FANDOM

 
14,527 Pages

  • I've noticed this problem for quite a while now, but I never got around to dealing with it. I now see that it appears to be getting out of hand. The formatting and organization of our pages regarding armor and other equipment are quite a mess.

    I. Table style

    For starters, the wrong table style is being used across virtually all equipment from Odyssey and Origins. The table style should be consistent with the ones used for equipment from older games going all the way back to Assassin's Creed II.

    There are two table styles that we use for equipments depending on whether the page covers (A) a specific model of weapon or piece of armor or (B) whether it instead covers a type of equipment.

    (A) In the former scenario, we use a basic, unsortable table. Refer to Persian Shamshir and Syrian Sabre for examples of how the table should look.
    (B) In the latter scenario, we use a sortable table. Refer to Sword, Mace, Heavy weapon, Smallsword, Bastard sword, etc. for how this should look.

    The vast majority of our pages on equipment from Origins and Odyssey do not currently conform with the table formatting used with equipment from games that precede these.

    II. Lead sentences

    While I understand that editors have only been using older articles on weapons as a precedent, most of the time, pages on equipment should not start with "obtained" or "obtainable by [player character]". The reason is because although this is a factually correct statement from an in-universe perspective, it still strongly implies a gameplay perspective because it treats the player character's interaction with the equipment as the absolute, main point of reference. In reality, within the Assassin's Creed universe as well, not every weapon or piece of equipment sold by a blacksmith revolves around this very specific individual of Kassandra or Arno or Bayek, no matter how heroic and famous they are. Common weapons, for example, should be described as weapons which were used widely in a particular setting by soldiers. That they could be acquired by Kassandra or Bayek is not the main idea of these pieces of equipment. There are exceptions of course where the equipment's relation to the main character is the main idea, but for most equipment, this is not the case.

    III. Categories

    The categories for armor is currently all over the place. I should point out that not all hoods and articles of clothing are technically armor. Of course, all forms of clothing provide some form of protection, even a crown, but armor is clothing designed specifically for protection and not as an accessory, a supplementary piece to match armor, a simple belt, etc.

    Aside from this, armor is normally an uncountable noun, meaning that its plural is still armor. The only time armor is a countable noun where its plural is formed by adding an -s affix is when entire sets of armor or types of armor is being described. The reason why Category:Armors was named as such originally appears to be because at the time of its creation, the pages that went into only dealt with full armor sets. However, we now have many individual armor pieces being added to the category which is not strictly correct. I have therefore discussed creating a Category:Armor at Category talk:Armors. If we do this, then Category:Armor can still remain specifically for pages on armor sets, but we might find it preferable to use a Category:Armor sets for those instead to avoid the problems of ambiguity in "Category:Armors".

    IV. Spelling standard

    This is not actually a problem, but I thought I should take the opportunity to explain this as well. Armor is the American English spelling while axe is the Canadian English (and British English) spelling as opposed to armour which is Canadian and ax which is American. Ubisoft most often uses Canadian English, a hybrid of American and British English, in its works, but depending on the author, they also can be quite inconsistent themselves. Armor vs. axe is one of the most notable examples of such an inconsistency.

    Our main policy is to use the spelling standard of a particular term favoured by Ubisoft because this would be most natural to fans. So although armor is American English and axe Canadian, and it would seem that using both is contradictory, we try to abide by the spelling used by Ubisoft when we can, and they do tend to be fairly consistent with spelling armor the American way but axe the Canadian way (with a few exceptions like Armour and Sword).

    Since editors here normally naturally follow Ubisoft's spelling anyways, this hasn't been an issue, but I thought I explain it in case of any future confusion.

    V. Wording

    In general and no offence to the hardwork of our contributors, but I do find that editors are having some trouble with their wording when describing equipment, especially pieces of armor sets where the syntax tends to be off. "Torso" or "chestplate piece" of an armor set is more natural than "Torso" or "chestplate part" of an armor set for one example. Parts of an armor set are normally described as pieces. Also while it is wordier, "set of armor" is far more common in English than "armor set". "Armor set" is fine as a gameplay term, which is why it's used in Odyssey, or as a title or name, but in actual prose, "set of armor" is more natural. There isn't a hard and fast grammar rule that explains why this is the case; it is just how the language has evolved to favour.

      Loading editor
    • Wow those tables on Persian Shamshir and Syrian Sabre are so incredibly ugly. The one on pages like Sword and Mace is 1000 times better imho.

      Just to get this straight, so the table on Agamemnon's Helmet is now correct and Master Assassin's Hood isn't right?

      I don't think I actually understand what you mean with the lead sentences part, it's probably the language barrier. What I understand is that in case of for example the Pilos Helmet the whole sentence about Kassandra should be removed? Or...?

        Loading editor
    • Kennyannydenny wrote:
      Wow those tables on Persian Shamshir and Syrian Sabre are so incredibly ugly. The one on pages like Sword and Mace is 1000 times better imho.

      Just to get this straight, so the table on Agamemnon's Helmet is now correct and Master Assassin's Hood isn't right?

      I don't think I actually understand what you mean with the lead sentences part, it's probably the language barrier. What I understand is that in case of for example the Pilos Helmet the whole sentence about Kassandra should be removed? Or...?

      Yes, the table at Agamemnon's Helmet is correct while the table at Master Assassin's Hood is incorrect. I'm sorry that you find it extremely ugly. I wonder if you can describe in more detail what is it about it that's ugly to you. Personally, I think it looks cleaner and easier on the eyes.

      I also want to clarify that I wasn't the one who decided on the table style for these articles, which was decided by older editors years before I became a contributor here myself. It's just that it stands to reason to be consistent across all our articles. I suppose if you guys really have problems with the older table styles, we can all discuss changing it, but only if many of you guys really hate it.

      The sentence about Kassandra at Pilos Helmet... it maybe should be removed or maybe can stay. Because it's in the second paragraph, I think it might be okay. The main point is that it shouldn't be describing it in relation to Kassandra in the first sentence or paragraph.

      The first sentence should define the term. For example, the first sentence of Florentine Falchion reads "The Florentine Falchion was a sword obtainable by Ezio Auditore da Firenze during the 15th and 16th centuries". This is wrong because the Florentine Falchion isn't defined as a sword which could be acquired by Ezio. It is defined as a falchion of Florentine origin.

      Another example is Herakles' Mace. The first sentence reads "Herakles' Mace was a legendary club obtained by the misthios Kassandra during the Peloponnesian War". This is incorrect again because the defining detail about Herakles' Mace is that it is alleged to be the legendary club of Herakles, not that it is a club that Kassandra gets. That Kassandra gets it later is an important detail that should be stated afterwards, like in the second or third sentence, but not in the first.

      I hope this is clearer. I apologize for the language barrier. What is your native or dominant language?

        Loading editor
    • I'm not that active on equipment pages beyond various trivia points but I'll keep these in mind.

        Loading editor
    • Hey Sol, thanks for the quick answers. Just to answer your question first: my main language is Dutch. I'm from The Netherlands, so i'm used to learning different languages (German, French and English are obligatory here on school (my French is terrible though)) and my English is pretty good for Dutch standards (teachers actually thought I was raised with English instead of Dutch, due to my grades :P) but there might always be something that I don't understand 100%. It seems from your explanation that I guessed partially correctly.

      Will see if I can rewrite some of those first paragraphs that were my doing, thanks for the extra explanation!

      About the style of the table on the articles, calling it extremely ugly sounds a bit harsh (I know I called it that, maybe I should've been more tactical) but my main problem with that table is twofold: 1) the white lines are too wide/heavy, the ones from the other table look a lot smoother. 2) Maybe it's just personal but I feel like there should be a different style or color for the cells defining the columns, like the one on Master Assassin's Hood has with the black background. If I look at your example, Persian Shamshir, I actually find the weapon statistics table to be harder to read because of these two things. Personally, the style also feels pretty dated.

      As a reminder to all, these are personal opinions :)

      Ps. This was actually the first time ever I saw someone wrote "ax" instead of "axe". Learned a new thing yesterday, I thought even Americans wrote it like "axe".

        Loading editor
    • I have another question. For the weapons pages, should we use "damage" or "dps" in the table? I've seen both being added, but it's better to decide which one we want to use.

        Loading editor
    • (Just letting you know I'm watching this convo, and trying to learn/fix. :) )

        Loading editor
    • I've now added the sortable table to Master Assassin's Set. Is that correct? Or is that only for a generic name like Mace? Does a set also gain the regular one we should put on unique item pages?

        Loading editor
    • Kennyannydenny wrote:
      About the style of the table on the articles, calling it extremely ugly sounds a bit harsh (I know I called it that, maybe I should've been more tactical) but my main problem with that table is twofold: 1) the white lines are too wide/heavy, the ones from the other table look a lot smoother. 2) Maybe it's just personal but I feel like there should be a different style or color for the cells defining the columns, like the one on Master Assassin's Hood has with the black background. If I look at your example, Persian Shamshir, I actually find the weapon statistics table to be harder to read because of these two things. Personally, the style also feels pretty dated.

      Honestly, I actually feel kind of bad asking you guys to change the table to the style we have been using for older articles if you really think it looks terrible even though consistency is necessary. My issue with the style that you guys were using is that I find the black and dark grey to clash too much with the white text and links; I also have always really disliked minimalistic styles, i.e. without texture, since texture for text and borders improves readability in my opinion contrary to the minimalistic trend Microsoft set out beginning in 2013.

      If you want, you can try to experiment with different tabling styles, such as a simple modification to the color of the cells defining the columns of the current unsortable tables. We can then all look over it together to see if we like it or not. A simple change might make all the difference! :)

      Kennyannydenny wrote:
      I have another question. For the weapons pages, should we use "damage" or "dps" in the table? I've seen both being added, but it's better to decide which one we want to use.

      This is actually another point I forgot to address, so thank you for bringing it up. I actually am not sure at the moment because I'm quite behind on the series, still being in early parts of Odyssey and haven't had a chance to look into the progression of weapon statistics in the game. However, it should be consistent with the fields used within the game, I think.

      Kennyannydenny wrote:
      I've now added the sortable table to Master Assassin's Set. Is that correct?

      Yes, use the sortable table style for armor sets as well. I'm not sure if it's necessary for it to be sortable, but I think armor sets should be treated like other pages on equipment which is about a group or class of individual items.

        Loading editor
    • For what it's worth, I prefer the aesthetics of the sortable tables, as I find the white tables too... basic? More like something from the web's early days, anyways.

      I don't think(?) the other categories matter to me too much, as I generally don't write a weapon page and I've too many projects on the go now, but I'll try to keep in mind when editing.

        Loading editor
    • I would say I like the aesthetics used for the sortable tables more than the ones used currently for a majority of the weapon articles prior to Origins. In my view, the black background is helps to provide a sort of contrast and a clear enough view for the players to know those header cells while the greyish ones are much for spaces where data (like stats, attributes and availability) can be filled it.

      The ones used for the older articles just seem to lack that kind of differentiation and I dunno, doesnt feel right for me, I guess?

        Loading editor
    • XOdeyssusx wrote:
      I would say I like the aesthetics used for the sortable tables more than the ones used currently for a majority of the weapon articles prior to Origins. In my view, the black background is helps to provide a sort of contrast and a clear enough view for the players to know those header cells while the greyish ones are much for spaces where data (like stats, attributes and availability) can be filled it.

      The ones used for the older articles just seem to lack that kind of differentiation and I dunno, doesnt feel right for me, I guess?

      But would you guys mind just modifying the old tables with such color differentiation instead?

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote:
      XOdeyssusx wrote:
      I would say I like the aesthetics used for the sortable tables more than the ones used currently for a majority of the weapon articles prior to Origins. In my view, the black background is helps to provide a sort of contrast and a clear enough view for the players to know those header cells while the greyish ones are much for spaces where data (like stats, attributes and availability) can be filled it.

      The ones used for the older articles just seem to lack that kind of differentiation and I dunno, doesnt feel right for me, I guess?

      But would you guys mind just modifying the old tables with such color differentiation instead?

      I'mma test it on the sandbox as soon as I can XD

        Loading editor
    • XOdeyssusx added this template to the Reflex Bow article. But if I understand your story correctly Sol, that's the wrong table. Sortable tables like that are only for pages like Sword, Mace, etc. The Reflex Bow is a specific bow type so will need the other one.

        Loading editor
    • Kennyannydenny wrote:
      XOdeyssusx added this template to the Reflex Bow article. But if I understand your story correctly Sol, that's the wrong table. Sortable tables like that are only for pages like Sword, Mace, etc. The Reflex Bow is a specific bow type so will need the other one.

      Yeah until we decide on a new template, we should still be using the old one for now.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.