From Guild Wars 2 WikiJump to navigationJump to search
- ”Pact Commander” is used by pretty much nearly all editors here as well as the player base is what Warming Hearth meant methinks, though Pack and Pact do get switched up occasionally heh. If you want in game however, I created the page due to the Central Tyrian Mastery track “Pact Commander” which refers to the player. As such, it should be moved back, and shouldn’t have been moved at all. - Doodleplex 02:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Within the Pact, the game uses ranks such as Pact Agent, Pact Crusader, Pact Nurse, Pact Soldier, Pact Warmaster, etc. Pact Commander is consistent with these ranks. Outside of the game, more players use the term Pact Commander. What's YOUR reasoning for moving the article? You should be the one justifying the move you made. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- In addition to the above, I searched "Commander" through the entire wiki, and the only time I've seen it used formally would be during Party Politics and Rallying Call. Every other case was either Lon-ami editing it in, or a random line of fan-written which never linked to this article. However, "Pact Commander" showed up in Eastern Complex, Research in Rata Novus, The World Summit, Dragon Bash/dialogue and much, much, much more (and is linked to - rather than Commander of the Pact - several hundred times which shows it's far more common among editors at least). Though other more local titles (and simply "Commander") is FAR more frequently used. This was out of 2,000+ articles. Same goes for "Marshal of the Pact", more often referred to as "Pact Marshal". Konig (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Point by point:
- First of all, the correct name of the page is Commander, as it's a rank, but that page name is already taken, and that's why we're adding the "Pact" part to it. Moving it to commander is not an option.
- Second, "Pact Commander" (not "Pact commander", lowercase = not title) barely appears in any official texts, while "Commander of the Pact" (uppercase Commander) appears multiple times (as does "commander of the Pact", but again, lowercase = not title).
- Third, the short form, like Vigil Warmaster, is used for NPCs names, while Warmaster and Warmaster of the Vigil are used for the rank/title. You don't see anyone calling himself "Vigil Warmaster", only "Warmaster" or "Warmaster of the Vigil". It's the same pattern all over the game. The seraph case is the most obvious, Seraph Captain is the NPC, while Captain of the Seraph is the rank/title (we can't use Captain because multiple organizations have a captain rank inside of them).
- "Players use it more" is a pretty weak excuse. Players misspell many NPC names all the time too.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Point by point:
- Thanks for the links, good to see there's at least someone who bothers sourcing his arguments, instead of just screeching his righteousness.
- Anyway, I see a potential solution through a split: Pact Commander would remain as a reference to the player character (we don't see it used for anyone else), and Commander of the Pact would remain as a reference to the rank and its bearers. We know of at least two other potential commanders that are mentioned in dialogue, and a few others whose role isn't entirely clear. The new rank page would list them, following the same model used by Marshal of the Pact.
- Disagreed. As suggested by the dialogue in Research in Rata Novus by Almorra Soulkeeper, Commander is a title for life. Additionally, leader of the Pact is a Marshal, not a Commander. I don't recall seeing any other Commander of the Pack/Pact Commander since then. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the split. Commander of the Pact as a (relatively short) article about the rank of Commander of the Pact, with the article Pact Commander reserved for the first and only holder of that title, the player character. That seems consistent with the way that we've handled other cases - I don't it's relevant that there's only been one holder of the title so far. Alternatively, we could have the title of the page be player character, and then it's much clearer what it refers to - Pact Commander is the player character's primary title, but only one of many (and only after a certain point in the story). –Santax (talk · contribs) 19:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- If anything, “Commander of the Pact” could be part of the Pact article, with a link to this article. Might fit better there since I can’t imagine the page being very long otherwise. - Doodleplex 19:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, but more people are likely to see the info there, and it would fit nicely, that’s all. =) - Doodleplex 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can see what you're saying, but personally I think it'd fit better to separate the two articles rather than have one article on two subjects. We've done it both ways in the past - we separate Seraph Captain and Captain of the Seraph, but we don't have separate pages for the [[Kingdom of Ascalon]] (the rump state containing a single duchy) and Ascalon (the territory that historically comprised the Kingdom of Ascalon). They're two separate entities with intertwined histories, and there's plenty enough content for two separate pages. –Santax (talk · contribs) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) I'm rather surprised that player character isn't an article. If the Pact gets a new, proper commander of its own, I can see the rank as maybe getting its own article, though I'd prefer it just redirect to the NPC. If we go through multiple commanders, then we most definitely will need a list like on Captain of the Seraph! As it stands, we should keeping things gathered together for ease of our users (or make a plea to Anet to stop renaming the player!). Info being spread too thin or needing too many clicks to find is a worry of mine. Also, nothing wrong with short articles, if the info cannot be consolidated elsewhere.
- <addendum> E.g. why aren't we just describing the ranks of Marshal and Commander on the Pact article? Greener (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Do a write-up somewhere, like the Sandbox, for the article, that might help us decide. - Doodleplex 20:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not wholly opposed to a split between referring to "the Commander" and "the rank of Commander" given that we have two named but never seen Commanders in the Pact, Frostgullet and Quentyn, and the following implied-to-be-Pact-Commanders: Commander Suma, Commander Blaike, Commander Fionia, Commander Lakkun, Commander Stormfoot (note: all of them wear Vigil armor, but there is never stated to be a Commander rank in the Vigil, but on the other hand we have Commander Gresham and Commander Raff who are Vigil-armored Commanders in areas without Pact, which leaves all mention of Commanders unclear if it's an unstated Vigil rank, thus making them Vigil Commanders not Pact Commanders, or a Pact rank and two NPCs got overlooked). But among the community, the term "Pact Commander" is seemingly always used to refer to the player character, and I think it'd be best to leave the lore of the PC to the Pact Commander article, just as the mechanics is over at Character.
- That said, I'm not sure such a short article would be worthwhile, although we've frequently made articles for ranks in the past, this largely began back in 2010 when we believed we would be getting much more information on those rankings. Nowadays, I'd say we could easily merge them into their own groups' articles. Konig (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)