Talk:Robert IV of Sablé

message: This is the article of a Grand Master. This spoiler warning is unacceptable. I doubt people will accidentally stumble upon this page as light reading. On the other hand, if people chose to read through all links before they complete the game they have just purchased then they can expect to discover clues to the plot. 
Robert is an important historical figure and the simple line here already is more than enough.
--Tefalstar (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassins Creed 

message: The spoiler warning is not unacceptable. He is revealed to be a major character almost from the outset of the game and there is a very real chance someone will come here to find more information about him. The least you can do is give fair warning before ruining a huge part of the game for him. At least change the comment to point out that he is a pivotal character in the game. That way people know he's important but you don't ruin the game for them because of their curiousity. Is that really asking too much of you?
Again, completely ridiculous. Why would you think that no one would see him at the beginning of the game, come here, type in his name and come to this link? This is ridiculous. All you need to do is mention that he plays an alternate history role in the game Assassin's Creed. You don't need to ruin the plot for them by not warning them ahead of time or by not spoiling his hugely important role to the game's story. Claiming it's ok to spoil something because he's a historical figure is also absolutely ridiculous. At least have the common courtesy to give a warning.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kecir12 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it entirely. If you come here because you are playing the game, you already know he is a character. If you don't know anything about the game, then you probably won't care anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Assassin's Creed 

message: What's the deal with the IV? He did not rule Sable and he was not the fourth Grand Master by the name Robert. If there are other Roberts de Sable, we don't have articles on them. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, i know he was a provincial Lord, but i've never seen anything alluding to the IV in his title. It probably goes back to being the 4th Robert to hold his French lands, but i have no evidence to back that up :P --Tefalstar (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The French Wikipedia has him as lord of Sablé. Even if he wasn't, he was certainly not the first or only Robert of Sablé and the first three have long articles at the French Wiki. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert IV? 

message: I'm a little new to the history of the crusades, but the Third Crusade page says that Richard sold Cyprus to Guy of Luisgnan in compensation for losing the election for the King of Jerusalem.  The Masters of the Templar Order site in the references supports the claim on this page, but which is it?  Did each of them get parts of the island instead of the whole thing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.203.103 (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, Richard sold it to the Templars first, then they decided they didn't really want it, so they gave it back to Richard, who then sold it to Guy. A better summary of this is in chapter 1 of "The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades" by Peter Edbury. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acquisition of Cyrpus