Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 1

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.

Armor - Don't Delete it!!!
Altair may not, to the literal extent, have armor, but he does have is multiple tactics and such that 'protect' you, and is that not what armor does? He has his 'social stealth', his inhuman acrobatic abilites, and allies that help him (Vigilantes and Scholars)...I say, don't delete it, jsut say that no LITERAL armor exists, but he does have a multitude of other 'armors' on his side.

Interesting. Wouldn't a better name be more fitting, though? "Armor" suggests metal plates, or chain mail, not free-running and blending. Someone once suggested an "Abilities" page, to include those and upgrades that Altair gains. Don't be afraid to go out there and do it- by all means, feel free to start something. Cymbalta 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

imo, armor has pretty strongly suggests some sort of physical defense, and the water absorbing cloth that Altair wears doesn't seem to qualify. At best I think the armor topic should be a note that no armor exists (so that no new armor pages crop up), then a quick discussion of his other defenses and links to 'em. Personally, I'd rather see it deleted or renamed to defenses or somesuch. --tarkisflux 19:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC) UPDATED I added to the armor page along the lines talked about here. Still not sure it's worth keeping, but I think it's better than it was. --TarkisFlux 20:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely better then it was. Another strong edit like that, and there won't be a reason to keep the tag. Cymbalta 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I added some more to the armor page, mostly detailing the armor that various soldiers in different cities wear. figure there's enough there now to pull the and  tags, so i did :-). --TarkisFlux 01:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, it seems we could compromise here. Keep the page and rename it as Tarkis Flux suggests to "Abilities" or "Defenses". The word "armor" has a wide variety of implications, as Drevas Oril points out. People have "emotional armor" as well, also known as "defense mechanisms" but that doesn't make them metallic or machines...simply machine-like in their employment: automatic. Altair's various defense mechanisms are ingrained in him, because of his training and experience - like breathing. Automatic. May I point out that his very large and metal decorated knife belt and greaves are good for deflecting arrows and lessening the effect of glancing sword blows, but most of those archers can't shoot worth a damn anyway! But yes, most of the public thinks of metal helmets, chestplates, greaves (arm and leg), and chain mail when confronted with the word "armor". --Maskim xul 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Prince of Persia
I think the article should be kept but changed (I am willing to do these changes, if somone else agrees) I think the page should have a brief two-three sentance description of hte series, a list of the games (no information on the games just the list) and any similarities worht mentioning between prince of persia and assassins creed can be added to the page, at the bottom we can have an exteranl links and link to the prince of persia wikia (if there is one) and wikipedia's article on prince of persia. Hunterj|My talk This is my temporary sig |

I don't think it should be kept. This is the Assassins creed wiki, not the prince of Persia wiki. If we don't delete, users could think they could ad any game and defend it with arguments like: 'King Richard appears in it or There is also an assassin in...' -  Kai  -  Talk  09:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be kept. Only because it is Ubisoft. AC-42 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we compromise here? Taking Hunterj's suggestions and AC-42's, keep it but pare it down and put a link to a PoP wiki (if there is one). Just mention where the two games cross paths and make it clear that this is the Assassin's Creed wiki...because Waterkai has a valid point. --Maskim xul 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete because it is the wrong wiki. MacMed 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. As said, this is the Assassin's Creed Wiki, not the Ubisoft Wiki. If Prince of Persia is here, makes just as much sense to have a Rayman article. XPeaceChill 14:50, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The two above me are correct. 68.48.225.39 19:22, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

DELETE the 3 above me are right

Lucan07 21:04, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Lucan07 if im not logged in

Altier
Altier Wtf? AC-42 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ezio Auditore de Firenze
Real article: Ezio Auditore de Firenze AC-42 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that the page itself should be deleted, but perhaps heavily edited. And "Renascientist" or whatever it was??? Yeah. It's "Renaissance". All that aside, it's nice to have a picture of Ezio. I, for one, am happy to see how they incorporated Altair's gear into the 15th century Florentine style. Nice threads. He does deserve a place here - don't you think? --Maskim xul 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, but the artice he's pointing at is a du^licate, but just misspelled. - Kai  -  Talk  11:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ps4
Not related in any way to Assassin's Creed. MacMed 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Assassins
This category is being chosen over simply "Category: Assassins" because why exactly? It's REDUNDANT. If they're on this website of course they're assassins from Assassin's Creed. Why put that in there? The current "Assassins" one should be deleted and this new one taking its place should have its name changed to simply "Assassins." Oddsock 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, please sign in your post with Four tildes. ^^
 * Second, why I put it that way? because we're anticipating AC2, with different Assassins of course. So, the plan is to make sub-categories "Assassin's Creed Assassins" and "Assassin's Creed II Assassins" to differentiate the characters and avoid confusion. I'm trying to make the categorizing system as clear as possible. Oh, and I haven't done revamping it btw~ - Silver  Summoner TaLk 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the signature thing, I'm still new to using Wiki stuff. I understand the differentiation, but I see no real need for it. Every Assassin, be they in AC1 or AC2, will be revealed as being in either game in their individual articles. If anyone's looking up any assassins, they should be able to recognize them easily by name and find them in that single database. Just saying, I think two separate ones really aren't necessary. Oddsock 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Assassins here not only refer to Ezio or Altair, but also other minor assassins character such as Malik, Kadar, Al Mualim, and even Rafiq.
 * If anyone's looking up any assassins, they should be able to recognize them easily by name and find them in that single database.
 * What if that "anyone" is someone who doesn't know anything at all bout Assassin's Creed?
 * If you're still new to wiki, that means you still new to MediaWiki and all wiki stuff? - Silver  Summoner TaLk 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to editing Wiki and such, but of course I've used Wiki sources before. "What if that "anyone" is someone who doesn't know anything at all bout Assassin's Creed?" Thanks for teaching me how to quote, I didn't know the quotes would make something italicized (despite the nice box next to this text window). Now about the question: There are only so many assassins, and if anyone is playing a game and looking up names, they should recognize those names from within the game they are playing. If not, it's likely AC2 Assassin names will be European and AC1's will be Arabic. I am also thinking of my own experience of browsing Wikis for fun, and it's been no problem to me to surf databases of characters or weapons or whatever without having them all divided up into smaller, more precise databases based on which game they're in or any other kind of differentiating factors (I use Fallout 3 Wiki as my primary example). I understand the want to separate characters, but honestly I don't think it's necessary. Oddsock 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then.. what;s your suggestion actually? And I still not very clear of the advantage of having all of the pages squeezed into Category:Assassins. Mind to explain? and what is the disadvantage of the current categorizing system so that it makes you feel that it should be changed? - Silver  Summoner TaLk 13:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is, as you just stated, to keep them all in one category or list. What's the advantage? Simplification. What's the disadvantage to two separate categories? Complication. Nobody's getting squeezed, there aren't hundreds or barely even tens of Assassins in the current category. I can't imagine AC2 will add many more. Why differentiate and make someone look harder than they have to? I have a feeling we're at an impasse ("no, we are at an end") and more opinions on the matter are required to make a decision. If the majority thinks that two separate databases is better, then fine, but I'm just sticking with what I think is the right, not-overly-complicated thing to do. Oddsock 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Complicated? What's so complicated about that? it's just "this assassin's from the first game, thie one is from the second game". What I'm trying to achieve is not complication or what, but accuracy. Look, I have experience with category so I know how annoying it would be (unless if you don't mind the messy categorizing~) when we want to categorize new articles bout new sequel/prequel of the game. I just want to avoid that and get more accurate bout the category. - Silver  Summoner TaLk 07:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The complication, as I said, lies in dividing a category that doesn't need to be split. In my experience with viewing wikis, too many things have been split into small micro-categories, making it hard to look for other related wiki pages without having to click around a bunch. Like I said before, we're not going to agree so let's just see what others say and go with that. 68.48.225.39 22:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

making it hard to look for other related wiki pages without having to click around a bunch.

eh... you do know that we have navigation bar, right? that thing is created for the sake of easy navigation between pages, just so you know. Moreover, that category needs to be split, because, like I said before, there'll be new games coming around this year and for the sake of neat categorizing and easy updates when we add more pages, those Assassin category should be split. That would be weird and very messy if we split the Assassination Target category, but we don't split the Assassins Category.

let's see what others say o yea, that should do better. But the problem is, there's almost no one here. Elecbullet used to edit a lot, but he seems to be taking a wikibreak now. Rather than just debating bout category, I think we should just start editing some pages instead. Your edit count suggest you're really new to wiki editing... - Silver  Summoner TaLk 05:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you keep harping at my new account. Regardless of having an account or not I know when and how to spot something that needs editing -- you should keep that in mind. Being new does not always mean being inexperienced. You mention a navigation bar but why force one to have to jump between two categories about people, just in different games? I understand that AC2 is coming out but I really don't think this split is necessary. Look at other wikis like the Halo wiki and you'll see that various categories like characters, weaponry, and vehicles are not split into little per-game categories and they are all still very easy to find and understand.

Brute
Brute <-- redundant page for Brutes. 03:40, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * ah in case you haven't notice, I've turned it into redirect page. - Silver  Summoner TaLk 03:40, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Assassin's Logo
I don't think this should be deleted, but if we are doing this, we need a clean image of the Assasins logo in AC1 and a clean image of the Assassins logo from the villa, ideally from the flags, not that concept art image.
 * I also think that this shouldn't be deleted. It could give information on the logo. But, we do need a lot of pictures, and good ones too. -- Silver  Mage   Ω  10:19, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it needs to stay. Its a pretty essential part to the cannon. (Spikepit 11:02, January 8, 2010 (UTC))

I think a section on the Assassins page is enough for this.--PhantomT1412 18:30, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wait...you're right. My bad. -- Silver  Mage   Ω  04:04, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I also think that it should stay, it explains the origins behind the logo, but it does need more pictures of it, like on the flags, at the villa etc. (AssassinOfAus, 4:39, January 13, 2010)

Well if it should stay, the Article needs a serious revamp, beginning from the title: logo sounds too modern and it's not "one Assassin's" Logo, symbol, emblem... whatever you want, but the Assassins'.--PhantomT1412 19:08, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Piero the Gouty
He doesn't need a page. I have more about him in Lorenzo's early life than is on his page. I could update his page with historical information, but mod/admin told me not to include stuff that wasn't mentioned in-game. AgentValentine 02:24, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Actually Valentine, relevant information can be added to further expand a article background. It helps to understand some unadressed things, makes the article bigger (and better ;D) and gives depth to the individual settings of the game. Just don't add unnecessary, irrelevant or stupid info, Feel free to add unmentioned things, just keep it short, direct and, you know, relevant. -- D. Cello 02:13, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed 3
I think you should make it a redirect to this article Assassin's Creed III. --Crashdude55 13:47, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Stunt Assassination
The gameplay described in this article can be verified by just playing the game, which is the ultimate source. The only manner in which it does not adhere to the sourcing policy is that the style was given the name "stunt assassination," which is not a Ubi term. This technicality can be overcome by simply interpreting the word "stunt" as the ordinary adjective, as opposed to a special name. IanXO4 02:15, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing policy states, "The videogames Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed II are the highest tier of canon." Anyone can confirm by playing either game that it's possible to jump (sustaining damage) and then assassinate someone. We don't need Ubisoft to confirm that you can do one move followed by another move. If we do, then other articles will need to be edited or deleted also.

This Wiki is strong on facts regarding people/places in Assassin's Creed and the sourcing policy is doing a good job of filtering out speculation. I feel it's light when it comes to gameplay and could use more articles like the one on stunt assassinations. -- Subject 17 03:17, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, we need more articles. Both gameplay and "database"-like pages. If the stunt assassination would stay, it requires a new section of gameplay articles since it doesn't fit the rest of the wiki's standard. Or we start that new gameplay articles or it's gonna be deleted. -- D. Cello 03:46, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm willing to rework the article to make it fit. What exactly do you have in mind, a new category on advanced gameplay? Give me some direction and I'll see what I can work up. As an example, another article that would fit in this new gameplay section would cover the fighting style illustrated in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mRMw24xs2I -- Subject 17 03:34, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

The article is very interesting and taught me how to do things I didn't know was even possible for the game. But I can see why it wouldn't fit in, so perhaps you could move it into the main Assassin's Creed article under the Gameplay section as a sub-section to fit in with the rest of the Wiki. Either way, we should keep it in some form. --Crashdude55 08:59, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * By your own admission, you admit that it is a term Ubi did not come up with; that in itself constitutes OR under the sourcing policy. Are we going to be creating articles on "falling to your death" or "Altaïr's inability to swim" as well? Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 15:04, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Jasca - are you proposing that an entire article of interesting and valuable information be deleted on the basis that 2 words do not meet the sourcing policy? This minor infraction can be circumvented by removing references to the term "stunt assassination". The rest of the article would stand perfectly well on its own, unlike "falling to your death" or "Altaïr's inability to swim". Please take a moment to read some of the other comments. It's clear that this article adds significant value in documenting gameplay, which is an area that is very weak on this site.

If your only opposition is to the term "stunt assassination," please plainly state it, so that the author of the article can address the issue efficiently. Similarly, if your ultimate goal is to remove the stunt assassination article, and you would like to use the sourcing policy as your excuse, please just make a plain statement to that effect. That way the community can address the underlying issue, instead of debating a technicality.IanXO4 04:00, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is, the entire article covers something totally made up by a gamer; not only the name, but the entire article. Next it'll be "running", or "look around"&hellip; Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 11:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Jasca - the entire article covers something totally made up by a gamer

You exaggerate. The author is pointing out that a combination of established gameplay elements leads to a type of assassination that is not specifically documented by Ubi or official guides. AC1 air assassinations also fall into this category.

Next it'll be "running", or "look around"

You are trying to invoke a slippery slope fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope That's like saying that we shouldn't have an article on Malik because "What's next? An article on every other NPC you cross on the street?" That's nonsense. I trust this community can discern interesting characters from trivial ones. Just like I trust that it can discern interesting gameplay from the trivial.

Despite your argumentative tactics, I think I know what you mean. I think the article can be rephrased so that it describes what is possible in terms of gameplay, which has multiple precedents on this site.IanXO4 01:50, April 11, 2010 (UTC) Can you rewrite it that way, 17? -- D. Cello 15:03, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see Ducato's point here. The description of gameplay elements is something, but describing techniques like "If you run, he walks faster. If you attack with the hidden blade, he kills in one strike. If you *run with the hidden blade* he kills in one strike faster and cooler!" isn't actually necessary. The best thing would be a page with all the methods of assassination, with short descriptions for each one, and we add a gameplay tag on top of these articles to inform readers that it isn't gamestory-wise, bt real-world related.
 * I was just about to suggest this. One of the issues is, by having the article under that name it gives the impression that it's a Ubisoft-endorsed term. Plus I personally don't see that it's worth an article of its own. Now, if, like Cello suggests, we mention it in a much broarder article on assassination techniques (which would include the ACII techniques), then I would be more inclined to let it slide. Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 15:52, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can write an article on "Assassination Styles" and make it clear that they were conceived and named by players as opposed to Ubisoft. Off the top of my head I can think of seven or eight styles that would fit well within the article. Give me a few days to write a draft. -- Subject 17 22:53, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed : Brotherhood
Lucas07 recently created this page even though the Brotherhood article is already made. Please deleteTallgeeseIII 22:34, May 25, 2010 (UTC)