Talk:Adeptus Ministorum

Ephrael Stern
Shouldn't there be some mention of Ephrael Stern in the artice? I am rather surprised there is no wiki entry for Daemonifuge either.


 * I haven't had time to go through everything. Regardless of how many people there were taking over the project and being jerks about it (you know who you are), there was a lot of stuff left out. If you have a source (digital, preferably, or if it refers to a codex/book, just tell me) and I can put stuff up. If not, you can put it up and I will correct any reference errors, etc, and not change most of what you say (I like to correct grammar though). Deal? :) SanchiTachi 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and register an account name and feel free to use my talk page if you want to organize anything or whatever. SanchiTachi 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty to find the actual information, and I found someone with the book. I added a basic entry. If there are any details that you want to add, feel free.SanchiTachi 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There were two mistakes concerning Ephrael Stern that I corrected, first the numbers of Battle Sisters sent to the planet and then the daemons name —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCaCe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Female Knightly Orders?
What orders would those be? Jachra 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

-- Apparently, the author of the article thought that the Sisters of Battle paritipate in crusades. Although they do to some extent, they are the brute force of the Ordo Hereticus, e.g. the Inquisition. Colonel Marksman 06:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that Jachra was refering to the comment that the Sisters of Battle refered to historical knights. Colonel Marksman, please refrain from feeling the need to constant comment and add on things that you seem unable to figure out, understands, know, etc. Its rather rude and unseemly. Thanks. SanchiTachi 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed "few female" from the knightly orders
There is no such thing as a female knightly order, and there never was. Neither the hystorical references to Christian Crusades nor the Knightly Orders mention any female knights. Consulting the Medieval Hystory researchers at my University has also yielded a denial of such existance. It is further impossible since Knightly orders are comprised exclusively of priests, and it is impossible for a Catholic Christian Order to have female priests, especially during the Middle Ages. As auxiliary nurses to Knights Hospitaller, maybe, but not as members of the Order itself. So unless someone is going to provide multiple independent and verifiable source for these hypothetical "female knightly orders", mention of it is gone from the article.

Keije 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * However, I do believe that Joan of Arc is represented in the concept of the "Living Saint" and female knight motifs held by the Sisters of Battle. That should have been rather obvious. SanchiTachi 05:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirected from Adepta Sororitas
Should a mention be made of the non-militant orders within the Adepta Sororitas, either here or in another article? Darkson - BANG! 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to sound like a jerk,
Couldn't a better picture be found for the Sisters' symbol? That one isn't straight (I'm guessing taken from an angle), and looks pretty tatty. Darkson - BANG! 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was drawn by hand. Its either create it yourself or illegally steal one, which Wiki doesn't really like. You can edit it if you want. SanchiTachi 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there no fan sites that will let someone use a pic? Darkson - BANG! 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I just made the pic from scratch from my model pieces. The pic can easily be cleaned up around the edges. I don't have a steady hand with a mouse, so my circles are a little screwed up. SanchiTachi 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a non-profitable organization, so even in the long-run nobody's making money. The only thing we can't violate of Games Workshop are rules (which you must purchase to use, otherwise, that's piracy). It's perfectly ok to use symbols and sketches from GW, I doubt they'd have a problem. They might even like having all these articles here: free advertising on a no-profit website. Colonel Marksman 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, as long as you're not making money off of it, using pictures doesn't matter. Copyright violations come from making money off of the material. I don't know why everyone is so touchy about it.

I Added A Lot
There was a lot of information missing from the original Sisters of Battle Book and the old White Dwarfs.

Please, look over for edits, typoes, etc, because I wrote it very late at night. Also, if someone could find the information on Arabella, please do. My German is not too good and I could only download a German version of the Sisters of Battle White Dwarf issue. If anyone can find the original codex info or the White Dwarf, please do.

Also, I think that those sections should be expanded with the color schemes of the different orders and some other information on that order. It would expand it nicely.

Finally, there are enough links and density to the article that it is about 80% to a mainpage article. I think that would be a great goal to shoot for. I would love to fix this page to such a standard, work on the Witch Hunters page, the Daemon Hunters, the Grey Knights, the Custodes, Arbites, and some of the other connecting pages. I would love to have them put together at Grade A quality so that the Imperium represents awesomeness. :) SanchiTachi 07:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I remember corectly, they weren't created as the Order Militant, they were added to it after the Vandire thing, then with the issuing of the Decree Passive they become the only Orders Militant. I'll try and dig out my old 2nd ed Codex and check. Darkson - BANG! 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I put the correct history/date of when they were added as Order Militants at the beginning of the page, and then in Organization when the specific Orders were created. SanchiTachi 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Under the History, it says Thor issued the Decree Passive, and "allowed them to remain even though it broke the spirit". I'm pretty sure it was the High Lords that issued the Decree, and "allowed them to stay", not Thor. Darkson - BANG! 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable members
Personally, I think the Notable members section is to large, especially when compared to a) the length of the rest of the article, and b) notable members in other 40K articles. Darkson - BANG! 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The reports in each area are small. The areas on other pages are inadequate. I am going by the standards issued to Main Pages and how they qualify. Plus, the one section of notable members, i.e. the founders, are all one category. Each of the people listed are necessary to Sisters of Battle and each report on the members is kept short (except for the one from the book Faith and Fire, because the book is over 400 pages). PS. Main Pages range from 30-50k, and we just entered into the tiny end of that. SanchiTachi 21:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be all for turning the different founding sisters into bulleted sections under the title Founders, but they should be separated to connect to anything else that may need to connect to them (especially Alicia). SanchiTachi 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the article should have only 2 or 3 "main" characters (perhaps Alicia, Stern and Saint Whatshername) and the others added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Warhammer_40,000_characters, with a link to that page, as per the main 40K page.
 * As for how big in K the page is, that wasn't the point I was making. regardless of how much the character section is in Kcompared to the rest of the article, it just looks to big. Darkson - BANG! 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats not really how Wikipedia works. They need to have -all- the important figures deemed necessary (such as a New Testament Page would need Matthew, Mark, Luke -and- John, and you can't just leave out John because you think there are too many Gospels). There is not enough information to make new pages for any of the characters. Furthermore, Main Page Quality wiki pages are between 30-50k, and mostly between 45-50k worth of text. This does not include the pictures.


 * Also, the easiest rememdy if there are "too many characters" is to describe some units, like the Repentas, and also fluff out the history. I only included them at Armageddon, but they were also in the Eye of Terror, Medusa V, and some of the other campaigns. The Founders need to stay. To remove them would be like removing the Patriarchs from the main Space Marines Page. Katherine needs to stay, she has a major figurine and rules. The other two are major characters from books and have secondary characters refered to in their sections. It is our duty to supply a broad spectrum of information, which includes all of the major canonical characters and those who Games Workshop deems as important. You have to think that the people using these pages are those searching for such knowledge. SanchiTachi 02:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That all works to a logical standpoint. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for information. The way you do it is by setting a standard. Thus far, the only characters with their own profiles are those mentioned in the novels, and/or have rules. Sometimes you just have to use the common sense rule.

I believe there's too many characters here. Why are we trying to mention every single one anyway? Let's start by just mentioning those who have rules. Colonel Marksman 00:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the Colonel's comments here. Warhammer 40k might have started as a table-top wargame, but has grown far beyond that.  All IMPORTANT characters should be mentioned, not just the ones with rules.  After all, if we followed the Colonel's idea, Gregor Eisenhorn would never be mentioned in wikipedia, nor would the Emperor.  Clearly 40k has moved beyond the rulebooks.TheCommodore7 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

General Description
Seeing that most contributors have been talking about the fictional aspects of this. Should we not give a general description of what "Sisters of Battle" refer to? I've never contributed to an actual wiki page, so I'm reluctant to edit it. But shouldn't the opening line read something like: "Sisters of Battle are a series of metal cast models that are part of a faction in the tabletop wargame Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop" Dajin (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)