Welcome to the Order, Francesco75!
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?|
We seek unity, stability and order.
|We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors.|
Why I have a warning? Francesco75 (talk) 07:27, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
Please note that you need to source any and all images you upload to the wiki in accordance to our image policy. For more information on how to source images, check this page. Also check the information about naming images appropriately. Badly named or unsourced images will be deleted. Feel free to reupload your deleted image with proper sourcing. Thank you. Crook The Constantine District 14:12, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
I have reupload all images with the source but I have one to delete because it already exist Moving Mirabeau 2. How I delete it.Francesco75 (talk) 16:48, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Regular editors cannot delete images, but I can do it for you :) Thank you for the quick response and sourcing all your images! Crook The Constantine District 18:18, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Francesco75 (talk) 05:18, August 28, 2016 (UTC)
Hey Francesco, I apologize for not explaining it; when undoing multiple edits, I have to use the rollback function which does not allow an edit summary, and I'm beginning to realize that in such scenarios, I should really leave a direct message to the user clarifying the revert.
The reason why I reverted it is because some staff disapprove of the addition of these kinds of information on infobox because it draws too much from real-life sources (especially the dates), are therefore never cited, and also creates a huge mess. Listing regimes in such a manner always seem to rely heavily on original research. Moreover, there isn't an adequate distinction between the "Sovereign state" parameter and the "Ruling body" parameter. The latter has conventionally been used to simply list the preceding sovereign governments rather than the actual ruling body (i.e. administration) of the location. Hence, the infobox really must be revised, and in the meantime, we should probably refrain from continuing to use the parameter or at least not in this way.
I thank you so much for contacting me about this because I realize that it was my mistake that I didn't bother taking the initiative to explain it to you. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 08:18, June 27, 2018 (UTC)
Formatting style for unknown death dates
Hey Francesco, I set up a thread for editors to vote on the notation style to be used for individuals with unknown death dates. I think I recall that earlier you had edited an article—forgot the exact one—where you tried to conform to the style of using floruit as specified in the Manual of Style, then it got reverted because someone else was confused if it should be used like that. So, I think we should bring this up to a vote and reach a consensus about it, and I would really like to hear your input! Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 07:58, July 17, 2018 (UTC)
Hey Francesco, can you explain your reasoning behind your reversions of the categories Lacross and Sadel were adding to pages? I think I can surmise, but I need to make sure. Thanks! Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:44, September 29, 2018 (UTC)
- I assume it’s having articles in nested categories. I’m not actually sure what our stance is on this, so it’s possible I am in the wrong here. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:08, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
- Francesco, that's not necessarily true, and we don't have a clear policy on whether pages in a subcategory should not also be included in the broader category that subcategory falls under. According to Darkfeather, we do have a convention to treat one broad category as a main tier category, such as "Swords" which serves as a pool for pages to fall under even if they are already listed under a subcategory under that "main tier category".
- However, this is actually aside from the point as the categories British Army, French Army, etc. are categories of organizations whereas "soldiers" is a category on individuals' occupations or professions, and while it may seem intuitive for "British Army", "French Army", etc. categories to be subcategories of "Soldiers" since army personnel should all be soldiers (but then again, not necessarily right, because there are medics, engineers, etc.), I don't think this makes too much sense upon subjecting it to scrutiny. For specific armies to fall under the category "soldiers", this would suggest that Soldiers is an organization of which the British Army and French Armies are subbranches. The "Soldiers" category is about individuals, and armies are not individual combatants. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 17:01, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
- Hence, I didn't really notice this at all before, but when I saw pages having "soldiers" as a category being removed in favor of "British Army", "French Army", etc. I immediately found this quite awkward though I couldn't immediately explain why. I think in my mind, I don't really think that they're in the same class of categories (occupations vs. organizations/affiliations). But we don't really have any specific policy laid out about this, and I don't think it's a big deal. Our categories are a mess anyways, inconsistent, and need to be entirely reorganized, so we can think more about how best to set standards for categorization later. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 17:08, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
Technically, every medics who are a part of an army his a soldier, as for the engineers.Francesco75 (talk) 18:08, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
- Are you sure? o.O I thought the term soldier only refers to those trained and enlisted to serve as armed combatants. Combat medics and engineers are classified as military personnel who are non-combatants by the Geneva Conventions which afford them rights and protections that soldiers do not have. Regardless, I forgot to say that I thank you for your response, and you're definitely always welcome to provide input regarding how categories should be organized in the future when we set about revamping them. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 19:47, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't know in other countries, but in France the military medics have their own regiments and military ranks.Francesco75 (talk) 21:41, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like our problem is that we don’t have a good definition for soldier. Let’s take me for example as I am actually ex-military, 5 years in the USMC. Whether I deployed or not, whether I saw combat or not, I would never be considered a soldier, at least in American colloquialism; I am a marine. In the US, a soldier technically refers anyone who has served in the Army, not the Marines, Navy, or Airforce, and regardless if they’ve seen combat. So maybe a better category would have been 'Service members' but that can be vague. If we wanna talk specifically about service members whose occupational specialty is combat both Army and Marines have infantrymen while the Navy and Airforce don’t really have combat roles outside of fighter pilot, gunner, and special forces operators which the previous two branches also have. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:46, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
Then we can created a military category including soldiersor infantryman, seaman, pilots and marines .Francesco75 (talk) 20:03, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
Hey Francesco, sorry for the late reply. I've always been quite unsure about the definition of entrepreneur myself, but popularly, an entrepreneur in English is a businessman who deals with high financial risk rather than just anyone who leads an enterprise. Usually, this financial risk arises from the individual independently starting a new business, and so entrepreneur in English bears the connotation of young, adventurous men (often late 20s to early 30s) who rely on their ingenuity and street smarts to establish a new start-up in an unfamiliar environment in protest at the notion of having anyone but themselves as he boss. Because of this we tend to think of entrepreneurs as savvy businessmen who independently climbed to great wealth or those who fell into bankruptcy from their recklessness. If you check the Wikipedia entry or the English dictionary entries, they do seem to suggest that in English, financial risk and/or starting a new business are criteria of the definition. I think in this way, it is more specific in its usage than the original French term. Hope this helps! I know that most of our categories on professions need to be reorganized, renamed, or deleted. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 03:22, December 15, 2018 (UTC)
Hey Francesco, I just noticed the question you posed in Talk:Modern times approximately two years back, and I have added my thoughts to it since I just had the same question as well. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 15:01, January 5, 2019 (UTC)
Hi Francesco, just a quick one. Can you please ensure that you always pluralise the Appearances and References section headings? Even when there is only a single entry, these two sections should be written in the plural. Thanks. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:53, February 13, 2019 (UTC)
Francesco, you were advised to take the discussion to the article talk page if you felt the information pertinent to the article. Since you did not, I have again removed the information. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:46, March 5, 2019 (UTC)
Hey Francesco, in relation to this I will leave you a warning. I get that you are opinionated on the subject, but edit warring is not preferable to starting a discussion on the talk page. Please head Jasca's warning the first time he mentions it, not the third. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 18:01, March 5, 2019 (UTC)
Whitespace in edits
Hi Francesco. Quick question; your recent edit to the Fate of Atlantis article added in some whitespace either side of the DISPLAYTITLE template and this has been a recurring issue for a number of contributors of late. In an effort to identify the cause of this issue, I was hoping you could advise me on the following:
- What browser(s) you use when editing the wiki?
- Are you using Source mode, VisualEditor, or "Classic" rich text to edit?
- Do you have "Edit pages on double click" activated in your Preferences? (See here)
- If the extra lines appear when you are editing the page itself (as opposed to appearing only when you Publish your edit)?
- That you're not manually inserting the extra lines yourself?
- If you have noticed the extra lines being included after previous edits of yours?
1. Google Chrome 2. Source mode 3. No 4. No 5. No 6. Yes, sometimes.Francesco75 (talk) 13:50, April 4, 2019 (UTC)
Francesco75, I have been doing some extra digging and have managed to identify the cause of the DISPLAYTITLE bug that has been plaguing certain users (including yourself) of late. The cause is a compatibility issue between DISPLAYTITLE and Fandom's "Classic rich text editor." I am liaising with Fandom Staff on a permanent fix, but in the meantime a workaround would be for you to change your Prefered editor to either Source mode or VisualEditor. You can do this by following this link ot your Preferences and making the change there. Thanks. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:51, April 5, 2019 (UTC)
How to write Odyssey articles
Hello Francesco, because of the uncertain canonicity behind the choices made by the player in Odyssey, we're experiencing a problem with writing the biographies of many side characters. If you have the time to spare, I would love hear your thoughts on the subject here. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 05:07, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
Use of "fl." in article introductions
Hi. Going forward, please refrain from adding floruit dates to article introductions; it was agreed here that the floruit dates should only be included in an article when no known date of birth and/or date of death for the character is known AND that, when use of floruit is appropriate, it should only ever be included in the infobox itself. I mention this because you recently added the fl. date to Jacob Frye's article introduction, but since we know his DOB fl. it is not required.
There have been at least two instances where fl. dates have been included in an article's introduction and it has confused readers, leading them to believe that the latter date is the character's date of death. This was the explicit reason why it was agreed not to include fl. in the introductions. Thanks. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:57, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
- In that poll, option #3, as it was voted on and explained was described in my words as I introduced it as, "Use floruit only when both birth & death are unknown" and "This is Jasca Ducato's idea, and correct me if I misrepresent any details [...] [Floruit] is strictly confined to being used when neither are known"; and in Jasca's words "I would rather we restrict floruit (or "flourished") to being used in the infobox only" and "in those instances were neither are known (i.e. we have to use floruit/flourished) that date range is marked in the infobox only". This is the source of the confusion. Francesco, but not only Francesco but several others including myself, always assumed that the option voted on favours the floruit notation being used, albeit in an infobox. However, once the poll was closed, Jasca, you then acted as though the option was instead for floruit notation to never be used because in your opinion, the active field alone renders it irrelevant. If this was your meaning, then you should have explained it at the time in the poll, especially when I asked that you correct me if I misrepresent any details of your idea. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 15:54, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
Chain of minor edits
Francesco, would you mind condensing some of your edits into larger ones? Looking at your recent edits to Desmond Miles' team, you pretty made a long chain of 10 edits of only a few characters. I don't think you are badge-hunting or any of that sort, but remember that we do have a rule against extended series of consecutive minor edits. It is fine to split up large edits, especially by section or if you catch a few mistakes you have missed and have to spend a couple more edits to correct them. I have a bad habit of doing that myself, but ten consecutive (with the exception of my brief interruption) minor edits is just too excessive, and looking at your contribution history, it seems that you do this quite often. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 04:25, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
English needs improvement
Francesco, I mean no offence when I message you about this since your hard work and diligence on this wiki is very much welcomed and appreciated, but your English writing quite honestly always contains innumerable errors in syntax, grammar, and even spelling in almost every line. I had to spend hours correcting your mistakes in the article Desmond Miles' team, and I am rather dismayed to find that I will have to do so as well for Ezio Auditore da Firenze, which is a featured article which contains sections that you've rewritten. I don't wish to prejudice your English language ability at all, but frankly, these sorts of errors are excessive enough to be disruptive. If you are aware that your English needs improvement, you should not be performing major revisions to featured articles.
I'm not sure what suggestions I can give to you to improve your English because that is something that you can only do on your own, and I don't wish to see you stop contributing either. The only advice I can offer is to please proofread your work carefully after every edit. Use a spellcheck to catch spelling mistakes, and please refrain from making major changes to featured articles until your English is ready for them. I hope this does not sound condescending, as it is only an earnest concern for the state of our articles that has compelled me to alert you to this problem. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 04:01, October 28, 2019 (UTC)
Eseosa as mentor?
I’m not that well versed in Initiates' lore. Is it explicitly stated that he was considered a mentor? I thought he existed in that sort of limbo area as a branch leader but maybe not mentor. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:15, October 31, 2019 (UTC)
I checked and you're right its never mention he was Mentor, I corrected my mistake.Francesco75 (talk) 12:22, October 31, 2019 (UTC)
Founding dates of the Assassins and Templars
It's not uncommon for contributors to have this misconception that the Assassins and Templars weren't founded until we know for sure that they adopted the names "Assassins" and "Templars", which are normally assumed to have been when they reorganized as the state based in Alamut and as the Knights Templar respectively. There are a few flaws to this. First, there is no clear proof that the Hidden Ones couldn't have adopted the name Assassins at some point earlier than their reorganization as a state (although we can safely assume that the Templars didn't adopt their current name until they reorganized as the Poor-Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Jerusalem).
However, regardless of when the Hidden Ones made the shift to the name Assassins, this does not mean that they weren't who they were prior to that name change. An organization can change their name in the middle of their existence, and the meaning of "proto-" isn't "before that name" but "before that group existed". A proto-Assassin is an individual who preceded the organization that is now known to us as the Assassins (even if they went by a different name earlier), not an Assassin before they started calling themselves Assassins.
Understandably, there is some grey area as to when the Assassins were officially founded since as with countries in real-life, usually the "founding" is split across several stages of reorganization to get to where they are now. One might argue that the Assassins began with Adam and Eve and that the Templars began with Cain. One might argue that the Assassins began with the earliest group which later merged with the Hidden Ones (i.e. Darius's group) even if they didn't have the identity of the Assassins yet. One might argue that they began when Aya and Bayek founded the Hidden Ones and the Creed. And of course, one might argue that the Assassins weren't founded until they re-established themselves as a state under Hassan-i Sabbah.
However, Ubisoft heavily marketed and promoted the idea that Origins tells the story of the beginning of the Assassins and that Bayek and Aya are their founders. Taking their word for it, this means that we should be taking the official founding of the Assassins in 47 BCE under the name the Hidden Ones. This is the interpretation of the starting point sanctioned by canonical lore, by Ubisoft. The Hidden Ones are not proto-Assassins, but Assassins themselves, just by an earlier name.
It is murkier with the Templars since it is not clear if the Order of the Ancients should be seen as a Templar parallel of the Hidden Ones being the first Assassins. Personally, I am of the opinion that they should be if only because it parallels and there is no other confirmation in canon. Regardless, the point is that just because these organizations went by a different name earlier doesn't mean they weren't those organizations. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 10:17, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
Revisions of "Ezio Auditore"
Francesco, I do greatly appreciate your work expanding the article of Ezio Auditore da Firenze because I've noticed that you've been identifying some very crucial details that have been missing from what was supposedly a featured article. Because I recognize the value of your work on the article, I have never reverted any of them despite the fact that, as I have pointed out in the past, your grammar and spelling needs improvement. I don't wish to be condescending, but it is to the extent that I have to also recognize that your edits tend to be simultaneously disruptive to articles because of how much work needs to be put into correcting their grammatical and spelling errors each time. In particular, I find that you have trouble with English tenses and moods.
In light of both the strengths and weakness of your edits, I have been maintaining all revisions you make to the "Ezio Auditore da Firenze" article while correcting them as I go, but I have a tight schedule outside of the wiki, and I cannot fix everything all at once in one day. I have asked you at least twice now, via edit summaries, to please refrain from making further revisions to the article until I have caught up with your work. This is by no means to say that you cannot work on it further; I would appreciate that you do, but only to please have the patience to wait for me to catch up first. As the article for one of the most popular characters in all of Assassin's Creed and one of the two most important characters, we cannot afford to leave this page riddled with such grammatical errors for an extended period of time.
However, this morning I woke up to find that, once again, you have gone ahead and expanded/revised another section against my request to wait. I am still on the Assassin's Creed II sections, and you are now at the Revelations section. Fixing or updating citations is perfectly fine, but I did not want you touching the writing again until we are on the same section. I know that I took a long time getting back to this article, but you seemed to be content to wait as well until I started working on it again, whereupon you suddenly have advanced ahead through it once more.
Sorry, I didn't see your messages. When I wrote the new sections, I used an English writing corrector to avoid many mistakes on the tenses and even correcting the part I had written on Paris, French Revolution, and the American Revolution. So I double-check my writing but I don't guarantee there is no mistakes.Francesco75 (talk) 13:18, January 30, 2020 (UTC)