Talk:Second Founding

New Dark Angel Chapters.
Unless someone can show a citation for the two new Dark Angel Chapters, I don't think they should be added until the new Codex is released. I know they are official SM Chapters, but from what I've heard, neither of them are 2nd Founding, but both are from later Foundings. Also, according to the sneak peek pics on the GW website[] there's a 3rd new chapter (though I can't make out the name). For that reason, I seriously suggest they stay off until we have positive info on them (IE the codex). Darkson - BANG! 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious as to the size of this page
Being as this is a section dedicated to the Second Founding, I am curious as to why there are basically a synopsis of the major founding Chapters instead of a overview of their canonized Successor chapters. It just seems kind of wordy when these resources are already explained in their own Chapter overviews. Wouldnt it be better to cut out the fat and explain further the reason of the reformation of the new "Chapter" system as opposed to the Legion system? Or further expand on why certain Chapters ie. Ultramarines had many chapters due to size and perfection of their gene-seed stock ect? Just seemed a bit bloated to me when a simple link to their chapter would do. Or maybe a different tact would be to call this Successor Chapters of the First Founding? ChonkE 10:27, 14 Feb 2008
 * The chapter sections need to be cut down, yes, they were just copy/paste merged in. --Falcorian (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I am glad I am not alone in this. Perhaps by first sticking the Chapter Organization into the Codex Astartes section, as it seems relevant as it is the guideline to the formation of a Chapter. Delete most of the chapter fluff and add in relevant issues such as expanding on the commentary in the Second Founding box perhaps? Like the Raven Guard/Salamanders were too decimated after the Drop-Site massacre to have Second Founding successors ect. Any thoughts? I would have jumped head on into this but it is a pretty big mess ChonkE (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything under "Chapters" needs to be cut and reconsidered.
Copy and pasting information from other entries to this one is absolutely unnecessary. There's a reason we have links. I'm not prepared to do it, though, at the moment because it would need to be carefully addressed to ensure no information which may have been added is lost and I don't have enough time at the moment.

I think this page should rather serve as an overview of the Second Founding "historically", with links to the pages of each of the referenced chapters. -FerociousBeast (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem of course is that the individual chapters (and the second founding as a whole) are no notable. Merging upward until we have articles that are defensible as notable is the key. --Falcorian (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most second founding, yes, but I'm referring to the First Founding chapters here. Dark Angels, Space Wolves, White Scars, etc. All are definitely notable and deserve pages of their own. -FerociousBeast (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not though, they need independent third party sources. You may want to check out the project's talk page, we've discussed the unfortunate situation there. --Falcorian (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

first foundings
this page seems to be of an excessive length. the first founding chapters have pages for themselves we don't need their histories or notable members here, just links back to their pages though listing what chapters 2nd founding chapters budded--Manwithbrisk (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC) off from is not a bad idea

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


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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point in this?
This article has become a complete and utter mess. I am therefore proposing to put Black Templars and the others back in their original articles and delete this one. Nemesis646 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * they will never survive in their own individual articles - they would be deleted swiftly. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * GOOD GOD. What have you done? You haven't even merged them into this article. Allemantado if you are reading this- you have doomed Wikipedia YOU IDIOT. Forrix (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)