Talk:Sohothin

How do we know all this? 85.250.199.120 13:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Movement of the World? Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be lol. Thanks 89.138.21.112 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 lore
This is GW2 lore. Guild Wars 1 never mentions the name of the sword, nor does it even imply it's anything more than an ordinary Fiery Dragon Sword in order to deserve an article sorely about the item. It's the same as Magdaer, which was also deleted. Erasculio 13:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite this, it still exists in OGW. Jormag and Kralkatorrik are never directly referred to in Guild Wars, either. I imagine there will be other situations where something happening in GW2 clarified something that happened in OGW. I'm of the view that information relevant to both games should be kept on both wikis. This doesn't need anything more than a stub, linking to a more detailed article on GW2W (unless it turns out it had some significance we were unaware of in GW1 or before). We're documenting the Guild Wars universe, as well as the game. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the "Guild Wars Universe Wiki"; it's the Guild Wars Wiki. If something is not mentioned in Guild Wars 1, it does not exist in the game; if something is not named in GW1 (or any piece of content directly linked to GW1, such as the GW1 manual and etc), it's not part of GW1, and therefore should not be here. Erasculio  14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with deletion. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ  аІiсә  [[File:User Aliceandsven 1.png]]  ѕνәи  Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While the name is only used with GW2, and it exists in GW2, it still exists in GW1. Rurik wields it and though the lore was added in the Movement of the World, it is still GW2 lore. I disagree with Magdaer's deletion as well (and I never even saw a reasonable lengthed deletion tag on it the second time it was deleted!). In short, it is GW1 and GW2 lore. Same goes for Magdaer. As Linsey once said, GW2 lore will affect GW1 lore. -- Konig / talk 04:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and something else. If we delete this (and refuse to remake Magdaer) for this reason, we might as well delete Jormag, Primordus, Kralkatorrik, elder dragon, Cauldron of Cataclysm, and many more. But just because it isn't called by its name in the game, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I mean, you do see all of these items. Would you call the Cauldron of Cataclysm GW2 lore because it was named alongside GW2 lore? No! It is still GW1 lore. True, this is not a "Guild Wars Universe Wiki" - but GW2 lore will affect GW1 lore, just as GW1 lore will affect GW2 lore. Sohothin and all the other things do exist, even if nameless, in the game - having been given the name from a non-in-game source does not mean that it doesn't exist. -- Konig / talk 10:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "we might as well delete Jormag, Primordus, Kralkatorrik, elder dragon, Cauldron of Cataclysm"
 * ok, feel free to add the delete tags there.
 * "but GW2 lore will affect GW1 lore"
 * will, not does. If eventually Rurik's sword is named Sohothin in GW1, then we can remake this article (it's not like it's filled with content anyway). Otherwise, there's no point in having it here.
 * In GW1, the sword is not named Sohothin, just like Aldenbern's sword is not named Magdaer. Nothing in the game mentions either of those names, so they do not exist, as far as GW1 is concerned. As you mentioned, it's GW2 lore, which currently has no impact on GW1. No reason, thus, to have this article. Erasculio  11:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will and does. The delete comment was sarcastic, in a way, and you should of realized such if you read the rest of the post. It doesn't mention if it is mentioned in the game. Oh hey! 90% of the stuff, including the article itself, in An Empire Divided isn't named in game - I guess it isn't canon lore! You need to realize Erasculio, not everything is a clear cut case of "this is GW2 lore and this is GW1 lore" - the Movement of the World has GW1 lore in it. Do you want to add the Cauldron of Cataclysm to the GW2W because it was mentioned in the Ecology of the Charr when it probably won't ever affect GW2 or any of the books? Oh, and Sohothin does have a lore impact: It's the bloody sword Rurik uses throughout all of Prophecies! Same goes with Magdaer and the other mentioned articles above.
 * Main point: Things might not be said, but it does exist in the lore. Just as things may be mentioned, but not be seen. That is no reason to delete an article of canon lore. -- Konig / talk 11:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Will and does"
 * how?
 * "The delete comment was sarcastic"
 * obviously, yet there is no reason to not delete those articles. "Elder dragon" may be kept since at least Primordius is clearly a dragon, but other than that...
 * "Oh hey! 90% of the stuff, including the article itself, in An Empire Divided isn't named in game"
 * yet it's the GW1 game manual. If you find anywhere in the GW1's manual a description of Rurik's sword naming it as Sohothin, feel free to remake this article.
 * "and Sohothin does have a lore impact: It's the bloody sword Rurik uses throughout all of Prophecies"
 * no. In GW1, Rurik's sword is not named. Which means, it's not really Sohothin, just a Dragon Sword.
 * "not everything is a clear cut case of "this is GW2 lore and this is GW1 lore""
 * and not everything in GW2 is GW1 lore. This name, Sohothin, does not exist in GW1 or in the GW1 manuals or in the (currently available) GW1 website content. It's effectively not a part of GW1. Erasculio  12:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I wrote a response to everything, but I realized something: You won't listen nor understand. You're just going on another rage on how GW2!=GW1 when in fact, the two are very much mixed. I'll just say this: Whether its name is stated or not doesn't matter, because it still exists. It is point blank stated that the sword Rurik wields is Sohothin - and it can't not be Sohothin. Why? Because he couldn't possibly own another sword after Prophecies! Your argument is just so sad, and the fact that everyone who has contributed in any of your zealous and pointless arguments have disagreed shows, no proves, that you're the only that thinks this that cares enough to do something. As to how GW2 lore will affect GW1 lore: 1) The elder dragons' very existence being added (they're older than 250 years, and we even see 3 in GW1; but they didn't exist before GW2 was thought of). 2) Sohothin, Magdaer, Cauldron of Cataclysm all got a name. 3) The lore on the Facets has been altered/expanded, thus affecting what we fight in the Path to Revelations. And there is bound to be more. -- Konig / talk 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is point blank stated that the sword Rurik wields is Sohothin"
 * in GW2 lore. In GW1, the sword is never named; which is why it belongs to the GW2 Wiki, but not here.
 * "and the fact that everyone who has contributed in any of your zealous and pointless arguments have disagreed shows"
 * no one cares. Lore articles have very low priority; only those who are "zealous" about lore even bother to add to them in the first place.
 * "they're older than 250 years, and we even see 3 in GW1"
 * those 3 actually exist in GW1, the others don't.
 * "Sohothin, Magdaer, Cauldron of Cataclysm all got a name"
 * as you mentioned, that's GW2 lore; in GW1, none of those have a name.
 * "The lore on the Facets has been altered/expanded, thus affecting what we fight in the Path to Revelations"
 * the fight is still the same. And said expansion has not caused any repercussion on GW1.
 * "You won't listen nor understand."
 * circular argument. I could say the same thing about you, only twisting it around: "You won't listen nor understand. You're just going on another rage on how GW2=GW1 when in fact, the two are very much different games". Erasculio  12:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never said GW2=GW1, I know they are two different games. However, their lore affects each other - the Cauldron of Cataclysm will probably never be seen in GW2, and the Facets, while the fights remain the same, the lore on them don't - and the added lore is added with GW2 lore. Not everything in the Movement and Ecology are "GW2 lore" - in fact, most of the Ecology of the Charr is explaining events prior to GW1, and thus would be also GW1 lore. Do you even know how many articles were edited on this wiki due to "GW2 lore"? Cauldron of Cataclysm, Sohothin, Ash Legion, Blood Legion, Flame Legion, Iron Legion, Kralkatorrik, Jormag, Primordus, elder dragon, Canthan Emperor, Guild Wars 2, and many, many, many more. Should those be edited/delete? No, they shouldn't, because Guild Wars 2 LORE affects Guild Wars 1 LORE - don't say the games are the same, they aren't, but the lore is. The lore of Guild Wars is that - lore of Guild Wars, not lore of Guild Wars 1 or lore of Guild Wars 2 as that is just when the lore is introduced. You say only those who care about lore care about adding/removing lore, but yet, I've never seen Pling, Infinite, or Killer Demon (all three are people who contributed in the discussion on Shew's GW2W talk page) contribute to the lore of the game. Yet they contribute to the discussion of adding/removing lore content! -- Konig / talk 12:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) , "You're impossible, honestly" , "Laughable, truly laughable" and etc.
 * "because Guild Wars 2 LORE affects Guild Wars 1 LORE"
 * not yet. As you keep mentioning, Linsey said that's something which will happen. If Linsey, from Arena Net, says that something which will happen, it's only logical to assume that it's something which is not happening yet.
 * "but the lore is"
 * nope. Lore created with GW1 is GW1's lore; lore about the past introduced with GW2 is a retconn belonging to GW2, not to GW1. As I have mentioned, this is not the wiki about the Guild Wars Universe; it's the wiki about Guild Wars 1, so it stands within reason that only GW1 content will be documented here.
 * "I've never seen Pling, Infinite, or Killer Demon (all three are people who contributed in the discussion on Shew's GW2W talk page) contribute to the lore of the game"
 * I also don't see them in this talk page. Erasculio  12:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're impossible, honestly. Fine, let's play by your rules. The Movement of the World and the Ecology of the Charr are technically GW1 lore by your words. Why? They were released next to (and inbetween) Eye of the North concept art, an Eye of the North guideline, and a GW1 PvP guideline. There was little to no information of GW2 in the PCGamer magazine which the Movement and the Ecology were released in - thus, GW1 lore. By your standings and defense of An Empire Divided, which was in the Factions Prima Guide (which acts the same exact way as the PCGamer Magazine due to the two guides and lore), those two articles are GW1 lore, not GW2 lore, and as such should be moved here - and just about everything you removed due to it being "GW2 lore" should be replaced/reverted because that lore came from the Movement and the Ecology. -- Konig / talk 21:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As it's stated here, . We don't even have a copy of it in this wiki since it was considered GW2 content anyway.
 * "There was little to no information of GW2 in the PCGamer magazine which the Movement and the Ecology were released in - thus, GW1 lore"
 * if you look at page 3 of the PCGamer Magazine, in the Table of Contents, you'll see how it says . If that's not an official statement about the article being GW2 lore, I don't know what it is. Erasculio  21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keyword: History. What is the history of GW2? GW1 and the history of GW1. I really can't believe you're arguing that items that exist and are seen, some of which have a major influence on the storyline is not GW1 lore - especially when we don't even know if they'll be featured in GW2. While on the GW2 wiki, you don't want to have any articles which we don't know if they'll be featured in GW2 or not. Laughable, truly laughable. So I guess we should just remove the very knowledge of Sohothin and other articles from both wikis, I mean, following your arguments (which contradict themselves constantly), they are not "GW1 lore", but yet are not in GW2, so shouldn't exist in either, despite them being "GW2 lore" and existing/featured in GW1.
 * Oh, and the Ecology of the Charr is not said to be for GW2, so I guess we should remake Magdaer, since that name is also from that article.
 * Main point: GW2 lore is GW1 lore and GW1 lore is GW2 lore - but GW2 is not GW1 nor are things like weapons that exist in their respective time line, the game mechanics, and of course the time period. Lore is not a GW1 or GW2 thing, and arguing them to be separate is silly and will just cause constant unnecessary redundancy or lack of information. Just as all of the gods is lore for both games, Sohothin, Magdaer, and the Cauldron of Cataclysm is lore for both games. Other things, however, like Abaddon, Dhuum, Menzies, the Titans, Margonites, etc. Which have an impact or may be referenced to in GW2 should only have a GW1 article.
 * We shouldn't be having only one article, but an article depending on the importance and existence of these things. By your argument, the Cauldron of Cataclysm is a GW2 lore article, so it would be on the GW2W, but it has no affect on current standing GW2 lore and knowledge, while has a very major affect on Prophecies. Sohothin and Magdaer shouldn't be removed by the poor argument of "GW2 lore" - there's no such thing as GW2 lore! If you call something GW2 lore, then you need to call stuff Nightfall lore, or Prophecies lore, not GW1 lore. It's just GW lore - nothing more, nothing less - no numbers or other words attached.
 * tl;dr: These articles and which should or shouldn't exist isn't as clear cut as you wish to believe, Era. Just because the name isn't used doesn't mean it doesn't exist. After all, we have fan named articles of existing things, should we delete all those and deprive readers of known lore? No, it is still relevant to GW1.
 * In the shortest context: Articles are not based on name or mention, but relevance and existence in the game, and Sohothin and the other articles are very much relevant and even moreso existent in the game (even if not by name, but by seeing it). And please, stop trying to revert this discussion into quote wars - it's just annoying to read and respond to such childish responses (honestly, it is a childish way to attack others, and this is not an insult to you, by the way). -- Konig / talk 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Articles are not based on name or mention, but relevance and existence in the game"
 * indeed, and the name Sohothin does not exist in GW1. It's not mentioned once in the game, nor is it alluded that Rurik's sword is anything but a common Fiery Dragon Sword, like the ones used by many Ascalon guards. That's a perfect example of GW2 lore - it does not exist in GW1, but has been made part of the second game in order to give Arena Net one more plot hook for GW2. Such retcons are to be expected, and are one reason why GW1 lore should not be mixed with GW2 lore.
 * "constant unnecessary redundancy"
 * which is also another reason why GW1 lore should not be mixed with GW2 lore. We have wikis for both games; if we began mixing both lores, we would end up with redundant articles, instead of linking to a single, complete article.
 * "After all, we have fan named articles of existing things"
 * yes, given how players use those terms in GW1, and thus such expressions should be mentioned when documenting GW1. However, you won't find an article about 40/40 on the GW2W, since that expression doesn't exist in the newer game; it's the same thing with Sohothin. The expression is not used in GW1, therefore it should not be here.
 * "And please, stop trying to revert this discussion into quote wars - it's just annoying to read and respond to such childish responses"
 * in a discussion, it's usually productive to reply to arguments with counter arguments, providing references when needed. I would say it's childish to rely on open statements such as "You won't listen nor understand"
 * The fact is: the name Sohothin does not exist in GW1. No GW1 player is going to find this name by searching for it, since it's not mentioned once in the game or in the game manuals. The only link to this article is from Rurik's page (from now), which already states all that is mentioned here about the sword. Therefore, this article is meaningless to GW1, and should not be on the wiki about documenting GW1. Erasculio  03:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sohothin's name may not currently exist, but Sohothin itself does exist. No ifs ands or buts about that, it's a fact - it's the freakin bloody sword Rurik wields. Same goes for the Cauldron of Cataclysm - it caused one of the main events of the game even! and doesn't have GW2W article, why? Because it isn't GW2 related. As for redundancy - there's a difference between mentioned in two places for two different reasons and mentioned in two places for the same reasons. Whether or not it is called something doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not it exists, and by Fate you cannot say Rurik doesn't wield a sword or that he somehow magically changed swords from an FDS to Sohothin after he died. Sohothin the name!=Sohothin the sword. One is words, one is a digital sword, and that sword is why we have the article, not the name. The name given in the Movement just told us what the sword is. Lastly, quote wars is hardly "productive" when it is used to respond to various little, usually unimportant, parts of the argument, and it is very distracting (which is how it is childish). -- Konig / talk 09:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really failing to see why this issue is one of such contention. It is true that the name is never given in GW1, however Rurik runs about brandishing the thing throughout the game. We have discovered the name of the sword through official lore sources (namely Anet), thus for all intents and purposes this sword IS called Sohothin throughout GW1, just because nobody ever states it in game, doesn't mean that it doesn't have that name, thus the article has merit on the GW1 wiki IMHO. If people were trying to add articles about things which were only ever seen/mentioned in GW2, then I would agree with Erasculio, but in this instance that is not the case. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 09:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Salome, for saying what I've been trying to convey in a much more refreshing and new way (and no, that isn't sarcasm). -- Konig / talk 09:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many words over very little content. Normally I would agree with Erasculio, because it's my mantra that we should only mention things that are de-facto in the game OR explicitly note where things are based on speculation, qualified guesses or whatever. Therefore I propose we take a Salomonic approach to this and explicitly mention in the article that GW2 reveals (will reveal) that Ruriks sword is in fact called Sohotin. I will try and put this into the article in a few mins and then maybe we can reach some consensus on this. --Manassas  [[File: User Manassas Mannysig.png]] 11:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Movement of the World is the source of the name, so it isn't speculation (imo, speculation shouldn't be on the articles, unless it is in notes or trivia as an exceptionally common theory). The weapon is in the game, but never named in the game. It's named in the Movement of the World, but it still exists in GW1. Hence the whole calamity. -- Konig / talk 12:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that it was speculation, I was merely telling about my general take on "things that are not in the game". But since this sword IS in the game but the name isn't I proposed the Salomonic approach that the article now reflects. --Manassas  [[File: User Manassas Mannysig.png]] 12:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misunderstood your wording. -- Konig / talk 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Preceding everything with "according to Guild Wars 2 lore..." is unnecessary, imo. I don't see how it helps anything - we have a references system if there's any doubt as to the source of a claim. All it does is make the article read awkwardly. The real question is about GW2 content that enriches GW1, and whether it should have a place on the wiki. Sohothin is a relatively minor case, but I imagine there will be more extreme examples once we know more about the game. For example, what if it turns out that (and this is purely hypothetical) that Abaddon was a pawn of the elder dragons. Does this warrant a mention on his page here? In fact, we already have an example of this - Primordus is never explicitly mentioned in-game, but basically the entire of Eye of the North is a setup for his awakening. The big baddie, the Great Destroyer, is just a general of Primordus. But by Erasculio's definition, that would belong on GW2W. My personal view is that things like that should be kept, because they enrich the story in a big way, and I'm sure that on release, we'll find out many other things like it.

I don't think we should get distracted from what the real core of the issue is here, and that is whether we are documenting "Guild Wars, the game", or "the Guild Wars universe circa 1078 AE ". On that note, we need to also decide whether Blazeridge Mountains and Strait of Malchor warrant a page here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
Why does this simply redirect to the FDS page? I could see it linking there, but this acts as if the sword doesn't even exist. I think this should have a short description (e.g. Sohothin is the sword wielded by Prince Rurik. It has the same appearance as a Fiery Dragon Sword.) and a link to GW2W, as opposed to redirecting in a way that doesn't really tell us anything about the significance of it having a unique name. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Jumping to a conclusion there. People may search for it because they see it in different press releases, even if they are aware that the GW2W exists, simply to see if there is a significance in GW1. (And there is, in that it deals physical damage instead of fire.)
 * Agree, as even per the discussion above. I think the redirect was meant as a middle-ground, but it's rather... idiotic for a middle ground (no offense to Auron). -- Konig / talk 20:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno about idiotic, but it certainly isn't middle. --Kyoshi [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] (Talk) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well consensus in the above seems to be that if it exists in GW1, it gets an article. And that is consistent as well, so unless I missed something, I say go ahead and revert the past few edits to bring back the article. -- Konig / talk 21:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't seem to be present, though. Were there no further lore than its name, then I would agree with Erasculio, but seeing as GW2W has an article on it, and people here may be interested in the significance of the name further than "it's the sword Rurik uses", and since it's even unique in that it deals physical damage, it seems to warrant having an article dedicated to it, if for nothing else than the note and the link.
 * As for Erasculio's comment: "No GW1 player is going to find this name by searching for it, since it's not mentioned once in the game or in the game manuals."
 * Even though I'm fairly sure I've covered most arguments to be made against this article, I'm going to post a RFC and wait on it. If it isn't discussed, it'll just turn into another edit war. --Kyoshi [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] (Talk) 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for restoring the article. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 00:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It holds a second value to GW1, I'm sure. We just don't know it yet. That is, there's bound to be some play on the swords' history just like the Scepter of Orr and Staff of the Mists have and will. It does exist in GW1, so this page may be brief but there's still significance in that it exists. -- Konig / talk 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)