Talk:Settler (group)

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Organization or not[edit]

I think it's pretty safe to classify them as such, mostly because their "faction war" against the Consortium during The Secret of Southsun and Last Stand at Southsun, further represented by the Consortium Negotiator and the Settler Negotiator, their faction buffs, and all the faction-associated achievements.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is the settlers mentioned on the page are not the only ones in game, there's a group of sylvari settler's in Caledon Forest that have nothing to do with Southsun Cove, so they're really just a a generic type of NPC like mercanaries, and not an organization. Maybe this be turned into a page for lore, though I don't know what you'd put here that wouldn't be copying what's already on the story summary of Living World Season 1, but as an organization, it doesn't fit. - Doodleplex 00:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's interesting to have all the Southsun Cove settlers in a single page. Semantics are irrelevant, I'm sure we have a lot of bandits which aren't Krytan bandits either. I wouldn't say you require a formal organization to be considered one, members and leaders is all you need. Maybe call them factions instead of organizations, but again, semantics. The name could be changed to Southsun Settlers or Settlers (Southsun Cove) if uniqueness is what you worry about. And by the way, I do think Balthazar's Mercenaries deserve their page, too.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstood, I meant a page for generic mercenaries since that was an idea for a short period of time that in the end didn't work, not Balthazar's Mercanaries since that is an organized group. In this case however, there's no leadership and the only NPCs I can find that are called "Settler" that link only to Southsun Cove is the one you mentioned above and the two from Defeat the riot-instigating settler. Tagging anybody else would be speculative since they'd have to say "I'm part of the settler faction, boo consortium" and only the three NPCs that are like that(the one you linked here and the two from the event). - Doodleplex 18:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There's plenty NPCs that are obviously settlers, 4 in the story, 4 for escort events, and a few more. Again, I'd settle for Southsun Settlers as the page, and include everything there. I don't think there should be any objections to that.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have lots of issues now with what you're doing. 1) Settler (NPC) should never have been split since they are generic NPCs, like refugees or villagers or mercenaries 2) the stat attribute is what people care about, not the generic NPC, so that page should have stayed as a redirect and 3) you are speculating that people are part of this group and you can't make a group or add people based on speculation. Also you might what to check the formatting on stuff like NPCs, you're outdated. (edit) And can you stop moving things around before this is finished being discussed? - Doodleplex 17:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
My take: Settler is unnecessary as a disambig page, because we don't need unique pages for every type of Settler NPC in the game, and like Doodle says, the vast majority of people searching for "settler" are probably looking for the attribute. An otheruses at the top of the attributes page can handle redirects to the NPC page. "Southsun Settlers" should be deleted, because there seems to be so few uniquely-named members that we'd be better off just putting their lore in a subsection of Settler (NPC) or Consortium or Southsun Cove. And I second what Doodle said about not moving or making changes until the discussion has reached consensus -- it's been difficult for me to follow exactly what's going on because the pages are a mess right now. --Idris (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The group/faction/organization has a decent number of members, they're just not categorized because the changes were reverted, and no point at restoring them with the page marked for deletion. Still, wish they hadn't, because now people mistakenly believe the group has barely any members, which isn't the case at all. Time for a good old list then:

Characters:

NPCs:

It's also possible there are more out of there, since early LW1 is vastly underdocumented due to its temporary nature. I'm watching videos and screenshots from back then trying to document it, and that's why I created the page.

More reasons why they deserve their own page:

  • They have practical monopoly over the "settler" term, only a few random sylvari from a single town use the name at all besides them. They are nothing common like "villager".
  • They talk about themselves as a group constantly in their dialogue, and were treated as its own faction against another faction, the Consortium, including faction representation through Settler Supporter (vs Consortium Supporter).
  • All of them are in the same situation, contracted by the Consortium, and working for them. They might not be a formal organization, but they're a clear group, petty semantics aside.
  • They all dress in an unique way that is not randomized, and each race/gender combo of Settler (Southsun Cove) has its own NPC skills:
    • Charr male: Frontal Cone AoE (wields a rifle).
    • Charr female: Stealths, High Damage While Stealthed (wields a bottle).
    • Norn male: Piercing Projectile, Knocks Down (wields two-handed boulders).
    • Norn female: Frenzies, Slowed While Frenzied (wields two bottles).
    • The only exception to this are the settlers at the crab toss arena, but those are merely decorative and don't engage in combat.
  • It's useful to have this information in a single page, where you can read what they are about. They aren't random NPCs decorating the isle, they have a long story.
  • The Settler attribute combination was introduced when they were, and it's an obvious reference to them.
  • They have their own activity, Crab Toss.

So yeah, I think they deserve their own page, and I think it's good for the wiki to have the information about them at a single location.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, you've convinced me. I still think that "Settler" should redirect to the attribute; we can create [[Settler (disambiguation)]] if necessary and link it using an otheruses. --Idris (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This turned into a wall of text so I'm gonna make it numbered
  1. I'm not entire sure why it's a monopoly, as anybody who moves from one place to another to settle is a "settler", hence why there are some sylvari settlers, who by the way would be the original settlers since they were in the game since launch.
  2. I can't find where the NPCs where you got "They talk about themselves as a group constantly in their dialogue" from. The only thing I can find that even mentions a group of anything is the Negotiator who says "Now some of our guys are provoking the Consortium, and they're making us look bad" but that's it.
  3. Like I said before to put somebody in an organization, you need to have something that states they are in that group, and unfortunately most of the NPCs you marked as characters don't state that. Marcela Oakaxe (of whom I think is historical, need to check) actually says that she's happy working for the Consortium, so I definitely wouldn't put her in in the anti-Consortium group. All of those escort NPCs (rest in peace as nearly all of them have no images) never state they are part of a settler faction nor are anti-Consortium, just that they want to get back safely to their settlement. Henrika, okay that one maybe, but she sounds more like she's on team Canach v Consortium than anything. I agree that Settler Negotiator/Settler Rioter/Champion Settler Instigator are anti-Consortium as sure as does Fed Up Settler who according to the event page is the Champion Settler, so that's only one NPC, but all of those NPCs excluding the Negotiator(and probably Henrika?) are from two events, and a small handful of people causing a ruckus does not an organization make.
  4. not everyone working for the Consortium is a settler, Canach certainly wasn't.
  5. The attribute can also be trivia on the Settler NPC page, but the "Settler" should still redirect to the attribute since that's more important.
  6. The attacks and attire would easily fit as a line of trivia on the Settler (Southsun Cove) page.
  7. Crab Toss and the Crab Toss Referee/Karlotta have nothing do with a settler faction versus the Consortium, those are just activities/activity NPCs more related to the release of Southsun in general.
After writing all of that, I think the best idea is to keep the" Settler (Southsun Cove)", using "Otheruses" where appropriate, and do the right-up/lore/back story there. That way, all of the story is in one place, all of your trivia is in one place, and there's no speculation over who may or may not associate themselves as being part of a settler faction. - Doodleplex 21:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. If the final name for this page is [[Southsun Settlers]] (As to specify, like with Balthazar's Mercenaries) then yeah, no discussion about reverting it to the plain redirect. Well, even if it goes back to Settlers, the disambiguation isn't really needed, I was just following the example of Cavalier, which might be worth changing too, since the organization is Cavaliers and the NPC isn't that important to warrant a disambiguation. Same for Sentinel, which should be moved to Sentinels. Whatever the final outcome, I'd prefer if all pages got the same treatment (except single-name cases like seraph), I just don't like some having redirects and others not. Other uses doesn't feel very useful here, so don't worry about saving the disambiguation page, a link to the attribute combination in each page should be enough.
  2. It's more about the way the game uses the term Settler. Still, if the name is a problem, I'd "settle" with Southsun Settlers, even if I still prefer Settlers. They're called like that a few times anyway, so it fits.
  3. I still have to look more into it, but I think all Southsun settlers (characters and NPCs, with the exception of those at the Crab Toss arena) use the same four models, representing the charr/norn male/female combinations. Once I'm sure of it, we could use the same model screenshots for all of them if necessary. The champion settler is the only one who seems to have an unique model so far.
  4. Karlotta also talks about "us" as a group. It's obvious they were a bunch of former refugees with no connection to each other, but they sort of unionized against the Consortium.
  5. I don't think we need a single page for each of the 4 Southsun settler variations, but I do think the sylvari one has to be on its own page, I don't care if it's under Settler (NPC), Settler (Sylvari), or Settler (Caledon Forest). The Southsun one is unique enough to warrant independence.
  6. Finally, I don't think all settlers need to have the same point of view regarding the Consortium. In the end, what defines their group should be "Refugees from the Molten Alliance attacks who signed the Consortium contract for Southsun Cove", who then just happened to band together to riot.--Lon-ami (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Had I known this was a full blown discussion on the wiki after Doodle brought it up a couple days ago, I'd have chimed in sooner...
Firstly, I want to note that we shouldn't get too caught up on the term "organization". Organization was just a makeshift term akin to race or bestiary to refer to a group affiliation - whereas we use "race" to refer to species (lore) or gww:family (mechanic), we use "organization" to refer to groups, organized leaderships or not (lore), and gww:army (mechanic).
Secondly, I agree with having Settler be a disambig between the stat, sylvari NPC called "Settler", Southsun NPC called "Settler", and the group of Southsun NPCs called "Settlers" (the reason the stat was named Settler was because of the Southsun NPCs) - and Settlers to be a redirect to either the stat (most common search) or to the disambig. Similar to our disambig with Refugee, I think that the NPCs are distinct enough to merit their separate pages. I could even see the argument made for a [[Settler (Crab Toss)]] page due to the difference in nature (appearance, purpose, position) though I'll remain indifferent on that particular part.
As to Idris' request regarding points 3 and 7 from Doodle's list:
3. I first want to note that the settlers were NOT an anti-Consortium group. They were rather split, though more on the way of anti-Consortium they were not united in this front. Technically, one can easily argue there was no unification at all as they were all literally refugees from the Molten Alliance attacks who had to take refuge in LA because Hoelbrak and Black Citadel were overcrowding, and were subsequently coerced into signing contracts that legally made them indentured servants in an inhospitable environment. Some didn't mind, some only hated the contracts they were tricked into signing, and some wanted to actually go home since the problems were over. However, they were a clear affiliation/army/whatever-term-you-want - during the release, you could play tug-o-war of sorts by having a Consortium Buff or a Settler Buff.
7. The Crab Toss Settlers are actually the very people who the Consortium contracted into living on Southsun Cove - all Settlers are. But as said, not all were actually opposed to the new lifestyle. Some were just anti-Consortium because they didn't have the choice to leave, and IIRC, some even remained on Southsun after the contracts were destroyed.
For the record, I initially wasn't really sure if this group merited an article since they were so short lived and most lore could end up on Settler (Southsun Cove) but upon thinking about it more after the discussion with Doodle in-game a few days ago, I think this page should exist, and I think it should be named Southsun settlers and was planning on moving it there when I saw it in the category earlier today - and yes, lowercased because there's no official term for the group, similar to how there's no official term for Balthazar's mercenaries (I would argue that should also have a lowercase second word).
I think the uppercase is fine, since the NPCs use it as well. Also, both groups should be named Settlers and Mercenaries, but we add the extra noun for clarification, leading to Southsun Settlers and Balthazar's Mercenaries. The same way, if they ever add more cavaliers into the game, Cavaliers should be moved to Amnoon Cavaliers, keeping the uppercase as well.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Neither name are official as neither have official names. They're called settlers not Settlers, mercenaries not Mercenaries. As such we go with standard title methodology which is lowercase everything except proper nouns. The words settlers and mercenaries are not proper nouns. Cavaliers is a proper noun, like Wardens and Seraph. That group will forever be at Cavaliers, or at worst Cavaliers (Amnoon group).Konig (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
You have examples like Champion Settler Instigator and Veteran Mercenary Sniper. Yeah, most NPCs are named like that, but that's besides the point. There's absolutely no reason to break the rule with these two. We should keep the upper case for cohesion purposes, specially when other organizations are mentioned in lower case now and then during dialogues.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Those are proper nouns because those are NPC names, even if they're not given names. You're arguing a false equivalence. And no, it isn't besides the point, it is the point. And It's not breaking the rule. It's just that, until this point, all groups had official names attached to them. Why do you think it is deep sea dragon and not Deep Sea Dragon? Or charr rebellion, Human-charr conflict, or norn exodus? Because non-proper terms are lowercased. Both groups need to be moved to that category I linked as well. Konig (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that they're the "Settlers" and the "Mercenaries", with uppercase, and that should be respected. If instead of "Balthazar's Mercenaries" they were "Random forest Mercenaries" or "Mercenaries from the forest", I would still keep the uppercase in the word which originally had it.

Anyway, proposal for all organizations involved:

Also, check this: Template talk:NPC infobox#Automatic category removed from historical. Historical NPCs aren't categorized properly, which is negatively affecting most LW1 organizations.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"The point is that they're the "Settlers" and the "Mercenaries", with uppercase" Does the game dialogue ever actually uppercase those words? If you discount NPC names and first word of a sentence, which are always uppercase, is there any actual case of "Settlers" rather than "settlers"? Or "Mercenaries" rather than "mercenaries"? If you can provided one pronoun use reference of the groups each, then you'd have merit - and the article should match that use. But as far as I'm aware, there is no such example.
And I disagree fullheartedly with your proposal. The group isn't called "Amnoon Cavaliers" they're called Cavaliers. No ifs ands or buts about it. Cavalier is an official title, like Sentinels, Seraph, White Mantle, etc. Mercenaries and Settlers are not. Konig (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to mention this: As for the historical bit... I've made my opinions on that known. Konig (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
After pondering a bit, I think if the page can be reworded so doesn't come across like an organization and is more similar to Druid (group), ie just a group of people and maybe name it "Settlers (group)", I'd feel far better and would remove the deletion tag myself. Three things though, first the historical stuff is a conversation for elsewhere, not here, though I don't see that changing. Second, I also disagree with your proposal in in just about everything but the Sentinel, I could see a disambiguation page made for it, but I'm not going to lose any sleep either if it stays as it currently is. Third, "Repel Balthazar's Mercenaries" was an objective in Taimi's Pet Project so the capitalization in that case would be correct since "Balthazar's Mercenaries" is the name Arenanet gave them, it's not something we made up. If any of the rest had been uppercase then sure, but they aren't, and we should document them as how they are called in game. - Doodleplex 02:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
In the end we're all nitpicking here. "Balthazar's Mercenaries" is only mentioned like that once in the whole game. "Southsun Settlers" none. "Cavaliers" thrice, in the same story instance, and one of them as "Amnoon Cavaliers". I don't think they're really "final" for any of the three cases (and I could start including other organizations and their obscure references as well), but I don't think that should be the point.
I think the priority here shouldn't be "nomenclature documentation", rather than having a common denominator for wiki nomenclature, where we have a rule for how pages should be named (uppercase to match NPC names, etc). We can always add a note at the bottom stating something like "This organization is not consistently referred by any official name, and insert name was merely chosen for descriptive purposes." if that's what you worry about.
Also, I don't think Druids (group) is any good either. If Druids is empty, it should just be there instead (same case for Settlers). We can add a prefix of sorts to clear confusion if needed (like Southsun Settlers), which is my preferred solution in case we ever get more groups with the same noun, and because they're called like that a few times (in lowercase, though).
As for Amnoon Cavaliers, it's a matter of clarity, since there's other cavaliers around, like Zintl Cavaliers and Mordrem Guard Cavaliers.
In an ideal world, we would ask ArenaNet and get a response, but I don't think they paid any attention to this when they wrote the dialogues, to be fair.
Anyway, I would appreciate if a conversation was started in the template talk page about the historical bit. The current setup where everything gets included in historical is pretty suboptimal from a lore perspective.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Cavaliers is mentioned as such by dozens upon dozens of ambient dialogue in Amnoon which may differ depending on your choice in that "same story instance". They're called "cavaliers" or "Rahim's cavaliers". If we're counting times then on top of those four uses we have five "cavaliers" / "the cavaliers" and three "Rahim's cavaliers" / "his cavaliers". That's 9 uses versus 1 or 3.
I'll settle for Balthazar's Mercenaries because it is used - even if only once. But no other use is ever given other generic "mercenaries".
We capitalize when the name itself is capitalized. If it isn't an official name then we lowercase it. As I presented dozens of examples and a guideline entry stating. There is no question of common denominator for wiki nomenclature (well if that isn't a mouthful...) - you're just wanting to break it through and through.
Also, we should not create articles at plurals - so it would be [[Druid (group)]] not [[Druids (group)]] And if we go with (group) for settlers or cavaliers, then it would be [[Settler (group)]] or [[Cavalier (group)]]. However, Southsun Settlers is more ideal because it refers to a very specific group. Cavaliers does not need to have either Amnoon prefixing it nor (group) suffixing it because there are not enough alternatives to be confusing for players. Just like Sentinels.
TL;DR Lon-ami, you're overcomplicating what is, ultimately, a very simple situation. Konig (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The only reason I don't like "Southsun Settlers" is because it sounds like it's a proper name given to the group in game, hence why I'd much rather have it be "Settler (group)", since they were never given any sort of name or indicated in any sort of way other than just "settler", or at least that I'm aware of anyway. If another settler group pops up, maybe split by names then, but Anet does seem to be consistent in not giving groups the same or similar names. - Doodleplex 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Settler (group) should be fine then. I insist once again on participation here: Template talk:NPC infobox#Automatic category removed from historical, for the historical categorization problem. It's pointless to force editors to edit lists of historical members manually.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Also restore Category:Settlers whenever possible.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
There was no reason to move it to "Settler (group)" and its current name is horribly generic - it'd be like we talked about Balthazar's mercenaries on Mercenary instead. What if we ever get another group of settlers in the game? It should have remained on "Southsun settler" - any moving should have solely to lowercase the word "settlers" as that's how we handle unofficial terms. Konig (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If we get another group of settlers, then we can be more specific, but as is, there is only this group, so there's no reason to clarify. Additionally if another group is created, it won't take much to change the few NPCs that are in this group to the new name. I'm perfectly fine with this name as is. - Doodleplex 21:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically we DO have another group of settlers. The sylvari settlers is their own group and they've been part of this discussion from the get go. Konig (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Talk:Settler_(group)&oldid=2339170"