User talk:Tealwisp/Space Marine Chapters/Archive 1

Page creation

I've created this article in an attempt to help clean up the Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) article, by removing the large chunk of text that was the list of Later Founding Chapters.

Over the next few days, I will try to add as much information as possible, and hope to end up with a canon list (there are several here that I believe are fan creations and not a part of Games Workshop canon. Please help in any way you can. Saberwyn 06:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Homebrews

These Chapters, as far as I believe, are fan creations, not canon. By canon, I mean that the Chapter must be abe to produce at least a single line of material for this article, derived from either a Rulebook, a Codex, or a Games Workshop publication. Articles from White Dwarf Magazine are a case-by-case basis.

• Avalon Blades
• Eternity's Guardians
• Emperors Blood
• Hellhawks
• Rangers of Khar
• Sons of Light
• Vanguard Legion

If someone can confirm or deny their existence, I will be much appreciative, but I will be deleting these entries, along with all entries bearing no information, in a few days time. Saberwyn 22:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Cull

For every Chapter name I didn't recognise from the various codexes and rulebooks, I plugged "Chapter name + Warhammer" into google. These are my results

• Avalon Blades - Zero results. Removing Warhammer from the string brought up an odd kind of celing fan. Gone
• Eternity's Guardians - Wikipedia, 40K based wikis and message board queries about if they're canon or not, which go unreplied. Gone
• Emperors Blood - "...my own DIY chapter (Emperors Blood). Found on a message board. Gone
• Hellhawks - Personal chaper of a mod-wannabe on a 40K fanfiction site. Gone
• Rangers of Khar - All results are for various wikis. Gone
• Sons of Light - Personal chaper of a mod-wannabe on a 40K fanfiction site. Gone
• Vanguard legion - Lists of online gaming clans. Gone

I'm going to wipe these now, along with any entries that are name only. Saberwyn 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Further Removals

• Storm Dragons - Homebrew Chapter, notable for having female Marines, which contradicts canon. Removed 03:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC), Saberwyn

• "Brotherhood of Light" and "Crusaders of Ultra" - No Google responses for "*chapter*" "Space Marine". Deleting these chapters 23:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC), Saberwyn

• Storm Ravens - Founded in the 40th millennium, but also the Raven Guard survivors of the Drop Site Massacre and led by ex-Imperial Fists Librarians. If that ain't Homebrew, I don't know what is! Deleted 03:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC), Saberwyn

• Another cull...
  1. Storm Dragons (Again) - I have seen no evidence of a canon chapter under this name.
  2. Mentor Legion - Not a Second Founding Chapter as listed in 3rd or 4th edition Codex: Space Marines. (Apparently in 1st ed, but not a Second Founding Chapter.
  3. Hawk Lords - Chapter is real but information beyond first paragraph is fancruft.

Removing/editing all 03:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC), Saberwyn

• In the past week I've removed Crimson Shades, Thylacines, Puke Drinkers, & Solar Eagles. I could only find information proving the first chapter was official (listed simply as being 'known in name only' and not from the novels), the Thylacines only resulted in vague unrelated references, and the lastest couldn't be found at all. Unless they're extremely new I'm sticking with the descision to remove their listings as fancruft. --Utsanomiko 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for the help! --Pak21 10:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mentor legion I think is another name for the mentors. General Aion 05:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Ravens

Erm... If a chapter were to specialize in last stands, wouldn't they all be dead? :p Just an observation; not sure what if anything to do about it. Rogue 9 23:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am suspect about that one, now that you mention it. Saberwyn 01:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Destruction of the Lamenters

Does anyone have a canonical source as to whether the Lamenters were completely destroyed by the Tyranids or not? Various IPs have now edited this both ways. Cheers --Pak21 09:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Let's answer my own question: to quote from the UK Games Workshop site: "Today, barely three companies of the Lamenters are at large in the galaxy, and it would seem their curse of sorrow and ill fortune follows them still". Unless there is "more" canonical evidence pointing the other way, I'll revert things to the version saying "almost" destroyed. --Pak21 09:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'll support that move. Saberwyn 09:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Black Library sources

Is a reference to a Space Marine Chapter which is only made within a Black Library (or pre-Black Library) novel considered canon, or must it be backed up with further references from a rulebook, codex etc? I believe so, based on the text at THIS Wikipedia article, but was not certain, so I wanted to confirm that others shared this point of view before making any amendments. The Chapter I have in mind is The Terror Tigers, mentioned in Ian Watson's Harlequin novel (pages 119-120 in my hardback edition - don't know about the paperback). --Helicon_One 20:34 22 January 2006

• What's the chapter, whats the reference, and how 'important' is it to the book(s) the chapter features in? -- Saberwyn 01:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• If it only gets mentioned on a page or two, I really don't think there's enough material to safely add it. -- Saberwyn 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Notability / sources

What would people think about a policy that says that any new additions to the list get deleted on sight unless they include (canon) sources? Too draconian?? Cheers --Pak21 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I generally work to this rule anyway, so I support it. It can help to prevent articles from becoming madly uncontrollable. -Localzuk ^(talk) 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the problem is the lack of enforced citation (as it seems many of us check for sources anyway and delete guilty entries). The issue seems to be ones who don't realize this isn't the place for unofficial Chapters. The article simply states in its first sentence it's a canonical list, and I suspect some don't recognize that meaning. I think what it needs is an extra sentence roughly stating "This list does *not* include fan creations, Golden Demon Winners, Chapters known exclusively by name, and White Dwarf creations (in general)".

That should at least prevent honestly mistaken contributors from adding semi-official ones like Jade Warriors or Crimson Shades, which are the hard ones to verify. It won't stop the cheesy DIYs, but those are honestly obvious to spot and so juvenile they're borderline vandalism. If it fails to curb either group, go ahead and make the source policy official. --Utsanomiko 06:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've added something to the start – let's see what effect this has. Cheers --Pak21 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Question on Sources

Well, first to all as statement, that informations gathered from Black Library novels are not to be fully trustet (as example, in "Warrior Brood" is shown a really miserable picture, don't even dare to trust this novel). Then I would be pleased to know whre the informations about the "Scythes of the Emperor" come from, because I couldn't find anything in the WWW.

A worried User. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.145.251.221 (talk • contribs) .

• In regard to the Black Library novels, they are only used as secondary sources. However, they are canon, so what they say is "truth" (for a given value of "true"). Secondly, the Scythes information is from much older sources than most players possess... I'd have to track down one of my mates and cull through all his 1st and 2nd edition material to find where it was pulled from. -- Saberwyn 21:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. But I'm afraid the sources for my worries aren't from the 1./2. edition, because I like to know where the informations about the Scythes in the damocles crusade come from, which can only be 3./4. Edition material. Thanks a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.145.210.90 (talk • contribs) .

Found it. Damocles Gulf Crusade. Page 58-60 of the first Tau codex. -- Saberwyn 09:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rainbow Warriors

Anyone know if this is canon or not? I've never heard of them, but there are some references around on the web mentioning them in Rogue Trader contexts. On the other hand, they are also mentioned as a successor chapter. Cheers --Pak21 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They're existing since '87, from the beginning of Rogue Trader. But there's nothing else known about them.

Rainbow Warriors are mentioned in a few places - the first one that comes to mind was a big list of chapters imnm one of the catalogues GW made. They do sounds kinda suspect, but I think they're an Ultramarines decendant. Ryan Magley 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They're a real chapter and appear on Games Workshop's list of SM chapters and in the original Rogue Trader book. They also have their Emblem in the game Space Crusade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.176.29 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Raptors

The Space Marine Chapter Gallery clearly shows the Raptors as having a dull grey-green "camoflague" colour scheme. What sources do we have for the reversion to blue/yellow after third edition? (I'm guessing Fire Warrior, but I don't have a copy...).

More generally, I'll started a discussion on the canonicity of the chapter gallery at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Inclusion Guidelines#Space Marine Chapter Gallery.

• Fire Warrior was Third Edition era, shortly after the Tau first appeared. I've got a funny feeling that this was where the change was made to grey-green, but don;t quote me on that. As for reversion, none of my bro's 4th-ed books show the Raptors at all, so I can't verify. -- Saberwyn 20:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How To Paint Space Marines shows the 'reversion'. -- saberwyn

Valedictors

In the case of chapters/legions like this, I suggest that it would be best to simply present the evidence, contradictory though it may be. In this case there are is a rather large (15 page) article about the Valedictors, complete with chapter organization, colour schemes, symbols, war machines, etc, and a full battle report (12 pages), all stating unequivically that they participated in the Heresy. This is contradicted by a single line in a list of Marine Chapters in WD235. To say that one source is canon and the other is not is not, in the opinion of this writer, ours to make. Like the situation with the Raptors' colour scheme, above, we should simply present the evidence in an evenhanded fashion, regardless of what sort of universe-shattering implications said evidence might imply.

• Canon, in reference to the 40k universe, has changed over the course of the four editions of the game. Information is correct until contradicted. The status of the Valedictors has been contradicted, both by the WD article you cited, and by the Legion lists in Codex: Space Marines (3rd and 4th ed). I'd be more than happy to accept that these guys were once a Legion, but they are no longer a canonical Legion. -- Saberwyn 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• The concept of canonicity is borrowed from theology. Using the Christian Bible as an example: When the Old Testament (written earlier) is contradicted by the New Testament (written later), one does not discard the Old Testament as "non-canon," or pretend that the offending passage is no longer valid. One must attempt to understand and reconcile the whole, occasionally through rather convoluted logic. When understanding is impossible, one must simply accept the apparant paradox and move on. In this case, we have two sources of equal canonicity (both WD articles) which appear to directly contradict eachother. We either need to find a theory which fits the facts, and doesn't contradict any other existing canon, or, if that is impossible, accept the paradox and move on. On the subject of the legion lists, they are quite explicitly left with two empty slots in them, indicating merely that by M41, the records of those legions have been lost. Well, I'm going to create an account rather than posting under these various IP numbers.
  • A few points in reply
    1. The New Testament was not designed to 'replace' the Old Testament. Warhammer 40,000 is not a mainstream religion with a several-thousand-year history, and doesn't look like becoming one anytime soon. Also, the two Testaments of the Bible look at 2 different periods: Pre-Christ and Post-Christ (note I'm really generalising here, I don't study the Bible), was written in hindsight over several long periods of time by many different people, and can be considered historical. However, all the fluff for the 40k fictional universe is designed specifically for the 41st millennium-based game, was written by a small number of people, who have later made sweeping changes to the original information (Squats is one example that springs to mind, the almost complete ignoration of much information from the Rogue Trader-era is another).
    2. We have two articles, one written after the other. Without seeing the articles themselves, I can't comment fully, but in most fictional universes, newer material over-rides older material.
    3. Legion lists: Games Workshop said at the time they first created this list was that the two "deleted" Legions were deliberately left blank so players could make up their own, non-canonical legions. If I can find that declaration again, I'll cite it.
    4. We either need to find a theory which fits the facts, and doesn't contradict any other existing canon... This statement is a direct contravention of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. For a Wikipedia article, we can either accept that they were a Legion, but aren't anymore, or we can pray one of the Powers That Be over at Nottingham write up something for White D solving the problem. We can not do this ourselves. -- Saberwyn 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I'm with Saberwyn on this one: the concept of "current" canon is something which is well established within fictional universes, and the current canon states that the Valedictors are not a First Founding Legion. The inconsistency is worth noting, though. Cheers --Pak21 10:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't entirely agree with this idea, that current canon replaces old canon (it doesn't seem to be supported by the "canon - fiction" article," for one thing. This sort of thing would lead to the Sensei Cult of the Star Child to be retconned into a Tzeentchian Cult. I consider the "Marvel Universe" approach (with everything being crammed into a single box) to be inappropriate to the 40K universe, where ignorance rules, lies guard the truth, and history is revised by the powers that be. The Squats are a partcularly bad example, by the way, as they are merely conspicuous by their absense; they haven't been mentioned much lately. No one ever said that they never existed, they just don't write about them very often. They still apear in some official sources, however. All that aside, I am satisfied with the current revision of the Valedictor's entry, so this is probably dust in the wind.

--Pariahpress 18:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why dont we add a section "old space marine chapters" or put them in and say they were removed? General Aion 05:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Blood Dragons

This looks very much like fancruft to me: can anyone cite a canonical source? Cheers --Pak21 14:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fancruft. Removed. -- Saberwyn 09:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Blood Dragons, as far as one recalls, are not fancruft, but I might be confusing them with the Dragon Warriors. One of the two (or something) similar is mentioned in the latest Codex Chaos Space Marines - they wear red scaly power armour and are noted for having a silly amount of melta and flamer weapons. It doesn't say whether they're a fully renegade chapter, or even a splinter (cheers Gav), so I'll allow better men to look into this and decide whether they should be listed. Fuji606 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Traitor Chapters

Whilst looking thorugh the list i noticed that severeal traitor chapters were missing, namely: The Pyre Children of Purgatos Warp Ghosts - (added) Extinction Angels - (added) The damned company of Lord Caustos - (added)

I know they arn't fan created because they featured in the Chaos collecters guide (along with the Traitor legions) and in Codex: Chaos Space marines (along with the Steel Cobras, Violators and Sons of Malice)

Will they be added to the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.168.41 (talk • contribs) .

Be bold, especially as it looks like you're that one with the verifiable source for the information. Cheers --Pak21 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added the Damned company of Lord Caustos, and was wondering where should the Pyre go? I the "p" or "T" sections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shock Trooper (talk • contribs) .

"P", possibly dropping the "The" prefix altogether (if you see what I mean...). Also, if you could add the source from which you got each piece of information in a "References" subsection, that would be much appreciated. Cheers --Pak21 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i've added several other traitor chapters but i won't add the "children of Purgatos" or The "Pyre", because i couldn't find any info on them.

All of these chapters are offical. General Aion 05:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Warp ghosts

in uk WD 281 p44 it mentions a chapter called "warp ghosts" in the list of eye of terror chaos forces. they're listed as "a thankfuly rare example of a formerly loyal space marine chapter that abandoned its vows of fealty to the emperor" check it out please. Invisible_pyromanic_leprechaun

They arn't a fancruft chapter, i will add what little info their is on them next. Shock 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Subjacators

Do you think i should add some more info on them? I know that around twenty of the first company turned into a race of aliens (Cell-kin). Shock 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide a source for this information, such as the WD article or werever this info came from, go for gold, mate. -- saberwyn 01:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Scorpions

A large datadump was placed in the Red Scorpions section today. I have moved it to "List of Space Marine Chapters/Red Scorpions" for the time being, as I think that first, it may be a copyvio. Second, if not copyvio, there would be enough info to support an individual article, at which time it can be moved to Red Scorpions. I will contact the anon user and ask a few questions. -- saberwyn 01:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• The datadump subpage has been deleted as a copyvio. -- saberwyn 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Night Scopions

Sounds pretty fancruft, mainley because the seem to share a planet with the Salamanders...(They both come from "Nocturne", or "Nocturn" as the persons put it...

Blacklisted link deleted. Someguy1221 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC). Will delete. Cheers --Pak21 18:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Steel Confessors?

I get some hits implying that they were the centrepiece of a major battle at a UK event, but can't verify what's here, and am not sure there's enough to justify entry here. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 10:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm posative they are a Canon chapter. Look here-[1] Check the 40k piece on the page. Shock 09:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute they were part of that battle, but is the information in the article verifiable? It's certainly not from that link. Cheers --Pak21 09:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the only thing i can find. Shock 09:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'd normally suggest asking the editor who added the information for confirmation one way or the other. Unfortunately, the Steel Confessors were added by an AOL IP, 195.93.21.38, so that plan's pretty much out. I'll tag the entry with {{not verified}}, and I suggest that if no evidence is forthcoming in a week (ie by June 9 2006), then we remove it. Objections? Cheers --Pak21 10:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think i've verified it, in WD317 (UK edition) it shows a model of the chapter master of the Steel Confessors, and mentions it was used with the chapter in the Gamesday 2005 Mega Battle. Shock 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Relictors

What's the source on them being Excommunciated? While I've been able to find a few sources listing them as such online, I've been unable to find anything that gives an offical source (such as WD#whatever) where they have been said to be such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaziel (talk • contribs) .

http://www.ironhands.com/chapters.htm lists the references for the Relictors as being WD 248 and 281. If anyone has either of those, they could check. Cheers --Pak21 20:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Issue that mentions them become Excommunicated was WD issue 295 (UK). Shock 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a WD issue were the background for them is given ill find it and add the info.They were one of the 20 chapters created to guard the eye of terror. They got Excommunciated becuase they used Deamon Weapons and banners BUT they are still loyalist. General Aion 05:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Layout

Might it be better to move all of the references to the bottom of the page and use numbers to reference them? That way each entry could have (at least) one reference without having multiple redundant references throughout the article, and the article would read better (one wouldn't keep having to read references unless one wanted to click on the number to check it). --Pariah Press 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Terror Tigers

Can anyone with a copy of Harlequin (or anything else containing information about the Terror Tigers) flesh out their entry a bit, please? --Pariah Press 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Added information from Harlequin. Is anyone aware of additional material on the Tigers from a WD article? The entry claims that there is some, but nobody seems to have seen it. Helicon One, 21 October 2006, 00:45am

Wolf Brothers

The Wolf Brothers were NOT wiped out by inquisitional forces for unchecked mutations. They followed a Dark Eldar force, after routing them, into the webway, which closed behind them. No contact since then. This information was pulled from Index Astarte: Space Wolves

Culls

• The Pyre. Nothing beyond very basic coloursceme info for this chapter (ie zero fluff)
• Rising Sons. Can find no canonical information. However, these are supposed to be "samurai space marines"

I'm alos suspect about:

• Steel Confessors (Adeptus Mechanicus-founded chapter). Yes, I know it was at UK Games Day 2005, but where's the fluff? At least someone whack a source on!

-- saberwyn 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the proper way to reply to a discussion, but anyway - If The Pyre has been culled, then why is it still in the list? In fact why are any of the Renegade Space Marines featured in the 3rd edition Chaos Codex included? AFAIK there is no fluff for any of them.Juckto 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just becuase there is no fluff doesn't mean they arent an officail chapter and they shouldnt be removed. General Aion 05:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Remnants/Skull Reavers

I can't find any other referance to them. They sound like a fan chapter since they are made up of recruits from many other chapters. They also have a Chapter-Master-Chaplain. Someone source this or delete it, but I'm fairly sure it's fan made.

• Deleted. --Pariahpress 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost Prophets of Horus Removed

First of all they are just some fan made thing, and we not supposed to have original works here, second their fluff is totally implausible, and directly contradicts the canon timeline of Tau (moves Tau discovery, and reunification by Ethereals by at least 8400 years back). BTW can we move that worning at the top of this page about no original content to the article so everyone can see it even if they don't grace us with their presents here? Finally can someone check that Sons of Malice do exist? They make reference to a past god of chaos Malal, which I'm fairly certain only existed in Warhammer Fantasy and never in 40K. Keije 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This site (which is pretty good for these things) gives references of both the 3rd ed Codex: Chaos Space Marines (2nd edition) and White Dwarf, so I'm fairly confident about them. Cheers --Pak21 09:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sons Of Malice are in the lastest Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Malal was a concept for the fifth Chaos God years and years ago, but he was done before GW used the 'yoink' clause in their employment contracts (whereby any IP created while working for the company is the property of the company once it's made). The guy who created Malal then quit, thus taking the concept with him. It's funny I saw this, because this was being discussed in the Glasgow Battle Bunker just the other night. Fuji606 15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Flesh Eaters and FleshEaters.net's Fan Fiction

A large Paragraph and the second-to-last sentence "This was changed at some point in the chapter's history to black armour with red lower legs." are both non-canon information from the rather popular Flesh Eaters fan project website. Such information needs to either be removed from this article or be specifically preceeded with 'in the ficiton created by...' or somesuch. As much as I am a fan of his work, I think it simply needs to be removed. --70.56.248.160 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't much of this from an INdex Astares article from White Dwarf? Darkson - BANG! 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're most likely thinking of Flesh Tearers, a Second Founding Chapter. Flesh Eaters are third and only notably mentioned in Rogue Trader. --70.56.248.160 22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleaned the entry up. It seems to have ballooned up recently with speculation and superfluous discussion of Blood Angels traits. I'll have to look over my copy of Rogue Trader to determine whether the 'distrusted by the Imperium' paragraph comes from it or if yet again someone has confused Flesh Eaters with the Flesh Tearers' background from Index Astartes and Armageddon. --Utsanomiko 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

18.6 Sacred fury

Apart from the fact it's not in the correct place (should be first or second under S) has anyone heard of this chapter, or is it well disguised fancraft? I honestly can't recall ever seeing this chapter listed anywhere. Darkson - BANG! 09:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably fan made... I've certainly never heard of them. And googling for "Sacred Fury" "Space Marine" gets nothing... --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, removed as of this time, easy to revert if it is genuine. Darkson - BANG! 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for adding this to the main page. I do have documentation (albeit rather obscure) from a citidel magizine from 1991(with picture). (i still have a photo copy) That said i am still unsure of the name of the chapter( artical does not say "space marine chapter:sacred fury). (this was my inspiration for taking up 40k) id like to know more please help.(anglomanii@gmail.com)

Grey Slayers

I know they're a canon Chapter, but can anyone supply a citation for the recent addition to their entry? Darkson - BANG! 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They're from 'Realm of Chaos - Slaves to Darkness,' but I don't have the book handy to get an exact page number. --Pariah Press 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry. Didn't read your post carefully enough! I have no idea where the recent additions came from. They look suspect to me. --Pariah Press 05:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed in passing through that the Grey Slayers entry on the list and found the the entry was INDENTICLE in every way to the Grey Slayers entry on www.wh40k.lexicanum.com, so it looks like a cut and paste job-is there anything wrong with this or am I just being picky? TEA14 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Other way round - if you check the history on Lexicanum, it was changed to that text on 17th October, after this one. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind TEA14 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Chapters

I was looking through the list of chapters, I believe that I have found some chapters that may possibly be created by fans, I was wondering if anyone could confirm whether the following chapters are canonical or not: Death Strike, Emperor's Hawks, Emperor's Warbringers, Fire Angels, Fists of Flame, Hawk Lords, Immortal Hearts, Imperial Ravagers, Iron Champions, Lords of Wrath (I don't have a 3rd edition Imperial Guard Codex so if anyone does... please check in there), Metamarines, Ravagers, Red Hunters, Red Templars, Space Sharks, War Bearers, To me these chapters do sound like fan created chapters, but if they aren't then its my mistake. Also another reason I believe this to be is because they have little in the way of a description other than colour. Craig-sama 16:44 UTC 17/08/2007

A large number of those are listed in the Chapter Gallery (which is why only their colour is available, I guess!) Another place which is very worth checking is ironhands.com, which lists references. I couldn't instantly see Fists of Flame, Immortal Hearts or Imperial Ravagers in either of those. --Pak21 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fire Hawks

Can we have a solid reference with quotation for the claim that the Fire Hawks are a 21st Founding Chapter? The page is claiming they are in relation to the Legion of the Damned, but I feel the author is confusing the Fire Hawks (who are cited as POSSIBLY being the LOTD in the Cursed Founding material, I have the 2004 annual copy) with the Flame Falcons. The Flame Falcons are a 21st Founding chapter who were wiped out except for a handful of Marines by the Grey Knights and are in no way related to the LOTD. I can see where the confusion comes from as the LOTD are listed with the 21st Founding armies, but they are not neccessarily a 21st Founding, just one of the 'cursed' chapters. - Fuji606, 13:05 7th Sept. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuji606 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a pretty good reference to WD99 already in the Fire Hawks section of the article. I'm more than prepared to believe that GW have attempted to retcon this in future editions; it wouldn't exactly be the first time that's happened. --Pak21 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was something in the Curserd Founding article in UK WD 260, where the the Fire hawks was listed as being in the 21st. Unfortunately, my copy of that issue isn't easily accessable, so I can't double check at the moment, and I don't have a copy of the hardback Index Astartes that they reproduced the article in. If I can find my copy anytime soon, I'll confirm either way. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I missed my own point there - I'm not arguing that the Fire Hawks arent the LOTD because the author has cited WD99 (and mentioned the attempted retcon). My issue is that I've seen that Cursed Founding material so many times, used to use Black Dragons so am pretty familiar with it, and have never seen the Fire Hawks listed as 21st Founding. I'd like to see some evidence, is all. - Fuji606 7th Sept 14:16 (GMT)

Addition: I've had a look around the LOTD article on here as well as some other sources, and it does appear fairly certain the Fire Hawks were cited as being the LOTD, and indeed were a 21st Founding Chapter. I'd still like to see a copy of this source if anyone has it, but for now I'm willing to bow to consensus... - Fuji606 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Emperor's Swords

Can someone with access to the new Chaos Codex check the newly added chapters? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thunder Barons

Can anyone supply a citation for the edits to this section today? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Corsairs article

The Red Corsairs should really get an article of their own. With the new Chaos Space Marines codex out, they've really been put in the spotlight now, especially Huron Blackheart, who should have his own article if the Red Corsairs don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis646 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such an article would have no chance of standing up to an AfD unless third-party (ie not GW) sources could be found; see WP:FICT. Yes, the same problem applies to almost all the 40K articles on Wikipedia --Pak21 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

List of renegade Space Marine chapters

I think that the renegades such as Red Corsairs/Damned Company of Lord (whatever his name is) should be taken out of this article and fused back together as a list. Seeing as we're making several lists we might as well try this out. Nemesis646 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scythes of the Emperor info

Where did the info that the Scythes of the Emperor and their homeworld were destroyed by Tyranids? I have the Tyranid codex, and I think that would have been mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.237.134 (talk • contribs)

If I recall correctly, it was in an old White Dwarf, and I believe it was mentioned in either one of the Compendiums of index Astartes articles. That said, I can't remember when or where, and unfortunately my WD collection is all over the place, so I can't check to give the exact details. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chapters recently merged in

I know there's a huge "anti-GW articles" thing going on at the moment, but the recent merges (for example, Crimson Fists and LotD) make this list look and read awful. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    The Grey Knights section is a problem. (Dmon)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.195.143 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 

Image copyright problem with Image:BCArtemis.gif

The image Image:BCArtemis.gif 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:

• Image:Deathwatch.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New Chaos Codex renegade forces

There are plenty of new renegade marine forces in the newest space marine codex-but I'm not sure whether this means that they are canon or not-it is only the colour scheme and fleeting details such as "last sighting M..."(as if it is an iquisition case file). Should I attempt to find out a little more about these forces and put them in the list if they are not already on it or not? TEA14 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hellfire Dragons

I looked at this chaoter and it looks incredibly suspicious to me-getting baneblades and titans for liberating a system. The vast majority of chapters do that and yet I don't see Ultramarine Titans or Blood Angels Baneblades! Also, I couldn't find anything on the web to support this chapter as genuine (I searched "Hellfire Dragons" "Space Marine" on Google and nothing came up apart from the Wiki article). This chapter is fancruft fromwhat I can find, but if anyone has any sources on it I would love to know TEA14 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fancruft to me, I'll be bold and delete it. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 18:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-existant links

I have removed a couple of non-existant links from the List, namely Ossmodula (Black Dragons section) and Age of Apostasy (Exorxists section). If anyohne wants to create an article on either of those go ahead-I've only removed the link because they were useless at the time. TEA14 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Crimson Fists, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, etc.

Removed the text from chapter descriptions where there's already entries dealing with them (which were already linked to in their sections). This puts them in line with other chapters that have their own entries, such as the Ultramarines and Dark Angels, and makes the page look a lot more professional. 87.194.103.254 (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been a consensus on turning this page into a redirect?

I'm asking because there appears to be an editorial dispute. If there's a consensus from an AfD or elsewhere, please link to it. If not, please achieve one, or discuss the matter here. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a redirect for half a month without change, that's not much of a dispute. Often times at AFD, the nominator is criticized for not trying other methods, such as simply redirecting the article. It appears someone has taken up just such an offer here. Pagrashtak 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The ~100K list is a hodgepodge of content. Some of it manages to be appropriately brief, other entries offer excessive detail; some entries have an appropriate tone identifying these units from an out-of-universe perspective, others describe then from the perspective of a Warhammer 40000 "historian." I think the redirect should stand -- but someone who wants to tackle a tough project could restore the full list, move it to their user space, and then redirect the, uh, redirect to point back to the Spacemarines article while hacking away at the list. If the full list were taken to AfD, it would like many other WH40K articles probably be deleted -- which would make creation of an encyclopedic list a bit difficult, since the edit history here at least has something of a starting point for someone(s) willing to take on the editing challenge. --EEMIV (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, I quite agree. Good points all around. Since the material has been mirrored to Lexicanum, I think this page should stay as-is. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Now someone just needs to convince the anons of this. I'll requested semiprotection if it keeps happening. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This page should be reduced to links for each letter of the contents on separate pages, or have a link to the Lexicanum page. The reason that so many people are protesting the change to a redirect is that they likely don't know about Lexicanum. Someone who is unfamiliar with Warhammer 40k won't go to Lexicanum. The very name is derived from the jargon of Warhammer 40k. Lexicanum is only 3000+ articles anyway, and covers far less 40k material than wikipedia. I will start putting lines on 40k related pages sending readers to Lexicanum. Tealwisp 06:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)

You do that. In the meantime, I'm prodding this, because it's evident that only deletion will prevent this from being reinstated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason that so many people are protesting the change to a redirect is that they likely don't know about [Whatever] -- This is a ridiculous reason for having an article/list and doesn't coincide with Wikipedia policy. --EEMIV (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

With no evidence of notability, this page should not have been un-redirected. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I happen to be in the middle of rewriting the Tau tech page to cure its in-universe and fancruft problems. I am certainly willing to take on this particular project, but it will be some time before I can. Besides, I don't know much about the obscure chapters. Tealwisp 00:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have copied the page into my userpage, but i have a feeling that the group of people crusading against articles in warhammer that need only a re-write, are simply going to come after the new page. Tealwisp 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)

• Well, as far as I'm concerned, as long as this page becomes a list--an honest to god list--not a recitation of all possible information about each chapter, I'm happy with it remaining. Clearly the list (even if just names and links) is too long to be in the main article. the reason it was redirected before was because the content basically duplicated material in Space Marines (and the various chapter articles, now mostly redirected) and had so much text that it was useless as a quick reference (and the subjects were being redirected or deleted so it was useless as a navigation tool). A proper rewrite will fix that. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that the reason it was redirected was not because Fredrick/Allemantando thought it had useful material in it. The "null merge" (redirecting without adding anything to the target article) is just much less time-consuming than deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My plan for the rewrite was to have this article link to letters, and give a bare-bones rundown of the most notable chapters in each letter. I don't know how many others in this section played 40k, but there aren't many notable chapters, and it came as a surprise to me that there were so many. Anyway, would any of you object to my planned article(s)? Tealwisp 06:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)

How about we move the current list to User:Tealwisp/List of Space Marine Chapters and Tealwisp/WH40K project can work on it there. The redirect for the time being can be restored, and once the userfied content has been pared down to something useful, i.e. more in line with what Tealwisp proposed above replace the redirect with that content. But it seems we all pretty much right now agree that the current content isn't much more than an indiscriminate list. --EEMIV (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I had made the page for the purpose of rewriting it, but if we move the page, we can preserve the history. Also, I DEFINITELY want "real-time" feedback on the article, including additions, subtractions, and thoughts on the notability of particular Chapters. I'll wait about a week or so, then move the page if no one objects. By the way, this is the first time I have made such a major rewrite, and since this is a high traffic article, I'd like semi-protection, and would it be distasteful to put a note at the top of the page asking editors to make suggestions on the talk page rather than directly to the article? Tealwisp 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)

I just want to make it clear that I don't think the redirect should point to the Space Marine page, but to the subpage so that editors can find it more easily, and/or make suggestions, rather than having to search the page out. Tealwisp (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't redirect to userspace from mainspace. To be honest, given the history of the article it's exceedingly unlikely that you're going to get much in the way of productive conversation from random passing anons. If you want it to be prominently linked, do so from the 40K WikiProject page. As for semiprotection, I'm pretty sure that even WIP pages aren't pre-emptively protected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be the only registered user who had objection to a redirect in the first place, and even I can't vouch for the article in its current state if there is support for a rewrite, so I'm going to move the page, and I suggest that the native page be semi-protected to prevent unredirecting. After the new page is finished, I am going to put it under "Space Marine Chapters", providing a basic description of what a Chapter is, then the aforementioned plan. Tealwisp (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)