Category talk:Hidden Ones members: Difference between revisions
imported>Sol Pacificus Created page with "{{Talkheader}} ==Merge with Category:Hidden Ones== I know that there was a proposal to move all articles in "Assassins" to "Assassin Brotherhood members" to disambiguate from ..." |
imported>Soranin No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{ArchivedTalk}} | ||
==Merge with Category:Hidden Ones== | ==Merge with Category:Hidden Ones== | ||
I know that there was a proposal to move all articles in "Assassins" to "Assassin Brotherhood members" to disambiguate from a category for non-Assassin assassins (which I still disagree with), but this does not necessarily mean that every category on members of an organization now has to follow by the format "[Organization] members". I noticed that this change had been made across all category pages even where a more concise demonym is present, like "Templars", and that is wrong. This category here is an example since "Hidden One" is also a demonym for a "member of the Hidden Ones". | I know that there was a proposal to move all articles in "Assassins" to "Assassin Brotherhood members" to disambiguate from a category for non-Assassin assassins (which I still disagree with), but this does not necessarily mean that every category on members of an organization now has to follow by the format "[Organization] members". I noticed that this change had been made across all category pages even where a more concise demonym is present, like "Templars", and that is wrong. This category here is an example since "Hidden One" is also a demonym for a "member of the Hidden Ones". | ||
A counter-argument might be made, though, that we wish to distinguish a category page for individuals who were Hidden Ones and anything associated with the Hidden Ones. Hence, this category page should then be kept for a different reason. At the same time, our category page for Hidden Ones is currently empty. What do you guys think? [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 21:20, May 17, 2020 (UTC) | A counter-argument might be made, though, that we wish to distinguish a category page for individuals who were Hidden Ones and anything associated with the Hidden Ones. Hence, this category page should then be kept for a different reason. At the same time, our category page for Hidden Ones is currently empty. What do you guys think? [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 21:20, May 17, 2020 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:38, 17 January 2023
Merge with Category:Hidden Ones[edit source]
I know that there was a proposal to move all articles in "Assassins" to "Assassin Brotherhood members" to disambiguate from a category for non-Assassin assassins (which I still disagree with), but this does not necessarily mean that every category on members of an organization now has to follow by the format "[Organization] members". I noticed that this change had been made across all category pages even where a more concise demonym is present, like "Templars", and that is wrong. This category here is an example since "Hidden One" is also a demonym for a "member of the Hidden Ones".
A counter-argument might be made, though, that we wish to distinguish a category page for individuals who were Hidden Ones and anything associated with the Hidden Ones. Hence, this category page should then be kept for a different reason. At the same time, our category page for Hidden Ones is currently empty. What do you guys think? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 21:20, May 17, 2020 (UTC)