From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not really important enough to put in the main page; but an observation; this can be used with Disembodied Hand. --Andyzero 06:46, 18 January 2013 (CET)

  • As can any other 1-handed weapon. I guess what you're trying to say is that this would be a really useful combination. I'll add it to Maximizing Your Spell Damage. ;) --Yatsufusa 11:51, 18 January 2013 (CET)

Questionable Reference

How is this a reference to Sting? Sting is a dagger, not a sword. Quoth wikipedia, "When orcs or goblins were present, it glowed blue, as it did when the Fellowship encountered orcs in the mines of Moria.[1] This was a common property of First Age Elf blades, particularly those forged in Gondolin." Nothing in the description says that Byte glows in responds to anything -- and even if it did, that isn't special to Sting. --Sausssage (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • To give my two cents here, I think the odds that this reference is accidental are vanishingly unlikely. Whether or not it is technically a "long dagger" in the lore, Sting is the second Google result for "glowing sword" (the first being cosplay instructions), and the reference it lighting up caverns (i.e. Moria) plus the homophone-into-synonym name (Byte->Bite->Sting) leaves no real room for doubt IMO. That other blades in LOTR lore carry the same property is completely irrelevant, because as long as LOTR is being referenced at all, then the reference is clearly to Sting due to the name.
  • Well, there is the similarity in naming, if you consider "Byte" is a homophone to "bite." Both bite and sting are single syllable verbs describing a piercing attack performed by animals as well as the wound caused by such an attack. Combined with the glowing thing, I'd say it was an intentional reference. --Prestige (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand your point, Prestige. I still disagree. --Sausssage (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Wow. I'd say this is another fine example of a reference explained with "This is a reference to X. Period." where the original author thought it was easy to see what he meant. I, as well, have made such references in the past and I'm sorry.
      Somewhat related: It was mentioned a while ago in a general Discussion, that you can use the template {{NeedsReview}} to mark References like these. --Yatsufusa (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing out the NeedsReview template. However, I don't think that the linguistic analysis adds anything of value to the page... I think it's best to list references and hash out the specifics on the talk page if there is disagreement. --Sausssage (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Agreed: There is no easy to see, spot on reference here. But if there is any, the linguistic analysis explained it way better than "A reference to Sting, Bilbo's blade" – so I'd say there is improvement in that. I can't, without any doubt, tell if the writer of the description actually thought of Sting when he wrote it down, but it is at the very least possible. I would argue that it's not too far fetched to let it stay, but for what it's worth, we could mention that there's some debate. In the end, when it comes to references, we are only interpreting. Like with religion and fandom everybody can and will make up his own opinion about it. --Yatsufusa (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)