FANDOM


  • I think we as a wiki need to reconsider how we've been doing era icons for the past ten years. So far, we have one icon for every piece of media -- every game, every comic, every book, every film, and more. So it's basically a catalogue of appearances by this point. However, it's starting to get a bit absurd, as this series is approaching its tenth main instalment. Look at Humans, Assassins, or Templars. There are so many era icons on these articles that it requires two lines to fit them all, and I think that's a bit much.

    With this in mind, I think we need to think of a new system for era icons. Or cut back on what we have. I can think of a view ways of doing this:

    1. Just get rid of era icons altogether. I don't know what purpose they serve that isn't accomplished by Appearances and References.
    2. Cut down the era icons to "Games", "Novels", "Films", etc., so that while we are showing what form of media the article subject exists in, we aren't going overboard by listing everything it's in.
    3. Use actual eras, a la Wookieepedia. Wookieepedia has era icons for the Old Republic, Rise of the Empire, and Rebellion eras, just to name a few. They're also placed in the same space in the title, so they don't actually take up article space like we do.

    But those are just my suggestions. If anyone else has any, I'm all ears, but I do think something should be done sooner rather than later.

      Loading editor
    • I'm glad you brought this up because now that you have, I agree it's an issue. I think because they are technically called "eras", and I believe that they are derived from Wookieepedia's usage of them, it makes the most sense to go with your third option. In fact, I am quite resolute about that. The second option doesn't work so well I think when many subjects appear across many mediums, games, novels, and comics alike. We can still have the second option, but it would work only for articles on real-world media, like the ones on actual video games and novels.

      The only counter to the third option that I can think of off the top of my head is that the eras might be our own invention technically since unlike in Star Wars they're not as firmly established in Assassin's Creed. As well, before someone starts using the terms "Middle Ages" and "Renaissance", I also want to point out that these are Eurocentric terms. Having grown up through Western education, I know that we tend to see this periodization as universal when they only fit in with European history and cannot be accurately applied to Chinese, Indian, Arabian, etc. history.

        Loading editor
    • Actually going off to my point above, I also notice that we are inconsistent with how we classify subjects into different eras in the body of many articles, notably weapons. Sometimes we say "Renaissance Italy" and "High Middle Ages", sometimes we go with a specific event like "Third Crusade" and "French Revolution", and then other times we go with the century. If we are to go with the third option, relevant to this discussion would be sorting out this inconsistency.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, at this point, my preference is to just get rid of them altogether. Bearing in mind what you've said, I don't think we can get them to function as legitimate era icons in a legitimate way.

        Loading editor
    • I have to say I personally don't see much of an issue at this point when it's not up to thirty lines of era icons. Whether it's one line or three, doesn't really make all that much of an issue I'd say. A solution to this though would, I think, to indeed bring it down to a literal era icon, as well as a faction icon.

      As for the issue Sol Pacificus raises, perhaps it is best to use the names that apply to the location that they are set in. So the Jiajing Emperor would not have a Renaissance era icon but, for lack of something I can better think of at the moment, a Ming dynasty icon. This however raises another issue of what symbols to use.

        Loading editor
    • I like the Era icons, though the name might be a bit of a misnomer. That's it, I have nothing else to contribute.

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote: I have to say I personally don't see much of an issue at this point when it's not up to thirty lines of era icons. Whether it's one line or three, doesn't really make all that much of an issue I'd say. A solution to this though would, I think, to indeed bring it down to a literal era icon, as well as a faction icon.

      As for the issue Sol Pacificus raises, perhaps it is best to use the names that apply to the location that they are set in. So the Jiajing Emperor would not have a Renaissance era icon but, for lack of something I can better think of at the moment, a Ming dynasty icon. This however raises another issue of what symbols to use.

      I think this is the best solution, personally. Certainly better than what we're using era icons for at present. Also, I neglected to mention it originally, but I've no issue with faction icons. They don't pose much of an issue, I don't think. As for the question of what symbols to use though... I'm stumped. Any ideas from anyone are certainly welcome here, since I lack the imagination required.

        Loading editor
    • The Crimson Eagle wrote:

      Master Sima Yi wrote: I have to say I personally don't see much of an issue at this point when it's not up to thirty lines of era icons. Whether it's one line or three, doesn't really make all that much of an issue I'd say. A solution to this though would, I think, to indeed bring it down to a literal era icon, as well as a faction icon.

      As for the issue Sol Pacificus raises, perhaps it is best to use the names that apply to the location that they are set in. So the Jiajing Emperor would not have a Renaissance era icon but, for lack of something I can better think of at the moment, a Ming dynasty icon. This however raises another issue of what symbols to use.

      I think this is the best solution, personally. Certainly better than what we're using era icons for at present. Also, I neglected to mention it originally, but I've no issue with faction icons. They don't pose much of an issue, I don't think. As for the question of what symbols to use though... I'm stumped. Any ideas from anyone are certainly welcome here, since I lack the imagination required.

      I myself also don't think there is much of an issue at the moment. The faction icons are fine as is, but I will admit that I do find the idea of using era icons that actually indicate the era that the character lived in to be very interesting. Admittedly, finding a symbol to represent the era seems rather difficult, not to mention the fact that we would need an icon for Modern Day as well.

        Loading editor
    • "at the moment" is the key thing there. Even if it's not an issue right now (though I think it is), it will eventually become one, unless the series comes to a swift conclusion entirely. Better to come up with a new strategy sooner rather than later, if you ask me.

        Loading editor
    • The Crimson Eagle wrote:
      "at the moment" is the key thing there. Even if it's not an issue right now (though I think it is), it will eventually become one, unless the series comes to a swift conclusion entirely. Better to come up with a new strategy sooner rather than later, if you ask me.

      Agreed, I wasn't objecting, merely stating my thoughts.

        Loading editor
    • We might be able to take from the names used for the time periods in official sources like the Encyclopedia and The Essential Guide, of which I only have the latter. In the latter case, there is a chapter specifically devoted to time periods, eras, and settings, so maybe we should try to be as close to its usage as possible.

      In the timeline, there is listed:

      • Late archaic period (referring to Greece)
      • Third Crusade
      • Italian Renaissance
      • Ottoman Era
      • French Renaissance (with Bombastus)
      • Fall of the Ming dynasty
      • Spanish Inquisition
      • Fall of the Inca Empire
      • Hapsburg Era
      • Restoration
      • Salem Witch Trial
      • Golden Age of Piracy
      • Seven Years' War
      • American Revolution
      • Louisiana Rebellion
      • Slave Uprising
      • French Revolution
      • Sikh Empire
      • Draft Riots
      • Industrial Revolution
      • World War I
      • Russian Revolution
      • Palmer Raids
      • Opium Wars
      • World War II
      • Cold War

      The ones which actually have entries to them are titled:

      • The Levant
      • Renaissance Italy
      • Constantinople
      • Golden Age of Piracy
      • Seven Years' War
      • American Revolutionary War
      • Louisiana Rebellion
      • French Revolution
      • Industrial Revolution

      I think it is fine to just in general use era names that stay as close to the source usage as possible, with some modifications. For example, American Revolution makes more sense than the American Revolutionary War for describing the period as the latter refers more specifically to the war itself. "Fall of the Ming dynasty" should just be "Ming dynasty", partly because Chronicles: China is set in the middle of the dynastic period anyways and doesn't have any relevance to its fall more than a century after the game. Also, while we should use eras for each main game, I'm not so sure about side settings in comics.

        Loading editor
    • While that second list is definitely a period we can use, I see a lot of names in the first list that barely have any relevance, like the Draft Riots or the Palmer Raids. These are events rather than periods, and would hardly have anything fit into them anyway. Not to mention things like the Age of Discovery and Spanish Civil War which are completely ignored there. I agree with trying to stay in line with what terms that have been used there - but not to the point where we're just being misguided. However, I still think the bigger issue remains what images to use rather than what terms to use.

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote: While that second list is definitely a period we can use, I see a lot of names in the first list that barely have any relevance, like the Draft Riots or the Palmer Raids. These are events rather than periods, and would hardly have anything fit into them anyway. Not to mention things like the Age of Discovery and Spanish Civil War which are completely ignored there. I agree with trying to stay in line with what terms that have been used there - but not to the point where we're just being misguided. However, I still think the bigger issue remains what images to use rather than what terms to use.

      In any case, my suggestion was not to follow either exactly, but as one source we can defer to as a general guide along with any others in the series. For the second list, I actually disagree with "the Levant" and "Constantinople", even "Renaissance Italy" because I find those to be referring to locations not time periods.

      I agree that which images we would use would be the bigger issue, but first off, do we actually all agree that we should go by the third option presented to use actual eras?

        Loading editor
    • I'd still say that just getting rid of them is the most straightforward solution, but I'd rather use eras than appearances, to be honest.

        Loading editor
    • The Crimson Eagle wrote: I'd still say that just getting rid of them is the most straightforward solution, but I'd rather use eras than appearances, to be honest.

      Second that. Eras also look better and take less space than a new section on a page to liste the appearances that already is listed by the era icons and the titles linked in info boxes. Why do we need 3 ways to liste the appearances on a page anyway? I personally think it's too much.

        Loading editor
    • ACsenior wrote:

      The Crimson Eagle wrote: I'd still say that just getting rid of them is the most straightforward solution, but I'd rather use eras than appearances, to be honest.

      Second that. Eras also look better and take less space than a new section on a page to liste the appearances that already is listed by the era icons and the titles linked in info boxes. Why do we need 3 ways to liste the appearances on a page anyway? I personally think it's too much.

      The point should be that eras should be changed to reflect eras and settings not the Appearances section. The Appearance parameter in infoboxes is only present for characters, and if that should be changed, it makes more sense that the infobox parameter be removed not the actual section.

      If the eras exclusively served the function of listing appearances, then the problem that Crimson Eagle brought up with too many icons would only be exacerbated. You'd just have a long list of icons for every last thing, and there are also many subjects whose only "appearance" is only being mentioned in a particular work, but then the question would arise whether that means other subjects who receive just as slight mentions in other works should be included, and it will become a huge arbitrary mess.

        Loading editor
    • Going off on my last comment, I also wanted to point out that there is confusion and inconsistency over how much of an appearance of a subject in a work merits the inclusion of an "era" corresponding to that work to the subject's article.

      As an example, we have the article ships where it has the "eras" of Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines. However, while ships did appear in these two media, they weren't actually a major gameplay element unlike their appearance in III, Black Flag, and Rogue. In contrast, the application in the article Forts seem to affirm that eras should only be included if the subject had a prominent gameplay role because only games where forts is a gameplay feature is listed instead of just every last game or novel or comic where a fortress has appeared (which is virtually every AC work ever).

      While this wiki is meant to take a lore-based direction not a gameplay-one, I think an argument can be made that "eras" as they are used now is meant to refer to only truly relevant appearances. At least, that's how I always interpreted it to be. It would seem awkward to me to add a subject to an era if that subject only appears on the side or in the background for a brief moment. When our eras are based on games, it simply just does not feel like some things are relevant to a particular game to be said to be part of that "era". I've seen articles where the subject is included to an era (or work) when they literally received only a minor reference, and in such cases, I have a hard time saying a small reference justifies their inclusion to that era. (This is in contrast to an Appearances section which function as comprehensive and exhaustive lists which also clarify the extent of the appearance.)

      This issue would entirely change if eras instead focused on settings and time periods since then the function would shift from relevance to a game to whether the subject applies to that time period or setting in general.

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote: I still think the bigger issue remains what images to use rather than what terms to use.

      I think for the images to use for revised era icons, if we ever go about with this change, could just be the Assassin logos for each main game representing that era, for lack of a better option. This does echo Ubisoft's usage to an extent. I'm actually not so concerned about this anymore since I just noticed how our current icons is literally just the silhouette of a game controller with a corresponding acronym for each game, which I think sets a pretty low bar, and virtually any choice we come up with would be better. My primary concern initially after all was that we would have to use an image from official source, not devise our own, as we have done in the case with the current icons.

        Loading editor
    • That's actually a pretty good idea, now that I think about it.

        Loading editor
    • Agreed, this seems like a perfectly good solution. Although it should be noted that not every game used a unique logo, so we might have to use the in-game Assassin insignias instead.

        Loading editor
    • The Wikia Editor wrote: Agreed, this seems like a perfectly good solution. Although it should be noted that not every game used a unique logo, so we might have to use the in-game Assassin insignias instead.

      Yes, that's what I was thinking. So by default, we use the Assassin's Creed logo for the main installment of that setting. Normally, Ubisoft uses this logo to represent that year's of games by extension anyways. Note that this AC logo, while an Assassin insignia, isn't always identical to the in-universe Assassin insignia for the branch of that region contrary to popular belief. (I'm still extremely skeptical that the Syndicate logo is the British Brotherhood's insignia for one thing).

      In any case, it's important to remember that our priority is to use the Assassin's Creed logo, not the Assassin branch's insignia of that region per se. But in the absence of a logo, we can then defer to the insignia. I'm thinking this should be the case for Chronicles: China, for example. Might be a little different, but I won't mind using the insignia on her jade necklace for the Ming dynasty era icon, but cropped and modified to set it upright. EDIT: actually that might look weird & out-of-place, do we have a better option? Using the one from Wei Yu's time wouldn't work because that would be a different era, the Qin dynasty.

        Loading editor
    • I'm no supporter of this honestly. AC is so vast that there are a lot more eras than there are games and insignias. Not to mention that we'd still need eras for Templars, Assassins and Instruments and if we're using Assassin insignias for both Assassins and eras that'd look weird. Not to mention that I don't see any point in having these eras if we're just gonna use the generic Assassin insignia for them.

      Using an image not directly taken from AC was never really the biggest issue here; if it is something relevant to the time period (but not obscure), that will work. Like say the skull and bones for the Golden Age of Piracy, perhaps the Join or Die snake for the American Revolution, the kanji for each Chinese dynasty, a knight shield for the Third Crusade/Crusades, a guillotine for the French Revolution, etc.

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote: I'm no supporter of this honestly. AC is so vast that there are a lot more eras than there are games and insignias. Not to mention that we'd still need eras for Templars, Assassins and Instruments and if we're using Assassin insignias for both Assassins and eras that'd look weird. Not to mention that I don't see any point in having these eras if we're just gonna use the generic Assassin insignia for them.

      Using an image not directly taken from AC was never really the biggest issue here; if it is something relevant to the time period (but not obscure), that will work. Like say the skull and bones for the Golden Age of Piracy, perhaps the Join or Die snake for the American Revolution, the kanji for each Chinese dynasty, a knight shield for the Third Crusade/Crusades, a guillotine for the French Revolution, etc.

      I was actually thinking that if we do revise eras such that they actually correspond to eras, we won't have eras for different factions like Assassins, Templars, and the Instruments of the First Will. The main reason why I personally think it's fine to use Assassin's Creed logos for the era icons is because I see them first and foremost as Assassin's Creed logos not Assassin insignias even if they are generally synonymous. I see using the logos as no less appropriate than Ubisoft using Assassin insignias as the logos for the franchise.

      However, if using an image not taken from AC is not an issue, then I agree that we can use your suggestions. The hanzi for each Chinese dynasty works better than my initial suggestion. (Though I kind of think that if we're just going to use skull & bones for Golden Age of Piracy or guillotine for French Revolution, we might as well use the AC logo with the skull & bones or the AC logo with the guillotine slash, neither of which are true Assassin insignias canonically used by the Assassin branches in the respective games even if the former is Edward's Jolly Roger).

        Loading editor
    • While that is certainly possible, I think for consistency's sake it'd be better to use the Assassin insignias for some and not others. Besides, in my mind there's more to the universe than the Assassins and therefore I'd say it's better to reflect that in these images. That way, it's also very much possible to make eras for Assassins, Templars and Instruments; after all, I don't see why they shouldn't get eras.

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps there can be a way that you see one line of icons, but would have to scroll over it to see all of them. That way, you could have as many as you want and it wouldn't take up space on a page, as you'd have to scroll over the section to see more.

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote: While that is certainly possible, I think for consistency's sake it'd be better to use the Assassin insignias for some and not others. Besides, in my mind there's more to the universe than the Assassins and therefore I'd say it's better to reflect that in these images. That way, it's also very much possible to make eras for Assassins, Templars and Instruments; after all, I don't see why they shouldn't get eras.

      I don't remember exactly all the developing ideas we briefly discussed over this on Discord, but first, I would like to say that if there's a reason for factions not to get eras, it would be because... they're not eras o.O... which are settings, not groups of people. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but a teasing way because I know that's just arguing semantics.

      Because aside from that point, I'm open to including factions in the so-called "eras" bar.

      However, I think we should first clarify what we want out of "eras". I think we should tackle that question at its roots first. I forgot exactly what you and Nesty said before on Discord about this, but I am convinced that delineating exact eras isn't necessarily the best idea, so I'm actually open to the idea of abolishing them altogether and leaving only faction icons.

      So again, I think the question we really need to be asking is: what function and purpose do we want out of this header bar thus far named eras. I think they don't need to be eras necessarily if you want faction icons for example.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry to bring this back from the dead, but how about we consider option 2 in the original post as an alternative? Just include icons for games, novels, films, novels, etc.? I don't think the era thing is going to work, to be honest.

        Loading editor
    • The Crimson Eagle wrote: Sorry to bring this back from the dead, but how about we consider option 2 in the original post as an alternative? Just include icons for games, novels, films, novels, etc.? I don't think the era thing isgoing to work, to be honest.

      Yes. I'm convinced now that actual eras is too complicated especially since unlike Star Wars, they're not clearly and officially defined. I won't mind keeping them if we have a tangible solution though, but I don't think they are necessary.

      I am solidly opposed to having icons for each individual game or media. I think it's fine to use them for describing types of media like whether it is a game, novel, film, etc. If you guys want to also keep on using it to for affiliations, I'm fine with that too. My main concern is just that its use for each individual work be discontinued.

        Loading editor
    • If we had era icons integrated like the Final Fantasy Wiki's Side Icons, I think that'd satisfy everyone as that'd keep the more general "appearance by media" usage we have and would remove the kinda bad clutter from the top of the page. Of course, I have no idea how they managed to implement that...

        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