Gilgamesh: Enough expository banter!
This talk page is used for discussing improvements to the page "Solus zos Galvus". It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article.

His name is Solus zos Galvus, not Solus Zos Galvus.-- 20:36, November 23, 2013 (UTC)

It's written with uppercase letter in the game (for all the other tribunes too). but on the official site they're all written in lowercase so it seems like we're having a problem. Monterossa (talk) 22:15, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
however, if it's the same as van from Dutch language then both forms are acceptable such as van Basten and Van Basten, none of them are incorrect. Monterossa (talk) 22:21, November 23, 2013 (UTC)

Removed references to the WoL being a reincarnation of Hythlodaeus. It's suggested the Warrior of Light is a sundered Amaurotian - even that is not confirmed. Everything else is speculation at this time.

Is the WoL also an incarnation of Artberd? Monterossa (talk) 06:27, July 5, 2019 (UTC)

Move to Emet-Selch Edit

Before Emet-Selch is introduced, his former identity, Solus zos Galvus, had virtually no presence in the game. He does not appear in the game at all, he is only referred to in passing, aside from its significance to the history of the Garlean Empire, the Solus zos Galvus identity has virtually zero impact on the main story. It is only when this character is actually seen onscreen for the first time, as Emet-Selch, that he becomes important to [i]FFXIV[/i]'s overall story and it is what he is primarily called throughout [i]Shadowbringers[/i] until his demise. Also, Emet-Selch is his real name. Therefore, this article should be moved to Emet-Selch. –Nahald (talk) 00:12, December 25, 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. At worst, if there are concerns about spoilers, perhaps Solus and Emet-Selch can be made separate pages, with the Solus page representing the public facing persona that "died" in ARR. --Adonzo (talk) 00:28, December 25, 2019 (UTC)
I think the name should be whatever a regular person would type into google to find more info on them. So Emet-Selch with Solus and Hades as alt names?Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 15:58, December 25, 2019 (UTC)

Iffy on the move to Emet-Selch due to spoilers. In addition, he is not referred to as Emet-Selch until Shadowbringers, before that in dialogue he is referred to as "Solus zos Galvus" in dialogue until his introduction to the party in the Crystarium, where it is changed to Emet-Selch after Lakeland. Also all promotional material refer to him as Solus even the Shadowbringers official site and presentations.

Possibly separating to two pages seems like the logical outcome here, as while he is Emet-Selch, the real Solus died the moment Emet-Selch stole his body through possession, and the original body died at the point of mid 2.x. At the time of 4.x, Emet-Selch is using clone bodies modeled after the original Solus in his youth. So the page separation should be handled like the original Yda Hext, we stop the moment Emet stole his body and life away from him, and mention that Emet ruled over Garlemald in that body until he died at the point of Dreams of Ice. --Miphares (talk) 21:29, December 26, 2019 (UTC)

There's precedence for this with Lyse, only difference being she was impersonating an existing character. Still, at the very least, we should not have this article revolve around the life of the character of Solus when that is a very small part of Emet-Selch's life. –Nahald (talk) 06:23, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

I support splitting it into two articles. There should be an article for the real Solus, and another one for Emet-Selch. The real Solus was a normal Garlean until the age of 20-something, then became a vessel for Emet-Selch. They're different characters. Monterossa (talk) 09:49, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I went to speak with people on the Gamerscape chats on this, since they're pretty heavily involved in a lot of the lore stuff for the overall FFXIV community. Taking account in what they told me in these screenshots here, here, here and lastly here, I think we may need to hold up on this, as at this point what we're doing is speculative on our parts, and I don't feel like bothering Ethys for this when even a lot of the core people in the lore community don't even have a concrete answer. Even with the Rising 2019 stories, there is no confirmation on what or who Solus truly was. I'd say we keep it Solus, since that is the name SE uses in promotional material currently and we should avoid spoilers overall for the community in general. I think for now it is best we put all this on hiatus until 5.x or the next lore book comes out. --Miphares (talk) 05:04, December 28, 2019 (UTC)
This seems like evidence in favor of splitting off Emet-Selch into a different page, no? We don't know if they are different characters or not, but if they are it's a huge spoiler. Cat (meowhunt) 23:41, December 28, 2019 (UTC)
Same characters share a page regardless of spoilers, like Galenth Dysley and Barthandelus.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 14:40, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Emet-Selch definitely should have his own article, regardless of whether it's this one or another one. –Nahald (talk) 09:38, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

^What Kelt said. In addition, doing that is speculating on our part, which is a huge no-no when being an encyclopedia most people use. We already have a decent amount of misinformation on our wiki when it comes to the lore of this game from what I learned of recently, we shouldn't add to it. :X --Miphares (talk) 16:47, December 29, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.