Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-1153722-20171031194910/@comment-18014300-20171101131726 - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus at 13:49, 1 November 2017

2017-11-01T13:49:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:49, 1 November 2017
Line 10:		Line 10:
	I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the ''sourced'' name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.		I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the ''sourced'' name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.

	EDIT: Actually on second thought, I think I disagree with deleting the Babylonian Brotherhood article as well. While it may cause a little confusion, it would go against how sourcing policy should work to delete it for the reason already stated. Non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisoft are supposed to still have articles anyways, albeit with a non-canon header to clarify it. Ambiguously canonical subjects should also have articles, albeit with ambiguously-canon headers, and canonical subjects with non-canonical names are should have headers clarifying the name is non-canonical while the subject is canonical. In this case, the subject is canonical, and the name isn't even outright non-canonical but ambiguously so, and only ambiguous because we suspect the names may have been overridden by the retcon. However, this remains just an assumption. Given that utterly non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisofted are supposed to have articles and be documented, and this is a less severe than being outright non-canonical, I don't see the logical ~~reason~~ to delete it.		EDIT: Actually on second thought, I think I disagree with deleting the Babylonian Brotherhood article as well. While it may cause a little confusion, it would go against how sourcing policy should work to delete it for the reason already stated. Non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisoft are supposed to still have articles anyways, albeit with a non-canon header to clarify it. Ambiguously canonical subjects should also have articles, albeit with ambiguously-canon headers, and canonical subjects with non-canonical names are should have headers clarifying the name is non-canonical while the subject is canonical. In this case, the subject is canonical, and the name isn't even outright non-canonical but ambiguously so, and only ambiguous because we suspect the names may have been overridden by the retcon. However, this remains just an assumption. Given that utterly non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisofted are supposed to have articles and be documented, and this is a less severe than being outright non-canonical, I don't see the logical justification to delete it if we're being honest with ourselves.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 13:49, 1 November 2017

2017-11-01T13:49:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:49, 1 November 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:

	I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the ''sourced'' name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.		I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the ''sourced'' name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.

			EDIT: Actually on second thought, I think I disagree with deleting the Babylonian Brotherhood article as well. While it may cause a little confusion, it would go against how sourcing policy should work to delete it for the reason already stated. Non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisoft are supposed to still have articles anyways, albeit with a non-canon header to clarify it. Ambiguously canonical subjects should also have articles, albeit with ambiguously-canon headers, and canonical subjects with non-canonical names are should have headers clarifying the name is non-canonical while the subject is canonical. In this case, the subject is canonical, and the name isn't even outright non-canonical but ambiguously so, and only ambiguous because we suspect the names may have been overridden by the retcon. However, this remains just an assumption. Given that utterly non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisofted are supposed to have articles and be documented, and this is a less severe than being outright non-canonical, I don't see the logical reason to delete it.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 13:18, 1 November 2017

2017-11-01T13:18:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 1 November 2017
Line 6:		Line 6:
	To get back on-topic, I take it there is no opposition to doing what I propose regarding the French comics from you two then?		To get back on-topic, I take it there is no opposition to doing what I propose regarding the French comics from you two then?
	</div>		</div>
	I don't agree with deleting the Persian Brotherhood article because Salah Bey is mentioned in ''Rogue''. Although one user did dispute that it's never confirmed he was an Assassin, he was appealing to ignorance when he said that this proves he wasn't one, and the fact he calls his comrades Brothers, conducted an assassination of such a critical figure as Nader Shah, were on a mission to recover such a critical artifact as the Koh-i-Noor, and were in contact with an Assassin such as Achilles makes it more likely that he was an Assassin than not.		I don't agree with deleting the Persian Brotherhood article because Salah Bey is mentioned in ''Rogue''. Although one user did dispute that it's never confirmed he was an Assassin, this user was appealing to ignorance when he said that this proves he wasn't one, and the fact Salah calls his comrades Brothers, conducted an assassination of such a critical figure as Nader Shah, were on a mission to recover such a critical artifact as the Koh-i-Noor, and were in contact with an Assassin such as Achilles makes it more likely that he was an Assassin than not.

	I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the ''sourced'' name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.		I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the ''sourced'' name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "
Master Sima Yi wrote: Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference To ind..."

2017-11-01T13:17:26Z

Created page with "<div class="quote"> Master Sima Yi wrote: Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference To ind..."

Páàjì titun

<div class="quote">
Master Sima Yi wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference
To indulge this side-track, while that may certainly be the case I think it best to acknowledge this on Darius' and Iltani's respective articles, since the Persian and Babylonian Brotherhoods do not have any further information and could only cause the confusion that there were Assassins in the official sense before ''Origins''. I propose we delete those articles, and keep the information on the characters' pages, to avoid any confusion in other articles and in categories. In the case of the Chinese Brotherhood it's fine, because the article already exists and we could make note of a precursor group exisiting there.

To get back on-topic, I take it there is no opposition to doing what I propose regarding the French comics from you two then?
</div>
I don't agree with deleting the Persian Brotherhood article because Salah Bey is mentioned in ''Rogue''. Although one user did dispute that it's never confirmed he was an Assassin, he was appealing to ignorance when he said that this proves he wasn't one, and the fact he calls his comrades Brothers, conducted an assassination of such a critical figure as Nader Shah, were on a mission to recover such a critical artifact as the Koh-i-Noor, and were in contact with an Assassin such as Achilles makes it more likely that he was an Assassin than not.

I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the ''sourced'' name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.

Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-1153722-20171031194910/@comment-18014300-20171101131726 - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus at 13:49, 1 November 2017

imported>Sol Pacificus at 13:49, 1 November 2017

imported>Sol Pacificus at 13:18, 1 November 2017

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with " Master Sima Yi wrote: Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference To ind..."

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "
Master Sima Yi wrote: Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference To ind..."