a description of the mercenary's attire meaning his outfit or clothings that he is wearing like how the night stalker has his own description of his clothing like the scarf with leather jacket but for the mercenary Character clothing style.i would like to know if you are capable of making that possible? it woyld be highly appreciated

I would like to know a description of the mercenary Character ? Meaning the clothing he is wearing like the description of the night stalker how it says for him that "The Night Stalker is a brown leather coat wearing man with a slender build and a large hat, working in tandem with a scarf around his lower face to disguise his facial features. In combat, he wields a hook-like weapon" but a description like that of the mercenary. I would appreciate it greatly amd highlyCommandochief99 (talk) 04:55, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would need a description of his attire when you can already tell by looking at his picture what he wears. Does this article: Mercenary (Black Flag Animi Avatar) help? I'm particularly poor at describing clothing. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:41, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

The article doesnt help because it doesnt say anything about what he happens to be wearing at all thats why i asked you if you could make the description of the mercenary's attireCommandochief99 (talk) 12:28, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

But as I asked before, why would you need it described if you can see for yourself in the image what he is wearing? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:49, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

I have troulbe makikg out what kind of Boots, Jacket and pants those areCommandochief99 (talk) 12:58, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really not knowledgeable on clothing terminology. I can only say that it seems that his heavy coat or jacket appears to be of leather, and that he is obviously wearing a tunic underneath that is parted to expose his entire torso. Other than that, I'm afraid I can't be of any more help. May I ask why this is important to you? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 13:07, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

I understand your not that knowledgeable about those kind of things i'm not i only figured some one in tue wiki would help seeing how the knight stalker has his clothing of choice alreadu in his description i thought that since someone did that description of the night stalk it would be possible to find someone who can for the mercenary and as for the importance i have a dream of making my own videogame since i was little and i wanted to know the outfit's description so i may use it on a character i know it seems silly lol but still i have my curiosities and my fasantionsCommandochief99 (talk) 13:38, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Also doest seem right for some characters to have a description of their attire ehen others dont ypu knowCommandochief99 (talk) 13:45, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Good writing (?)

Just wanted to clear something out, those pages of the characters in ACReb, I'm not the one who wrote that text, I'm just copying what's in their Bio in the game into the wiki. As such, I cannot confirm which criminal the game is trying to point out.

I'm not a good writer, but wanted to put that info out there so someone else could mold it, if someone wanted to.

By the way, while I'm at it, why the change from "References" to "Appearances"? The "References" was kinda pointing out that everything above came from the game, while with a "Appearances" you're just giving the same information that the character infobox is giving. --Sekuiya^talk 11:02, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
:Haha I actually feared that the writing was coming straight out of database pages from Assassin's Creed: Rebellion, but I wasn't too sure because I did catch a few mistakes.

As for the change from "References" to "Appearances", I should clarify that we're not actually replacing "References" with "Appearances" per se, but correcting the usage of the terms. We're to have both sections. It's kind of confusing, but you should check out examples at Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki. Here are two examples: Ice (duelist and Venator-class Star Destroyer. "References" technically are meant to be a list of citations whereas "Appearances" list out all the media that the subject appears in and which can be used to find further information.

The former practice of this wiki, however, was to merge the functions of the "Appearances" and "References" sections for some reason, so that if there's only one source, we just list that source and assume all information comes from it, while if there's more than one source, we cite everything to the multiple sources without listing all the sources the subject appears in.

Distinguishing these two functions and sectons is extremely beneficial for editors when you have examples such as smoke screen bombs, which is heavily outdated and missing a lot of information. Because of this, editors did use the "References" section to cite to the sources they're taking from, but they fail to mention all the sources that they neglected, that are missing which are unused. The "Appearances" section solves this because it gives a full list to editors (and also readers if they want to find information themselves) of every possible source where the subject can be found in even if information from those sources are missing in the article. Without this section, editors, as has been the case before I added the Appearances section to that article, might not even realize that there's missing information! Just compare the two sections and take a look at how many sources are missing from the References. Formerly, it wasn't so necessary to distinguish the two functions for this wiki because the franchise was small. There were only a few sources, and everyone knew which thing came from which games, but now the franchise has gotten a lot bigger, with many spin-off games, comics, novels, and reference books, and we're falling behind, so it's good to list out all the sources for something since sometimes an article is missing information from some sources.

The Appearances section does seem redundant for characters when it's already in infoboxes, and we kind of talked about this, but others were fine with it. The problem is that only characters have "Appearances" in their infoboxes, whereas this applies to all articles.

This was a policy that was discussed here and here. Honestly, not too many people participated and so not too many people were informed, and it wasn't clear that the entire community supported it, but the administrators gave us the go-ahead, and the vote still technically went in favor for the change. Because I didn't want us to essentially have said "we'll do this" then back away and never commit to it, I am trying to help make the change. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:24, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

By the way, are you from the Philippines? I know that the game has not been officially released yet and is in open beta in the Philippines. Otherwise, I was curious how you have access to the game. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:28, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

I'll be sure to take into account those policies in future pages that I create then, seems pretty justified.

Though it still is kinda confusing having both Appearances for Characters.

Regarding Philippines, well, the answer is no. There are ways to play the game if you're on Android. It's not entirely illegal to do so, but it can be more akin to a "grey area". As such I would prefer not to discuss that subject here. I'm sometimes on IRC channel, so if you catch me there and want more details, just ask.

PS: The Ysabel Lomelin text before your edit was not the Bio as written in the game and was already an adapted text of the original made by someone else, in case you're wondering. --Sekuiya^talk 23:12, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm good with waiting for the full release of the game; I'm not a fan of a "grey area" of acquiring content, even if it's not illegal. :P Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:33, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

New article: Animus 3.5

Hi i was wondering if you could help me with a new page i made, i created it with the name "Animus 3.5" which i later found out was actually the Animus 4.35. if you can or help me know how to change it it would be great.

Thanks,
Blademaster3636 (talk) 06:26, July 11, 2017 (UTC)BladeMasterBlademaster3636 (talk) 06:26, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that the article needs some work. Just a heads-up for future reference. Almost all articles should be written from an in-universe perspective. What that means is that you have to write as though you were living in the Assassin's Creed Universe, so you shouldn't be ever mentioning titles of games or books because these don't exist inside the Assassin's Creed world. They exist outside of it. The exception is the Trivia section or if the subject is exclusively real-world, like a voice actor.

I will work on it tomorrow. Honestly, the community seems to have decided so far to have just one article on Animus and all Animus versions to be linked under it, so the article might actually should be deleted. However, I personally think there should be individual articles on Animus versions, so this is something I have to think about.

Welcome to the wiki! :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:33, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Appearances

Could you link me to this supposed new policy? While I had been gone for a good while, I can't say I understand the need for this, or why it's only present on a small handful of articles. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 19:42, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

The discussions for this policy were held here and here. Although not many people participated in the voting, we were ultimately given the approval and go-ahead by Master Sima Yi though progress in implementing it has been slow.

While unnecessary in the earlier years of the franchise, its expansion to a myriad of sources with the release of comics, novels, and reference books is starting to necessitate this change. One of the prime reasons for this policy, though actually not covered in the discussions, can be gleamed in the article smoke screen bombs which only provides information from a couple of its appearances and is heavily outdated. Equating "Appearances" and "References" thereby causes confusion because people who look at the References might think that that's all the information there ever is on smoke bombs in the series and the only sources that smoke bombs ever make an appearance when that is a mere fraction of the information on the subject. As seen in the Appearances section, the article is missing information from a whole slew of games, and the article presents itself even as exclusive to the few sources it cites to. The Appearances section therefore helps show to editors all the available sources to refer to. As a Wookieepedian, this is definitely essential for larger franchises so that editors can investigate each source to check for information missing from the article. With large franchises, that is inevitable because editors tend to cut out significant details or information in their haste. Likewise, readers can also check for sources if they want additional information that might be missing. Having a sole References section conflating with Appearances means that a list of sources is dependent on whether editors happen to include information that cite to those sources. In many cases, especially with the fewer manpower around here and with us falling greatly behind the series, articles are more and more reaching the state of smoke screen bombs, missing a whole slew of sources.

I actually explained this just above to Sekuiya on my talk page.

As I explained to Crookandcharlatan before, another reason why I'm more insistent to see this through is because we as a community have been stagnating, and I want us to be able to show that once we say we are going to do something, we can actually commit to it and carry it out. The Appearances for media articles is also beneficial for helping readers to navigate articles, and for us to organize them, especially with the surge in so many subjects. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:24, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, alright. I can see the benefit of this. I can help you implement this where I can (wouldn't be the first time I've carved my way through several articles in order to make changes), but in the case of Mongolian Rite of the Templar Order, you replaced References with Appearances. I see you added references later though, so was that just an accident? And finally, I appreciate you giving me such an in-depth response -- I was actually taken aback at the size of your reply. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 20:37, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oh haha, it's actually my bad habit to write this much over anything. With the Mongolian Rite, it's actually because we're not yet sure if when References and Appearances both have a single source, should we still have both sections. Master Sima Yi answered me that we should, but I was still a bit uncertain because I feel like that answer didn't really get established firmly for people. Usually it turns out moot since there turns out to be information that can be cited to other sources anyways. I actually had meant to go back to the article another day to actually revise it, but I was so sleepy at the time, I couldn't even bear to do a bit more and add a few citations, hence why it seemed like I just left it like that. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:49, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Sima that we should use both as well. I don't like the idea of having technically sourceless articles, since that goes against our policy. In my opinion, in such cases where there only is one reference, we should include the ref in the article and then use a reflist in the bottom section, rather than our previous style of just including the single reference at the bottom -- much like an appearance. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 20:58, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Hola, me again. I had a thought while adding appearances to heralds. I don't remember them being addressed as heralds in the first game, so would it be worth noting beside their AC2 appearance "(first identified as Heralds)", or something to that effect. Something similar could be done with Golden Flintlock Pistols, since they have different names in Black Flag and Rogue. On a side note, however, I thought I had made an "Edward's Pistols" page back in 2014, since it was decided that we shouldn't merge weapon articles together if they've got differing names in different games. I remember I brought that up back in 2012 and I was overruled massively. Syrian Sabre is an exception though, clearly. I don't mind merging such articles, but I think we should be consistent about it. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 17:02, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think "First identified as" is an important note to make though I'm not sure if just citing the first instance that name shows up in the introduction, such as what I did in Golden Flintlock Pistols would suffice. I'm neutral either way. Also ah, I was not around in 2012, so I wouldn't know. I personally thought that since the wiki has decided on a lore-based direction, it doesn't make sense to organize the weapon articles based on gameplay, partly because with more novels and comics nowadays, technically some weapons aren't exclusive to games. It felt really redundant to me to have multiple articles on Altaïr's swords, for example. (Actually, with that it's also inconsistent because we have some games' version of the Sword of Altaïr merged in one article and others not). If people were dead set against it though, maybe we should review the discussion. I think I also brought up a discussion on weapons articles recently, but no one responded to it. I think I was wondering if a weapon article should be describing the weapon type in general or the very specific design of that weapon. For example, there's a weapon called a Mace in Unity, which we do not yet have an article on. I'm not sure if an article on "mace" or "maces" should just deal with maces in general, with the Mace in Unity merged into it, or if there should be a specific article on "Mace (Unity)" regarding the specific design of mace. So we do have a lot of unresolved questions regarding weapons article, but very few people here are interested in dealing with them. Note that I did merge Unity's spear with a general article on spears. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:27, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

You got it. I'll remember to note down separate names and first identifications when I add appearances to articles in future. Also, I'm up for discussing those weapon articles (I made/revamped most of them), but I haven't seen many editors around other than you, to be honest. This places feels almost barren, which isn't how I remember it at all. Also, side-note, the reason pretty much none of the Unity and Syndicate weapons have articles is because I left before I had a chance to write them. It seems nobody took my place in that regard. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 22:54, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

Ohhh so you're our weapons dealer. :P I was going to get around to them, but yeah weapons articles are honestly a bit boring, so it was hard to motivate myself to get through all of them. Also, people like the Wikia Editor, ACSenior, Francesco, Bovkaffe, Maxattac, Evandrus Prime, Spanish Assassin, Kulurak, they're all still around actually. However, most of them have a specific focus rather than making major edits. Maxattac I know still makes major edits on new items when they arise while the Wikia Editor is always around for discussions everyday. Actually the forums seem fairly active still, as long as it's not about wiki work. ._. ... (Jasca's particularly funny, I find, because he has this cycle of liking to show up out of nowhere for one random discussion then leave without finishing the conversation before his next surprise appearance where he does the same xD). Some of the admins come back once in a while for like a week or so before leaving again. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:28, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Crook did assure me that once Origins is released, we should start seeing people coming back. We did briefly get a surge in editors again when Origins was announced. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:29, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we should start seeing new and old people helping out once Origins comes out. Since it's been a while without a game, there hasn't been much buzz. Hopefully that is the case, but I don't think I'll be getting Origins at release, since I still have to 100% Unity, and I haven't even gotten Syndicate yet. I still seem to have my old staff rights, which should come in handy for reverting vandalism and such. Not sure if I should be using them though, since I did technically resign, but if I'm the only 'staff' member around, then so be it. I'm glad Bovkaffe is still around though; I've always liked his style.

On a final note, if I can figure out Unity's weapon statistics, I'll get to work on writing articles for them. Fortunately, I only bought, like, three swords before finishing the story, and two pistols, so I can get most of the prices and such. For the rest, I can probably find them online somewhere.--Crimson Knight _Intercom 23:42, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

Just a little greeting

Hi Sol, I just wanted to congratulate you on the work you do on the Wiki. And that I admire the work you do in philosophical interpretation. Bearing in mind that I am a recent graduate in history and I love philosophy is something that I share with you. A greeting ;) Spanish assassin (Talk) 11:44, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Chatting

Hi Sol! So I've got a few ideas lined up at the moment that I wanted to discuss with some community members in private. Do you think you'll be able to come on the IRC or Discord sometime soon? -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 17:42, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

If you have a moment, can you send me a message on Discord? Just a follow-up on what was discussed earlier. https://discord.gg/eyQYdqt -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 10:10, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

I'll get on when I can, but it might be a while for me today. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:22, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

If you can reach out to me on Discord asap, ease do. My laptop died so I can't log into IRC. You can use Discord on your smartphone with the free mobile app very easily anyway. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 09:26, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

Notable members

We're not going to list every single game protagonist and game Mentors in the notable members section. I don't really understand why you'd make a complaint about eras but this is ever-growing list does not seem to be an issue. I'm gonna write out criteria later today because this is not something I can condone maintaining. And as it is, I don't see what the criteria are for having these particular lists. Also, please direct me to where this was discussed. I'll want to take a closer look on the issue. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 08:48, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

We haven't had a full discussion on it yet aside from edit summaries from the edit wars here and there on the issue. I only reverted your edits to make a quick point about it being arbitrary and also because I think pending discussion, it makes more sense to leave the article with the "safer" edit. I actually do not agree that every single main game protagonist should be listed at all, but pending discussion, I see no other obvious, objective criteria hence why I see it as the safer, temporary solution. To be honest, I think you were a little too quick to assume I didn't see this as an issue because it certainly is; my only point is that it is something that has been very contentious recently and has not yet been resolved, and people should stop being so impulsive about treating their idea of who makes the list and not as indisputably correct because everyone has been making counter-productive edit wars about it. My only aim was to maintain the list at status quo pending discussion. Also, as I recall, the Crimson Eagle was the one who made the complaint about eras. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 11:08, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

I'll get on drafting a proposal then. This list needs to be shorter rather than longer. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 11:24, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not being prompt in initiating the discussion. I was a little lazy about it partially because while I did see it as an issue, I thought of it as a minor one. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 11:34, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

Real life images

Hello,

As you can see I am undergoing a weapons identification effort here on the wiki. So I was wondering what is the real life image policy of the wiki? Can we add the real life weapon images in the trivia sections to illustrate what they are based on for example? Nanomat (talk) 15:38, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nanomat, I appreciate this project you're undertaken as almost no one here are interested in working on the weapons articles, so that would ease some of my burden. :) As far as I know, we haven't really developed a policy regarding real-life images being used in Trivia sections, though they certainly shouldn't be used for the body. You should ask Master Sima Yi. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:54, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

French Mentor

I'm not sure I agree with the decision to delete the French Mentor article. You're argument is that it does not contain enough relevant info about the individual, but the problem is that we have numerous articles containing just as much of even less information (the General of the Cross comes to mind). I'm afraid that this might set an unfortunate precedent in which we would be required to judge articles based on how much information they contain, which would inevitably result in people bickering over how much information is sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, if the individual is confirmed to exist, they should get an article, regardless of how small it ends up being. The Wikia Editor (talk) 14:21, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Normally I'd be the one to argue quite vehemently your position, and I have in the past, so I understand your standpoint fully. However, I think what sets this article apart is that the character is entirely unnamed and has only one tiny point of information about them. Had it only been either or and not both factor together, I would agree with you. Following by the logic of allowing this article, we should also allow articles on every last unnamed character, paving the way for the unidentified guards killed in every mission to have articles. Wookieepedia, in fact, does allow this, hence why they have articles on many "unidentified" stormtroopers from the films whose only role was to appear for a split second to get shot. I back Wookieepedia on this, but only because they have a policy on it that they have developed through a lot of discussions. I believe that it is, however, something we should not set a precedent for without a discussion, and this in fact does set that precedent even though we already do have some articles of unnamed guards. Note that how minor a character is does not matter to me as long as he has a name—he still deserves an article. I wrote the articles on Sadad and Qasim for example. Alternatively, if a character is unnamed, but contains some information, I think would say the character also deserves an article. But I'm getting the impression that in this case, we literally had one line of mention that a Mentor sent Assassin agents or even that the Mentor was never mentioned at all but that his existence has been assumed by the fact the Assassins were sent on a mission. I think that either way, he amounts to no more than an unnamed guard we kill in a mission, which, if we have an article on this Mentor, we should have an article on all those guards. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 13:36, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

I can definitely see your point of view, allowing any random guard to get an article would get quite reduntant. However, this particular case has precedent, as shown by the articles of the American Mentor and Al Mualim (1794), of whom we similarly know very little. In case you're wondering, the French Mentor was indeed mentioned within Maréchal's report, which you can read here. The Wikia Editor (talk) 16:13, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Tracing weapon origins

Well, thanks :D I've been working on a wiki devoted to military equipment and uniforms for quite some time. My main motivation to start such wiki was because I was very curious what uniforms and gear are depicted in video games, so I have a lot of experience tracing and identifying stuff on the web. You have to remember, the main point is that ALL information regarding these things is on the web and that game devs always use web sources for reference, that makes the identification possible... it is just a matter of time and stubbornness.

For example, how did I find out the real background of the Viking's Remains sword? Everything is in the keywords, I first started googling for "viking swords" and "two handed viking swords". When this did not produce any plausible answers I simplified the keywords to "two handed sword balls" without the Viking component as at that point I knew that the sword is most likely based on something completely non-Viking and bam I got the Indian sword among the first results.

As for how I found the AC3 pirate and royal navy pistols? I saw that the pirate and royal navy use the same model... so if you search for "pirate flintlock" you'll have a lot of generic results, the best thing is to search for "royal navy flintlock pistol". When this did not produce any reliable answers I thought ok so if it is not British then what would be the next most prominent country of the era? France... also considering that there are already weapons like French naval axe in the game I concluded that it would be best to google "French naval flintlock pistol" aaaand here you go with your answer.

The most important thing is to put yourself on the dev's place and ask yourself what would the devs be looking for? Keywords are the most important thing. If you wanna identify something feel free to cooperate with me. Cheers :D Nanomat (talk) 19:45, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Multiplayer muskets

1. Appears to be a tribalized early 17th century doglock (stock shape) with brown bess metal ramrod
   #Generic
   #Highly decorated 1650-1720 Dutch Musket with this style of trigger guard or this one
   #16th century German matchlock musket with this style of trigger guard
   #Dutch 1630-1650 musket after example in Utrecht
   #Similar to above
   #Very loosely based on 17th century doglock musket with this style of trigger guard or this one
   Nanomat (talk) 17:59, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Explaining Religious Affiliations

Thank you for the insight. Should we ad a page for Apophis... the Egyptian Serpent Deity given the fact that an extremely large Cobra like desert serpant appears in Assassins Creed Origins? Callum Konstantin (Talk) 14:21, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hey Sol, just wanted to clarify some things up in regards to sourcing. Does gameplay videos from Youtubers who are not really sponsored by Ubisoft counted as official sources of information? Are we allowed to actually source information from those videos? Thanks.XOdeyssusx (talk) 02:32, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks for asking XOdeyssusx. As far as I know, it is perfectly fine as long as the graphics can ultimately be sourced at their roots to Ubisoft itself. I don't think taking an entire video gameplay playthrough would be okay, but certainly an image is fine because ultimately the image traces down to the game itself developed by Ubisoft, not the YouTube uploader. However, it is not at all recommended to take images from YouTube videos for quality reasons, and it should only be used as a last resort. Moreover, as a courtesy, if you can, you should always credit the YouTuber who uploaded the video that helped you obtain the graphic. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:51, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
:::Alright noted. Thanks for the answer! XOdeyssusx (talk) 03:13, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Volley gun

Actually, I don't think the fire mode really matters. Usually, I prefer the in game namings of weapons so guns like the American Flintlock and others should definitely have their own article. Maybe you can make one Duck Foot article and have table with the various instances in the series like what you did with the Brown Bess. Or you can have different article for every duck foot as they are named differently in game. But I definitely don't like the idea to have all multi-barreled pistols in one article as there would be too much clutter in the trivia section describing every gun. Nanomat (talk) 12:54, October 11, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Captain's Sword & Milanese sword are broadswords?

At first glance it looks like that they are broadswords, indeed. However after googling medieval italian swords I stumbled upon what is known as "side-sword" or "Spada da lato". Here is an example that has very similar guards to the AC swords, especially the "double guard" like thing protruding over the base of the blade and the mostly uncovered grip. Otherwise the blade is more of the broad type, but in conclusion I believe they mixed the Schiavona blade with the spada da lato guard. Nanomat (talk) 17:49, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Airships?

There is the zeppelin (I will figure out the exact model later) featured in The Darkest Hour and there are the observation blimps (based on Zodiac MBZ-3) in Unity's WW2 anomaly. So how should we proceed with making article for them? Should we have separate articles or have one "Airship" article? Nanomat (talk) 20:39, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
:A simple solution would just be to have both an article at "Airship" and articles for the zeppelin and blimps. I see this is similar to the situation we face with the weapons. Honestly, it doesn't matter too much, but if the sources never actually use the term "airship", I think we should lean on creating an article at "zeppelin" and for the blimp in Unity first and then think more about if we should create an article at "airship" to link them together for better organization. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:50, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Persian Shamshir

Actual Persian shamshir swords tend to have slim blades. The in game sword is just the stereotypical scimitar sword and accordingly it was properly named as such in ACII. Nanomat (talk) 12:02, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Naah, too generic to determine. My bet is that it is just their interpretation of something like this. On the other hand the Persian Scimitars in AC4 are proper shamshir swords. Nanomat (talk) 12:30, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Weapons

Hello Sol Pacificus,
Just wanted to congratulate your efforts on revamping/making new weapons pages. Looks great! I don't know if this will help, given both your and Nanomat's thoroughness, but I've made some tables based on the weapon charts in the ACU Official Guide - Collector's Edition. I had noted the differences bw the game/guide stats and hoped to somehow merge the charts, but the project fell to the wayside. I applaud you on finding an answer!
Darman (talk) 02:45, October 22, 2017 (UTC)
:Darman, wow that is amazing work you have going there. I was always wondering why no one had ever undertaken the Unity weapon stats. I didn't realize it was because it had become such a convoluted mess with so many contradictions between sources. I actually just followed by the French AC Wiki's lead and counted by how many levels there were to each stat bar. I see that you and others mentioned that the values might not be consistent across all weapons even if they shared the same number of "levels" in their bars. Unfortunately, I think it's best to just do the best we can and act as though all the values really were consistent even if it's clear that a pistol does not have the range of a musket when both have 8 levels in their Range bars.

Actually, a major contradiction arose in that the tutorial entries specifically says that all weapon stats are out of 6 levels. However, in the stat bars, it's clear that the distance between 4 and 5 is twice that of the distances between all previous levels. The same is true for the distance between 5 and 6: it's twice that of the distance between 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 3 to 4. Thus, it appears that there is actually 8 levels, not 6 as the tutorial entry says, only that levels 5 and 7 are skipped for standard weapons, leading Ubisoft to simplify by calling level 6 "5" and level 8 "6". Complicating this matter further is that for DLC weapons, there are weapons at actual levels 5 and 7, proving that the bars really are out of 8 and not 6. So, we settled on the max level being 8. The stats provided by the Unity game guide are exceedingly odd, but it looks like we'd probably have to discount them. Thank you so much for compiling them nonetheless! The other charts there will still prove very helpful! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:24, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

Sol,
I'm afraid most of what you said regarding levels and stats went over my head (sounds horribly messy, though! Guess Ubisoft didn't iron out all their bugs), so I'll have to take your word on it, as my current gaming system is not quite strong enough to play Unity (I know the plot, etc. so it's not like I've been spoiled). If the stats in the Unity chart are wrong, I think I'll wipe them from my sandbox. Do you think we can keep the "Upgrade" column? We'd need to figure out how to get the Creed Points symbol, though. And the Skill Points symbol for Syndicate and Origin's weapon upgrades & Skill tree. But we managed to get the Akçe symbol, so…? Oh, if you scroll down my sandbox, I also did the stats for the guns in AC:S & Jack the Ripper; they might prove useful later (If anyone can correct any errors, that'd be great. I based them all off YT vids, so they may not be accurate). If I can help in any other way, please let me know!
Darman (talk) 04:45, October 23, 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I know the AC: Bloodlines weapons are red-links (Twins' Rapier, Fredrick's Hammer, etc.) They're part a (much delayed) project of mine. I've written their draft pages, but haven't found time yet to upload them.

Hello again, Sol,
Just popping in for a quick visit. I'd like to congratulate you again on your work with the weapons pages. Very nice! I have two questions regarding Unity weapons, though:

1. Will we be using the values in the Upgrades column I mentioned earlier (see my sandbox), with the Creed Symbols, or will it be too messy?
   :::#In the Modifier column, the word "Additional" seems redundant when the stats already have the '+' symbol. Would it be a problem if I removed the word across all Unity weapon pgs?

Hope all's well with you, Darman (talk) 02:34, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

Hey Darman, to be honest I forgot about your suggestion with the Creed symbols. I think it'd be preferable to include them, but at this moment, I am preoccupied with Origins articles which must take paramount priority. I am currently about the only editor active in writing articles on that game's lore although XOdeyssusx is helping out immensely with Origins' weapons. As they stand, working on Unity weapon pages any further would have to take the lowest priority for me, but I really appreciate you reminding me of the matter. As for the + symbol being redundant with the word "Additional" already present, I actually took the text exactly it appears in the game, and I would prefer to keep it that way. Thanks for asking about it though; it's a good catch! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:08, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

Sol,
Makes sense ACO is the priority, given its recent release. And we were so close to finishing the remaining ACU and ACS pages, too, even with Ubisoft's gap year. :( Anyway, why do you think we should keep "additional"? (Heck, why's the duplicate descriptor/operator even in-game?)
re: Creed Points - I'd ask the person who made the Akçe template, Vatsa1708, but they've gone dark since June 2016, and judging by their activity at the Prototype wiki, they seem to have relocated there since leaving. Unless they're avoiding spoilers? Maybe Bovkaffe? They've really gone at it with Unity pics... Darman (talk) 04:33, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think that it's technically incorrect for there to be a + when the word "additional" is already there. Stylistically, it's a bit redundant, but mathematically, it wouldn't be wrong to write Additional Damage: -25% because you could add a negative value. Hence, writing an integer sign isn't grammatically incorrect even if it might be a bit redundant. I think that staying true to the exact text is the most objective way. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:07, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi there,

I don't think we've spoken before. My name is Jake and I'm a Help:Global Discussions moderators|Global Discussions Mod. I just noticed that there were a few discussions closed on the Wiki. I just wondered why you choose this route rather than locking and leaving a comment? I only say this because it can help if you lock and leave a reason the post isn't allowed as to app users, this post just vanishes and quite often they will post it again as it looks like some error. They cannot see the deletion log.

I look forward to working with you!  343 TheGuiltyProphet  |  Global Discussions Moderator    20:42, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jake,

There's really no need for formalities; we've actually chatted several times on Discord before. While I agree with you, I thought that an exception could be made for spam posts which was indeed how I interpreted at least two of the posts. These were the one titled "Time traveling assassins" by Green1nig whose only content was "the title says it all" and IAMArnodorian's question as to the day of Origins release in Australia. The latter should be easily known because it is the same day for all countries, at least officially. I suppose it might have been an honest question giving it a second thought now, and I probably let my prior experiences with this user's posts affect my judgment. The same therefore goes for his other post titled "Abstergo *SPOILERS*". I couldn't help but, in haste, think that it was an insignificant, trivial question, and was eager to streamline the content of the board. I think Green1nig's spam post may have clouded my judgment of IAMArnodorian's posts perhaps. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:57, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed: Origins

When do we begin editing for Assassins Creed Origins? Callum Konstantin (Talk) 16:24, October 29, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Claymores

Yeah, you are correct only the so called Long Sword is a proper Scottish claymore. All other swords you show, the Claymore, Great Claymore, Great Sword and Bastard Sword are based on the Zweihander type which is the typical 16th century sword used by the German and Swiss landsknecht mercenaries. They are easily identified by the secondary grip which is part of the base of the blade. Nanomat (talk) 18:13, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

There are various types of two handed swords like Chinese or even Japanese katanas can be two handed. However, in the European context, the Scottish Claymore and the German Zweihander are the most prominent two handed sword types. The Scottish Claymore type definitely appears to lack the secondary grip and all of the claymores I have seen are the typical massive bladed with no details on the blade single grip swords. Zweihanders on the other hand can be with single grip or with dual grips. Is the secondary grip exclusive to the Zweihander? No, as we have already seen with the Indian two handed sword used for inspiration for the Viking's Remains, it is perfectly possible for swords from various cultures to have dual grips. The thing is, in the European context, if a given two handed sword is not of Scottish claymore type then it is most definitely a Zweihander as there are no other two handed swords in the European context, at least which I know of. Nanomat (talk) 21:22, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is also another type of European two handed sword I forgot, the Longsword or bastard sword. This kind of sword is simply a classical medieval sword but oversized and meant to be used with two hands, though the term bastard sword sometimes is used ambiguously and refers to what is known as hand and a hald sword which is something in between the single handed and two handed swords. Typical AC examples of longsword/bastard are the Bastard Sword and the Broadsword.

I did further research and now I can clarify the Zweihander distinction. The unsharpened part of the blade which is used as secondary grip is known as Ricasso. The secondary crossguard however is known as Parierhaken, a German term. The fact that the term is German and that I have seen parierhaken only on German/Swiss Zweihanders is clead indication that most of the two handed swords in AC are modeled after the German Zweihander type.

And another thing, the Prussian Longsword/Spada Lunga also appears to be Zweihander inspired, though Spada Lunga is an Italian term which is also ambiguously used for both single handed and two handed swords. Nanomat (talk) 19:37, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Cinquedeas

Actually there were sword sized cinquedeas (another reference). The problem with the Unity's one is not actually the size and the blade. There were many Medieval "arming swords" with that shape of the blade like this, this and this again. My problem is with the hilt. It looks like the hilt is more of rapier style including a knuckle-bow instead of anything Medieval or cinquedea. The whole thing looks like an enlarged main gauche type dagger. So in conclusion I can say that the blade can be defined as cinquedea or even a generic wide and pointy Medieval blade but the hilt is definitely later, 16th or 17th century style. Nanomat (talk) 21:56, November 19, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Death dates

You make a good point, I didn't think about that. However, after a while, we'll end up having numerous characters whose death dates would need to be added. With the removal of the "no spoilers" policy at the time of the game's release, I think it's fine to add it in at this point. I've also accidentally chanced upon spoilers in the past, so I know the feeling. The Wikia Editor (talk) 12:17, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

Thank You mate.

Thank you for the message and for giving me new info about wki policies. And armed with this knowledge, I can better understand the working of this fantastic wiki...definitely my most favorite franchise. And truly sorry for disturbing your work. Honestly had I known, I wouldnt've interfered. ;) Callum Konstantin (Talk) 15:02, November 22, 2017 (UTC)
:No worries Callum! As I said, no harm was done. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:22, November 22, 2017 (UTC)