Talk:Space marine

Untitled
I would point out we have an entry for Colonial Marines. Is this the same thing? PaulinSaudi 16:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]


 * Colonial Marines is the name for the space marines in the Aliens movie. Space marines is the more general term for space soldiers. The articles could possibly be merged. Fredrik 16:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If you merge those you must consider that they are the equilivant of the Warhammer 40k chapters. There are quite a lot of those and then you might add short descriptions too... The page would get cluttered.

I'm not sure why my clarifications were undone. I feel it is an important clearification because there is a difference between soldiers who simply fight in space, and soldiers who specificaly atack surface instalations from orbit. Does anyone see a good reason not to make this clear? CB Droege 23:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, with lack of a good reason to the contrary, I'm going to assume that the removal of my clarification was without good reason. I'm reinserting it. CB Droege 19:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Origins
Space marines were popularized by Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. Starship Troopers appeared for the first time in '59. Did the concepet even exict before that? Where? For that matter, did the concept of 'hive-aliens' exist before that (though there were ants and bees long before that, of course)? --Dyss 14:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added copyright info to protect and inform any budding sci-fi writers out there. Information can be found at http://uk.games-workshop.com/Legal/legal.htm

I did a little revisioning. I removed that sentence that flat-out stated that "gamers regard Space Marines as lame or borring". I'm sure not EVERY Warhammer 40,000 believes that, so I just noted that they are controversial and that some players do indeed feel that way. I also felt that the list of weapons that Space Marines carry was too specific and beyond the scope of the article, so I just shorted it and indicated that instead of plasma cannons, guns, and pistols, the Space Marines carry generic plasma weapons, melta weapons, and so on.


 * On second thought, I removed the entire thing about 40k gamers' opinions of Space Marines. This is an article for space marines in general, not Space Marines (of the 40k universe) specificaly, so that is beyond the scope of the article I think.

I tried to consolidate some of the redundancies and clean up the language. miketer 19:10 17 September 2005

Cleanup
Hi,

I've done some work on the list:
 * I've ordered it by the works' publication dates.
 * I've removed links about the nations or organizations that employ space marines in that work (but retained links to articles about the marines themselves).
 * I've removed Doom, Stargate, and Star Trek. I'm not entirely sure about whether the Doom series includes actual space marines (as opposed to soldiers stationed on other planets) or not, but I'm confident that the Star Gate teams aren't marines (they are neither stationed on a space ship, nor do they assault anything from space), and Star Trek doesn't prominently feature dedicated marines either (in fact, the Federation doesn't seem to have any soldiers at all).

I'm probably going to have a look at the rest of the article tomorrow.

FJG 16:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of Doom. Well it's pretty clear to me that they're called and referred to as Marines several times in the games, novels, and now movie. And they're stationed in space so yeah I'd say they're a pretty good example of Space Marines.

Hi, I removed the following "A MILNET page on rank insignia for the United States Army officers shows a 4-star marines rank of Commandant of the Space Marines." as non-factual source. The proper MILNET site does not have this rank on it, and I fear this may of been a practical joke. Proper MILNET site: http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html

Wolf3685 (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Doom Marines are in fact Force Recon
Even in the movie, Marines are reffered as "special forces". The only group of Marines that qualify as SOF are the United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance (Force Recon)--James Bond 04:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then what about the orginal Doom game? --Eldarone 12:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Question
Isn't Space Marine a commonly known W40k thing? why dont the disambiguation (this page), begin with something like

"Space Marine is a soldier who fights in space, and usually refers to the Space Marine in Warhammer 40,000

NeoExelor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.186.172 (talk • contribs)

Wwhat is the fantasy space marines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.31.96 (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Power Armor
Isn't powered armor required for "space marinedom" or is anything in the future with a gun a "space marine"? I see storm troopers and such as regular soldiers and should not have the marine status.--141.157.117.189 20:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Powered Armor is not necessary for Space Marines, although the more popluar Adeptus Astares of Warhammer 40,000 do wear power armor. But this article does probably need clarificiation on what a Space Marine is.  I can guess that the Space Marines listed at least operate in space or extraterristal colonies and are supported by a space navy.  I suggest one refers to the article on real Marines and use that diffintion to determine what a Space Marine is.  --Eldarone 02:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

True. Astartes are nearly the sterotypical "Space Marine", in the imaginative sense of the word. However, Space Marines could be normal marines of any country simply operating in space. Talk about a late butt-in. I must feel ashamed. Leonnatus (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Starship Troopers Mobile Infantry
I think those troops really have the recognition of space marines, much more in the book where they are an elite military force that drops on hot zones and does business there. The movie version troops are more vague in the space marine definition but can fill it too. The M.I. should be in that list81.35.174.193 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sardaukar ('Dune' universe')
I think the Padishah Emperor's fanatical super-soldiers the Sardaukar (from F. Herbert's epic sci-fi novel Dune) deserve a mention here - I see them as pretty damn space-marine-y and a clear antecedent of the WH40k marines. Anyone else see this? I'm happy to add a mention of them to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverHarris (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Trademark issues
Games Workshop claims to own the trademark over the name "Space Marine". Is there any risk they might attempt to get rid of this article? Since it shows that the term is a genericized trademark - or perhaps was such to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.33.38.176 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The term Space Marine is just a marine operating in space, it's a very common Sci-Fi term that predates Games Workshop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting development along these lines can be found here: http://haikujaguar.livejournal.com/1208235.html where GW is trying to enforce a copywrite, but since the term was first coined in 1936, one must wonder about the nature of their claim. <--tl evans--> — Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. This could turn out to be an important development, and would be great to include if it gets picked up by reliable sources. -- xensyria T 10:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an article on Boing Boing that has been making the rounds on Facebook, though I'm not sure if its a blog entry or from writing staff, so I'm not sure if it counts as a reliable source. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure. There's a Guardian article too, but maybe the best plan is to wait and see how it pans out. -- xensyria T 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there's been vandalism (including the removal of this discussion, under the claim that it was by "GW lawyers"), I've tried to include a balanced summary in the lead. -- xensyria T 11:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems odd to me to stick such a detailed discussion in the lead that isn't even touched on in the body. I think we need a new section to host the text about the trademark events currently in the lead. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call, my plan was to wait for it to stabilise before writing something more complete in the article, but starting a new section now's probably a better idea. -- xensyria T 15:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added the reference to WH40K in the games list, since it is a game. It should be included in the lists, so that it can be seen that they were improperly issued a trademark. They could lose the trademark if anyone ever got a real attack by GW, and having an accurate wikipedia page should aid in defenses against trademark trolling. Plus it's our duty to keep wikipedia accurate. --Celtic hackr (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's been a lot of vandalism since the trademark debacle, removing references to both Games Workshop and the controversy, so I've added a temporary semi-protection request. -- xensyria T 11:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that what is in question here is a trademark and not a copyright. Hcobb (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The link says copyright, but the article actually says trademark. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Gears!?
--46.138.163.237 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Now why does everyone refer to COG Gears as Space Marines? They're neither Marines (there are specialised COG Marines, who should be a lot like Gears, though) nor Space - they do have KillSats, but all craft they have are "Kamovs" (King Ravens) and "wet navy".

Early pictures
The illustration from "Captain Brink and the Space Marines" doesn't depict the actual marines, but the sequel "The Space Marines and the Slavers" was used for the cover illustration, and includes the characters. Since it's possibly the first picture of a "space marine", and serves as a great example of what early space marines were imagined to be (the fact it's so different from the 40K marines also makes it a useful example), I propose we include it. Providing it's uploaded with a fair use rationale it shouldn't be a problem. -- xensyria T 13:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was actually public domain, so I've uploaded and added it to the article, and updated the 40K picture in line with feedback. -- xensyria T 16:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Honorverse?
Honorverse had the Royal Manticoran Marine Corps (in space): do they count? http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Royal_Manticoran_Marine_Corps 174.24.81.170 (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's currently listed in the Appearances in fiction section under Honor Harrington series (linking to Honorverse). At the moment the history section really just outlines the early uses and later gaming influences, but a more detailed history of its gradual development, including Honorverse, would be welcome. -- xensyria T 21:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Space Crusade deserves a mention
...in the Games subsection, if someone can be bothered to fill in all the dates etc. 31.50.70.172 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Expanse
TV and books. There are the United Nations Marines and Martian Congressional Marines. 66.24.101.10 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Heinlein's "Starman Jones" should be referenced?
The character "Sam" was identified as an "imperial marine" but was really a kind of space marine. The book was published in 1953. Main thing I remember from it was Sam's epitaph. Shanen (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Split
i think the "Appearances in fiction" section is long enough that it can be split off into its own list Nucg5040 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC for Appearances in fiction section
This page has a fairly large section that takes up about half of the page detailing a list of times that space marines have appeared in fiction. I removed the section on the basis of it being unsourced, WP:FANCRUFT, and for it being an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of WP:TRIVIA. However, this edit was reverted because an editor thought that this section was "very different" from other pop-culture sections. Instead of engaging in an edit war, I would like to make a request for comments to decide if the section should be removed, stay, or if some other solution can be decided on. Thanks. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut it to the most historically important and/or notable uses and write about them in prose, not with a table. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Splitting's not a bad idea, either. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Notifying Yodin of this discussion Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep or split: I reverted per WP:BRD, as this article is about a pop culture archetype, and the list is just giving examples of media that use this archetype. This seems different from typical "in popular culture" sections ("per WP:POPCULTURE" was in the edit summary), which tend to be about non-pop culture subjects (e.g. a historical figure, or a piece of music) that have appeared/been mentioned in several TV shows/films/books, etc., but are essentially irrelevant to that subject (which is one of the main reasons these "in popular culture" sections aren't a good idea). In this case, having a list of media that use an archetype is directly relevant to the concept of a pop culture archetype, so isn't WP:TRIVIA barely related to the subject. I agree that it would be better to have a prose article that covers the notable instances (early uses, media that influenced future uses of this archetype, famous examples, etc.), but I think that until someone actually writes this (and I don't think this would be simple to do), it's better to have the list than nothing. If the amount of space it takes up is an issue, I wonder if it would be worth splitting into a separate list article (which was suggested in the section above), as I think it would pass WP:NLIST: a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources (difficult to search for as there are so many Warhammer sources, but a few examples that demonstrate this:      ). (P.S. thanks for the notification @Snowmanonahoe) -- Yodin T 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Split, as it seems to meet list notability. Otherwise, keep.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-write to cover the main points with support from sources. I'm not sure we need a separate list, otherwise why not have a list of laser weapons in popular culture? CurryCity (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * why not have a list of laser weapons in popular culture? Doesn't seem like the same thing: the example you give hasn't been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and wouldn't pass WP:NLIST. -- Yodin T 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine, although if you look for sources, you can probably find some . I just don't think a list of something as common as laser weapons or space marines in science fiction is necessary. CurryCity (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Split - Seems to meet list notability to me. A small summary of the list, mentioning only the most significant instances of the concept, and in prose format, would be appropriate for this article. Fieari (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep: No need for split. Pedrovelo (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I mean, your opinion is your opinion, but you don't think this article is getting a little overwhelmed/lopsided with this list? It takes up approximately half the entire vertical real estate!  That's why I'd think splitting is appropriate... usually, we like articles to be mostly prose, but this article is mostly list.  And again, not saying the list isn't notable, it clearly is, and all items on the list are well sourced so are appropriate for inclusion on the list-- it shouldn't be cut down.  But that's why splitting is a good idea. Do you have thoughts on the proportion of the article? Fieari (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)