Talk:Khan-Ur

Every time I see something that says "mysterious circumstances" or the like, I get the feeling we'll find out more about it in game. On another note, who thinks we'll 1v1 the Khan-Ur at some point? :P -- Armond Warblade 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Except he died like a thousand years ago. Lord Belar 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One of them did. -- Armond Warblade 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Khan-Ur is the ruler, not a specific person. But I wouldn't be suprised if he was a main antagonist if you were human. Calor (t) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the khan-ur was the ruler, there aren't any anymore. After they died out, the charr split to four legions, of which you'll probably have to chose one, if you're a charr. Lord Belar 03:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was, then why does the article say is? — ク Eloc 貢 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo? Lord Belar 00:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Or horrible wording. Calor (t) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Added/created {{tl|disputed}} — ク Eloc 貢 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone is disputing that the contents are wrong. :) Khan-Ur is always referred to as 'the Khan-Ur' and as a hereditary title in the Ecology of the Charr. I'm fixing the article by copying the content from gww. --Aspectacle 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

theres the wikipedia page that talks about Genghis Khan. Dont know how to make the link Farwind 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Death_and_burial

We're talking Charr, not Mongols. Lord Belar 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Khan was a Mongol title for king. Genghis Khan was the title for Temujin. Calor (t) 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Its been put under the "trivia" section and seems to have had a huge influence on the history of the char. it just needs a link for the source. Farwind 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

...I hate mostly unrelated triva. Lord Belar 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do too. It really shouldn't be there. Calor (t) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really unrelated. read the history of the charr and the history of the mongols. as I said up above, the Charr history seems to have been based off of the mongols. Farwind 01:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a typical scenario. They could've been based off of any of dozens of medieval and pre-medieval societies, The Mongols being one of the better known ones. Take Europe after Charlemagne's death. Suddenly there are hundreds or thousands of nobles with small armies fighting each other for all the power after their leader's death, though none become full rulers, and each believes they are the best. Calor (t) 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ghengis Khan connection makes sense, and though I don't agree with that whole big history lesson being on the article, I left it alone. But I did remove the bit about Star Trek: The Rath of Khan in the Trivia section. It makes me picture the assassin who killed the last one yelling "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" --Cjad the Nord 07:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! Cress Arvein 04:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRR! XD 93.86.29.206 21:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

there is a relation with the ur-dragon in "Magic: the gathering" and there the "claw of ur-khan"? http://www.magiccards.info/ts/en/246.html (and the relative flavor text in the golem of invasion serie.) --Gasp10 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

This is more relevant to the background of GW2 than it is to the background of OGW - that's why we never heard of the character in OGW, but did with the Ecology of the Charr, because the struggle for dominance between the Legions is a theme of the Charr story. Sohothin is another pre-OGW thing, but we keep a more detailed article here than on GWW. Why? Because it's largely irrelevant (as far as we currently know) to the happenings of OGW. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Santax on this one. While I acknowledge that it predates GW1, I don't think that the Khan-Ur has been mentioned in GW1 at all - only in information given to flesh out the story of the Charr for GW2. There is a chance with Beyond that they'll mention it, but I'd say until they do, it is at least as relevant here as there. -- Aspectacle  22:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Khan-Ur is only mentioned in relation to GW2, so if anything, it belongs on this wiki more. Taros 00:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Khan-Ur is mentioned in pre-GW1 lore within the Ecology of the Charr. While the Ecology is on the GW2W, one must remember that just about half of it is GW1 lore. It's a similar case of Sohothin. It exists in the GW1 lore, but it was never mentioned because when Prophecies (and for the Khan-Ur, EN) was released, it didn't have a name. There's no need to document it in two places, and unless we get a new Khan-Ur in GW2 which needs its own page title Khan-Ur (and cannot just simply be linked to the GW1 wiki), then I think it is better off there. Nothing supports it being relevant to GW2 except through mention or of someone taking the title.

The Khan-Ur isn't really mentioned in relation to either game, it's just "there" - mentioned in the Ecology of the Charr that was pre-GW1 (possibly even pre-exodus). But the point is: There's no need for it to be the exact thing in two places, and as this takes place prior to GW1, like with the Exodus of the Gods page, it belongs there more. Until we get it requiring a page and not just referenced in GW2. -- Konig/talk 12:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that pre-GW1 lore =/= GW1 lore. In GW1, the culture of the charr is largely irrelevant, because we only see them as enemies. We see them way more in-depth in GW2 because we actually play as them. Sure, right now we have a situation where we're keeping largely identical articles on both wikis, but when GW2 is released, we'll see a lot of questions answered about GW1, and we can document the stuff we find which is relevant to GW1 there (even if it means having a relatively short article, if the subject is to do with things before or during GW1 but has no real impact on GW1), and we can document the stuff we find which is relevant to GW2 here. I mean, it even looks like unifying the charr is a plot point for the charr story, and we don't even have that much information yet. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing you need to remember when doing this is "Where will people go to look for this information?" After all, if someone is playing Guild Wars 2 and wants to know a little more about their Charr character, they will most likely go to the GW2Wiki to find the answer, because their question is relevant to GW2 specifically. It is because of this that I feel we should have SOMETHING regarding each of these things, regardless of whether or not they existed in GW1, because they will be greatly relevant to GW2. If anything, have a small article with a "more information here" link leading to GW1W; that way, regardless of which wiki people look at for the answer, they will be able to find their way to the full article for more information. 98.23.29.7 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with the person above on this matter, Making it 5 to 1,Discussion has been cold for 12 days.Deletion note is being removed.--Neil2250 , The Zoologist 10:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Split

I disagree with the split due to the fact there's only ever been one Khan-Ur, and an article about the title wouldn't amount to much. It seems like an unnecessary division. My view may change if a new Khan-Ur is "crowned", but even then it seems unlikely to be needed. Konig (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(spoilers for Bound by Blood follow) Well, if you've played the prologue, it's apparent that there may well be at least one - possibly two - charr claiming to be the Khan-Ur in the near future. If we said, "Smodor the Unflinching is vying to become the next Khan-Ur", and then link to an article that is 90% about the historical figure there'd obviously be something fishy going on there, as Smodur is not literally trying to become the historical figure the Khan-Ur but is trying to become the holder of the title of Khan-Ur. The title of Khan-Ur and any characters who hold that title are completely distinct entities, and so should be documented separately. It's like how Wikipedia has different articles for Gruffydd ap Llywelyn and King of Wales, even though Gruffydd was the only ever king of Wales. One refers to the title, the other refers to the person. –Santax (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ll add that the motivation for the split tag was that I was disconcerted by the opening line of the article indicating that the article is about a title, and then seeing a prominent section title “Biography”. Titles don’t have biographies, so that’s a clear indicator that we’re trying to document two separate things on one page for no other reason than they share a name. –Santax (talk · contribs) 00:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

My issue, which your example doesn't run into, is that we do not have a name for this guy; he's not just a Khan-Ur, he's the Khan-Ur. I've gone through the story by now, but I'm unconvinced that we'll see a new Khan-Ur, and for the context of just "vying to become" then I think this article can cover both well enough without being confusing. A rewrite could be used, sure, but split? Not so sure.

That said, if a split is deemed better by the majority, then I suggest going the route of Giganticus Lupicus and Great Giant, and split the title to Primus Imperator so as to avoid needless triple article for disambiguation and parentheses article naming. Konig (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A split doesn't seem necessary to me. Are we really going to do make our readers seek out seperate articles for the subtle distinction between the-only-historical-figure-who-can-claim-the-title and the title itself, when people are already sick of how fragmented our articles are? If the title becomes more relevant later, then we can discuss a split; until then, the article is fine the way it is. —Idris 10:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)