Category talk:Assassins

This is the discussion page for Category:Assassins. Here, you may discuss improving the article. 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

Occupational Assassin's

Since all members of the Assassin Brotherhood already fall under their respective branches should this category be opened up to all who’ve killed for political, religious, or ideological reasons regardless of affiliation? John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald are both famous assassins but have so far been excluded form this category. I’d move this page to fall under individuals by occupation and have all current subcategories here fall directly under the Assassin Brotherhood category. Not all members of the Brotherhood would qualify for this category, only those that have for certain engaged in an assassination. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 19:35, June 27, 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've debated this before somewhere, but it's not on this page somehow. I understand that your position is that we should have a category of assassins with a lower-case ⟨A⟩ for individuals like John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, but you have to understand that a great deal of Assassins and Templars alike were also assassins. Realistically, Booth, Oswald, Assassins, and Templars are all assassins, and the only way the former two seem more "assassin" than the latter two is because they are historical figures. Under no logic can we have a plain category for assassins and not include all the other fictional characters we know to be or have acted as assassins. And I think I remember you didn't want such a category to include Assassin and Templar assassins.

So my proposal is this: either we change this category to include all assassins, historical and fictional and retain "Category:Assassin Brotherhood members", or we don't have this category in which case there's no need for disambguation and all pages from "Category:Assassin Brotherhood members" should be moved back here for conciseness. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 15:59, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

Actually I did want it to include even the members of both Templars and Assassins that could be said to have participated in an actual assassination. I think it was Jasca that proposed only having non-Assassin assassins in it. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 16:06, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

Oh really? My memory sucks then, and also I realized that since I was going off of my memory, I didn't read your initial comment on this page correctly so sorry for that. Well, can you elaborate on your arguments for why we should have this occupational category then? You're not afraid it might be too unwieldy? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:44, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

It might indeed turn out to be unwieldy; part of that issue is what do we consider an assassination which goes back to some of the discussions on the Assassination target's talk page and why it got locked. I mainly broached the topic since we have category pages for things like spies, vikings, etc which I do think you had some reservations about. We might not even have any unaffiliated assassins since I don't think we have a page for the guy that killed Frater VOV and we don't know "Aiden Pierce's" motivations w/i the AC universe. But I felt in the spirit of completeness we should have the category. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 17:06, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

As long as we include Assassin and Templar assassins, I'm not really opposed to having this occupational category anymore. I would prefer if I felt certain about the need for it, but I also don't see any serious issues with having it. Then again, maybe we should be concerned that there would be many readers who would see Category:Assassins and immediately think that it about members of the Assassin Brotherhood rather than assassins in general, be really confused, and miss the description at the top of the page.

As for other occupational categories. I don't recall if I ever had any issues with "spies" specifically. The one that always bothered me the most and stood out was "orators" since anyone who does public speaking is an orator, right? Just about anyone can be an orator at some point, right? I definitely don't have any issue with "Vikings"; it's a significant category for a distinct kind of people even if they were not unified. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:39, May 30, 2020 (UTC)