Talk:Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Power Armor

A space marine, is a space marine, because of the armor only he is capable of wearing. More discussion needs to be made about the power armor, it could probably use it's own article on this, or a different wiki. At very least we need pictures of Mark VI and Mark VII armor, and a discussion of their differences. Mathiastck 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The Sisters of Battle also wear power armour, as do some inquisitors. The difference is, without the black carapace, non-marines can't make use of all the features and abilities. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Though Sisters of Battle do wear power armour it is the Marines Black Carapace Implant that allowes them to utilize the power armour to its fullest extent. They are connected to the armour through invasive neural networking, which would be also why it is very rare to see a marine out of thier armour. As the sisters do not have the same Black Carapace Implant, they use the armour just as a regular suit. So it is perfectly legitimate to argue marines are partly only true marines because of their armour, (also why initiates and trainees (scouts) don't wear full power armour, the only exception being space wolf scouts but thats just getting complicated:-)--Tanis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.176.70 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Only one Text 4 Librarians

Merge the section about “The Librarians (Warhammer 40,000), should be a good idea… my mening, about this article, was just the possibility to have a specific page dedicated to Librarians Space Marine... but, however, I haven’t objection if someone merge this section into Space Marine article… NV Nerovegas 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeh tht would be helpful as the amount of un-nessecary forty k pages is massive, by un-nessecary i mean it could be merged with a bigger main section Arthurcourt (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarpedon

Sarpedon is listed as 'was the Chief Librarian'. He wasn't. Sarpedon was a normal Librarian before the Soul Drinkers rebellion, and he -was- the Chief Librarian after the rebellion, but also Chapter Master so the CL rank would be superflous. I've tidied up the wording a bit to differentiate between pre- and post-rebellion Soul Drinkers. - Fuji606, 7th September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuji606 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC) I am unsure as to the need to have any special charcters mentioned in this section at all, aside from the Primarchs and the Emperor. The Librarian sections is well done but the character list seems a bit superfluous to the nature of this meat and potatoes article. Any thoughts? ChonkE (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Space Marine Codex.jpg

Image:Space Marine Codex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with --Pak21 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Revision

As suggested on the project page I'd like to start a move to revising this article and trimming the fat. I'd like to see the following done. 1. Paring down of the intro text. 2. Outsourcing of the legions list to a subpage or some other form of cleanup. 3. Removal of section 3, perhaps in its entirity. Much of the text looks lifted from 2nd ed Codex Imperialis. Comments? Darxide (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

@ those who wish to contribute to the rewrite: It is important to remember what on wikipedia we should and shouldn't explain. For instance we can say that Space Marines are superhumans created by the surgical and genetic modification of adolescent males but extemporising at length about zygotes and the path from scout to terminator is outside of our scope. There are many Warhammer wikis out there to do that job. We are explaining Space Marines to someone who has never heard of them before and is interested in their significance in our world as much as theirs. Darxide (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on 1 and 2. I'm sure there can be a way to rework section 3 (I recognize some snippets from memory so this confirms the direct copy paste work) to give it a better format and to expunge the in-universe wording. I'm also considering the length of the article to be an issue, and while my first reaction would be to seperate the 'Progression of a marine' to its own page (if we are able to rebuild it), I am aware our purpose is to make the article more efficient and not to create more child-articles. AlmondManTwo (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The first thing - if you see text that represents copyvios - strip it out, we can clean up the rest later. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember - the trick is this - you have to treat it as a object of the narrative, so it has to represent a real world perspective. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If we can cut Section 3 down to a summary paragraph which does not wholesale raid copyrighted materials that would be best consensus I'd say. Darxide (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I got the 4th Edition codex for Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines back home, so should prove to be useful in this regard. AlmondManTwo (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have tried to rewrite the article. It's a lot shorter than it was, but I think I've kept all the important detail, and should do what an article on this kind of topic is supposed to do - provide a broad encyclopedic overview. If I've taken something out you feel should be there, rather than merely hitting "revert", consider adding short sections back in, carefully, and making sure they are not written from an "in-universe" perspective. We don't need detail of this kind of level ("Should be noted that one of the excommunicated Chapters, the Soul Drinkers, is not, in fact, a Chaos Legion, instead having declared the Imperium corrupt and failing in the Emperor's service, seceding from the Imperium to forge their own destiny" or "All Space Marine chapters still have a fully functioning "Black Carapace" implant") - the Warhammer Wiki is brilliant for that kind of thing and it should go there. If you want to see how this sort of thing is handled really well, look at the Doctor Who project and the Doctor Who Wiki, or Star Trek and Memory Alpha. Neıl 龱 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've begun making edits to shorten the article and make it concise, building on what you've done. The perspective I'm taking is what would someone who's never heard of the article subject and has just landed on the page want to know. Darxide (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is just getting stupid now

Ultramarines belongs in its own article, and not in the main article. I know about transwiki, but this is just plain stupid. Nemesis646 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why - they exist and can be covered here - one set of toys is much the same as another from a real world perceptive. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From a "real world perspective" most people couldn't tell you the difference between an APT and a Pendolino. From a "real world perspective" Star Trek is much the same as another space fantasy like Star Wars. I agree that the ultramarines do not merit a seperate article but please try to keep comments constructive. Darxide (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'd say the same about star wars or star trek - where the material doesn't support separate articles they should be merged or deleted. For example - we now have a single force article rather than 6 or 7 articles all repeating the same material. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do the Blood Ravens get to have their own detailed article when no other chapter has one? Blood Ravens aren't even important. Bring back all the Chapter's own articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.242.22 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also like to complain about the merging of the list of Space Marine Chapters. It is a critical article and does not belong here. Nemesis646 (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You could have spoken up on the appropriate Articles of Deletion discussions. Starting a thread here isn't going to bring the articles back. I've nominated the Blood Ravens article now, thanks for catching it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For a start, Cunningham, I wasn't told it was being deleted. I am still sticking to my point, it doesn't belong here. Nemesis646 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want them back, use WP:DRV. It may be worth considering that the people deleting these articles have been using Wikipedia's established processes for doing so, whereas you've mostly just been complaining about it on random talk pages. Which one do you think will be more effective? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It now appears Wikipedia is no longer a good source of information, as these people will alter it with their own biased opinions. What harm does it do to allow the information to be gathered and expanded for the use of the public? It seems that some of these 'moderators' on here are a law unto themselves. Yours Sincerely M.Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.152.13 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Black templars where also removed.

So whats the justification? It looks like someone was thinking he was a surgeon and took a hack saw to this article.

• sigh* was very good now looks like an Ork took a dumpitydoo on it. 209.169.244.29 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers to all of you for your justified irritation at the irrational editing of the "Lords of Wikipedia". In the last couple of years they have been taking a hack-saw to all articles that deal with a fictional universe. Apparently they believe that the average person is unable to figure out that Warhammer 40K and the Space Marines are fictional characters. Also there is barely any writing done about Warhammer in what counts as "3'rd party sources".

So in reality the 'truth' of wikipedia has been warped against those of us who just wish to write enthusiastically about our hobby. This fact truly saddens me because in the beginning of Wikipedia the fictional universe pages were the most dynamic of them all. Alas.

Final Salutations for your justified anger. Though I fear my words will be stricken from the record, as every time I try to caution others on the possible danger of self-censorship, . . .I find my account banned. I sincerely hope we can get some more detailed chapter descriptions as well as some more respect from the rest of the Wikipedia community. -Chinatown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.177.121 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge Primarch

The article Primarch has no secondary sources to establish notability, and I believe it will eventually end up going to AFD at this rate. I think it could easily be covered in this article instead. Pagrashtak 16:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, it does not assert any individual notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go for it. Rsreston (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG What have you guys done

Honestly what have you people done to the wikis for this game, I have noticed many wikis for different armys deleted and somehow merged into one with all the precious information they used to contain on the chapters and legions wiped out, what the hell, whoever did this better feel ashamed, you have brought dishonour upon our game, everything should be restored to how it was before. IWarriors 23:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles you mention were abysmal - the only sources (where people had even bothered to include them) were Games Wrokshop itself, or its subsidiary companies (Forge World, Black Library, etc.) If you look at WP:SOURCES you'll see that Wikipedia articles need reliable, third-party sources. The articles also relied heavily on fictional elements, with very little "real-world" context. As WP:FICT explains, this is not acceptable for Wikipedia articles. Take a look at The 40K talk page for a discussion on this. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And yeah in the process destroying some key information, seems like Black Templars was dropped off the list, and oh there own article is gone. *sigh* morons Ripster40 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the OP here, although he didn't word it in the best of ways, there was a lot of valuable information before all the army pages were condensed into this general Space Marines page. The info was from Games Workshop, which IS a reliable source, seeing as they are the creators of the content in question. And the information was great for learning about "X" army or chapter from Warhammer, they showed details about their past, their reasoning, and their principals. It was an invaluable learning source for chapters before the merge, and now it shows nothing more than generalist material that doesn't go to the depth that it could, it merely scratches the surface of what should be done. earle117 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Games Workshop is a Primary source though - the rules say we need third-party sources. Also, "their past, their reasoning, and their principals" are all fictional. WP:FICT clearly states that articles need a real-world context. Saying "X is prone to bouts of psychosis due to this, that, and the other" is no good unless the way it affects the game is included ("X is prone to bouts of psychosis due to this, that, and the other; because of this the player gets to roll 2D6 and pick the highest when assaulting with this character" or whatever) The thing with most of the chapters is that, if you ignore the fiction, they are virtually identical, other than having a different colour scheme. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 07:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this, though, is that information can only really come from places like Black Library, which is still considered first party. I understand the need to verify things, but what you say as them being the same with different color schemes is only true when talking about the actual miniatures, because the stories behind them is different for each chapter, and their backgrounds are needed to actually understand the chapter, and why you would play that chapter. Warhammer 40,000 is about more than the different colors, most people actually look into the different motives of their chapter and why their chapter is the way that it is. That information is no longer available on this site, and I believe that a lot of people would rather see that helpful and useful information be present on the site. Can you at least let people vote on whether or not the merge/deletion of the pages was in the best interests of the Warhammer wikipedia section? 13:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earle117 (talk • contribs)

The stories have only marginal relevance in an encyclopedia article. The "different motives of their chapter and why their chapter is the way that it is" is in-universe fiction; WP:FICT specifies what should and should not be in a Wikipedia article that discusses fictional subjects. Fictional elements can be included but must be elaborated on with real-world relevance (i.e. how they affect the game, which is the ONLY "real" thing about the subject) and must have secondary sources to back them up (Black Library, Forge World, and Games Workshop itself are all primary sources and should not be used alone). What we had before was just rehashes and interpretations of plot (see WP:PLOT). Oh... and we build consensus on Wikipedia, we don't vote! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get a listing for a chapter back up, go to User Talk:Tealwisp/Space Marine Chapters and make a case for its inclusion. It has to be notable within the game-world at least, so no fan-chapters,, and no forty-third-and-a-half foundings, unless you can assert their notability. Tealwisp (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In honesty I think a little WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE is needed. The 3rd party rule is stupid and is only used to prevent the articles in question to be added, stop being a damn beauricrat and step aside and let the article go through Ripster40 (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE is for people who know and understand policy to circumvent it for the sake of improving the encyclopedia. It is not for fanboys to be able to skip rules they don't like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is for everyone. If someone believes that they can improve the encyclopedia, but a rule stands in the way, they should ignore it. It's as simple as that. It is not meant for someone who knows every policy by heart, in fact, it is the opposite. It is meant for someone who doesn't know the guidelines to be able to make edits that are constructive, even if they appear to be non-notable or even vandalism. WP:IAR makes sure that anons and new users will keep editing WP, and that their edits will not be reverted just based on a guideline that says something even though the edit is constructive. Tealwisp (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Improving" is not carte blanche to do whatever the hell one wants. There's pretty strong consensus that WP is not improved by allowing anyone to add whatever fancruft they like to it, and there's also a pretty strong consensus that incivility (as demonstrated by needlessly rude comments) is likewise counterproductive. So one can't just shout "IAR" and dismiss that. Anyway, this isn't a productive thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "doing whatever the hell one wants", it's trying to improve the 40k Wikipedia pages by putting information that would be very useful for many of the users. And I think that WP: IAR does apply here, because the only real reasoning for not including the information is the fact that Black Library, GW, and other sources that provide most 40k information are first party, even though they are definitely certifiable sources. earle117 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And the minor issue of almost none of this material having any real-world importance whatsoever. It constantly amazes me that people are so stridently opposed to information not being included on Wikipedia regardless of whether it is of any value to a general encyclopedia, as if there are no other websites more suitable for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, merging all that chapter information into one table is easily the most retarded decision on wikipedia I have ever seen. Utterly pathetic and a true disservice to the 40k hobby. Those responsible should be ashamed of themselves.--Jesse (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the second source material is crap, not only was useful information was deleted because of it, but where the hell is the Black Templars, for christ sake they got there own codex! Ripster40 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, for those of you who want to get a chapter on WP, make a case for its inclusion on the chapter list here. Getting to the point, the absence of third-party notability does not mean that information is not useful. For example, it is very useful to know that Horus was the Warmaster whom betrayed the Emperor, regardless of the fact that there are likely no 3rd party sources. This is based on community consensus, not my own opinion. This is an exception per WP:IAR, similar to the fact that Blood Angels are subject to Black Rage and Red Thirst. There's no third party source for that, but it is relevant to the Space Marine article. Perhaps deep-niche articles such as Adeptus Arbites should be merged, but it could definitely be argued that the first founding warrants a small article. Furthermore, WP:IAR means nothing if it is automatically overruled by every other policy, and if it meant nothing, we wouldn't have it. One could postulate that this actually means that WP:IAR supersedes everything but the five pillars. Tealwisp (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever got the bright idea of removing ALL of that content is brain-dead. You don't delete eighteen articles WITHOUT first coming to a consensus from the community and those in-charge. The rules do not state that, if no third-party source is available, you have to delete it. Do we remove articles on TV shows when the only source is the shows website? No, we fill as much information as we can. The information will be restored as soon as I get ahold of some Wikipedia admins. Paladin Hammer (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Read wikipedia every day, came back to 40k for an interesting read, found entire articles deleted. No point in having a go, just go here if you enjoyed the lost info too. Thank the maker some folk out there know what makes a good read. http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page calbaten (talk) 21.28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is no great mystery. It is what happens when you have one set of people who understand the material and don't understand the format and rationale for presenting it in an encyclopedia, and another set of people who are dedicated to the idea of a nonfictional encyclopedia but don't know the first thing about the material it contains. One side only has crayons. The other side only has dull scissors. People with actual knowledge AND editing ability get disgusted and walk away. The net result, for better or for worse, is a Wikipedia that is worse than useless as a reference for this particular subject and many others. It would have been better in the long run to simply introduce a "no non-fiction" rule from the beginning. Then Warhammer 40k is one page. EVERY non-historic fictional setting would be one page, describing the real-world published work that defines it and its real-world importance as described by third-party sources. Khanaris (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave your preconceptions at home, thanks. I dare say I've forgotten more about 40K than most members of the Project have known. I'm also a skilled and experienced WP editor. That's why I helped bring the main Warhammer 40,000 article up to Good Article standard and strenuously argued to delete most of the fancruft. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've forgotten that much, are you really qualified to be editing these articles? (its a joke, Thumper, don't go after me for a personal attack) But really, I don't consider deletion of fancruft to be productive; integration is productive, deletion is not. Tealwisp (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Universal inclusionism is a minority position around here for good reason. I'm not having that argument here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to make judgments on what people do and the effects of their actions, not on what they might brag about knowing. And all I see from you is exceptionally dull scissors. These content pages are worse than useless in the form you have reduced them to. That is just from going through the edits. Nothing preconceived about it. A decision needed to be reached on the inherent notability or non-notability of fictional material. If fictional material that is not verifiable by third-party analysis is not notable, then none of these pages should exist. You are splitting hairs about what is important to include or not, but the end result is a mass of articles that are incomplete, inconsistently detailed, and inherently disorganized.Khanaris (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And I don't have to take insults from people I don't know. Our notability criteria are clear on what needs to be done here. If you want to help with the deletion of the remaining fancruft then be my guest. Otherwise, there is no need for you to continue to complain about the loss of material which won't be returning. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"there is no need for you to continue to complain about the loss of material which won't be returning." ... you sure sound open to visions of how the Warhammer wiki pages should be. If you saying it won't be returning is enough to ensure that it definitely won't return, that what is the point of having more than one person work on an article? Seriously, it seems no matter how other people propose ideas, you refuse to accept anything other than your preset idea of the Space Marine pages. What happened to consensus? earle117 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An extended, detailed discussion of this issue took place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 quite some time ago. For several years, our notability guidelines have been discussed extensively. Sporadic comments on the Space Marines talk page is not enough to overturn any of that. I only reply here out of courtesy rather than letting people waste their time believing that their opinions on WP's stance on fictional content are correct and then finding themselves reveted without warning by others. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a number of people who are passionate about editing Wikipedia have come to a 'consensus' about what Wikipedia should be. They are also the people who spend a lot of their time nominating pages for deletion and getting involved in the deletion discussions. However the vast majority of readers and editors do not put so much time into Wikipedia, have usually not been involved in these discussions and may or may not believe in the 'consensus' which has been reached by the self-selected minority. Many people who are editors are interested only in a subset of articles and not in the overall politics of the whole of Wikipedia. This results in zealots coming around destroying perfectly good and useful material. There is a reason, of course, for removing material which is illegal (e.g. copyrighted material not supported by a Fair Use rationale), but simply stating 'universal inclusionism is a minority position' and quoting policies concocted by a small number of like-minded zealots is not a valid reason for vandalising other people's work. Whenever this argument comes up there seem to be a lot of users on the relevant Talk page of the page which has been vandalised by a zealot who are opposed to those policies and in favour of the policy of 'if in doubt, include'. The logical thing to do would be to accept the concensus on each individual page. The concensus here, by about four to one appears to be that the edits have gone too far. But of course, accepting this majority view against that of the minority elite wouldn't be acceptable, so WP:VOTE is trotted out. Just because all the more casual users across Wikipedia haven't got together to infiltrate your clique and change your policies does not mean that those policies are right, or enforcable. If you don't like what you see, and are just interested in destroying useful material, please go elsewhere. Bryces (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think Wikipedia, if it wants to cut down the detail of it's material, should send all the detailed information to the specialized wikias. That would be a much better solution. Also, if they must cut down the material of one specific topic or article, we must do this to everything in Wikipedia, but this would tear the whole of the site apart into a bland, uninformative piece of junk. We MUST strive to seek a balance... Erhabenheiten (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We did. Falcorian transwikied quite a few articles to the WH40K Wiki. This is not the first fictional area to receive this treatment and it won't be the last. We'd love to be consistent in what we cover and what we don't, but Wikipedia is a big place. A better grasp of what notability means when it comes to ficitional topics is in the works and has been for quite some time. It's hard to forge a compromise in this area, since there are a wide variety of viewpoints with strong convictions, but hopefully we'll have a well-defined workable standard in the near future. Pagrashtak 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean, it's like stripping all the articles that have to deal with WWII into less than half their current size, and then justifying it by saying "But there's a WWII wikia! Go there!" Erhabenheiten (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the old articles were good first class articles in my book and helped me to figure out the background in warhammer 40k before i even got started. One thing you need to remember about other 40k wikis is that mostly people who already know alot about the game go to these and it is useless for people who are new to the game and have no clue these sites exist. Maybe you need to realize that articles about games set in FICTIONAL storylines should have the FICTIONAL story elements because this seperates that game from other games. If you just listed that star wars was a space-opera that was about good vs. evil and took place across the galaxy, this could describe star trek, warhammer 40k, doctor who, freelancer (game), etc. That is why if you are doing a specific article on something fictional you should elaborate somewhat on the background. I wouldnt go so far to say that you should go into the deep nooks and crannies of the background story, but should elaborate enough that you can tell the difference between it and some other fiction in the same genre.--GundamMerc (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia uses somewhat abstract standards for encyclopedic notability. They have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and they have chosen to do it with third party references. This is the root of the problem with all fictional settings. Fiction does not generate third-party references about the fictional content itself. Third-party references almost always look at the effects a fictional setting has on nonfictional culture, or the nonfictional facts of its existence and creation. So the vast majority of Wikipedia pages dealing with fictional settings can never be viewed as notable, regardless of their interest to the general public. This is true even while Wikipedia preserves acres of subjects that are really only important to a handful of people, but who can find a published article or two that mentions them. Some of the issue is just down to style. You can not say "Space Marines serve the Emperor". They can not serve the Emperor, because neither Space Marines nor the Emperor actually exists. You can say, "In the background of 40k, Space Marines serve the Emperor." That is a nonfictional fact. It describes the nature of something that actually exists as a body of work.

If people were really following the rules, Star Wars should only be one or two pages, describing the non-fictional aspects of the movies, games, and various other publications, including a summary of the setting presented in an out-of-universe way, and using third-party references to describe the cultural importance of the work and the history of its creation. Some aspects of that setting, such as the idea of Jedi, contain enough material to warrant their own pages. But in practice, there are too many enthusiasts for editors to get away with making that sort of change. It only worked with the 40k articles because there weren't enough of that sort to flood the deletion discussions. I think Wikipedia has become somewhat useless where 40k is concerned, but that is really the point. As the content rules exist now, Wikipedia doesn't want to be used that way.

Khanaris (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

another user that just got around to seeing how 40k looks on wikiped... nice guys, good job on deleting all the story elements, the whole "we cant have story if it doesn't effect the game" is bollocks. not to mention this "Chris cunningham" who seams to think that deleting all the chapters pages and making some half arsed graph on a single page to include all the story for each primarch is a good idea -_-. the best option would be just a single page for each first founding chapter (with a short bit about second foundlings of that particular chapter at the bottom of it) and replace that TERRIBLE table on the page with a list making it look much neater. (of course i understand now im prolly going to get banned, chris cuntingham seams like a person who is not prepared to move over any topic he deems is his responsibility and will not accept that the status quo may change or that suggestions can be good) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.120.190 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)