Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20170420064223/@comment-18014300-20170420104048

Touloir wrote: First, note that this is the opinion of someone who never contributes to this wiki's organization, although think it's obvious you have to handle each case individually.


 * "Apples of Eden", "Staves of Eden", "Pieces of Eden", etc. is plural, because it's about a group of artefacts. From the title, you already know there are more than one.


 * Same thing for Assassin guilds.


 * Weapon categories (swords, firearms, bombs...) should be plural for the same reason. Also this isn't Wikipedia: "Bombs" is about bombs in the series, not the concept of a bomb. See below.


 * "Hidden Blade/Gun" is a bit tricky. It's more of a concept than a weapon -&gt; Singular.


 * Factions should be plural to avoid confusion. "Mercenaries" implies it's a group, while "Mercenary" would trick people into believing it's just a rank or position, see below.

I forgot to mention that I agree with the point made in that Wikipedia link that groups of people should be plural, hence why I referenced it.
 * Ranks pages are different though: they're about the function of the rank it refers to. Singular, then.

However, I disagree entirely when it comes to weapons and artifacts. By your logic with the Pieces of Eden, any item or object whatsoever where there is more than one in existence should have its article entry name pluralized, something that I think is unprecedented in academia and professional writing. The articles don't necessarily have to refer to the entire group of Apples of Eden, but what is an Apple of Eden in the first place. When I reference Wikipedia, or even Wookieepedia for that matter, I don't mean to say that I think that we should copy from them or that I don't understand that we're not Wikipedia and have no obligation to follow by their policies, but I do think that their rationale is on point and are also just two examples of what is typical academic policy. I find the idea that when we discuss subjects of which there is more than one of its quantity, we have to treat them all as a group as arbitrary in all cases other than people and the particular exceptions listed in that Wikipedia guideline. It's not incorrect, say, to introduce an explanation of atoms, by saying "an atom is...", or to explain an integer as "an integer is..." even though we can also entirely treat them as "groups": "atoms are", "integers are". Your point about why Apples of Eden, Pieces of Eden, etc. are in the plural is applicable to any subject whatsoever of where there is more than one and suggests that when that is the case, it is incorrect do define a singular item of that subject is, and that they must be explained as a whole collective group. This has never been the case in academia or in the English grammar rules. Going by your logic, hypothetically, Single Action Army, once the article is created, should actually be Single Action Armies, because there is theoretically more than one specific Single Action Army, just as there are many Apples of Eden.

I think the point about weapon categories might have a subtle connection with lingering OOU or gameplay writing. This is because in terms of gameplay, yes, swords, bombs, polearms, firearms, etc. are distinct categories, whereas Hidden Blade and the Hidden Gun have stood out as iconic, unique weapons that defy simple categorization. However, in reality, there are many layers of categorization, and outside of organization of gameplay terms and mechanics, swords, bombs, firearms, etc. don't have to be treated as the weapon categories, unless you argue that their sub-categories such as "sabers" and "muskets" and "maces" should also be pluralized because they can be categories as well, which might entirely be your train of thought. In that case, we go back to your point with the Pieces of Eden, where essentially any subject of which there exists more than one or can be grouped should necessarily have to be discussed as a group, but I don't see why this has to be the case especially since this isn't conventionally the case in academic and professional writing.

I'm confused what you mean by the article at Hidden Blade discussing the concept of it rather than, well, the actual thing. I don't see how discussing swords is any different in terms of discussing it as either a concept or what swords are. If you truly see that swords and bombs and the like refer solely to the category of weapons, then that, I think, is thinking in gameplay terms. I think Hidden Blades are no different from swords and other weapon articles in this case.

I thus far do agree that faction pages should be kept in the plural, if only because they're so prominently referred to collectively in the same manner as we do in real-life different groups of people (usually ethnicities). However, I disagree with your opinion on why it should be the case. I think this might be a clearer indicator that you might be thinking from gameplay terms again. Mercenaries don't have to be a group, nor merchants, nor courtesans, as these are professions, which really is similar to a position. There can be a mercenary, a Mentor, a banker, a doctor, a Grand Master, a Master Templar, etc., and not all mercenaries in real-life form a cohesive faction or group. However, since the usage in Assassin's Creed do in fact tend to refer to them more in the sense of a group of people, then I think that, for the same reason I agree with Wikipedia's policy on having groups of people as exceptions, I agree we should keep it as plural, though I do wonder if in this case, I'm sliding back into deferring to gameplay mechanics.

I think I have discovered that this is somehow a bit intertwined with the conflict between lore-base and gameplay-base writing. I am of the understanding this wiki has chosen the former, hence our policy on writing from the IU-perspective. However, I have been going over weapon articles, and almost all of them have been written in entirely gameplay terms disguised under the historical paste tense used for writing in the IU-perspective. I'm not sure if we actually have a limit on how far to the lore-base direction we want to be, which is something I had never thought about. I'm not sure, but I think your opinion might unknowingly represent a policy of respecting a gameplay viewpoint even while writing from the in-universe perspective centered around constructing cohesive lore.