User talk:Primarch

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル) 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never put up a link on Wikipedia, in fact, I don't even know how to put one up yet. I think you have me confused with someone else. Thanks.Primarch 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do. Message stricken. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 05:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius the Eternal

Hi. I'd say you've got two possibilities when that kind of thing happens: you can either do exactly what you've done, which is to flag the matter on the article's talk page (even if it were a non-anon editor, I'd still say this is the right place to discuss things as it relates to the article). If there's no appropriate response there in a few days, remove or edit the section appropriately. The other option would be just to remove the section straight away: it's (in my opinion) clearly original research. Personally, I'd have probably taken the latter option, but then I'm perhaps not known for always being diplomatic with regards to these things. Cheers --Pak21 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kharn

Hey, thanks, its nice to be appreciated lol :D Lowris 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Lords

Hey, uhh dont you think you might have went a bit overboard with the removals on the night lords page, i mean youve cut out most of the history of Konrad Curze and the chapter pages are where that is etc? It all seems a bit drastic Lowris 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't. ;) I think I've brought it more in line with the WP:WAF. The majority of what I removed was either original research or fictional detail unsuitable for an encyclopaedic entry. It was mostly trivial detail that was more or less paraphrased from an IA article. The purpose of the article should not be to tell Night Haunter's story in detail (after all that is what GW is for). I think the vast difference shows just how much fanboysim and purple prose was in the article in the first place.

But surely Night Haunters story should be told, and while i recognize the whole article was written from an in-universe perspective is one of the purposes of a wikipedia article not to provide as much information as possible (as long as it fits with the guidelines yaddy yaddy ya), there was nearly half the article removed, until its decided by the project group thats the way we are tackling such articles surely such drastic measures are unneccessary Lowris 12:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be told- but you'll need to reveal to me what important parts of his story are now missing? Take a look at this Captain Marvel (DC Comics), a page that the WP:WAF puts forward as a shining example. The key elements of Captain Marvel's origin are there without details like what he ate for brekafast, whether he felt irritiable in the mornings or any flowery hyperbole. In any case, I'm going to Bold and stand by my edit. If the rest of the group disagrees, I'm happy to discuss.Primarch 12:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you read carefully you'll see that I corrected facts as well as adding new ones. Just because it looks less chunky doesn't mean it's less informative. It's actually the opposite, if you examine closer.Primarch 12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that his beginning is very important because it speaks of things to come, konrad is one of the most enigmatic primarchs and this should be shown, i dont mean being ridiculous in detail it just seems that valid information has been removed, very well Lowris 12:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns, but again, please point out this "valid information". Remembering that wikipedia could perhaps state that Night Haunter is considered one of the most engimatic primarchs, but it is not our duty to build that sense of enigma around him. Primarch 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know to what extent information was fancruft and what was solid information but i would have though the details of his rise to power as the night haunter should be given as they are given in every other primarchs page, the information on konrad seems a bit sparse compared to others now, though i will admit it is still more than some primarchs have? if wikipedia stated that surely it would have to give proof though Lowris 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the details are there- he became a vigilante, after raising himself. I removed story detail about how he would "lurk" and comparisons to him being a "wild animal" and so on. It's non-factual and pure fictional hyperbole. Consider the Captain Marvel article- it states that he has super powers, like Superman, enhanced strength, speed and invulnerability. Does it need to "prove" it by telling us a story about how Captain Marvel raced a train and then stopped it by putting his head on the tracks? Or does it simply need to cite its sources?

As for the other pages (which aren't primarch pages- this is the problem- the primarchs don't meet the standards for noteworthy characters- so fans have used the legion pages to tell wafty stories about them), I think they're problematic as well. Primarch 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However this isnt an example of their powers, its a part of their history, i always believe that the more information given on a topic the better? the history of a legion and the history of a primarch are inseperable though, given all the work thats been done on these pages i think its too big an issue for one of us to decide on? what u think? the thing is if we decided thats the way we were gonna write these articles and gave proper guidelines for that then i would have to support your edits, its just that people have put a lot of work into them pages and i just have some aversion to removing information lol probably seems stupid Lowris 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand what you're saying- but a lot of that information was either false or paraphrased/copied from the Index Astartes article. If you have a copy of it, read it and compare it to the stuff I deleted- almost copied with a word or two changed here or there. All that history is already in the article- the Wikipedia entry just repeated it. We should report on the article, not retell it. In any case, I did put forward that I was going to bring the article to the same WP:WAF style that Abaddon the Despoiler, Lucius the Eternal and Khârn the Betrayer are written in, on the project page months ago and there were no objections and a couple of blessings. However, I'm willing to take another look and see what can be filled out without becoming a piece of fan fiction. In addition, be bold and feel free to add things yourself! Primarch 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a fair point, see i wouldnt know that because i dont currently have a copy, and it was a long time ago when i read it, but character pages and legion pages should be treated differently, primarchs shouldnt be treated as characters i dont think, purely as history to how the legion came about and how it came to be the way it ended up, sounds good, normally i would have just been bold but seeing as it was you and i admired the work on khârn and lucius etc i just wanted to consult you first, i may add in the odd snippet of information but i guess i should see how this format works out Lowris 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to unregistered user

I have an inkilng that the unregistered user you replied to in my talk page is a sockpuppet for SanchiTachi, and as such I've reported it to checkuser. If that is the case, wheter he's correct or not isn't really that important, as he shouldn't be editting here anyway. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what a 'sock puppet' is, but I'll defer to your knowledge and experience in this regard. You seem to have it in hand! Thanks.Primarch 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Primarch (Fulgrim)

2 reasons:

1. I was being lazy last night and using rollback tools, rather than using the undo option (hence lack of edit summary), and
2. That's not what my canon says - the Emperor's Children article in WD (later epublished in Index Astartes vol 1) says his fate is unknown, but it is believed he was either killed, or elevated to Daemonhood, which is not the same as being possesed by a daemon.

If the possesed by a daemon is from another GW source (I'm guessing the Horus heresy novels), then I think it's better that his fate is listed as unknown, as that's 3 different canonical "endings" for him. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't discuss what's in the HH novels (I haven't read them, though I did try, just couldn't get into them), but if the HH novels are contradicting other published canon (WD, IA, Codexes) then in my view we need to go with the path of least resistant, even if that means putting a boring "fate unknown" for virtually all the primarchs.

Trouble is, GW are (as a company with different arms) totally inconsistent with the treatment of much of their "fluff", and merrily contradict themselves (often within the same book). Also, they never come out and say "X fluff is now superceded by Y", so we can't say that Y is right and X is wrong.

As it is, we have 4 (if not more) published "endings" for Fulgrim

Unknown
Killed in Heresy
Elevated to Daemonhood
Possesed by Daemon

with no way of knowing which is "correct". Therefore, it seems to me the most sensible option is to go with "unknown" with emcompasses the other 3.

Hope that makes sense. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, though I think I'll wait to see what sort of wholesale article deletion they're going to do, because no-one outside GW seems to mention the games. :(

Also, I'll need to dig out my old WDs for mosty of the other IA articles, as I only managed to get my hands on vol.1 before they removed them from sale in my local store. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of all canonical possible fates could work, though I'm not sure how it could be listed without looking to "crufty".

And the problem with taking the newest canon as correct is that more often thean not, the novels (which come out more regularly than the codexes) are often produced "out of house" and have no bearing on what the design studio is saying/doing (see the Soul Drinkers). Of course, it would be so much easier for GW to come out and say "A,B and C are revisions to the history, while X,Y and Z are mistakes", but I can't see them doing that. ;)

By the way, do you have the new Chaos Space Marine codex? If so, what (if anything) does it say on Fulgrim's fate? Just interested, as I think that came out about the same time as the novel? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 11:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] Sorry, didn't make myself clear - I didn't mean that BL was "out-of-house", I meant that the authors were often "out-of-house" (i.e. not directly employed by GW/BL), and sometimes take a few "liberties" shall we say. ;) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.[reply]

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]