Talk:Valiant

"Valiant" is more of a title, not an organization. —Dr Ishmael 03:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I separated them from the wardens since they are not the same group. But I believe they should get their own page. There are camps where many of them group together so they seem to be atleast organized. Louise 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it an organization. This article should be treated the same as legionnaire or similar articles, and it should not be listed as an organization in NPC infoboxes. —Dr Ishmael 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but I still believe these NPCs should be listed somewhere. Maybe on the Wyld Hunt page. Louise 17:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A sylvari becomes a valiant because they have/had a Wyld Hunt - that's a mark of status, not a membership in an organization. They also don't have "bases" because they aren't organized that way - I'd have to argue that you're venturing into the realm of fanfiction here. —Dr Ishmael 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They do have camps, like Gorlois Spine and the Old Sledge Site. I'm not saying that the Valiants are a 100& organized group, but I still think they should be listed on the Wyld Hunt page since they are related. Louise 4:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Valiant is a rank or status title. Like Legionnaire, Duke, Lord, Centurion, Krewe Leader, Councillor, etc. Not an organization. The category and listing is unnecessary, IMO. Valiants do band together when they share Wyld Hunts and as such make camps, but they are no organized group. Those camps are no different than a noble's masquerade ball. Here for a time, full of people of similar ranking and status, and then gone when the point of it has been completed. Konig 22:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Konig. I've moved the page and bot-edited all of the NPCs to remove the organization listing. If Louise still wants a list, then just listing some of the notable valiants would be fine. There's no need to list every single one. —Dr Ishmael 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If the Valiants aren't considered as an organization, fine. But I don't see why the asuran colleges are considered as such... Louise 1:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Listing

@Konig, I personally disagree that listing known in-game Valiants on their namesake page is useless information. Your point that there could be thousands of them can be applied to countless other things that are already documented in a similar fashion on the wiki already (such as Centurion/Legionnaire etc) which I think is a good thing. It doesn't hurt anyone in any way and can serve as a convenient way to access them to those that might be interested in looking them up, such as myself. Instead of undoing all of my work and offering simply your own singular view as the reason for it, bring it up into discussion or at least offer a better reasoning than this. The wiki isn't your own backyard or personal project. 70.82.113.198 23:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is twofold. First, it's a manually created list depicting a rather standard title, which means that there will be countless missing NPCs and constantly added NPCs that belong in the list which will be overlooked and/or needed to be added again, and again, and again. Second, most sylvari in the game have a Wyld Hunt, and as such, they'd be Valiants - no list we have would be complete enough, as you'd basically just be listing 80% of Category:Sylvari.

I cannot see how a list of 200+ NPCs will not be helpful to the readers. All details about what a Valiant is is already here on this page. Perhaps a list of "famous valiants" would be useful, but listing that one guy who's Wyld Hunt is unknown but hates skales seems silly and not at all useful. Valiants are basically sylvari adventurers, and there's no need to go manually listing all mercenary or adventurer NPCs, is there?

There's also the issue that not all the linked NPCs were valiants. Urais (merchant) for example, has nothing to show he's a valiant. Aidre, despite being labeled a valiant in the article, shows nothing of being one in any dialogue. And that's just two examples.

This is a very, very drastic difference to listing officer NPCs such as Centurions (which barely number a dozen) or even Legionnaires (though I would argue such is not necessary because that, too, is in the hundreds).

As to your last point: the wiki isn't my backyard or personal project (never said or implied it was). But neither is it yours. We don't need a discussion for every single point of contention, sometimes the contention itself is enough for people of one side or another. If a discussion was made for every edit or revert, then there would never be any work done on the wiki. Fine with making a list, but equally fine that others don't like it, felt it was not useful and/or distracting, and reverted it. The discussion should come after the initial revert (as it has), not before anything gets done, else nothing will get done. Konig (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the unregistered editor (you should create an account, by the way). There's absolutely zero harm on having a list of known valiants. Compiling a list takes work, and it's kinda disrespectful to just remove it like that.

Funny how this page would have a maintenance problem, but others like the Followers of Raven are fine without a category. Or hell, gladium, Captain of the Seraph, etc.

I'll give the list a better format, and then I'll put it back. Maybe we can even add the Wyld Hunts next to the names.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Those pages would, no doubt, but it's easier to maintain a list of less than a dozen, rather than a list of hundreds. You'll also note I am not particularly for the first two of those lists, and only included the followers of <spirit> because you wanted such lists. Konig (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Followers of Raven category was stated several times that it would only list the most relevant and known npc. So don’t use it as an argument here.

That section inside a bigger article was created so we would not start categorising hundreds of npc of little relevance. Especially when Lon-ami started listing some wolf animals as followers of wolf.

The article should list only the most relevant and well known Valiants. If you do end up categorising all the valiants in the game then you could put a “see also: category” in the article. But by no means would it be useful to flood the main article with hundreds of irrelevant npc Warming Hearth (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why would valiants need a category though? Weren't you against over-categorization right now?--Lon-ami (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who wants a category for valiants. Go for it, seems like a lot of work but it certainly is not over-categorising. Why would giving a valiant category to valiant npc be over-categorising. Over-categorising is trying to put together all the ranks and titles of all organisations in Tyria in one category:rank page. There is a clear difference that I really hope you can see Warming Hearth (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So you're ok with a category for Valiants of the Wyld Hunt, but you're against categories for the Followers of each Spirit of the Wild?--Lon-ami (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I was against having a separate article for that category and still am. I couldn’t care less if there is a category for Valiants or not. But, if there is one, it does not deserve a separate article. It should simply have a see also link inside the main article like Peacemakers. And the main arricle should only show the most relevant npc and not all of them, like Spirit of Raven. Warming Hearth (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I’m not the one who deleted the category from all those npc. Warming Hearth (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Since they're apparently not up to making their comment here, I brought up the notion of a list on this page listing every valiant to the wiki discord and responses were: User:Chieftain Alex: "answer: no allso thats a fairly wtf page title"; User:Sime: "on the Valiant page, I'd say a list of some "important" valiants could be interesting, but listing everyone? nah"; User:Doodleplex: "Third on the Valiant idea of only notable ones".

Also, I am against categorizing ranks. Any rank. That is 100% unnecessary overcategorization. Konig (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If they want to express their opinion, they should express it here. We already had this discussion, with someone from ArenaNet stepping in to leave that clear. The discord is not a replacement for talk pages, which exist for documentation purposes. If it's not here, signed by their accounts, it doesn't exist. And definitely, I wouldn't trust anyone talking on behalf of someone else, or do you want me to quote my whole guild being in favor of my changes? See why these rules exist?

As for the source of the name, you could try "what links here", but I'll make it even easier for you: Fighting the Nightmare and Holding Back the Darkness.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, voicing opinions is voicing opinions. It does exist; I can provide a screenshot if you desire, so there's no need to be offensive. Secondly, I brought it up on discord for them to mention it here. I was merely being kind in pointing it out here.

Thirdly, regarding the source, compared two times to the number of times just "Valiant" is used, that feels like a difference between "formal" and "official". With "Valiant" being the official. See also: every time the Caithe refers to the PC by title in the personal story (it's just "Valiant") such as in Called to Service, Mockery of Death, Awakening, and yes, even Holding Back the Darkness. Konig (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Third on the Valiant idea of only notable ones. There, I said it here too, done. *goes back to work* - Do_odleplex 23:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you called by your full name and title every time someone talks to you? Valiant of the Wyld Hunt is the full name, just like Slayer of Issormir > Slayer, Advocate of the Crown > Advocate, Snaff Savant > Savant, Herald of the Pale Tree > Herald, etc.

For everything else, redirects are your friend.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been able to play in a while, so I don't remember. Where in the game is it mentioned that "Valiant of the Wyld Hunt" is the full title? The others I think I remember, but I'm not sure I remember this. - Do_odleplex 18:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A quick wiki search for the term only provides two such uses of the full title as far as I can see: "Mender Serimon: To be a Valiant of the Wyld Hunt is a difficult charge. Bear this calling with pride." from Fighting the Nightmare, and "Warden Llewyr: Thank you, both of you. It will be an honor to fight alongside a firstborn and a Valiant of the Wyld Hunt." from Holding Back the Darkness. They don't explicitly call it the proper, full form of the title per se, and the "of the Wyld Hunt" could just be a descriptive way of explaining to players what exactly these Valiants are all about, as the "full" titles are never brought up again in the story or ambient scenes. In this case, like I'd also argue for the currently debated Pact Commander/Commander of the Pact stuff (where Pact Commander is mentioned way more often even in official context than the much more limited Commander of the Pact), it might be more feasible (and a better compromise, IMHO) to keep the articles simply listed as Valiant and Pact Commander and include "Valiant of the Wyld Hunt" and "Commander of the Pact" as alternative titles for these two in the written body of the articles themselves unless all the links in various related articles are redirected to the potential new page title to leave less redirect links in the wiki. --Kossage (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you Kossage. And I agree with your last sentence, that seems like a lovely solution. - Do_odleplex 18:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kossage. Konig (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

They're almost always referenced in context with "Wyld Hunt", either with "Valiants of the Wyld Hunt" (formal name) or "Wyld Hunt valiants" (informal). There's two NPCs further strengthening this nomenclature: Wyld Hunt Valiant and Injured Wyld Hunt Valiant. There's also Wyld Hunt Squire. The "Wyld Hunt" part is as important for them as the "Dwayna" part is for "Priestess of Dwayna", and as the "Bear" part is for "Shaman of Bear". As I already said above, it's the exact same thing you see with "Slayer of Issormir / Slayer", "Snaff Savant / Savant", etc.

As for Commander of the Pact, that one is used far more than Pact Commander across the game, so no discussion there.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"They're almost always referenced in context with "Wyld Hunt"" That's because Valiants are sylvari who have Wyld Hunts. That's literally where the "of the Wyld Hunt" comes from. They're referenced in context with Wyld Hunt because the two are directly related, just like how Warmaster is always referenced in relation to the Vigil, because it's a Vigil unique rank. But the rank isn't "Warmaster of the Vigil", that phrasing would just be pointing out "rank of that order" - just as Captain of the Seraph does (which was improperly moved too but that's another topic). Short-handing it to "Valiant" is not the same as short-handing Slayer of Issormir to Slayer or Snaff Savant to Savant. It would be akin to Captain of the Seraph short-handed to Captain; Commander of the Pact short-handed to Commander; because the actual, full, formal title is merely "Captain" or "Commander".

The two times they say "Valiant of the Wyld Hunt" isn't a full title, it's merely a formal way of pointing out what the rank belongs to (in this case, someone having a Wyld Hunt since sylvari have no organization other than the Wardens). Same with all other "of the <blank>" - they are merely what that rank/title is related to (in this case, organizations; in Valiant's case, the Wyld Hunt). Konig (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Lon-ami, the next time you want to make changes this big, create the discussion first, perhaps even give a warning on the Discord. But stop messing up the wiki with changes you can’t back up. Valiant is far more common than Valiant of the Wyld Hunt. Pact Commander is far more common than Commander of the Pact. I disagree with both changes you did. I completely agree with Kossage. Warming Hearth (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a small difference: The Wyld Hunt isn't an organization, while the Vigil and the Seraph are, meaning their titles can be interpreted as ranks. Sometimes, they're both ranks and titles, which is the case with Captain of the Seraph (I don't mind if that one is moved away, for the record, but it would clash with other captains, so it would be a pointless move), and also the case with Warmaster of the Vigil (use the search function). Most ranks, like the ones used by charr, are not treated as titles (they're always lowercase).

Every title each race's players characters get follows the formal-informal model, it is the same exact thing:

• Asura: Snaff Savant (Savant).
• Charr: No titles, only ranks.
• Human: Hero of Shaemoor (Hero), Advocate of the Crown (Advocate).
• Norn: Slayer of Issormir (Slayer).
• Sylvari: Valiant of the Wyld Hunt (Valiant), Herald of the Pale Tree (Herald).

The same exact thing, period.

Also, Pact Commander is not more common than Commander of the Pact. I invite you to start listing ingame references to prove your point.--Lon-ami (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

About the last sentence -- not true. Even in-game mastery uses Pact Commander and not Commander of the Pact. I invite you to list at least one in-game reference to the latter. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A few more: [1], [2], [3], [4]. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

And one about the former: [5] -- not capitalised, therefore I wouldn't consider this one a title. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is for explaining what a Valiant is, it is not about the player character.

The only time "Valiant of the Wyld Hunt" appears is in "Fighting the Nightmare" and "Holding Back the Darkness", presumably to introduce players to the concept and Sylvari culture.

Let me say that again. "Valiant of the Wyld Hunt" appears TWICE in the whole game. This is no reason to move the article. I support the revert proposal.

And just in case. "Wyld Hunt Valiant" is the generic name, used only for unnamed Sylvari npc on a Wyld Hunt.

Named Sylvari on a Wyld Hunt are called "Valiant Name", not "Wyld Hunt Valiant Name". "Valiant Name" can be found literally everywhere, unnamed npc are the only ones called "Wyld Hunt Valiant"

If anything, "Valiant of the Wyld Hunt" would just be a clarification to show that the Sylvari received the Wyld Hunt from the Dream of Dreams, as opposed to Wyld Hunts given by the Nightmare, more known as Dark Hunts. However, the game only makes reference to ONE Dark Hunt, the Knight of Embers turning Malyck to Nightmare, and she's never addressed as Valiant, so it seems "Valiant of the Wyld Hunt" is an epithet: decorative, and redundant. Warming Hearth (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:The F. Prince This is the talk page for Valiant. Go to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Talk:Commander_of_the_Pact Warming Hearth (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I made some changes to the listing here before I noticed this discussion. I've split the group into "notable examples" and "others"; I made the "others" list more thorough than it was before, but I'm open to changing that if it's controversial. I'm also wondering if merging this article with Wyld Hunt might be an idea. —Idris 18:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)