Talk:Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000)/Archive 4

In-universe material removed
Unfortunately, despite years of effort to encourage editors to approach the subject from an out-of-universe perspective, as of today this article still consisted almost entirely of material drawn entirely from the 40k sourcebooks. It was heavily trimmed on July 2008 (here's how it was before) in an effort to improve this, but that hasn't been forthcoming; instead, editors have continued to add more in-universe material in a piecemeal fashion. In the end, the only way to prevent that from happening seems to be to remove all of the in-universe material and start with a core which is purely from a real-world perspective. I've now done that. Editors who wish to read about the intricacies of the various Chapters, how the Horus Heresy went down and so forth are encouraged to visit any of the large number of lively external wikis which deal with 40k now: a simple web search for "40k wiki" returns plenty of excellent resources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't this crusade happening to all fictional articles? I commonly see this problem in articles that have to do with Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. even though both those universes have excellent wikis. Leonnatus (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP unilaterally undid this without so much as a comment on talk. I have now re-performed this reduction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And again, an entirely new user this time. The next step will be an RfC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic that Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) complains about the removal of his reversions "without so much as a comment on talk" while he himself is prepared to remove large swathes of the article (including factual material he insists should be included) without first discussing the issue. An entry on the talk page is rather too late if you have already removed the elements of the article it refers to! If you feel the article should be more factual, then be prepared to do the surgical work yourself. Do not simply remove large parts of the article arbitrarily and expect others not to also arbitrarily return it to its previous state.

If the article is to be amended, then please do so conscientiously. A RfC would be welcome if it brings balance to any future revisions. Gareth544 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue was discussed at length way back in November 2007. Nothing whatsoever has changed there: the content that is getting added back to these articles is still 100% fancruft, either plot content or game trivia. There are external wikis (dozens of them by now) which do not have Wikipedia's standards of reliable secondary sourcing, nor guidelines on in-universe material. Editors are encouraged to go there for this sort of content, as it will never be appropriate here and will from time to time be removed in line without our content guidelines. Should a future RfC be raised, it will be for blanket semiprotection of these articles to dissuade casual editors from wasting their time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While the topic may have been discussed at length at the link above, this was a general discussion on W40K, and not specifically relating to this article. It should also be noted that no consensus was reached in it as to the way forward in revising W40K articles, even amongst the administrators who commented, and so any major revision to this article could be regarded as unilateral.  It is also dubious that the majority of contributors to this article are aware of this general discussion.  If an RfC is to be raised in order to provide blanket semi-protection and “dissuade casual editors” then the process should first be explained and discussed here prior to implementation, as the “casual editor” will not necessarily realise that his efforts may be in vain if the only discussion is in a relatively unknown location.


 * Therefore my original comment stands; Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) should not be complaining that his change has been reverted without the IP first posting a comment on this site, when he too has failed to initiate a discussion here on this specific article before implementing a major change himself. All a bit too hypocritical in my opinion.


 * In addition, if Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) took the time to read the article, he would see that he removed links and references to the factual, real world, basis for the Space Marines and their organisation, not just the “100% fancruft” claimed. This information should be retained, with further referencing and editing if necessary, and not unilaterally removed. Gareth544 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Edited
Hello, all. Just an anonymous 40K loving do-gooder who trimmed down and cleaned up the intro to the article. I hope it merits a removal of the template above the article saying this part needs to be rewritten. I don't feel I have the authority to do that myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.17.249 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Legions vs. Chapters
Regarding recent Loyalist/Traitor Legions vs. Chapters edit wars:

At the time of the Horus Heresy, the Space Marines were organized into huge _Legions_. They were split into _Chapters_ after the Loyal/Traitor conflict. Thus, the founding Space Marine divisions are properly called "Legions". --Demonkoryu (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Space marines first existed as Legions. After the Heresy most of them were split into chapters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonnatus (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Blood Ravens are in "Space Marine" the game?
"Dawn of War's Blood Ravens Chapter are the most heavily explored. They feature in every Dawn of War game _and the third-person shooter Space Marine_" - what? In "Warhammer 40.000 Space Marine" the game main characters are Ultramarines, not Blood Ravens. So is that wrong or are there other Blood Ravens there? Possibly in the finale of the game? But for what I remember, there's an Inquisition, not Blood Ravens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.183.216.226 (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was wrong, there are Blood Ravens before the game's final battle in the Orbital Spire. They arrived with the fleet probably as a vanguard, and help the Ultramarine protagonist fight the forces of Chaos on a grand bridge. So, my bad. Though I'd think about rephrasing the text - it may suggest that Blood Ravens are starring the Space Marine game as they do in Dawn of War, and Dawn of War II. 178.183.234.71 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

'U' Sign for Ultramarines
I don't know if makers of this game are aware (probably are...), but the U sign for ultramarines is practically identical to the symbol for Croatian World War 2 genocidal nazi movement Ustashe - guilty for hundreds of thousands of deaths of human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.212.134 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Practically Identical"? You Decide...
Therefore, please put forward a logical, researched, coherent argument, or there is no point in discussing your suppositions further. You are one person, with one opinion, so can not reliably comment on what the "general population" know or think, only what you think, especially as consensus on this page is already going against you!

As you seem to be unaware, the contributor's 'signature' block is important as it shows the flow of the discussion, including the order that comments were added and by whom. As you have now broken the flow of this discussion and added comments out of date/time order, these become more important as it allows others to see at what point comments were made in relation to each other. If you feel this information is simply irrelevant to the debate, why do you then consistently remove any association to you? It is simple common courtesy to include it in your contributions on Wikipedia. Gareth544 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what user 89.216.116.154 is trying to convey here either. From what I gather, user does not know what Warhammer 40k is, and is advocating a conspiracy theory about fascist marketing (?). Leonnatus (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To sum it up: Type 'ustaski grafiti' in Google images - pay attention especially to how the U sign is stylized. Inform yourself on this page about WW2 genocidal Nazi Ustashe movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e . Now see the Ultramarines Warhammer 40000 fight scene game cinematic (e.g. here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-co8eIfWXM ) - compare Ustashe graffiti to symbols on ultra-marines. Things become obvious regardless of attempts to detour from the subject (mentioning intentionally alternative associations and examples). I commented on the whole subject because I think there is an overall consensus of all people that Nazism (with all of its sub-movements), fascism (and racism and genocide) are bad things and not something to be glorified in any way - explicit or implicit, direct or indirect. My original intention was to simply point to the overwhelming number of undeniable similarities between what is seen in that game cinematic and ustashe ideology (especially paying attention to the immediate history (from the 1900's onward) inspiring Ustashe ideology). Whether someone in GW does something regarding those undeniable similarities or not is completely up to them - my goal was simply only to point to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.212.134 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the Google search user 94.189.212.134 profers above. Unfortunately the only graffiti shown by this search depicting a 'U' is modern, ie post 1991, and therefore after the Ultramarines were created by GW in 1987.  Looking at the Ustaše Wikipedia site also referenced, the related Talk page goes into some detail on the official WWII Ustaše emblem, and comes to the consensus that the one I use above is the correct version, ie straight sided 'U' with the bomb in the centre, not the one depicted in the graffiti photographs.  User 94.189.212.134/89.216.116.154 added recent comment to the Ustaše Talk page, so I presume that they are aware of this decision?  There is no evidence given of Ustaše activity in the intervening years (1945-1991) in the links given above, as this was ruthlessly supressed by the Yugoslave communist regime.


 * So, far from proving that GW copied the Ustaše emblem for use by the Ultramarines, it seems that if copying did take place, then the modern, post-Yugoslavia version of the Ustaše copied GW! Unless anyone can find a picture that predates GW's use of the inverted Omega 'U' symbol, User 94.189.212.134/89.216.116.154's argument holds no water at even a basic level. Gareth544 (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My ORIGINAL goal was simply only to point to those curious numerous ustashe similarities not to imply that they were intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.116.154 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Only later it seemed strange enough that some people would go to such lengths to make such demanding media revolving around the theme of fascism, but disregard that - let's just stay at the similarities alone with nothing further - whether someone in GW does something regarding those numerous ustashe similarities or not is completely up to them. Simple as that. (as for ustase activities after WW2 - the 1968. terrorist act of a bomb detonated in a cinema in Belgrade was particularly notorious, their activities were building-up after 1974. and culminated toward the end of 1980s which lead to war in 1990s after the fall of the Berlin wall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.116.154 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, maybe I've jumped in 3 months late... I have had a look around at the Ustase article and this. The Ultramarines certainly go around killing aliens and anyone they don't like, a bit like the Ustase, but then again, lots of army and civilizations have done and still do that. Not all are Nazi influenced. Also, many of the alien races they target, like the Orks, Eldar and Tau are vey real threats to them, unprovoked or not, so they may indeed be overreacting by massacringthem, but thats how they respond to a threat, even if repulsive by today's standards. The Ultramarines most likely simply mean very good marines; Ultra meaningbetter than most at being Space Marines, which, being the main iconic chapter, they are. As for the symbols... the Ustase's name begins with U, so they could and did have a U as there symbol. The Ultramarines name begins wuth U... and they have an inverted omega like a U with very little resemblance to a normal capital U with a grenade in it. Games Workshop does not have to do anything at all with the Ustase similarities, nor does anyone want or expect them to. Any similarities are likely just coincidental, or borrowd to fit in the more dystopian evrioment, but a lot of things are borrowed: commisars (Soviets), eagle symbols (Rome), attemted genocide (Rome with druids- well sort of, Nazis with quite a lot of people, The Israeilite with the Amalekites... thats a few), superiority to everyone else (Romans to a degree, Nazis, Assyrians, in fact almost everone at some point). So not everything facist or genocidal is related to the Ustase and the similarities are either coincidental or superfical. 77.102.238.119 (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

To the guy who thinks the Ultramarines are based on the Ustashe, I think you're really dramatically overestimating the importance of Croatia to people who aren't Croatian. Honestly, the writers and artists never once thought about anything to do with Croatia when they were coming up with this because no one who isn't Croatian would ever do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.227.100 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow that was kind of mean 82.18.227.100. Also why is this on the talk page? Darxide (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rogal Dorn's Fate
If we are including in-universe "fluff", we may as well make sure it is correct; what are the sources for the text about Rogal Dorn, where it mentions him being asked to become emperor? Also, may I ask where, precisely, it mentions him possibly assuming command of the custodian guard?

I'm all for removing background information from the article, but until we do so we may as well make sure what we have is correct.

65.95.105.84 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Monks?
I know nothing about Warhammer, but i noticed the description of space marines as monks. That claim is not supported by their description. Do they live ascetic lifes full of prayer? Most medieval knight were religious, but it takes a lot more to earn the title of (warrior) monk.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  19:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not explicitly called warrior-monks in the lore, but their headquarters are called "fortress monasteries". They do indeed live ascetic lives full of prayer (when they're not fighting).  Reference the sohei of Japan and the shaolin of China.Kurzon (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. You seem to know the lore well. Could you perhaps add or suggest a reference? And let's add your example that they live in fortress monasteries. PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  21:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Third edition codices - either the Space Marine or the Dark Angels codex, not sure as it's been some years - had an entry on a Space Marine's daily routine. Basically one hour of personal time, four hours of sleep, several daily religious masses and the rest of it training. 85.11.106.154 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Space Marine Pat David.jpg

"Powerfist" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Powerfist. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. dchmelik (t|c) 09:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Powerfist" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Powerfist. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. dchmelik (t|c) 09:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Too much fictional detail
There is WAY TOO MUCH fictional detail in this article. Wikipedia is about reality, not fiction. There is Wikia if you want to splurge on fictional details. I'm going to do some massive trimming. Kurzon (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * BlackLegionPlastic fiend.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * DeathGuardMarine.jpg
 * ImperialFist2ndEd.jpg
 * Space Wolves Hellblaster VirtualWolf.jpg