Talk:Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Cleaning up wikipedia.

While we are on the topic of making sure all wikipedia topics fall under the guidelines laid down. Can i direct the attention of every law abiding editor to Stargate-SG1. It has pages on "asgard starfleet", "SG-1 epsiode weapons". Correct me if im wrong but wouldnt it fall under the same criteria as the streamlining of space marines? Dont see any third party sources for that either.

MCJesC Sun 12 OCT 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.49.167 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 October 2008

If you find a Wikipedia article that does not meet our standards, feel free to use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Pagrashtak 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Shame

I have been away from these pages for a while and they used to be so good. The fact that they have been deleted shows that the once great source of information that was wikipedia is now just a bog standard encyclopedia. Whilst other encyclopeida articles have peer reviews wikipedia has decieded to used janitors to 'clean' open content. In terms of useful information beyond basic academic info it is clear that what has happened to the W40K pages means that the admins dont want Wikipedia to be the best wiki. Why make wikipedia like the Britannica? The Britannica could not tell me about the Space Wolves. That was what made wikipedia great. I see the same has happened to a lot of Sci-Fi pages. Having read the WP:NOT page I still cant see why good content has been deleted. Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.61.189 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, when I began getting into Warhammer 40k, I came to wikipedia to study the backstory. That was before I knew of sites such as Lexicanum and the such. What the admins dont seem to get is that only the more experienced players go to those sites, while the moderate and casual players go to wikipedia because they have no clue such sites exist. These players make up much if not most of the player base. If they cant find such info here, where are they going to find it? Only if they are lucky will they find such sites.--GundamMerc (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, the wikipedia pages should be short and to the point, and point to the other sites for further information. As the guidelines exist now, there are very few fictional popular culture settings that should have more than a single page describing the non-fictional aspects of their creation and existance and what impacts on society it is possible to reference. Many outside sites using a wikipedia style of formatting exist to describe fictional settings, and in many cases they do a better job of it anyway. This has become particularly true of expansive settings like that of 40k or Star Trek.Khanaris (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Space Wolves and Black Templars

I added a bit about these two chapters as they are not like the other Space Marines in training or organization. I can source from each Codex but I didn't know if there was a better way. Thanks. --BenWoodruff 18:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWoodruff (talk • contribs)

World Eater's Homeworld

It's not Desh'ea. That's the name of the place where Angron's forces retreated to on the world, not the name of the world itself. The author of "After Desh'ea" has stated that it's possible even Angron didn't know the name of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.244.121 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Luna Wolves

When you look at the base of the matter, the heretic legion was really the Sons of Horus and the Black Legion. The named legion Luna Wolves were loyalists all the way through the Heresy. Loyalist before the renaming, and then loyalist when Garviel Loken declared the surviving Marines of the first phase of the Istvaan IV Massacre as once again the Luna Wolves. The naming of the Legion is a touchy subject in my opinion-I don't think that we should label the Luna Wolves as a Loyalist Legion, but definitely note somewhere that the named chapter Luna Wolves referred to two groups, really: the original chapter Horus had before his little dreamland chaos conversion and the remaining Marines on Istvaan after the initial wave of bombardment, and both groups were loyalist. Leonnatus (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blood Ravens

The Blood Ravens is´nt on the list of loyalitist chapers. --80.212.187.89 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Blood Ravens aren't particularly notable, they just happened to have a video game. There are over 100 loyal chapters. We can't have them all here. Tealwisp (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

They aren't exactly a loyalist chapter, though. Aren't the original chapters that allied with the Emperor referred to as the Loyalsist Chapters? Current 40k doesn't exactly refer to anyone as Loyalist unless they're PDF forces under a loyal governor or something... BR should not be listed, agreed.... Leonnatus (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The list displays the original 9 Loyalist Legions who sided with the Emperor in the Horus Heresy. Blood Ravens aren't included because they aren't a First-Founding Chapter, i.e. a former legion. In the current background all non-Chaos or Renegade Space Marines could be described as 'loyalist', but they rarely are since it'd be like saying that water's wet. --Byzantia (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Inspiration" edits

This content is purely speculative original research. it should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to edit it for spelling now, but I do not really think it should be where it is. The source material would need to have explicitly stated that the creators were influenced by those specific ideas. It is not so obvious that they have done so. Space Marines are definitely part of a trope, but that does not mean they were directly inspired by earlier examples of that trope.Khanaris (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work. The current version is a good closing paragraph for the lede, or at least will be once it's referenced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Party Sources

Could someone please tell me what these sources are? Also, why would you use third party sources that could possibly get information wrong, when you could use sources from the makers of the game that would probably be more reliable. As long as you cited it properly, sources from the makers of the game would probably be your best bet on good info. Not only that, but you just get the same info at third party sources, but these are harder to find and not usually as reliable as the original source.--GundamMerc (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that you need third-party sources to cover the nonfictional aspects of the subject. The fictional aspects can be referenced by direct sources, but they can not be the primary focus in a nonfictional encyclopedia. If there aren't any third-party sources, the subject is considered to be too specialized to generate broader interest, and as such fails Wikipedia's notability requirements.Khanaris (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This was taken directly off your talk page.

Third Party sources do not exist to provide notability because the companies involved would consider such sources to be in violation of their IP. Unless the content has existed for long enough to draw academic interest, it can not generate third party sources. This does not accurately cover how noteworthy the information might be, since the strict interpretation of IP rules is an artificial constraint on coverage. I think the notability requirements in this case need to account for the scope of the non-third-party material. There is a big difference in notability between someone that has been mentioned once in a single book and something that has become an icon within a specific community due to use by numerous authors in numerous publications under the same umbrella IP constraints. As it is now, there are hundreds of settings where this problem exists. Books, games, and movies. Almost every comic book younger than 30 years. All but a handful of Star Wars and Star Trek pages. Every medium where fiction can be presented. From the fact these thousands of pages exist here, many of them well-researched and well-written, it can be gathered that this is something people are interested in preserving in an encyclopedic format.

I may have misconstrued the meaning somewhere in there, but it seems to me to be saying that many times 3rd party sources are either rare or are non-reliable because the company that produced said IP wont allow them.--GundamMerc (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New Alterations

I noticed when I returned to the space marine page that some of my additions, have been removed and a LOT of poor quality fluff has been added. There may have been a discussion about any changes I dunno I can't check here very often, my point is is anyone gonna have a fit if I return the page to its last form? (more or less) Jarrik32 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the DoW 2 article; storyline crap all over it. I can't do anything about it too, since I really don't have the time. The SM page needs simply the background given in all the codexes and not much else. Expand a bit into literature and video games. Leonnatus (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some trimming. Content aside, the writing style was too flowerly in many cases. It shouldn't be dry, but the purpose is to convey information rather than tell a story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanaris (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Revisions

I've tried cleaning up some of this article with regard to the need to reduce in-universe content. I've added brief appearance and playstyle sections relating to the tabletop game & the models rather than fictional history, and the fiction itself has been reorganised to make it more coherent. In particular, I've made clear distinctions between pre- and post-Heresy, as the prior situation was extremely confusing for the uninitiated - Chapters and Legions were being confused, and the application of some subtitles and rearranging the elements to follow the in-universe timeline a little more closely should hopefully make the article more understandable. I also added references to the criticism and organisational sections. Is this closer to what needs doing? --Byzantia (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The capsule description of the Dark Angels is off- they're not inspired by the Teutonic Knights, as that's the Black Templars. To follow that with a potentially confusing sentence, the Dark Angels have much more in common with the historical Knights Templar- suspicion from an Inquisitorial Force, uniforms and regimental structure that draw from monastacism, secrecy, and a relationship (by way of names) with Earth's Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.235.141 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Can we ditch the whole Criticism section? It has absolutely zero value. It's basically a very verbose way of bitching that Space Marines are really popular. I'm pretty sure that there are so many models and Black Library books about them because people are shelling out money for that stuff. Games Workshop is a business and not a group of dedicated Dark Eldar fanboys churning out sweet custom models in their spare time. But I fail to see how any of that warrants mentioning here. I could personally do without seeing another Gaunt's Ghosts novel, but I don't log onto the Imperial Guard page to complain about it and mention that the Tau Codex could use a new revision.

You are absolutely fething right. What the hell? THE TABLETOP DOES NOT PORTRAY SPACE MARINES AS A STORYLINE WOULD! No one would play then! The tabletop is about game balancing the units out so as to offer a wide range of available tactics (and business, as you said). I'm pretty damn sure the last sentence of the pointlessly stupid article at the end is referring to Brothers of the Snake. Balance techniques do not involve books; why are the Jedi of the Star Wars universe so easy to kill in video games but not in the books? There is no basis for the entire criticism section. I will wait for someone else to agree upon this. Leonnatus (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Night Lords were forced to Chaos by attack of Empire loyalists

Please,make some info on Night Lords since they had not betrayed Emperor,but were attacked by loyalists because of their reputation ,not because they changed side to Horus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Templars??

What category would you put the Black Templars in? -- Larry MacDuff (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No new posts, epic fail.. -- Larry MacDuff (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)