Talk:American Rite of the Templar Order

Moving page

If this page will survive extermination, I propose that we SHALL move this page to the main Templar page unless we will make other Templar branches... Is anybody with me? Before we proceed to voting, I must hear you opinions...

Cheers,

AgentG231 ^{The Action Center} 10:59, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Separate articles with what little info we got on 'em. Altaïr Skywalker 47 (talk) 11:03, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

If we had little info on this article, we must merge it as it is worthless to have a stand alone  page seperated from the mainstream page.. -- AgentG231 ^{The Action Center} 11:11, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to merge anything. The Colonial Rite is one of the few Templar factions to be clearly defined as an autonomous, nearly separate entity; it's just that the Assassins have more. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 11:14, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a good idea to keep pages like this open and on the wiki.  Also gives people a list of who was a Templar for Templar rites and/or Assassin brotherhood bracnhes.  It makes sense so why delete it? (M4 C-Corp (talk) 19:42, October 18, 2013 (UTC))

Colonial Rite v. Colonial Templars

The article is at "Colonial Rite" because that is what they are officially called; if the Colonial Assassins had an official designation, something like the "Brotherhood of the Colonies", that is where they would be. As it stands, the only reason Caribbean Templars is named a such, is because there is no evidence to suggest they were a self-sustaining Rite in the same aspect as Haytham's group.

EDIT: Likewise, the "Japanese Assassins" are listed as the Onmoraki-Gumi, since that particular branch has an "official" designation. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:08, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, Jasca. But when you consider that "Colonial Rite of the Templar Order" is essentially "Colonial Templars" in a longwinded form, wouldn't it just make sense to shorten it down for simplicity's sake? Slate Vesper (talk) 00:29, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

What does simplicity have to do with it? "Colonial Templars" is a redirect, so there is no reason not to have the article under it's proper name. For simplicity's sake I would argue we can shorten the Ezio Auditore da Firenze articl... --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:12, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

James Wardrop, Samuel Smith and Lawrence Washington aren't Colonial Templars

I think we can't technically consider Wardrop, Smith and Washington Colonial Templars, because they died years before the Colonial Rite was founded by Haytham Kenway. They can be considered agents of the British Rite.

Lorenzo.ladogana (talk) 00:36, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

I was just coming here to point out the very same thing... I totally agree; from what the letters say they were apart of Birch's rite and died before Haytham officially founded the Colonial Rite. Lord Vespasian (talk) 15:57, December 8, 2014 (UTC)