Talk:Chaos Space Marines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Warhammer 40,000 on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-07-19. The result of the discussion was speedy keep, nominator sockpuppet of blocked user.

Contents

[edit] Comment

The Chaos Space Marines are kind of complicated to paint and are good in close combat. In the dawn of war game the graphics are really good and give you a good pespective as to what they look like in real life (Note:they aren't actually real i was reffering to the models)-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.128.18 (talk • contribs)

What does this have to do with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.240 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is odd...

The way I've always understood it is that the Black Legion are the devoted warriors of Chaos Undivided,not the word bearers. -Grim- 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the last codex (the current one [I don't think the new one is out yet?]), the Word Bearers raise temples and things to the glory of Chaos. The Black Legion follow no single Chaos power, including Undivided, but can (and do) follow any power they individually choose. In fact, according to the older fluff, the Black Legion suffered from a shortage of marines due to the constant swapping of the power(s) they followed. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Chaos!

Poor Chaos Space Marines! They look, almost, well, scorned! ROFL! Then again... who doesn't scorn them? Not to mention people everywhere are looking down on them as evils. I have personal reasons why I don't ever interact or even look at the Chaos Space Marines, but that doesn't mean they ought to be scorned. Colonel Marksman 20:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Scorn them....I pwn my friends Tau my other friends Space marines and My cousins necrons with my chaos space marine army...they are not to be scorned they are to be feared.

Who cares! Your army and your personal veiws have nothing to do with wikipedia, wikipedia is not about peoples persoanal opinions. --Deathtopplintheir40s 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

I have:

  • An overall page of general guidelines
  • A list that defines different types of articles on differt subjects
  • For Armies "Army Page"
  • For Technology "Technology Page" (equivalent to "Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment Page", or, "WVE page")
  • For Notable Planets "Notable Planet Page"
  • (User:Pak21 already made guidelones for notable characters, but a link to that is included)
  • A statement of purpose for my guidelines
  • Left room for more guidelines to come

--Nothing offical will be done with the guidelines (moved or put to use) until several Wikipedians involved in the Warhammer 40,000 project have verified it.-- Colonel Marksman's Proposed Guidelines

Colonel Marksman 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos Space Marines and Horus Heresy

There is much better Horus Heresy article available already, do we really need to have another one here? I think a short note should be enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.51.254.240 (talk • contribs) .

I agree entirely. If you've got time, please be bold and improve things. Cheers --Pak21 20:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Corsairs

Someone should add a section about the Red Corsairs and the The Maelstrom. I don't have the information with me but I know it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.154.111 (talk • contribs)

Wow, how did that get missed? I'll see about adding a blurb about post-Heresy Chaos Marines this evening. --DarthBinky 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup done; keep recruitment?

I did a pretty big cleanup of this article yesterday. I cut out a lot of extraneous info that can be discussed in wikified articles- as someone else mentioned, there was already an article about the Horus Heresy, so another discussion of it here is just redundant. Same goes for talking about details like Abaddon's relationship with Horus (discussed in Abaddon's article) or the fates of the various Primarchs (discussed in the article for the relevant legion).

The one thing I felt uneasy about was the "recruitment" section. I cut it down significantly, but I feel that it really doesn't need to be in a general article about Chaos Marines; that sort of minutiae seems to me to be outside the realm of an encyclopedia (except maybe an encyclopedia dedicated specifically to the subject). I left the section for now, but I'd like to remove it- so if someone can think of a reason to keep it, please, post it.

I also welcome any further help anyone wants to give, of course. Just remember that this doesn't need to entirely replicate all of GW's background "fluff"- it just needs the basics to give people an idea of what they are should be sufficient. If someone wants to get more in-depth info, they can go to the Lexicanum wiki (I think that's what it's called), or buy the books like we did. :)

Cheers --DarthBinky 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jetbikes, Landspeeders

I was thinking after reading many of the new books on the Horus Heresy and the visions of heresy,etc; it seems to show that the Warmasters forces did actually have jetbikes, landspeeders and various other vehicles that are currently not on GW's production lines (including a super heavy tank). Also during the Heresy, well over half of the Adeptus Mechanicus did join the Warmaster's forces, so they should be able to take care of their own vehicles especially the Iron Warriors.

Also it may be worth mentioning that the pre-heresy Space Marines are a lot stronger than the M.40 Marines (due to the degeneration of the Primarch's Gene-seed, the technology that makes the armour is also degenerating and the standard Marines also have a lot less experience in combat than the Chaos Space Marines), therefore the Chaos Space Marines should have an advantage over standard Marines.

Thanks for reading -- Craig-sama 23.29 15 April 2007 (BST)


Where does it say the Gene-seed is degenerating?

[edit] Improvements

Someone needs to update the Chaos Space Marines to standards like the other armies of Warhammer 40,000. It can't be me, because I know almost jack squat. Colonel Marksman 00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Codex-Chaos Space Marines.jpg

Image:Codex-Chaos Space Marines.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Chaos Space Marines Page

The individual pages are not notable. The main page is notable. The subpages only exist with the main page and contain too much excess and fan fluff. The only way to keep the Chaos Space Marines page is to combine them all. The masses seem to want to keep the main page, but the others are not significant. The person who reverted my edit is a blatant liar, because the Articles for Deletion page has a Merge All as a third vote, and others proposing similar things. NobutoraTakeda 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

However, no consensus has been agrred upon, on wheter to leave the articles "as is", merge them or delete them. Until such time, a merge should not happen.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, according to the AfD at the moment (and I realise the AfD hasn't been up long), the consensus is for the articles to be kept, so performing a merge is premature. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats funny because I haven't performed a merge. The other pages are still there. I only moved in vital information to explain who the Chaos Space Marines are and I added third party sources which people like you refused to yet still wanted the page kept. If you really care about the page why don't you help improve it instead of deleting things not added by you? Plus, the consensus is that the pages have serious issues, even those who agree that the topic should be kept say that it needs to be fixed. NobutoraTakeda 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You own edit history said you merged two of the pages. If you didn't actually merge the pages (just copied the info) then fine, but that still doesn't negate the point that the current consensus is to keep the seperate pages, and not to merge them.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Current concensus isn't anything. Here is what everyone says:

  • Me - Delete
  • Corpx - Delete
  • Haemo - Merge All
  • Xezbeth - Keep with reason that its " wonkery gone mad" and personal attacks which isn't a strong reason
  • Pak21 - Keep but no justification to keeping the secondary pages
  • Jreferee - Keep and relist the others, meaning the subpages are problematic
  • You - Keep all.

Thats 2 deletes, 2 people who say that the sub pages have problems, 1 person who doesn't have any justification to keep, 1 person who didn't mention a justification to keep the other pages, and you. That looks like consensus is that the sub pages are problematic and the only way to satisfy all parties is by merging the sub pages who are not notable on their own so that they all share in the main page's notability which I have gone to great lengths to establish. NobutoraTakeda 22:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos Space Marines page

Hey all,

Forgive me for saying so, but all else aside, Wikipedia is an online source of information, right? I was pleasantly surprised to find the CMS articles - including information on specific Legions, Primarchs, etc. within the treasure trove that is Wiki. With regard to secondary sources, naturally there are few, as the entire thing is owned and created by Games Workshop. Realistically, you'd encounter similar problems with something like Star Wars. Sure, there may be different publications that are all consistent, but that's because it's all carefully vetted and approved by Lucasfilm anyway. My point is, how can you expect a wealth of secondary sources for something like this? Surely the spirit of the thing is to allow more people more access to this sort of information, should they want it. It's likely only fans will be looking, in any case. As to merging all the articles into one, well, could you imagine just merging everything about Star Wars into one article? Clearly, it would be burdensome, way too big, and wouldn't work. Warhammer 40K is that huge (well, almost). It is decades old, in one form or another, and a game that is enjoyed worldwide. Are we not being a little precious about maintaining some sort of objectivity and factual integrity, when, with all said and done, we are talking about a vastly successful work of fantasy? Would we lambast a Tolkien article which told us all about the history of Middle Earth, and had sub articles on Rohan, Gondor, etc. and say that it had to all be merged into one "Tolkien" page?

Just my $0.02...

Gamer and Wiki Surfer Canada 24.137.95.154 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars has thousands of respectable and reliable sources discussing the various topics and issues of the films. Chaos Space Marines do not. Each topic has to be notable on its own. Many of the Tolkein topics are. Others like Tolkein horses are not. NobutoraTakeda 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I'm not quite sure what's going on with the recent edits to this page, but they were broken in formatting, and removed large chunks of the article so I have reverted them. If there's actual content to be added here, please do it, but also please ensure that you don't break the page while doing it. Cheers --Pak21 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Codex

OK, sorry to say, and i know that alot of you people agree that the new chaos codex is the 4th but im cirtain that it is the 5th, i have been to the games workshop and asked about it and every employee has told me that its the 5th, now you really cant fight with that, they kind of have to know this stuff, its kinda....well you know.......there job. If you could give me an explination on why you think the people who would know this stuff for a fact are really wrong and you guys who dont know for a fact are right. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathtopplintheir40s (talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained to you, "I talked to <xyz>" is not verifiable and therefore not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia independent of the identify of <xyz>. Please provide some verifiable evidence for your claim. A very good example of this would be the ISBNs of the five editions you are claiming have been released. As a start, I'll give you:
  • ISBN 1872372473 (released for the 2nd Edition of 40k rules)
  • ISBN 1869893492 (released 1999 for the 3rd Edition of 40k rules)
  • ISBN 1841543225 (released 2002, still for the 3rd Edition of 40k rules)
  • The edition released in September for the 4th Edition of 40k rules (can't find an ISBN for this one trivially)
Exactly which other edition are you claiming has been released? --Pak21 12:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, im trying to get my point across calmly, unlike the tyms i usualy do it. I dont have any IBMN's for the new 1, infact i dont have a clue what your on about, but my point stands. I think the people who work at the games workshop would know a little more then you. And if you disagree then what the hell, when did u work at the games workshop?, how long for? Now i know the last tym i said this you cracked the shits, mainly because its a damn good point, if you go to the games workshop and ask about the new chaos codex they will tell you the same thing. And you have not explained to me repeatedly, you have once, and in that time i have gotton more proof of this. Now i dont know why a person like you has suckh a big deal on this subject, i mean dont you go out, because it seems like you know every edit i make within minutes, now dont you have better things to do, like um i dunno, a job. or maybe a friend, i mean everyone has at least 1 friend, even the biggest nerds of all have 1 friend! and i know your gonna try and block me for saying this and i think you will because i make a good point. and it offends you to know that someone out there has different veiws then yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathtopplintheir40s (talk • contribs) 10:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. It doesn't matter what the people there have told you. Unless it is available as a reliable source, it should not be included in Wikipedia. You would also be advised to not make any more personal attacks or, yes, you will end up being blocked again. --Pak21 10:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

U know what, im not a full on expert editor on wikipedia, and yeah i only have verble proof about the codex, so ill wait till one of you have some proof that can be used on wikipedia. So i give up, this isnt the 1st tym iv seen articals on wikipedia that are wrong, so ill let you give people the wrong idea about the codex and therefor giving people the wrong infomation. So ill let you deal with this --Deathtopplintheir40s 12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


There *are* five books for Chaos in 40k, however, the first one is not known as Chaos Space Marines, but does include rules for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_Chaos_(Warhammer) Sybaronde 09:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

U dont wanna be a part of this mate, there are accually 6 chaos codexes but 2 are not called codex's --Metal to the Max! 10:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is outdated

The new codex has been released and i noticed some of the information in this is outdated. Although the image is of the new codex, it only makes refrence to the 2002 version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.187.238 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, look out buddy, if you question any of the codex infomation user:Pak21 will have a go at you for not agreeing with his opinions as you can see he has done with me serveral times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathtopplintheir40s (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

@Deathtopplintheir40s WP:NPA. People disagree with your opinion, because you've yet to supply verifible proof as to why the currently held opinion is incorrect, whereas the is verifible proof that this is the 4th edition of the codex.

@211.30.187.238 - Yes, the article needs updating to take in the changes presented in the new codex. If you have a copy, then please do so. Unfortunately, not everyone has their hands on a copy yet, so can't update it (I know no store here has one yet). Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say people i think you mean yourself, yeah i agree that i dont have valid proof, but im sure its the 5th codex, and i know im not the only one who thinks so --Deathtopplintheir40s 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with having proof to back up your story but I can tell you that the new codex is in fact the 5th edition. Lots of people do not realise that the 1st codex was a supplementary one but it still counted as a codex!(exuse my crude descriptions) the 2nd edition was the one with abbadon standing on a pile of skulls, the 3rd was the one that had a chaos marine without a helmet staring at you and the fourth was with the 2 chaos marines shooting about. I have a white dwarf (#332) showing the 2nd and 3rd codex's with pictures but it does not have the one that has 2 marines on it. So that one with the 2 marines cannot have been the 2nd or 3rd and I doubt that was the 1st edition because it has been selling in the games workshop until late 2007 so it must be the 4th edition. Thus proving the new codex is the 5th edition. Halo legend 00 12:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What supplementary one? Again, just saying something exists without offering any verifible proof is not "proving" anything. The pics from WD332 (UK edition) with Abbadon is the codex for the 2nd edition game, the first edition of the game that had codexes. Before that, there were no Codexes, just army lists presented in various publications (for example, Realm of Chaos). So are you saying there was a codex released for the Rogue Trader version of the game, before they released any other codexes? Or are you trying to count the army list as a codex? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant, that the 1st army list as you say was still counted as the 1st edition. you dont have to agree but this is what I beleive is true. Also my white dwarf is aus edition and it says "the covers for the 2nd and 3rd edition.Halo legend 00 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's where you're getting confused then. THe first army list isn't counted as a Codex, it was just an army list. GW didn't start to produce Codexes until the 2nd edition game. So the first CSM was for 2nd edition 40K, there were 2 codexes for CSM under 3rd editon (the 2nd and 3rd edtion), and the bn=new one is the 4th edition of the codex, for what is now the 4th edition game.
If your reasoning was correct, then the Daemonhunter codex would be the 2nd editons, as it had an early army list, even though GW said this was the first time the =I= had a codex.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, using that reasoning, this would be the 7th codex, as there was the list that was presented in the Black Codex (the one that came with the 2nd boxset), and there was the army list that was printed in the back of the 3rd ed rulebook.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If what your saying is true then that means the codex with the 2 chaos marines on the cover is the second 3rd edition. Is this correct?Halo legend 00 12:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The minor infomation booklets are not counted as codexes, therefor you darkson are overreacting, Halo legend 00 is correct when it comes down to this, the first deamonhunters booklets are not counted because they had such little content therefor not given the status of a codex. Thus making the new edition of chaos codex the 5th. If there is anything im possibly missing on this then please say so, thanks. --Deathtopplintheir40s 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point that you're choosing the definition of "Codex" to fit the answer you want to get. --Pak21 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thats the mistake iv been making, sorry for the inconvenience, i truly thought the new 1 was the 5th. Thank you for correcting me on this. --Deathtopplintheir40s 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have changed the definition of the new codex to the 2007 edition and i think that this is the best way to go about it. Good job. Halo legend 00 01:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Consittering the wide dispute about this, and some people seem to know alot about the codex's, why dont we make a page on the codex's, it wouldnt be hard for those of you who know alot about it as u all make out u do, that way you will have a reference to what codex each is, for eg: some of the older codex's were not called Codex's, if there were a story behind that people would ask alot less questions and get alot more info. --Metal to the Max! 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)