Talk:Assassins (disambiguation)
This article page, a seemingly useless redirect, is retained because it has edit history which would be confusing to merge.
I'm working on the assassin page, and there's no reason for there to be a page in plural, too. It basically lists a very very truncated version of the same. It should be deleted and redirected to assassin. Wally 04:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- So the votes so far are 3 delete, 1 Keep and 3 Keep as disamb.? Just a double check. Most (including the movie and book) are already disambigged on the Assassin page and I thought Wikipedia didn't usually keep such redundancy to prevent confusion? Either way works, just trolling for comprehension. :P
- That's 3 delete and 4 keep as disambiguation, because it's a disambiguation article already. There is no redundancy because Assassins is a proper title, not a plural. Disambiguation on article pages should be limited to cases where there's only one other meaning, or pointing at a proper disambiguation page. Redirecting a mislink on Assassins (musical) that goes to Assassins to Assassin is not a desirable behavior. -- Cyrius 14:08, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's a bit pedantic, isn't it? It's a letter 's'. Empires have never risen and fallen on the strength of a single letter. The Assassin page alreadylinks to both the movie at the play - they don't need a seperate page. The only time disambiguations are needed IMHO is with multiple subjects of equal stature - I think the ideological killer part is generally seen as a bit more important than the musical or the Sly Stallone movie... "motivated" as his acting may be. On Assassin, we can just move the links to those two to the top from the bottom, as they should be, combine it all, and redirect assassins, hence the proposal. Quick, easy, and we don't set up a precedent that if someone pluralizes something it deserves its own page.
- I don't see what's so pedantic about wanting things to be listed at what they are named. And that single letter s makes the difference between the word not being the title, and it being the title. Let's try a different angle on this. Suppose the page assassin didn't exist. The musical and the movie would be disambiguated under assassins, as that is their title. Why should the addition of the assassin article change that? There is no sense in trying to cram this disambiguation into the bottom of an already lengthy page. Additionally, if you don't start signing your posts, I'm not going to respond to you further. -- Cyrius | Talk 16:05, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Wow, that is pedantic. Forgive me for a slip of the mind, but I think it's quite clear that no one is going to hijack my position here for the purpose of debating the usefulness of a disamb. page. Aside from that, I find your supposition flawed; the assassin page does exist, and assuming it doesn't and then setting up from there really is useless. The title of both is a direct reference to the same thing as is treated in the main article, only more than one of them. I've seen a multitude of other pages that do the same thing in lieu of a confusing pluralized disambiguation page. In whatever case, however, as it seems the votes are against me, it's more or less a done deal. Yours, Wally 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- See, there's the difference. You think a pluralized disambiguation page is confusing. I think it's confusing to disambiguate at the bottom of a long article with a subtly different title after being redirected from what (IMO) is the logical location for disambiguation. -- Cyrius | Talk 01:47, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
- In any case, as the votes are clear I'm going to wait 24 hours for any last-minute new submissions on this topic and then delete. Majority speaks for keeping.
- See, there's the difference. You think a pluralized disambiguation page is confusing. I think it's confusing to disambiguate at the bottom of a long article with a subtly different title after being redirected from what (IMO) is the logical location for disambiguation. -- Cyrius | Talk 01:47, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Wow, that is pedantic. Forgive me for a slip of the mind, but I think it's quite clear that no one is going to hijack my position here for the purpose of debating the usefulness of a disamb. page. Aside from that, I find your supposition flawed; the assassin page does exist, and assuming it doesn't and then setting up from there really is useless. The title of both is a direct reference to the same thing as is treated in the main article, only more than one of them. I've seen a multitude of other pages that do the same thing in lieu of a confusing pluralized disambiguation page. In whatever case, however, as it seems the votes are against me, it's more or less a done deal. Yours, Wally 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see what's so pedantic about wanting things to be listed at what they are named. And that single letter s makes the difference between the word not being the title, and it being the title. Let's try a different angle on this. Suppose the page assassin didn't exist. The musical and the movie would be disambiguated under assassins, as that is their title. Why should the addition of the assassin article change that? There is no sense in trying to cram this disambiguation into the bottom of an already lengthy page. Additionally, if you don't start signing your posts, I'm not going to respond to you further. -- Cyrius | Talk 16:05, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's a bit pedantic, isn't it? It's a letter 's'. Empires have never risen and fallen on the strength of a single letter. The Assassin page alreadylinks to both the movie at the play - they don't need a seperate page. The only time disambiguations are needed IMHO is with multiple subjects of equal stature - I think the ideological killer part is generally seen as a bit more important than the musical or the Sly Stallone movie... "motivated" as his acting may be. On Assassin, we can just move the links to those two to the top from the bottom, as they should be, combine it all, and redirect assassins, hence the proposal. Quick, easy, and we don't set up a precedent that if someone pluralizes something it deserves its own page.
- That's 3 delete and 4 keep as disambiguation, because it's a disambiguation article already. There is no redundancy because Assassins is a proper title, not a plural. Disambiguation on article pages should be limited to cases where there's only one other meaning, or pointing at a proper disambiguation page. Redirecting a mislink on Assassins (musical) that goes to Assassins to Assassin is not a desirable behavior. -- Cyrius 14:08, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
- I Agree. This should be a redirect to the existing assassin page. MK 04:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. Is this even the place for it? Should be a redirect. Meelar 05:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. "Assassins" is the proper title of both the movie and the musical, and they should be disambiguated under that name. Cyrius 09:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep disambiguation article. Davodd 09:54, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it as a dismabiguation article theresa knott 11:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with Teresa Pollinator 14:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- VfD is not the place to discuss whether or not something should be redirected, so it has been delisted. Angela. 01:56, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Possible target of redirect?[edit]
Please see (and contribute at) Talk:Hashshashin#Change the name of the article? for a discussion of a possible re-targetting of the Assassins redirect (which currently points to Assassination) to the 'Assassin' disambiguation page. I've just been working through 'what links here' for Assassins, and the vast majority of the links to it were not for assassination, but rather to the musical, film, or sect. That indicates to me that the redirect ought not to point at Assassination, since it's usually the wrong thing. Noel (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)