Doesn't the spear tip of the look almost like the blade on the Hidden blade Bayek gets in Origins? Galvatron III (talk) 22:45, July 28, 2018 (UTC)
ΛΟΓΟΤΕΧΝΕΊΟ[]
A funny thing about the Collectibles video... In it, under Spear of Leonidas, it says in Greek 'ΛΟΓΟΤΕΧΝΕΊΟ'. That doesn't mean 'spear'. That (logotechneio) means 'literature', literally 'word craft'. I wonder why they used that? Sadelyrate (siniath) 04:57, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe that’ll be the ingame Ancient Greek term for Isu tech. That’s all I can think up. Logos can mean more than just word but Word of God. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 05:12, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
- True, that, about logos; connotations are fun. It does fit in with the idea of 'writing the misthios' story', an Odyssey, if you will.Sadelyrate (siniath) 05:19, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
Infobox[]
Should this page have the infobox used for Isu weapons/artifacts? Boofhead185 (talk) 23:02, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Second Spear[]
When you fought as Leonidas in the beginning his spear had blade on each end. Does it the second half come up in the game? Or was it just lost? --Revan's Exile (talk) 15:03, October 8, 2018 (UTC)
Notes on major clean-up to BTS (+ canonicity of the weapon in Crossover Stories)[]
I just performed a clean-up of the "Behind the scenes" section with too many things I wished to note for me to fit in an edit summary. As well, I wish to address the edit war the other day regarding the canonicity of Eivor acquiring the Spear of Leonidas in Crossover Stories, which I shall do after all the other notes.
- The section prior to the clean-up is a good example of how a BTS section should not be written. A BTS section is not supposed to be just a scattered list of OOU information with bullet points removed to disguise its actual state as a Trivia section. Information should be properly organized and structured just like the introduction and body paragraphs.
- I removed this line, "A replica of the spear is available in the Medusa Edition of Assassin's Creed: Odyssey", because our information on that edition in the "Assassin's Creed: Odyssey" article does not mention this item, so I could not quickly verify that this is true. Also, it's not written clearly what this replica is. Is it a physical toy or collector's item for the player or a virtual item in the game?
- There is information cited to the Game Informer magazine issue #105, but this needs to be a full citation, which includes author of the article and date of publication.
- While I agree that the way the weapon is used may be inspired by the Zulu iklwa, without a source for this, this is speculation.
Proceeding now to the subject of the edit war, first I want to say that our moderators could have handled this better. Everyone should do well to remember that it always takes at least two to edit war and that edit warring is defined as repeated direct reversions regardless of whose edit is correct. There are exceptions, like in the case of vandalism and these exceptions are listed on Wikipedia, but I do not think that the dispute in question qualified for these exemptions. No one violated the Three-Revert Rule (3RR) that is the objective measure of when edit warring has gone too far, so that is a good thing, but all editors are strongly advised to try to reach compromises by tweaking their reversions based on one another's feedback in the edit summary before they even start pushing 3RR.
I think if this had been done, it would have been noticed that the sentence "Its appearance in a pre-destroyed state indicates that the spear she acquired is non-canonical" could use some improvement even prior to the question of its canonicity.
First, it does not make sense to me to deduce non-canonicity from the spear being fully intact in and of it itself. (It could have been repaired with a new shaft as Wei Yu's spear was in Dynasty and then broken again, as also happened to Wei Yu's spear in Dynasty). The actual deduction stems from additional knowledge about the spear's status that the sentence fails to communicate, such as our understanding that it should have been somewhere else at the time. Layla recovers the spear in 2018 with Herodotus' book, but then the new information from Brotherhood of Venice in the history section suggests that it actually changed hands over thousands of years rather than merely being lost since the time of Herodotus. So, the sentence could have been revised for better clarity and logical construction.
Second, we wiki editors are almost never supposed to permit ourselves to rule that something is non-canon without an official statement we can cite backing it, and it is only in cases where all other possibilities that can be fathomed are exhausted. A good example of this is when chapter 2 of Identity irreconcilably conflicts with the timeline of events and history in Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood (and even then, we have thus far decided to only call chapter 2 of the game non-canon instead of the whole game itself, which is maybe kind of strange). Even if we are pretty much certain something is non-canon, we don't always have to say it outright because we technically don't have that authority.
Since we are already interpreting so many fantastical legendary weapons in the RPG trilogy as "Animus mods", I think it is firstly fair to ask if we can rule out that interpretation for this weapon. Secondly, BearZ on Discord explained that it has to be either non-canonical or a weapon that looks identically like it with an identical name, but this shows that we still have at least one other possible explanation for this weapon, meaning we cannot be justified in making a ruling ourselves. Replica weapons as an explanation is not unprecedented in the series (e.g. Washington's Battle Sword and Lincoln's Sword in Assassin's Creed III). Since there are multiple Staves and Swords of Eden, it is also not as unbelievable that this could be a different Spear of Eden in-universe with the gameplay name Spear of Leonidas. Finally, as aforementioned, the intervening information from Brotherhood of Venice suggests the spear hadn't remained buried with Herodotus' book since his time, opening the possibility that it really did change hands over the millennia and could have passed to Eivor at one point. As I said, there is even a precedent for a powerful spear having had its shaft broken, repaired, and then broken again (i.e. Wei Yu's spear). Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)