Talk:Codex (Warhammer 40,000)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Eye of Terror#The Worldwide Campaign|Eye of Terror]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Codex: Sisters of Battle (3rd Edition)

There should be an entry for C: SOB as an obsolete 3rd Edition Codex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.209.242 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. SOB was a second ed codex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.83.226 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable citation

The citation for this line:

"Next in line for an update are The Space Wolves, while the rumours for those next for replacement in 2010 are Necrons, and Dark Eldar,[1]."

has two problems:

1) It links to an entire forum, and not even a specific thread.

2) The forum is dedicated to rumors.

Sorry, just noticed this. The citation links to a rumour roundup sub-forum, with very few posts, and that contains sources. The sentence actually states that these are the rumoured next releases that are being cited. 79.77.134.153 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the revisions making this page up-to-date (i.e. June 2008 rather than January) been deleted?79.69.147.180 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the revisions removed correcrtly referenced material. I've now incorparated some of your edits into the previous version. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obselete codexes are now included under the codexes as of June 2008. Surely they should be removed, otherwise it should be a list of all codexes since the term was first used in 2nd ed (e.g. include codex Angels of Death, Ultramarines, Craftworld Eldar etc. etc.) it makes no sense to include Assassins or Cityfight in the references but not these. Furthermore, some of the information is inaccurate, such a Catachans being superceded by the second 3rd ed IG codex. It was, but then an updated, 4th ed online codex was published, which AFAIK is now gone from GW's Site .Special:Contributions/92.9.171.196|92.9.171.196]] (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, loving this page, but I noticed the Catachan link no longer works. I found the new link, so I thought I would share it so the page could be updated. 72.137.229.69 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the page is: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=cat1020004&aId=3400016

the direct pdf link is: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180160_Codex__Catachans.pdf

Unless superceded by a later (4th edition/version 2) codex, all 3rd editions are valid, which is why they're still listed. However, I agree that a list of 2nd edition codexs could (should be added), though a remark will need to be made to show that the 2nd edition codexs are not valid, even if they've not been superceded by a later one (not that I can think of one).

The online Catachan list was the same as the one in Codex Catachan, so the one in the IG codex is still the newest. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The online Catchan codex was different, with a 4th ed codex cover.79.77.219.226 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the one I downloaded. Different cover - yes, but same list. Unfortunately the PC where's it's saved is in for repairs, so I can't check it.Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Armageddon is obselete. Orks, Space Marines, and IG have all beeen redone since. Plus Assassins is still in the list, although noted as superceded.79.77.219.226 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Space Marine Codex.jpg

The image Image:Space Marine Codex.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Codex (Warhammer 40,000). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codexes vs Codices

It's a stylization choice. It's clearly linked to the High Goth language of the universe. We don't correct "exterminatus" to "exterminate", so why correct this? Where applicable we should use "codices", and where applicable "codexes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.199.68 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]