Category talk:Assassin Brotherhood members

This is the discussion page for Category:Assassin Brotherhood members. Though the main page has since been deleted, this talkpage remains for archival purposes. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Deletion proposal

I noticed that Darman put up a deletion proposal for this category (though without opening up the discussion), and I firmly stand by it. His listed reason that Assassin Brotherhood is a not a gender-neutral term is actually aside from the point even though I also share the same reservations about the name for that reason. Category names should be as concise as possible and employ demonyms when possible.

This category, alongside "Templar Order members", was created by a now-banned moderator using his bot to preempt community discussion, as was his way. This is because once he moved the hundreds of pages, it would be a monumental task for anyone else to move them back since only he controlled the bot. His reasoning had been that the "Assassins" category should be used to mean assassins by the general noun, i.e. for people like John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald. He then changed all categories on organizations to the format "[x] members" under the argument that they should all be consistent and the "necessity" of one category "Assassin Brotherhood members" being formatted in this way meant that all others should follow suit.

I have already mentioned that this is incorrect because the standard is that category names should be to use the most concise demonym as much as possible. For people of Mongolia, we use "Category:Mongolians" (for the nationality) and "Category:Mongols" (for the ethnicity), not "Mongolian people". But for people of France, we use "Category:French people" because our community had decided that "Frenchmen" was dated and also too gendered, because "French" alone can mean the language, and because unlike the pluralized "Mongolians", "Frenches" is not a word. The fact that the category for French people is in the format "[x] people" does not mean that the categories for Mongolians, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. also have to be in that format. For the same reason, even if the category for Assassins should be "Assassin Brotherhood members", it does not follow that every other category for organizations must follow that format if there are available demonyms.

Apart from this point, though, there are other issues with this former mod's reasoning. As I have already pointed out in Category talk:Assassins, the line is blurred between assassins of the general noun and Assassins of the proper noun. A great deal of Assassins were also assassins. The general noun assassins, while including the men who killed Lincoln and JFK, does not exclude Assassins who also committed political assassinations. The category should also include many Templars and Templar puppets who enacted assassinations as well. For this reason, I entirely object to even having a category specifically devoted to grouping "real-world assassins" from an in-universe perspective because from an in-universe perspective, the group really goes far beyond the likes of people like Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth. Such a category would be too overbearing and confusing, seeing as we already had debates about where we draw the line.

But even if we were to have such a category, the primary topic for the term (A/a)ssassins in Assassin's Creed where capitalization is ambiguous is still the Assassins. They are the protagonists of the series and almost every time someone mentions the term, it refers to them. When people search for a category page by the name "assassins", they will almost certainly be looking for the Assassins.

There is the final point that our former mod moved these pages all without authorization, abusing his bot to contravene any community discussion. Hence, in this case, it is within the staff's right to instantly move all the pages back, but I have decided that it may be better to still open up some room to discuss about it first. Certainly if there are no objections in 1 week, we will begin the arduous process of moving the pages back and deleting this page.

tl;dr

1. The standard for category names of groups is to use the most concise demonym.
2. Reserving "Category:Assassins" as a category for real-world assassins from an IU-perspective makes no sense and creates a host of complications and problems.
3. The protagonists of the series, the Assassins, is the primary topic of the term assassins where capitalization is ambiguous, hence "Category:Assassins" should only ever be about the Assassins.
4. The creation of this page and the corresponding page moves was an unauthorized act committed by a now banned mod who abused his bot to preempt community objections, as was his frequent practice. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Having read all of this, I hereby second the motion. Much more thorough reasoning than what I had given, too. Guess we'll have to move/fix all other [Category: X members] by removing the word "members", then, yes? – Darman (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No, only the ones where there is a demonym that can be used. For example, what is the demonym for Order of the Ancients? If it isn't clear there is one, then for that category page, it would still have to be "Order of the Ancients members". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am against this proposal. It's probably the one instance I've sided with Jasca. I think having a consistent format for category names is better and I do think we should make a category for assassins regardless of affiliation. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I always thought you guys failed to recognize that there is a consistent format, which is again, that we always use the demonym with exceptions where that demonym cannot be found. And you would have to restate your argument for having a category for assassin regardless of affiliation. But as I have already countered, even if we need to have such a category, the primary topic for the term "(A/a)ssassins" will always be the Assassins, so you would have to conceive of a different term for such a category. As it is, this category move already violated multiple standards of our wiki, and I am disappointed that in all this time, these problems have never been properly addressed. Due to the fact the move had already been performed illegally, I will be reverting the move unless there is a supermajority of hard objections and a tangible alternative solution proposed to the problems raised since it is already within our right to revert it instantly. The onus to make a strong case here is on keeping "Category:Assassin Brotherhood members" because the default state should have been "Category:Assassins". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that a consistent format that has so many known exceptions is not consistent. I also feel that your concerns about Assassins vs assassins is from an out of universe perspective as the term has been used in the franchise separate from the affiliation. I believe the lede for the category and the fact that it would go through a different category tree keep it from being too confusing. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

We already use the demonym naming standard for other groups of people like that pertaining ethnicity and place of origin.

As well, I am not coming from an out-of-universe perspective due to concerns about "Assassins vs. assassins". I'm not even quite sure what that means because it implies either that my position stems from a strict binary between the two terms or that I conflate the two together. The problem arises because under the name "Category:Assassins", we cannot distinguish the two terms by capitalization as we normally would. My position does not stem from a lack of awareness that assassins has been used in the franchise separate from the affiliation, and I am concerned the fact you described it as such speaks to a lack of attention and understanding to the arguments I have continuously raised.

If anything, I think that you are coming from an out-of-universe perspective because the idea of needing a category for just anyone who committed assassinations seem to have originated with the desire for an exclusive category for those infamous, real-world assassins, like Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth, only readjusting the position to also technically include Assassins and Templars who have committed assassinations when I raised the problem about this being OOU. From an in-universe perspective, individuals like Oswald and Booth are not assassins of a distinct category from Assassins and Templars who have also enacted assassinations, especially since they were Templar agents in some form. Alternative arguments could have been raised that you would like a category for "Templar assassins" instead and/or a category for assassins unaffiliated with the Assassins and Templars (even if Oswald and Booth do not count within them).

The problem with using the "Category:Assassins" as a massive pool for individuals who committed assassinations rather than Assassin and Templars is that readers will still expect it to refer to the Assassins not just any assassin. A description in the category page clarifying otherwise as a solution seems to just be a forced way of working around this while stubbornly refusing to pursue more sensible solutions. It persists in denying the reality that "Assassins" is a core term of the series used with a universal understanding that it normally refers to the Assassins (and we would not be able to distinguish the term from assassin by capitalization in this case). This is what it means to respect primary topic. I verily hope that it is not respecting primary topic that led you to think my position comes from an OOU-perspective.

Another problem that I have already raised is purely organizational and logistical. As I said, I am not averse to having a category of "individuals who committed assassinations", but it would be a tremendous pool of some Assassins and some Templars alike while excluding other Assassins and other Templars. At this point, I am restating my points above, but the difficulties we had defining assassination for the previous "Assassination target" page would resurface here. For example, Shaun Hastings is an Assassin, but when he killed Isabelle Ardant, was it an assassination? The series likes to call any stealthy kill an assassination, but this also occurred when Shaun's group came under direct attack. Would we also include or exclude individuals who attempted assassinations but failed?

I do not mind deliberating these questions if we had the category under the wordy name "individuals who committed assassinations" but doing so with the category name "Assassins" is just ludicrous and creates needless trouble for the wiki because why should we reserve that term for an unwieldy page whose parameters are arbitrarily defined by us rather than use that term, eponymous to the series, how all our readers and editors normally understand it? The further organizational issue that I have already brought up is just that a category for "assassins" in terms of 'people who committed assassinations' is like the category for "orators" for 'people who did public speaking'. Again, I recognize that assassin has been used in the series for just anyone who committed assassinations, but this alone does not justify it having a category page. Considerations of good organization also need to be taken into account. In a series where assassins abound everywhere and the parameters of who has or has not attempted or committed an assassination is highly blurred, I don't see the significance of having such a category page anymore than I would have "orators". This persistent absence of an explanation as to the necessity and significance of having such a category page calls into mind, again, the origins of it being a category page dedicated to real-world assassins, an OOU conceptualization. It evolved into a category encompassing Assassin assassins and Templar assassins after my objections about it being OOU, but thereafter, it would have made more sense to let it go instead of clinging onto it obstinately or otherwise you should have provided some compelling argument for its significance as an organizational tool for our readers.

I actually have just thought of yet another problem with naming the category "Assassin Brotherhood members" last night although I believe it came to mind a long time ago as well. It is that while naming it "Category:Assassins" would allow it to more broadly include Hidden Ones like Bayek and Aya, which would be useful organization-wise, naming it "Assassin Brotherhood" makes this shakier. Per our community discussion, the Hidden Ones are Assassins by an earlier name and can be referred to as such, but a category page titled "Assassin Brotherhood members" can also be interpreted specifically as individuals who were members at the time the Assassins bore as their formal name, the Assassin Brotherhood.

In any case, I can assure you that naming a category about individuals who (attempted/committed) assassinations "Category:Assassins" would continue to cause troubles down the line even if you clarified its usage in the page itself. Readers who scroll down the article and find some Templar Grand Master listed as an "assassin" would balk, or editors would reflexively add "Category:Assassins" with the mind that it means members of the Assassin Brotherhood after "Category:Assassins" become a prominent category again, or editors would debate endlessly whether a certain individual should be added or removed or not.

To be honest, except out of sheer obstinacy, I cannot fathom the reason you would keep missing most of these extensive problems (you always address only the most minor) without providing an explanation why the category you propose is significant enough to be warranted and without even offering alternatives taking these problems into account. I don't mean to impugn on your underlying motivations, but please understand that this has gone on for so long without everything I raise being addressed whenever we discuss this. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

So, uh, I'll let you two hash that out between yourselves, but Sol, as I understand, demonyms are plural names for groups of people. I just looked at [Category:Organizations] and if I have this right, then we would only remove "members" from [Category: X members] from the following groups, correct?

• Children of Danu
• Daughters of Artemis
• Eyes of Kosmos
• Followers of Ares
• Heroes of the Cult
• Worshippers of the Bloodline
• Every "Wardens of X" group in the Order

I'm not sure how best to describe Cult of Kosmos or the Order of the Ancients' older branches of Dominion, Hunters, and the Storm. – Darman (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure with Eyes of Kosmos since eye doesn't usually mean people, but I guess in this case, it does? But yes for the others. I think "Daughters of Artemis members" might even be grammatically incorrect or a tautology. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think the "Eyes" indeed mean people, like an metaphorical name for spies. I'll start moving these now. Oh, and I think Yeluohe is a plural noun, too? At least, that's how we seem to have it, and WP describes it as a troop force both on Shi Siming and An Lushan's pages. – Darman (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Yeluohe alone is also a demonym, Chinese has no pluralization, and I did find "Yeluohe members" to sound really awkward as well (basically sounding like "Templars members"). Actually, it's whether it can be used in the singular that I'm not sure about lol. Its precise meaning is lost to us because it was in an old Turkic language that got transliterated into Middle Chinese and then read in modern Mandarin before being transliterated again into English. But sources online just suggest that it meant something along the lines of 壯士, which I guess is one way of referring to elite warriors. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Well first addressing Darman, no. Demonyms refer to a group of people regionally, It does not refer to people due to membership or occupation. I don't know why we are trying to treat Assassins as a demonym when it isn't. As for your list we could remove "members" from the Cult branches you mentioned and the Wardens if that is what we finally decide but the other we should not because those categories should already be in use as supercategories for topic pertaining to the various organizations beyond just membership such as locations or cult icons.

So like I said Assassins isn't a demonym and while we might have a naming standard for ethnicity, residency, etc., group affiliation doesn't fall under that. Furthermore my arguments about OOU vs IU stem from the idea that this wiki (beyond obvious OOU topics) is supposed to operate as a wikipedia within the AC universe. I assume a wikipedia article within the AC universe would still categorize John Wilkes Booth etc. as "assassins" (or "individuals who have committed assassinations") and thus we should as well. I do agree with the alternative category name proposal and the fact that we would need to codify what we consider an "assassination" but once done I don't think it will be that much of a problem to manage. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that demonym specifically can only refer to the noun referring to a group of people in relation to a place. I always assumed from the roots that by extension, it can also refer to the word used for a group of people in relation to organizations. I guess I'm probably mistaken there although then I don't know what you would call the name used for people in relation to their organization. In any case, that would result in arguing semantics. Regardless of the proper term for it, I am still referring to the name used for a member of an organization. Group affiliation is meant to fall under that same naming standard and did before Jasca abused his bot.

Your perspective about how it might be more IU to include people like "John Wilkes Booth" under "assassins" does make a bit more sense to me, or at least I can see where you're coming from more. But I think that there would also be the question of primacy even within the Assassin's Creed world. In that world, there would still be a lexical distinction between Assassins, as in a member of that organization, and assassins in general, and we would still be faced with a choice between using that category name for Assassins or assassins. Nor would it necessarily follow that we have to have a category for the latter if it is not useful or convenient. Yes, John Wilkes Booth was an assassin, just as he was in real-life, but nothing says we would have to have a category accounting for that fact or that that would be the best way to categorize him.

Even situated within that world, for people who are aware of the full breadth of humanity's history and the conflict between the Assassins and Templars, I would think Assassins would still be the primary topic for the term (A/a)ssassins where a distinction cannot be made—even more-so because they would constitute the true history of the world and arguably also its "true" meaning. In this universe, it might even make more sense to categorize Booth under "Templar agents", "Templar sleeper agents", or "Templar puppets" without an accompanying, generalized assassin category that would not be useful in a world full of Assassins. You might be thinking of it in terms of writing for still a generalized audience who may not have knowledge about the Assassins and Templars, but of course, if our wiki existed in the Assassin's Creed universe, our direction would actually be informed by awareness of their existence and the prominence they play in "real-life" events.

If you are fine by thinking of an alternate name proposal, we can begin exploring that right away (probably in a different page). I also do not mind exploring how we codify the term assassination. Though I am a bit wary we might end up imposing our own speculative interpretations, it could be worth a shot, might deepen our understanding of the lore, might be helpful for future issues of organization, and might even be fun. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)