Updated on 23/05/2020 at 9PM Brasilia Time to include yet another merge proposal.
Brothers, sisters, non-binary siblings, odd cousins we don’t talk about! Welcome, take a seat and let me explain. Being inspired by last thread (Proto-Assassin vs. Assassin & Proto-Templar vs. Templar) and our amazing interactions that did end up with answers (!) I decided to make this thread to have a new place to approach (and hopefully resolve) the pending merges of this great publishing house.
As of today, May 21st 2020 there are 25 proposed merges, with the latest being Zeus and Jupiter.
We shall become prosecution, defense and jury for this trial I have prepared for us. I will present the accused pages and whatever discussion that has taken place in relation to the merges in order to inform us.
Should this thread behave the way I imagine, this will be followed by gentle discussions and questions before we vote on the charges.
Let’s start with something simple:
There are three category pages with proposed merging, as seen in the table below. None of them have any discussions archived in their talk pages. Two of them concern the merge of a city category with their respective state category.
|Page 1||Page 2||Under|
|Category: Historical documents||Category:Document collections||Category:Documents|
|Category: Boston||Category: Massachusetts||Category: Massachusetts|
A nice aperitif, I think. Short, and to the point. Let’s move on to places, then.
Only two, this time though I believe there will be more discussion on them:
|Page 1||Page 2||Under|
|Sanctuary of Kosmos||Cave of Gaia||Sanctuary of Kosmos|
There is no discussion on Syria and the Levant, though I believe the idea was that the Levant encompasses more than just the modern state of Syria, which was established in 1920 far after its appearances in AC. The only content of the Syria page is because of the happenings at Masyaf during AC1 and AC: Revelations.
The other one we do have a discussion on, dating from early 2019:
- Sadelyrate: Yes, the 'Cave of Gaia' is specifically mentioned by Herodotos. But given that The Art of Assassin's Creed: Odyssey refers to the Sanctuary of Kosmos as Temple of Gaia, and Cave of Gaia is specifically where said Sanctuary is, should we just equal the two?
- Jasca Ducato: The Cave of Gaia is located near the Sanctuary of Kosmos, meaning that the two locations are distinctly separate.
- Sadelyrate: Pythia merely mentions 'ancient chamber' which is exactly where the Cult meets. After Kassandra mentions this to Herodotos, he goes "The Temple of Apollo is by the Cave of Gaia - simple enough to find." To me, that looks like Herodotos is equaling the Sanctuary of Kosmos with the Cave of Gaia.
- Lacrossedeamon: In the novel the Sanctuary of Kosmos is unnamed but it is physically located within the geographical feature the Cave of Gaia which is named.
- Sadelyrate: The novel doesn't elaborate on that? (Tbh, this is one of the things that bother me w/Odyssey. On one hand, full of awesome details. On the other, weird choices and "Oops, we forgot to remove/add/update that".)
In February of this year, Sal tried to jump start the conversation again:
- Sadelyrate: Ancient chamber = Sanctuary of Kosmos, which is referred to in the artbook as 'Temple of Gaia'. In the novel, Sanctuary of Kosmos isn't named, and they meet within the Cave of Gaia. In addition, historically there was a Sanctuary of Gaia right by the temple of Apollo in Delphi. There's still reason enough to keep these two articles apart?
I don’t think there are, but the idea of a jury is that we all get to vote. Before that, though, let’s keep going.
Oh, don’t worry, there are more categories, but since this ordering is being done difficulty-wise, it places here.
|Page 1||Page 2||Under|
|Games and media||Assassin's Creed (series)||Assassin's Creed (series)|
|Guild challenges (Revelations)||Guild challenges (Brotherhood)||Guild challenges|
|Memory extraction||Genetic memory||Genetic memory|
|Shay Cormac's fleet||The Naval Campaign||The Naval Campaign|
|Twelve Gods||Greek mythology||Greek mythology|
On the subject of “Games and Media” there is no discussion on the merge. I will, however make a proposal: Don’t merge the two pages, instead move “Games and Media” into a gallery page for “Assassin’s Creed Series”. It would preserve the pages, and I believe the use for G&M (more of a quick visual guide to the series) would also be preserved.
Again, no discussion on the guild challenges. I support the merge, specially because the pages themselves have a OoU section that should be removed anyway.
Genetic memory already has a section on the extraction, which could easily be expanded with the other page’s content. The discussion for this one dates back to October of 2014:
- Kainzorus Prime: Don't see why exactly we got a separate article for this, when it could be very well a part of genetic memory article.
- Neurotoxiny: I agree, Kainzorus, having the information spread across two separate pages seems unnecessary. Perhaps the information could simply be cut and pasted under a new heading?
Both boat articles are stubs, though the only content that is in riverboats though not in boats is the image, since the reference has disappeared without being archived, I believe. No discussion on this one either.
Naval campaign does have a discussion, thankfully:
- Lacrossedeamon: We should rename to Naval Campaign which is what the this portion is called in game and rewrite from that perspective.
- Sol Pacificus: I agree. :O
- VilkaTheWolf: Or we keep this page, removed the info thats exactly the same as The Naval Campaign and rewrite this page to be just about the fleet. Do a History section that shows the missions and battles the fleet went through through an IU perspective.
- Sol Pacificus: I came here to revise my comment to say exactly just this. I guess technically this article can stand to be about the fleet itself from a lore-based perspective whereas "The Naval Campaign" is just a documentation of the game's text for each mission.
- ACsenior: The Naval Campaign as a documention of the missions can be from an IU view if we add the memory categories of Rogue too it, because the missions are memories unlucked after main assassination to the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. Currently rewriting both articles as well.
Moving on, we have the mythology merge, with discussion dating from early 2019:
- Sadelyrate: Altar of the Twelve Gods exists in-game, is a landmark in-game, and also exists IRL. An image of the twelve gods was given in another part of the franchise. What more do we need to justify the existence of this article?
- Jasca Ducato:' Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the Altar's existence, so I concede the article deserves a place. That being said, pre-emptively removing the deletion tag before a discussion is at least started is not how things are done. If somebody places a deletion tag on the article then they put it there for a reason; it is at least owed to them to discuss the matter at hand. Not ignore it.
- Sadelyrate: My bad, didn't know that about the Deletion tag etiquette. But...isn't it also customary to at least take a look at the article before placing the deletion tag on it?
- Sol Pacificus: Late to this conversation, but just to clarify, there is currently some disagreement between the deletion tag being used to mark an article for a discussion about its deletion or to mark it for speedy deletion.
- VilkaTheWolf: Reviving this thread, [Soranin’s Note: This is a month later] I don't think the Twelve Gods page should be merged with Greek mythology, it deserves its own page.
Do you know that expression “The only easy day was yesterday”? Yeah, keep that in mind as we jump to the next section.
Just two, this time.
|Page 1||Page 2||Under|
|French and Indian War||Seven Years' War||Seven Years' War|
|Granada War||Reconquista||Granada War|
We’ll start with the reasoning for the
7 year itch Seven Years’ War:
- Sol Pacificus: The French and Indian War was the American theatre of the Seven Years' War. While there is enough information on the two to merit two separate articles over at Wikipedia, I would argue that there isn't for us. The Seven Years' War in the series appears almost exclusively in the form of its North American theatre save for Shay sending his fleets to support the British war effort around the world. I won't mind keeping them separate necessarily, but I would like some clarity as to which article I should link to most of the time when referring to the conflict since characters in Rogue usually refers to it as the Seven Years' War even though they are fighting in the French and Indian War theatre
For Reconquista, you have similar reasoning:
- Sol Pacificus: I wonder if this should be merged with Granada War since that is the only theater of the Reconquista that appears in Assassin's Creed, and we don't have much more to add to this article. The Reconquista itself spanned about 780 years.
- Lacrossedeamon: I feel doing so might be a little premature. Yes there is currently a lot of overlap between the two articles but as you said the Reconquista lasted 780 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if it appeared in a later installment, possibly even the next one given some of the rumors.
- Sol Pacificus: I don't really mind keeping it, but what rumors are you referring to? I haven't heard of any relating to the Reconquista
- Lacrossedeamon: Not the the Reconquista per se. The rumors are Vikings which might not seem like it has anything to do with Reconquista at face value but it falls within the timeframe so there might be weird collectibles about the state of Europe and other Assassin or Templar branches similar to the war letter in Rogue. It could also feature Bjorn Ironside's attack on Iberia during his Mediterranean expedition. The Staff in Rebellion is also apparently the Staff of St James, although that might have been part of the el cid side story that was removes but if not, and if they bring delve into its backstory they might bring up the battle of Clavijo. All of this is speculation of course and a little bit more than a stretch but I say we should hold off a bit before we merge
I should really finish Rebellion, huh? Anyway, on to the next category.
|Page 1||Page 2||Page 3||Under|
|Altaïr's Sword||Sword of Altaïr||Sword of Altaïr|
|Altaïr's Swords||Sword of Altaïr||Altaïr's Swords|
|Queen Anne's Pistol||Queen Anne's Pistols||Queen Anne's Pistol|
|Pirate Scimitar||Pirate Scimitars||Pirate Scimitar (Rogue)||Pirate Scimitar|
|Assassin Gauntlet||Hidden Blade||Hidden Blade|
|French Cuttoe||Cuttoe Sword||Cuttoe Sword (Liberation)||French Cuttoe|
Starting with Altairs’ pages: the only discussion is this from 2015:
- Crimson Knight: Why do we have this article when the relevant info is already on Sword of Altaïr?
- Kainzorus Prime: For the same reason you have set up pages of Rogue swords, that were already in Black Flag, in your sandbox. That, and the fact these come as a pair technically makes them different. Unless people kept forging copies over the centuries.
- Crimson Knight: Fair enough.
Surprisingly, no discussions for the pistols have taken place.
What’s this? Our first threeway merge? Sounds naughty. It does bring, however… precedent (gasps!)
- Crimson Knight: As this sword shares its appearance and name with a pair of swords from AC4, should this article eventually be merged with this, or should they be kept separate? I don't really mind either way, so I thought I'd check.
- Crook: I dunno, what's the usual course of action for a weapon that appears in multiple games? I'm tempted to say they be kept seperate tbh.
- Crook: Well, take a look at the Syrian Sabre. The Pirate Scimitar has different stats in AC4 (well, according to my sandbox, at least; I haven't checked in-game), so that might be worth taking into account. If we do separate them, I'd recommend renaming this article to "Pirate Scimitar (Liberation)", since the AC4 one takes precedence, I think..
' Oh, by the way, thanks for making this article consistent to the ones I've done. I appreciate it.
- Crook: No problem :) Yeah, I'm cool with that. I don't mind adding the "(liberation)", but is it necessary? Black Flag uses dual swords, so technically you could distinguish betwee the "Pirate Scimitar" and the "Pirate Scimitars", right?
- Crimson Knight: I overlooked that, actually. You're right. A Youmay on both articles would suffice, I think.
You may want to pause for a moment before moving to the next topic (the assassin gauntlet). This one has the longest discussion yet, done in three sections starting in 2015:
- GZilla311: Personally, I don't think this should be merged. The reasoning is that this is the same reason as the Hookblade, which is basically a Hidden Blade with a secondary hook attachment. This is a Hidden Blade with a secondary grappling hook and tertiary dart launcher attachment. In summary, if we are to merge this one, we should merge Hookblade as well, and since I doubt we're merging that, then I doubt we should merge this.
- Crimson Knight: Agreed. This article's information should probably be on Hidden Blade as well, but the separate article might as well remain.
Thing is though, the Hookblade page is bland and doesn't add anything really that new as what's elaborated on with the Hidden Blade subsection. Just trivia pieces. In all fairness, anything relevant on Hookblade could easily be transferred to Hidden Blade and the page deleted.
- Slate Vesper: It seems a little silly for every new iteration of the Hidden Blade to have its own page when they're all just re-inventions of the one basic tool that all Assassins utilise with some new quirk.
- Crimson Knight: Well, that's fair. All I'm interested in is consistency. If we just combine all the articles into one, I'm fine with that. But let's see what other people think.
- Nesty: I'd go for merging, but that's just my personal preference. [SN: Gods, I miss her]
- Stormbeast: I am also for merging. From what I've gathered, from various websites, the "Assassin Gauntlet" is nothing new, just the name of the bracer which most Assassins have already possessed. The new feature is the rope launcher, hallucinogenic darts already being a thing.
- Crook: Merge, as long as we're consistent about it.
- Jasca Ducato: I am for keeping the articles separate. We have separate hookblade and Phantom Blade article after all. Perhaps the article should be renamed rope gun, since this is the newest feature to be included on a hidden blade.
- Slate Vesper: To have that be the reasoning for keeping them seperate, when all are being proposed to be merged, is a little pointless. They're seperate for the sake of seperatism, and perhaps linkage. Given they're modifications to a base template, it'd be more understandable to merge to Hidden Blade and have their own subsection detailing them if they're truly that noteworthy.
- Crimson Knight: Can we make a decision please? [SN: Please? This time I’m hopeful]
- Crook: I say we merge them, but it'd mean that many of the Hidden Blade modifications that got their own pages might also have to be merged with the Hidden Blade page.
- Nesty: Merging is clearly the most favored option, so that's the one we'll be going for.
- Crimson Knight: I concur. Will we be merging articles like Hookblade and Poison Blade as well?
- Crook: I think we should.
- TheGhostSpectrum: Honestly, let's not merge this page and the other pages with the main Hidden Blade page. The reason behind it is like all the other variations of the Hidden Blade, all of them have their unique mechanics during combat or at least similar to it. Take the Hookblade for example. The Hookblade have the "Hook and run" mechanic which is unique to it. The same thing can apply to the Assassin Gauntlet with it's rope launcher and the integrated brass knuckles. We could still put some details about the Assassin Gauntlet in the Hidden Blade page. But put the combat and unique gameplay mechanics of the guantlet in it's own page.
- Crook: I don't see why we would keep them seperate, considering a lot of information on the Hookblade page is already on the Hidden Blade page as well, essentially rendering the Hookblade page obsolete. There's no use in having two pages that tell us the same thing.
By the way, were there any volunteers for merging all of this stuff with the Hidden Blade?.
- TheGhostSpectrum: Not as of yet, it seems. I could start with the other pages and leaving this page for last. Should any like to volunteer, i'd be happy to oblige. So, should we merge the pages that are related to the Hidden Blade such as, the Hidden Gun, Poison Blade and other pages?
- Crook: I don't want to be presumptious and decide by myself. I think the Hidden Gun article is fine on its own, its got more than enough content that might be out of place on the Hidden Blade Article. Poison Blade I'm a bit iffy about, so perhaps skip that one for now as well. I would merge the Hookblade, Phantom Blade and Assassin Gauntlet with the Hidden Blade article, personally..
- TheGhostSpectrum: I have made the changes in the Hidden Blade article. Both the Hookblade and the Phantom Blade have been merged with the main article. I will proceed with the Assassin Gauntlet if there is any further opinions and changes you would like me to do.
- Badwolf7: I agree this should be merged with the Hidden Blade page, I am of the opinion that the "Gauntlet" is merely an addapted hiddenblade bracer that the Twins have added to with the help of Alex Bell. At the start of the game it is pretty much a hidden blade with a bracer and gloved knuckle duster. when this is merged credit should go directly to Bell for his adaptions for the blade like we already have da vinci.
In 2017, Sol revived the issue:
- Sol Pacificus: I personally dissent from the agreement to merge the variations on the Hidden Blade to that article simply because by now, the variations are really extensive. I think really, the only argument for or against a merge is whether this article becomes too bloated, as it is standard Wikipedian practice to create new articles on a similar subject or variation of a subject once there is too much content on one page. As well, it would be consistent with the fact that we have more articles on specific enemy unit types which I personally am less sure about..
- Zero-ELEC: Agree on most points.
Sol had another point to make on the same day, under the section “Assassin Gauntlet [is] not a proper name for this variation”:
- Sol Pacificus: I think this article might be incorrect. I never interpreted in the game that "Assassin gauntlet" is a proper name for this Hidden Blade modification with a rope launcher attached as this article presents. Rather, I think of it as a general term the game uses conveniently for the glove that the Frye twins wore which has a Hidden Blade, a rope launcher, and armor for the fingers. Sure, we can still say the "Assassin gauntlet" as a whole is a weapon, but I don't see in sources it being affirmed as the proper name for this variation (not like the Pivot Blade or Shock Blade or Trident Blade) which this article seems to assume. Sources like the The Essential Guide uses the term "gauntlet" in general for the glove that holds the blade, not as a name for a specific variation of the Hidden Blade itself.
- Zero-ELEC: Yeah, I think it's self-evident that it's not meant to be a proper name for a thing, rather a descriptive term.
- Sol Pacificus: Checking up more on sources, aside from Syndicate and its promotional material, The Essential Guide, when listing variants of Hidden Blades, doesn't name the version used in Syndicate as "Assassin Gauntlet" but always just uses the word "Rope Launcher" (alongside and in parallel to "Phantom Blade", "Pivot Blade", "Hidden Footblade", "Trident Blade" and "Shock Blade"). More precisely, "Hidden Blade gauntlets that had a blade on the underside and a Rope Lancher on top" where each specific name of a variant is bolded. The text itself, however, makes it clear "Rope Launcher" isn't the name of the variant itself, but that for convenience, Ubisoft treated the name "Rope Launcher" on the same tier anyways with the actual Hidden Blade variant only being described as Hidden Blades with a Rope Launcher. Sorry if this is confusing.
There is no discourse on cuttoe swords, allowing us to take a breather. Finally, we reach the final section.
|Page 1||Page 2||Under|
|Grand Master of the Templar Order||Templar leader||Grand Master|
|Pirate hunter||Bounty hunter||Bounty hunters|
Let’s jump right into it.
There is no discussion on the merges regarding “pirate hunter” though I will say that ‘Privateer’ is a page is about the multiplayer character, not about the profession, so I’m against this merge on principle.
Grand Master, starting in 2017:
- Sol Pacificus: I don't think this is an actual title. :/ Yes there are leaders of the Templars, or Templar leaders, but that's just more of a description, not the name of a rank in itself
- Sol Pacificus: "The position of Templar leader was given to any member of the Templar Order who had received leadership over a Templar Rite." Even just looking at this line, this is the exact description given to the rank of Grand Master in Assassin's Creed: The Essential Guide. It is sourced to Assassin's Creed: Encyclopedia, can someone confirm if this is true?
- ACsenior: And most of the Templar leaders we know of are either a Grand Master or Master Templar. So there's a 50/50 chance regarding their rank should they ever be brought up again. Like Ahmet, a Templar leader until he was confirmed to be the Grand Master of the Byzantine Rite.
- Sol Pacificus: Can you clarify what you mean, like your overall point?
- The Wikia Editor: The thing is that not all Templar leaders were explicitly identified as Grand Master or Master Templar. Sylvester II and James Wardrop, for example, were never identified as anything other than leaders. Similarly, Basilisk was basically the de facto Grand Master of the Levantine Rite, even though he never officially held the actual title. This article, along with Assassin leader, mostly exists to fill in that gray area in which we're never told whether a leader held any other rank. All Grand Masters are leaders, but not all leaders are Grand Masters.
- Sol Pacificus: But those are either de facto leaders, or high-ranking Templars whose official rank and title are unknown. I think that it's no different from having a list of leaders of the United States in Wikipedia, but including with it not just its presidents and vice presidents, but also all its cabinet members, all its senators, representatives, governors, etc. They're all "American leaders" of varying ranks. It might make sense as a category, but I don't think it would make sense to have an article named "American leader", which is purely descriptive. It's not an actual rank or title. The Assassin leader article itself is the product of an error stemming from past editors thinking there's a distinction between a "Grand Master of the Assassins" and the "Mentor of the Assassins".
- The Wikia Editor: While I do agree that there is a lot of overlap and the fact that the Assassin leader article is the product of an error. But I'm not entirely sure it's as clear cut as that. I think the "American leaders" analogy is kinda flawed, because we're not talking about listing everyone whose in charge of something (which is why I didn't include the members of the Inner Sanctum, apart from Alan Rikkin, who was apparently identified as a Grand Master in the Movie Novel). We're talking about specific individuals who were explicitly identified as leading Templar Rites but whose rank is never specified beyond "leader". Not all Templar leaders were Grand Masters either. We don't know if James Wardrop's promotion to leadership, for example, also included him becoming a Master Templar.
- Sol Pacificus: I'm concerned that all the examples are just of Templars who were effectively acting leaders of Templar Rites during interrims, which are common enough in history and generally on Wikipedia still do not have their own articles. Basilisk, for instance, was de facto leader (or acting Grand Master) only because the Templars were having extended talks about who to elect as their next Grand Master which took over a year. I'm confused over James Wardrop as I don't recall him ever being promoted to a position of leadership. In any case, if this article is just about Templars who led rites, then the name should probably be more specific because "Templar leader" correctly can refer to any Templar that led, even lower-ranking ones. At the same time, the introduction needs to be clearer about this page including de facto leaders of Rites because sources are clear that a Grand Master is defined as a leader of a Templar Rite, or the official rank for that leader.
- Sol Pacificus: Also, if the name of "Templar leader" isn't confirmed as an actual title, this article should be tagged as having a conjectural name.
The entire discussion on “Assassin leader” will not be transcribed here, unlike the others. Because of its sheer size. I mean, look at it. The abridged version goes thus (starting in 2014):
- Zero-ELEC: Okay, so what's the difference between a Mentor and an Assassin leader again? Because I tried looking for some clarification in both articles but I couldn't find one. (I might have overlooked it.)
- Crimson Knight: As I understand it, Mentor is a title bestowed upon a particularly wise Assassin leader who has passed on much of their knowledge to students. While I don't know if a Mentor outranks a Leader, they certainly receive more respect, judging from Yusuf's interactions with Ezio.
From 2017, we get:
- Sol Pacificus: I think that this was a mistake from a time when the ranks of the Assassins were less clear. "Assassin leader" isn't an actual rank. There's no rank with that title. Just looking at the section just above this, "Mentor" is not a special title granted to someone in lieu of their wisdom per se, it is the rank and title of an Assassin leading a branch. I think a lot of people previously got confused about "Assassin leader" being a title given it was used in reference to Al Mualim or William Miles, but this is just a description, not a rank in itself. William Miles is one of the leaders of the Assassins, hence why he is called an Assassin leader. Al Mualim's title is "the Mentor" but since the common name we know him by is just "the Mentor" in Arabic, he's commonly described as an "Assassin leader". But "Assassin leader" is not a rank nor is it a title in and of itself
- Master Sima Yi: There is no confusion, aside from that created in the games. This article was created because Revelations convolutes the whole Mentor-leader thing. Yusuf Tazim was the leader of the Ottoman Assassins, but he was not a Mentor. Mentor is not a title granted to anyone leader a branch, as Revelations clearly specifies. As such, people who are not directly called Mentor but are stated to lead a branch, should not be stated to be a Mentor, as this is speculation.
November 2019 we get this:
- Sol Pacificus: After taking a look at the Templar leader page as well though, I actually have thought of one argument why these two pages should continue to exist: for the convenience of readers in having an entire list of known heads of branches regardless of their status. That, I believe is the strongest argument why we might keep these two pages.
The Hybrid/Tainted one merge has issues. A lot of them arising from the simulation, as is:
- Jasca Ducato: The Fate of Atlantis: Judgment of Atlantis labels Kassandra as a hybrid, which would suggest that the "Tainted Ones" are not, in fact, humans, but hybrids themselves. It seems to me that it might be appropriate to merge this article with hybrids. now
- Lacrossedeamon: I'm actually against this change. It is still uncertain how much of the simulation was changed from Aletheia's time as Dikastes and there is a real chance that Aletheia is in fact a hybrid instead.
- Jasca Ducato: There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest Aletheia is a hybrid - quiite the opposite infact, since all of her base-game dialogue makes clear that she was an Isu who sided with humanity. Also, to quote Aletheia herself: "What you have experienced are echoes of memories, distorted, but no less real" which suggests that, whilst certain aspects or events depicted in the simulations are manipulated (e.g. Kassandra clones and references to her actions in Elysium and Hades) the context around these events remains true.
The fact that Kassandra is called a hybrid on multiple occasions and by multiple Isu and humans makes me certain that this is more than a simple oversight, and is perhaps an attempt to clarify something not made clear in the base game?
- Lacrossedeamon: I disagree and think that the plot points surrounding the clones, Phanes's codices, and Elpis are evidence that Aletheia was a hybrid and that the simulation isn’t as distorted as you guess. I’m not saying we go edit her page until there is direct confirmation on that but I feel that until we also have a strict definition on how much Isu DNA is needed to be considered a hybrid and if Kassandra meets that criterium we shouldn’t reclassify her either.
- Jasca Ducato: Aletheia states, quite clearly, that she is an Isu ("I am as Isu as you, but I will no longer be part of your exploitation"). Kassandra, on the otherhand, is referred to numerous times as a hybrid – regardless of whether either of us believe she fits the strict criteria (i.e. 50% human 50% Isu), we cannot and should not ignore that.
- Lacrossedeamon: And Connor could say he is as Mohawk as Kanentokon and it would be a true statement even with his mixed blood. And we should not ignore that that all happens in a simulation based on Aletheia's experiences during a time where the concept of Tainted Ones hadn’t been created yet
- Kennyannydenny: I'm fine with merging them, I thought the exact same thing whilst playing the DLC, it seems that hybrid and Tainted Ones are terms for the same type of person, only generally Isu use the term hybrid and humans say Tainted One. I did not however in any situation thought of Aletheia as an hybrid, imho she's an Isu as was confirmed several times
- XOdeyssusx: Some theories suggest the memories could be based on that of Eve's, given how some of the Isu codices have some information in regards to that. Even so, nothing so far suggest Aletheia being a hybrid at all, imo. I would say the Tainted Ones could just be something that encompess individuals who are hybrids or individuals who have a high percentage of Isu blood in them.
- Lacrossedeamon: Aletheia's note about being the Dikastes makes it more likely that the memories are hers, not Eve's. But the fact that she ostensibly also activated the codices left for Eve makes me think Aletheia was also a hybrid. Same with the interactions with Elpis and Aita. I think it’s possible the events of the simulation all happened to Aletheia including being cloned for a hybrid army.
- Francesco75: In the Gates of Atlantis, Aletheia said We Isu and Fellows Precursors so she is an Isu. But for Elpis, I don't know if we can considered as a hybrid as she is taller than Kassandra after her mutation, so maybe she became totally Isu and not a hybrids as she not the mixed between two species. About the other characters of the series can we labeled all the humans who used the power of a POE or have an Eagle vision as a hybrids?
- Lacrossedeamon: As I argued above with Connor a hybrid can identify with one side more than the other. Elpis just shows that hybrids are phenotypically more similar to Isu than regular humans, in contrast to Kassandra. Which brings me back to the original point being that I don’t think we can categorize Kassandra as a hybrid since the only source for it is a simulated experience. To categorize all that have the potential for Eagle Vision would include all humans at this point according to Black Flag. Until we have a more strict definition of a hybrid I say we not touch it.
- Francesco75: Also Poseidon refered that her father is Pythagoras. So the memory was changed to adress specificaly to Kassandra, with her friends in the underworlds and so of her status of hybrid.
Finally, fresh from the press, we get the Jupiter/Zeus merge:
- VilkaTheWolf: According to Issue 26 of Assassin's Creed: The Official Collection magazine: Jupiter, Tinia, and Zeus are all the same person. Hence I propose merging the Zeus page into Jupiter. He is already identified as Tinia on the Jupiter page, now just to add Zeus to it.
- Lacrossedeamon: I’m kinda torn on this issue. While I’m a big proponent of the concept of singular Isu being the basis for multiple deities across and even within given pantheons I’m loath to rely on the magazine because they at times have weird interpretations of canon. However at the end of the day they are a source of canon and thus I must support this motion.
- Sol Pacificus: I noticed on Discord that some of you guys seem to think that Jupiter being identified with Zeus is somehow lore-breaking. Is this related to Fate of Atlantis? Because otherwise, I don't see what is the issue besides personal preference for them to be separate individuals. Also, for future reference, when opening a proposal for a merge, please add the corresponding template to the top of the article.
- Sadelyrate: Afaic, the Isu best known as Jupiter should not be conflated with the Greek god known as Zeus. Even if Zeus was based on said Isu, we’d need to draw the line somewhere between what each of them did. Did the Isu go and romance multiple women (and some men) by changing his shape into a bull, a swan, a fricking golden shower and whatever else? Was the Isu married to Juno, who haunted his extramarital companions more often than not? And how about Persephone? Was she kidnapped by Hades, forced to remain in his realm after eating six pomegranate seeds? Did Poseidon have a grudge against Ajax the Lesser? And so forth, and so on.
- Lacrossedeamon: But the name Zeus is also applied to an Isu which according to the magazine is the same Isu as Jupiter. Any depiction of Zeus, Jupiter, or Tinia in mythology would just be its own section of the article like Legacy.
- VilkaTheWolf: Yeah just all that stuff will be put under a "Mythology" header. See the Minerva page .
I’ll define some notation here to see if it helps in the end. Let Y mean agreement with the merge and X mean disagreement. A will mean ambivalence, W would mean waiting and O will mean another option, not contained by the ones mentioned before. For example, my proposal of turning “Games and Media” into ACSeries’ gallery would be an O. Here is an empty table with space for you guys to vote, using this notation. :) [You can also find it in my Sandbox)
|Sanctuary of Kosmos|
|Assassin's Creed (series)|
|The Naval Campaign|
|Seven Years' War|
|Sword of Altaïr|
|Queen Anne's Pistol|
- Lacrossedeamon: Do he and his brother get mentioned in the employee handbook Unity tie in novel? I feel I remember someone saying that it gets explained that they were mostly created by the Animus itself and not who Arno actually interacted with.
- Soranin: They do get mentioned, in an email from Aiden St. Claire to Robert Fraser (bear with me cause this is a retranslation into english):
"Do you truly believe that "Victor" and "Hugo" were amalgams of many people, rather than two real and distinct individuals? Now that you mention it, it is strange that he continues to cross paths with these two."
Hope to have helped.
- Lacrossedeamon: Yeah that’s exactly what I was looking for. Now the question is how to incorporate it into the articles; maybe we merge the two and go from there?
- Soranin: I don't know, it feels a bit flimsy? It is the feeling of a person who was suffering quite a lot from the bleeding effect. I would put it under trivia, but maybe we should wait for other editors to weigh in.
- Lacrossedeamon: Technically we are moving away from permanent trivia sections. OOU info such as the brothers being named after the French novelist would be in a "Behind the scenes" sections while IU info like the possibility of them being an amalgam created by the Animus might be temporarily put in a trivia section until we found a way to incorporate it in the main article. But agreed on letting others have a say and offer suggestions.