Editing Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-1828842-20200521221354/@comment-18014300-20200522014654

I haven't had the time to look through all of these yet. I will organize my votes in a table later, but there were a few corrections I couldn't help but get out right away.

For the weapon pages, we already decided upon a comprehensive guideline on organizing weapon articles years ago and the matter has already long been settled. Two weapons which are actually entirely identical in appearance are essentially one weapon which appears in more than one game, just as one character or location may appear in more than one game. They should always be merged, and many weapon pages have already been merged under this policy. On the other hand, two weapons which happen to share the same name but are clearly different warrant two separate pages. Hence, we merged the Scimitar of ''Assassin's Creed II'' with the [[Persian Shamshir]] of ''Revelations'', but did not merge [[Persian Scimitars]] into them. What we see here with the multiple pages of the Sword of Altaïr and Pirate Scimitars are just those poor pages we completely forgot about. Unless we were to change our policy on weapon pages and have to do another massive overhaul of the way all of them are organized, we have to follow through with these leftover pages. Merge where two weapons are definitely the same weapon model; keep separate where they share the same or similar name but are not the same.

Whether or not a weapon happens to be an Animus mod is a moot question because even if say Altaïr's Swords in ''Black Flag'' were an Animus mod (and it probably is), it doesn't mean that it needs its own page. It could simply be mentioned somewhere in the article on the real Sword of Altaïr that there were Animus sessions which included the swords as mods.

The other correction is that an Animi avatar page is rarely, if ever, a primary topic for a term. Also, article titles should almost always be in singular with few exceptions, and pluralization for the sole sake of disambiguating between two articles sharing the same name is wrong. This means that the article on "privateer" should be about actual privateers, not a multiplayer character with that epithet unless you guys really argue that the multiplayer character is the primary topic (i.e. most people who type "privateer" would be looking for it). Since ''Liberation'' multiplayer is defunct, I doubt this though. This correction aside, maybe a case can be made that pirate hunters and privateers aren't necessarily the same, and that would be the reason to keep them separate, but I'm not sure about that. I guess technically not every pirate hunter may have a letter of marque from a government legally sanctioning their pirate hunting?