Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20200504004330/@comment-18014300-20200506215817

So here are my answers to those questions:

1. Yes I think it is a good idea to merge "Hidden Ones" with "Assassins and "Order of the Ancients" with "Templars" for better organization. Even though we could say that "Assassins" and "Templars" would only touch upon the Hidden Ones and OotA briefly, at the end of the day, I think three pages which leads with "Hidden Ones" is too confusing for readers. It is also confusing for me when linking. We should, of course, keep "Egyptian Brotherhood of Assassins" separate but our writing in it currently makes it confusing whether "Hidden Ones" is an older name of that particular branch or the name of the Assassins at the time of its origin.
2. Looks like we'll have to wait for Valhalla to confirm, but in the meantime, I think we can use "Assassin" retrospectively for all Assassin groups from the founding of the Hidden Ones to the founding of the Assassin state.
3. I would have argued for renaming both pages, but since you guys have pointed out that Artabanus' group was destroyed—I would not know because I still haven't finished the DLC—then it would merit its own article. Of course, "Persian Brotherhood" should still mention them as their predecessor. On the other hand, I reaffirm my position that "Iltani's Order" should be renamed to "Babylonian Brotherhood", canonical name over conjectural name. I think editing based on what we infer to be retcons can be problematic based on Zero's examples to me earlier about my poor citations in "Persian Brotherhood".
4. Exactly the same as what Sima expressed. I don't necessarily agree with it, but sourcing would dictate that she should be at least categorized as such.
5. As I said, I support both my initial proposition and Zero's bolder one. Either one is fine by me. Of course, we must clarify in the article how later Assassins treat these figures as Assassins retrospectively though.