FANDOM


  • I think this wiki is absolutely helpful. The fact that I couldn't play an AC game wasn't an obstacle, because I read the wiki to keep me in touch with the lore. I love that.

    But... there's something that bothers me. A tiny, little detail. Most of the pages, explaining the biography and personality of the characters, dont indicate if the character did exist at all or not.

    Of course, we learn about some of them, that did exist, at school and university: Napoleon, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Jean of Arc, Bartholomew Roberts, Edward "Blackbeard" Thatch, George Washington, etc, etc, etc. But what above the others less popular?

    An example is Julien Du Casse, the Templar with the big hat in ACIV:BlackFlag. He didn't exist at all. There isn't historical documents of him, it just like the developers invented him for the lore. And I thought he did exist. The only ways, aside of what we learn in history 101, that someone can know if a character did exist are: thinking logically or reading the trivia, but both are ambiguous and they lack of research.

    I think it's important to mark the characters that existed and the ones that are completely fictional in someway. Doing that, we do a great service of the new fans.

    What do you think?

      Loading editor
    • A general indication is whether or not you see that little Wikipedia jigsaw globe on the upper right corner of an article. That will link to the article's Wikipedia counterpart. At least, that's on desktop. I have no idea if it exists on mobile -- it probably doesn't.

        Loading editor
    • I think I mentioned this already when you asked me personally, but I personally always thought the presence (or lack of) Wikipedia icon and link at the upper-right corner suffices for this purpose.

        Loading editor
    • The Crimson Eagle wrote:
      A general indication is whether or not you see that little Wikipedia jigsaw globe on the upper right corner of an article. That will link to the article's Wikipedia counterpart. At least, that's on desktop. I have no idea if it exists on mobile -- it probably doesn't.

      If you search for the page using the wikia APP, it does show the icon. But if you use the web application using Chrome, Firefox or the Default Explorer of the smartphone, it doesn't show s#|t. You must see the page in the desktop version.

      I asked this because 4 or 5 days ago I was reading the AC Reddit post and I found a well done historical reseach of BlackFlag. It separes reality from fiction and list all the real characters that existed, between them: Peter Chamberlain and John Cockram. I thought those never existed (because the wiki icon didnt show in their character pages) but this document here says otherwise. When I asked for sources, the author gave me this link. He didn't send the post because he shared that 3 years ago, so it'd be trouble. (I think the same haha).

      The weakness of this method is that not every real character has a wikipedia page. Maybe we should search other sources aside wikipedia. to mark real characters and fictional ones.

      I don't know. It would require more work, but it'd be a great service.

      Sol Pacificus wrote:
      I think I mentioned this already when you asked me personally, but I personally always thought the presence (or lack of) Wikipedia icon and link at the upper-right corner suffices for this purpose.

      Yes, you did. But as I mention above, the lack of a Wikipedia Icon doesn't mean that the character never existed. It actually means that the character doesnt have a page there. So the question of his/her existence is still in the air. (At least for me).

      This is just an observation.

        Loading editor
    • There used to be a "Historical characters" (something of an oxymoron, that) category, years ago, but it was deleted. It served the same sort of purpose though. I'm afraid that, outside of trivia, I can't think of a way to mention whether or not characters were real that doesn't go against the style the wiki has adopted.

        Loading editor
    • I was thinking of a way: In the same table that shows information of the character (image, name, date of birth and date of death, etc.) put other one saying "existence" and only allows values of "real character / fictional character". But this would be redundant, because the wikipedia icon suffices the purpose, even when now it's clear that is not a very reliable one.

      Meh, I was just saying.

      Thank you guys.

        Loading editor
    • Cristophorus35 wrote: I was thinking of a way: In the same table that shows information of the character (image, name, date of birth and date of death, etc.) put other one saying "existence" and only allows values of "real character / fictional character". But this would be redundant, because the wikipedia icon suffices the purpose, even when now it's clear that is not a very reliable one.

      Meh, I was just saying.

      Thank you guys.

      So to say, I was never dead set against the idea, though I'm not just not sure if it would add clutter unnecessarily. One of my other concerns is that we might not always know if a character isn't based on someone historically since there might be a possibility that Ubisoft actually based someone off an extremely obscure person that one can only find through extremely deep research. What if Basilisk isn't actually purely fictional, but there actually was a de facto Templar leader between Gerard de Ridefort and Robert de Sablé who he is based off of that we can only find out about through extremely deep research?

        Loading editor
    • I'm late to the party here, but a good source, is usually scholarly research (peer reviewed sources), and for secondary research that isn't academic, the Encyclopaedia Brittannica is a better source overall. 

        Loading editor
    • For example, here's a very thorough, well-written article on Napoleon Bonaparte, and keep in that Brittannica's articles are written by experts (academics), and not merely by someone who took a class on The French Revolution. 

      Napoleon Bonaparte article here

      PS: The only reason why the Wiki links to Wikipedia for the real life counterpart of a person, is just because Wikia is owned by Wikipedia, it's all bureaucracy at this point. 

        Loading editor
    • Assassin go against templars but do they go against Freemasonries too?

        Loading editor
    • No more than likely the Assasins would have known about them but they would not have done anything as long as they stayed to themselves and didn't try to take over the world. After all George Washington was a free mason and connor and his master had worked with him.

        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