Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability

This page is not used to debate whether any individual character should or should no be included. That sub function is handled here. All debate of that nature should be handled on the apropreate page. This page handles debates regarding the policy/critira used directly.

Discussion
Looks like a good start, but I have to give it some thought still. I agree that everything that follows the proposed rules should be included, but I'm not sure that I agree that everything that doesn't should not be included. Basicly I have yet to decided if I think more cases are required. So I guess what I'm saying is... I'll get back to you with my opinion. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm liking what I see so far, but a few notes, personal opinions, and questions. This is it for the moment, but I may add more later. -- Saberwyn 11:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this cover creating articles about the characters, writing about the characters within the scope of the relevant 'main' article (like Gabriel Angelos of the Blood Ravens, or the Primarchs), or listing in the relevant 'main' article?
 * Chapter Approved articles usually rock up first in a White Dwarf. The only "characters" I can find with rules on the Chapter Approved webpage are for minor Gaunts Ghosts characters, which should be covered in a combination article. Mind you, these articles (if they exist) would probably have been moved to their race's page
 * I'd personally be inclined only to include "Chapter Approved"-created characters if they also were the subject of a released miniature.
 * A clearer line needs to be drawn between "mentions" of a character in a rulebook/codex/etc and a "having rules" in one of the above.


 * Easy bits first: (2) and (3): given the lack of any "serious" Chapter Approved characters, I've removed that as a criteria for notability. (4) I've tried to make a bit clearer (but I'm not sure I've managed). As for (1), I think this proposal is restrictive enough that each character could at least have their own section within their army article, but I'm not quite sure as to where I think the boundary comes for having their own article. A rule-of-thumb which feels about right to me is perhaps two characters per army list get their own page. Cheers --Pak21 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about this, they do look good. I couldn't think of anyone that should be included that would be left out under these guidelines. My only question is about "historic" characters. I don't think anyone would argue that the Emperor or Horus shouldn't have articles, but they aren't included in the list. I assume they are included under the "significant effect on the development of the Warhammer 40,000 universe" section, but it's less clear where those people would be put.

Mainly I think there should be guidelines as to where these mentions go: in their own article, on the armies page, on 40k's main page, etc. --Falcorian (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just put up slightly more formal version of my "two characters per army" proposal onto the main page. I'm currently punting on the question of what we should do for the main page. On that front, I think we need to consider the meta-army pages Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines as well: which characters get on those? Cheers --Pak21 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: own article boundary... I personally think that if you can write a screen-worth of verifiable, sourced information (without 'stuffing' the article through fanwankery) on a character, they should get a page. As an example of this, Cypher just gets an article, but Gabriel Angelos gets mentioned somewhere else (at this point in time the Blood Ravens page. -- Saberwyn 02:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Meta-Armies... Meta armies don't get notable characters, meta armies get notable Chapters and Legions. Characters that do not crop up in the text of the article can be listed and dealt with on these pages. -- Saberwyn 02:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with both of those. Do we have any objections? Cheers --Pak21 10:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of objections, I have been bold, written up the proposal and removed the "proposed" status from the page. Cheers --Pak21 16:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 'as well as Abaddon the Despoiler and Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka, the only characters to have staged more than one military campaign capable of destroying the Imperium.' Blatantly false. They're both major threats, but neither of them were capable of destroying the Imperium in their campaigns. Perhaps it should be changed to 'as well as Abaddon the Despoiler and Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka, the only characters to have had a GW-sponsored global campaign based around them.' That's more neutral, more true, and less subjective. Should it be changed thus?
 * "...the primary antagonists of the two most recent worldwide player campaigns."'. Better? -- Saberwyn 10:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Canon levels
I think as a subset of notability, we should determine which references are 'superior' to other references. Twice now (from my personal recollection) there have been instances where Black Library novels and older Codexes have contradicted newer Codexes, the fall of Caliban (Dark Angels) and the number of Imperial Fist Second Founding Chapters (the status of the Soul Drinkers). -- Saberwyn 10:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just seen that a canonocity proposal is listed as something to do. I'm gonna have a very crude crack at it in a little while. -- Saberwyn 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do believe there has been one mentioned by GW... I'll see if I can find it... --Falcorian (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page characters
I think it's fairly obvious from the recent edits to Warhammer 40,000 that my proposed ad-hoc policy for which characters appear in the Notable Characters list on the main page isn't going to work. Hence this is an attempt to try and establish some more formal guidelines for what we think should be there. Unfortunately, I don't have many good ideas for this, but I certainly think the current list is much better than this one which is what we had before we trimmed it down, when people just added characters from their favourite army at random without too much care for the quality of the article. Cheers --Pak21 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it how it is at the moment... just how to say it in writing! I'll try..
 * "The Emperor, Horus, and the Chaos Gods are automatically kept, due to their major roles in shaping the fictional galaxy. Every army is allowed to place their single most important and well known special character in the main page list. (No, this does not mean every chapter and subarmy gets a mention; 'Space Marines' get one. 'Imperial Guard' get one. 'Eldar' get one. Etc). All other characters are confined to their army's article."
 * Will mean a slight rework rework of the list, and a slightly bigger one than we have here. This is just my idea at the mo. -- Saberwyn 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that as a first principle. Cheers --Pak21 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any opposed?  Either Solar Macharius or Commisar Yarrick should be on the Notable Characters list.  I would list the favorite Primarch of each Chaos God.  [Robert_Guillemaine]] (sp?) should be listed.  I'm more of a fan of [Leman_Russ]] myself though, he was notable enough to have the primary [Imperial_Guard]] tank named after him.  Mathiastck 14:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Space Marines shouldn't only get one. There are a handful of Chapters which have been of central importance to the setting and have recieved an enourmous amount of coverage: The Ultramarines, The Dark Angels, the Blood Angels, and the Space Wolves. These four Chapters should, at the very least, have thier Chapter Masters listed here. In addition, Ibram Gaunt needs to be on this list simply because he's been the subject of more Warhammer 40k fiction and novels than any other character in the entire setting, including the Emperor himself and the Chaos Gods. I think it's obvious here that "notable" for Warhammer 40,000 denotes just as much that a character is of legendary status and has recieved large amounts of coverage in the fluff as that a character happens to possess cosmic power. In addition, an enourmous inconsistency exists in the fact that Mag Uruk Thraka is listed among these character even though he is, in fact, nothing but a particularly influential Ork. It's hypocrisy to include him and yet insist that characters like Gaunt, Marneus Calgar, Lord Solar Macharius, etc, be exluded. We should either include a more expanded list of character, or we should simply go ahead and make the entire list a seperate article completely. user:manuelomar2001


 * "I think it's obvious here that "notable" for Warhammer 40,000 denotes just as much that a character is of legendary status and has recieved large amounts of coverage in the fluff as that a character happens to possess cosmic power." I don't think this is "obvious" at all: quality in the game is far more important than being mentioned in a large number of mediocre spin-off novels. More constructively, do you have any actual criteria for which characters should be mentioned in any list? Cheers --Pak21 10:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ghazghkull created the largest Ork Waaagh!s ever seen in the history of the Imperium, and invaded one of the Imperium's most vital worlds, twice. In addition, he is the first special character created for Warhammer 40,000, and had precedence several years earlier as the leader-model of the personal tournament and battle-report Ork army of Andy Chambers, one of the brains behind the game in all its forms.
 * So what? He's still just a guy. Or rather, just an Ork.  Just an individual of no cosmic significance whatsoever who happens to lead a very large Ork army.   He hasn't been formative in the history of this fictional universe, he hasn't affected the setting as a whole (other than the way other major commanders do) and he doesn't have *any* super-natural or cosmic powers whatsover.   He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the Emperor, Horus, the Chaos Gods, etc.   Including him in there is simply inconsistent with the very rules you've set forth, and stinks of favoritism.   If you're going to include him, you should include Lord Solar Macharius (who, IIRC, conquered more worlds than the Emperor did).   You *definitely* also need to include the *other* characters of cosmic and overall significance which have been forgotten here:  The C'tan, The Tyranid Hive Mind, and the last two surviving Eldar Gods: Khain and The Laughing God.  Because those character, unlike some Ork, actually have had a formative impact on the entire setting.  -user:manuelomar2001
 * Some of those you have named have had a much greater impact on the fictional universe than Abaddon and Ghazghkull, but those two were added because they were the leaders of the attacking forces in the two most recent worldwide campaigns run by Games Workshop, which would (for lack of a better decscription) make them the avatars of the player and fan involvement in the recent development of both the game and the fictional universe. -- Saberwyn 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Manuelomar2001, please do not modify the list of characters without agreeing a change here. Wikipedia works on consensus, and a consensus has been agreed here. I acknowledge the fact you think that consensus is wrong, but that does not give you the right to override the views of other Wikipedia editors. Such edits are vandalism, and will get you banned if you continue. --Pak21 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for a complete list of characters, I have compromised by moving the category link for Category:Warhammer 40,000 characters up to reside just below the list of the 'super-notables'. Any character meeting the article notability critera written on this articlepage will automatically be filed here. -- Saberwyn 01:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see that any kind of "consensus" has been reached here, despite all claims to the contrary by several of you. All I see is a bunch of contradicting opinions. Furthermore, I still see the current list as contradictory to the very standards listed for it, and a bit hypocritical. Under the current criteria of only including characters who have had a formative impact on the universe as a whole, why is Kaela Mensha Khaine not listed? Why are the C'tan not listed? They, most absolutely, have had a massive formative impact on the 40k universe as it stands now. Why is the God of the Eldar not represented? Why are the Nightbringer and the other Star-Gods not represented? -user:manuelomar2001


 * I see a suggestion by Saberwyn under "Alternate proposal for mainpage characters" with three agreements and no disagreements. That's a consensus in my opinion. However... I think there made be a point here: we have been categorising 40k gods under in Warhammer 40,000 rather than under Warhammer 40,000 characters, so they're then not appearing in the 'See also' link. Should we recategorising the gods to the characters sub-cat? Or possibly make a new sub-cat for gods? Cheers --Pak21 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How many characters from each army... And whatnot
In regards to both the "2 character limit" and the Main 40k Page issue, I'd like to say this:

While more clear, I disagree with it. I do not think there should be a strick "X people get pages, Y people get mentions on the Army page, and Z people are put in a list of minor characters. I disagree for the following reasons:
 * 1) "Most important" is very debatable.
 * 2) It severly limits an editors options.

I think the ideal solution would be to come up with critria which a character must meet to go ont he main page, which should be more strict than what is required to have their own page, which should be more strict than what is required to be bundled in with the army, which should be more strict than what is required to be thrown on a list of minor characters. I think if something like this can be accomplished, it would greatly reduce arguments. Hope that idea was clear... --Falcorian (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly happy with them as criteria either, but they're the best criteria I've yet seen proposed :-) Cheers --Pak21 10:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternate proposal for mainpage characters
Rename the section "Notable Figures". Strip out everyone that isn't a 'meta' character (Emperor, Horus, Chaos Gods), or has not had a significant impact on the history of the 40K universe (the leader of the attackers in a worldwide campaign: ie Abaddon and Ghazghkull). This way, only the 'characters' that have a monstrously massive impact on the fictional universe are kept, thereby keeping the list small and maintainable. Everyone else gets listed in their race's/book's/game's article. -- Saberwyn 02:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy with that. Cheers --Pak21 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I third that! Sounds good and managable :) Wouldn't like to see the list getting huge - that is not its purpose. -Localzuk (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree with this! --Falcorian (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone and converted the section to the proposal's format. -- Saberwyn 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see two flaws here, One: the decisisons of who is in and out were conducted HERE outside of general veiw & input. Two: Protagonists are just as important (if not more so) as Antagonists, especialy Commissar Yarrick who bested Ghazghkull twice.

Applying the guidelines
I've now started going through the army pages and mentioning on the talk page those characters which I believe do not meet the criteria mentioned here. So far, I've found: Any comments, etc very welcome. Cheers --Pak21 10:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Eldar: Macha and Taldeer
 * Tau: everyone except Aun'shi, Aun'Va, Farsight, Kais and Shadowsun
 * Some more:
 * Blood Angels: Rafen, Arkio, and Holst, Cleon and Theolus
 * Imperial Fists: everyone except Lysander
 * Space Wolves: Sven Bloodhowl, Strybjorn Grimskull and Ranek Icewalker (Bjorn the Fell-Handed left as the "venerable dreadnought" model is pretty close to being made specially for him. Views on this one appreciated).
 * Ultramarines: everyone except Marneus Calgar, Tigurius, Cassius and Uriel Ventris.
 * Cheers --Pak21 12:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the characters you wish to remove feature large parts in Black Library books etc, surely these meet the criteria to stay Lowris 19:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Main characters, I can personally accept, although the rest should be mentioned in an article about the book. -- Saberwyn 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Pak, while I'm here, I'll let you know I've made comments on a few talk pages. -- Saberwyn 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're a major character in a major series of novels, they definitely stay. If they're not, I agree with Saberwyn that it would be better to have an article for the novels and then mention the characters there. (I should probably admit at this point I hardly read the BL novels at all, so my ability to define a "major series" is somewhat limited). Cheers --Pak21 21:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd personally define 'major series' as a trilogy or more, as an absolute bastard-rough gudieline. -- Saberwyn 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with the definition of a 'major series' as a triology or more - most of the truly famous BL series are at least a triology? Lowris 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * List updated (Macha and Taldeer definitely go, Leonatos, Brother Bethor and Uriel Ventris stay) --Pak21 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * List updated again (Decapitator stays: has rules in Codex: Dark Eldar) --Pak21 09:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletions performed. I've left in Rafen, Arkio and Sven Bloodhowl for now. Cheers --Pak21 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000) while doing the initial pass, so of the ones there, Coteaz (Daemonhunters special miniature), Eisenhorn and Karamazov (Witchhunters special miniature) are unquestionably in, and I think Ravenor just about gets through as a major character. Jaq Draco I feel is just about the wrong side of the "major character" line, and I'm very unsure about Czevak. The rest I know no reason to keep, but my knowledge of these bits isn't as complete as it could be, so I'm happy to defer to experts. Cheers --Pak21 13:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Czevak was the basis for most of the Eldar/Thousand Son portion of the Eye of Terror campaign, and is one of the only humans to have entered the Black Library. Kryptman (one N, according to the Tyranid Codex) was pivotal in most of the Imperium's dealings with the Tyranids, and is almost solely responsible for the defeat (kind of) of Hive Fleet Behemoth. Both are notable enough to be in the article, if not to have ones of their own.--Charax 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a couple of lines on this in the article, but I'm leaning towards finding a way to include Czevak. Kryptman...I'm a little iffy on that one. -- Saberwyn 21:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that characters who have an effect purely on the background of the game are worth including; Czevak's influence on the Eye of Terror I think just about pulls him in. On a different note, does anyone think Jaq Draco should be kept? Cheers --Pak21 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Black Library
A lot of the iffy areas in this seemed to be related to book characters - maybe we should be more specific in the guidlines - eg they must be a main character in relation to the storyline and a major series is a triology or more (with the possibility for some exception eg. ravenor?) - would appreciate other views? Lowris 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Armour characters
Are characters mentioned only in the Imperial Armour series notable? Or put another way, which "rulebooks" as mentioned in the first notability critertion do we think are significant? I note this edit. Cheers --Pak21 12:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, although my one concern is that we'd be flooded with them. I don't own any of the large FW books, so I can't guess at how many characters are covered in them. --Falcorian (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rulebooks (IMO) should be limited to Games Workshop produced publications, not that of subsidy games. Imperial Armour (at this time) has only provided rules for five or six low-key Imperial Guard commanders. -- Saberwyn 20:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Anybody else have any views here? We seem to be slightly split here. Cheers --Pak21 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily true (on the low-key Imperial Guard Commanders). In the third, the Tau have Shas'O R'myr (Commander Longknife), but he is a Forge World character. (He does not have his own article btw). Colonel Marksman 16:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyranid "Noble Characters"
What about "Old One Eye" and "Red Terror"? I've allowed their stay of mention in the Tyranid article, and they both meet all criteria to deserve their own pages. There's just one thing: If they count, I will make their own pages, but if not, then I will refrain. Need voice! Colonel Marksman 16:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Old One Eye and the Red Terror were not special characters, and did not require the opponent's permission for use. (Note: I talk on their behalf under passive voice)
 * Obviously stay in my opinion. --Pak21 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tyranids, as a species, can't have special characters. These are the closest they can get, so I'm inclined to make them 'honorary' SCs for the purpouse of Wikipedia. -- Saberwyn 20:21, 20 April 2006 (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)

Chapter Masters
A Chapter Master is one of the most powerful individuals in the Imperium and can decide the fate of worlds. Numerous Chapter masters (such as the ones that are missing) will damn well affect the universe as they each command 1000+ Space marines for a total of 1 million + marines. Chapter Master should be a heading just like "Appearance" or "Combat Doctrine" in every space marine chapter wiki article.--Jesse 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see previous discussion between Jesse, Pak21 and myself at Talk:Imperial Fists -- saberwyn 01:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The main trouble I see here is what are you actually going to write about each of the Chapter Masters? What exactly has Pugh of the Imperial Fists (or any of the Chapter Masters not already listed) done? As for the missing chapters, we can't say anything on those without it being original research. Cheers --Pak21 09:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as information on each Chapter Master goes, one can write as little or as much as one likes, with the information given. Simply listing the name would be an absolute minimum. Regardless of what this "concensus" says (which seems, however helpful, to be completely dominated by 2 people), listing the serving Chapter Master is valid and valuable information to an article on a Space Marine Chapter. Almost all of the Chapter masters have some amount of backstory. As for accomplishments, each have their details, but all share one fact: anytime a Chapter does anything, anywhere, for any reason it is because the Chapter Master commands it. You can link anything a Chapter does (crusades, campaigns, Inquisitorial participation etc) to its Chapter Master. Whenever you see a Space Marine Chapter anywhere in the backstory, it is there because of the Chapter Master. --Jesse 12:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Black library
It is worth mentioning that much of the fiction in the 40K universe predates the "Black Library" trademark. Are these books to be excluded simply because they are old? Of course, if information contained in a book is directly superseded, that's one thing. But there's a wealth of information on the Imperial Fists from the book Space Marine (1993)[1], for example, and none of it has yet been contradicted. It contains a lot of information about the character and activities of Lord Pugh, Chaplain Lo Chang and Librarian Grenzstein (among others). Surely these characters deserve a mention. If they're not to be included in the Fists' own page, why bother including a COMPARITIVELY MINOR character like Sergeant. . err, Captain Lysander?!

Note to anyone who wishes to take this further: I read what was said about the small amount of written information available regarding chapter masters. I submit that we have two paragraphs of canon information about Lysander, and about three pages about Pugh. Your point?--Johno 09:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a concrete suggestion for how you think the guidelines should be changed? Cheers --Pak21 11:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Screw the Black Library. Pre-Black Library, Index Astartes and Codexes are where the real information is. So much garbage comes out of the Black Library (ie: Soul Drinker series/Ben Counter's flagrant lack of respect for the second founding FINITE list of Chapters) GW/BL Novels used to be strictly monitored to mirror game canon/backstory. Now anyone can write a book and make a mockery of the Intelluctual Property (Soul Drinkers and Wolfblade to name a couple).That being said there are exceptions, such as Space Marine by Ian Watson. The reason this is a classic exception is because it is obvious that the Index Astartes article on Imperial Fists is based almost entirely on this novel. Tread carefully within the Black library brothers, as it is full of deception! The fact that the whole Soul Drinkers bit even made it into the IF wiki article is an absolute disgrace.--Jesse 11:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'd personally love to agree with you on that, there is at least one statement from a high-ranking GW employee (Marc Gascoigne, 6th post in that page) that all products with an official 40k logo on them are equally canon. What this means when they contradict each other is a good question... Cheers --Pak21 11:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Potential solution:
Okay, I think that for the sake of standardisation, we should include:


 * Chapter master (if known). We needn't put a lot about them, as aside from Pugh, they don't seem to feature greatly in the novels.  But it's a great part of the richness of the 40K universe that (for example) we have "current" chapter masters [who may meet various fates during campaigns etc]. If not known, we should have a "Chapter master unknown" statement.
 * 0 - 2 Captains/Chaplains/Librarians. Usually any special characters are likely to be here if they are not the chapter master, so these two categories will take care of the lions' share.
 * 0 - 2 Other: basically, if either: a) a character is the focus of a novel (e.g. Lexandro D'Arquebus, Ragnar etc. or b) A character receives an entry in a codex (e.g. sergeant Lysander when he was still a sergeant :-), they should be included. After all, in fluff terms, the fact that they are in the Codex is a demonstration that they are regarded as worthy of special mention in the imperium.

What not to include:


 * Characters who appear in the "sidebar fiction" in codexes (urgh!).
 * Supporting characters in novels etc (e.g. Sgt Juron from Space Marine).
 * Characters from fan campaigns (natch).

In most cases this will give us 3 - 5 characters, which is reasonable. What is important is not the length or number of descriptions, it's the punch factor. If we want this to be newby-friendly, we have to ensure that we're ruthless. Boring material is out, interesting story factors (2 -3 well-written sentences, max) should be in.Johno 13:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, since it's not a religious work, I recommend a simple approach to the canonicity problem - in any conflict, what was most recent should be followed (since that's the latest information). Johno 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I say break it down and keep it even more simple and similar to what's been going on earlier:
 * Chapter masters ( ie: Pugh, Seth etc)
 * Characters that have (or at one point had) game rules (Lysander, Mephiston etc)
 * Characters who appear in multiple novels (Lex D'Arq, Honsou etc)
 * Anything else will quickly get out of hand, a simple and logical pattern/guidline must be found that provides a balanced amount of characters from both canon and game rules. --Jesse 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems to me to be essentially what we have now with the addition of Chapter Masters? If so, I'm not entirely opposed to that (but please indent replies on talk pages!) Cheers --Pak21 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd give that a "happy vote."

(Context: In my church, a "happy vote" means "There may be better options, but if we go with that one, I'm happy.")

Incidentally, how do you indent? I can't find it (probably because I don't know where to look . . .). Johno 16:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Chapter Master straw poll
Should the Chapter Master of each Space Marine chapter be added to the list of notable characters? Please add your opinion below as either Add or Do not add with an optional one sentence explanation, and sign your comment with ~. Poll closes 10:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC) --Pak21 10:14 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral: while their effect on the Universe is high, their effect on the game itself is basically non-existent. --Pak21 10:14 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Add: I don't come to Wikipedia for 40k Game rules, I come here for information on the Universe (ie: When I look up Space Marines, I want to read about thier life, origins and background..not what their WS or points cost is..)--Jesse 07:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Add: The "Universe" seems more important for notability in my mind. --Falcorian (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Add. If you want game information, buy a Codex! :) Johno 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll closed: 3 add, 1 neutral. The result of debate was to Add. Cheers --Pak21 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Primarches
Should The Primarches be added? ta,BT2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.116.42.164 (talk • contribs).
 * Are you talking about on the main page or on the chapter/legion pages? If the former, no, they shouldn't. If the latter, they receive extensive mentions already in each article; I see no value in adding them to the list of notable characters as well. Cheers --Pak21 01:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainpage Ethnic Representation
Humans, Chaos and Orks are the three "main" races on the Warhammer 40,000 main page, as well as the Eldar Eldrad Ulthran. I can see why Humans, Chaos, and Orks live there (being the three most major armies). But why Eldar? And if Eldar, why not other races (Dark Eldar, Tau (& kroot?) spring to mind most readily)? I acknowledge that that particular section in not for listing every single notable character, but should there not be one from each race on there? As it is, Humans totally dominate the page, whereas in the 40k universe terms this is not the case (having the most fluff is not the same as ruling the galaxy).