Template talk:Warhammer 40,000

message: I like the look of this, but I think there are far too many links in it at the moment. At a first pass, I'd drop all the links under the 'Warhammer 40,000' heading, Emperor, History of the IG, Navy, Horus, perhaps the four Chaos gods (replace with a link to Chaos (Warhammer)) and all the Eldar sub-heading links. Cheers --Pak21 13:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends on how large a infobox we want. Do we want one that is wide ranging or one that just links to the couple of top articles? I created this from the Template:Animal liberation one which has even more links in it... :) -Localzuk (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd prefer a small, compact template. That puts everything two clicks away without dominating the page too much. I also hope this would reduce the tendency for other editors to add links to every single 40k article to the template, as we see happening with the notable characters list on the main page. Cheers --Pak21 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose. But then there are around 50 articles so I would like about 10 > 15 links in total. How about a list of suggestions here (to use, not to remove). -Localzuk (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are 11 playable armies in the game :-) How about those, plus the Imperium? Cheers --Pak21 10:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Might also be nice to link to the category listing. -Localzuk (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many links

message: I think removing the edit link might be a good idea. It's sort of out of place and breaks up the template. I think it may also cause some problems as it makes it much easier to edit, and might prompt some to make edits without really thinking about it or discussing it. Just my two cents though.
Oh yeah, nice job! --Falcorian (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see what you mean but the entire site is supposed to be about being bold and editing things. The template is a copy/paste/edit of the Linux Distributions one which has more and edit at the end. It does have a lot more links in it than this one though. Anyone else have thoughts on this? -Localzuk (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: Is there a reason the Space Marines aren't listed in the template? Cheers --Pak21 14:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is because I was tired :) Have added them. -Localzuk (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason why Space Marines are listed twice? --Agamemnon2 09:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the formatting also seems to be very screwed up. I'm sure it wasn't like that yesterday, but the edit history seems to say that it was. Confused... Cheers --Pak21 09:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Marines 

message: Surely this can be expanded, can it not? I mean, all it's doing now is displaying the main armies of the game, there are loads more things that could be added to this. This is hardly a 'Warhammer 40,000' template, just a 'main army' template. If possible I would like to seriously expand this, there are loads more things that could be put into this, such as important Characters, planets, events, and even some minor Gods. In all, this could be made larger to look similar to the Star Wars Template. I want to get people's opinions before I start pissing around with it. The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion? 

message: I think the Locations section should only include links to those planets (and the Eye) that have their own articles and have been the scenes of major campaigns (so, only Armageddon, Cadia and Medusa V) and then also to Planets of Warhammer 40,000. I also think the Games section should only include current games so, as much as I love Gorkamorka, I think it should be replaced by Inquisitor and Battlefleet Gothic. Any objections? - Heavens To Betsy 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think certain things need to be on the locations list, even places that don't have their own article, like Holy Terra for example. If there's any you wanna' remove, mention it here, after all, when I was adding them I was considering which ones are too much, but at least we can discuss things. As for the games thing, go ahead, I dunno why that hasn't actually been changed up to this point anyway. The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, made the changes to the 'Other games' section. Regarding 'Locations', the ones I definitely want to remove are Catachan, Kronus, Mars, Tanith, T'au and, yes, even Terra. Before I go into individual reasons, to be honest I'm not sure whether the template needs a Locations section at all. Warhammer 40,000's background isn't particularly location-based like Warhammer; it's a lot more faction-based. There are so few places that are a significant part of the background (to my mind, only the Eye and Armageddon qualify) that it's not worth including them on the template. Okay, Catachan; the codex is no longer valid and it's never been the subject of any GW campaign. Kronus; can't believe this is on here when it's only in a computer game. Mars and Terra; apart from the siege of the palace and tenuous rumours relating to the Necrons on Mars, these two don't actually play a large role. Yes, okay, they are the two most important planets to the Imperium, but not to Warhammer 40,000. Compared to, say, Taros II, Mars and Terra have had virtually nothing written about them. T'au; same as Terra. Important to the Tau, but not to Warhammer 40,000. - Heavens To Betsy 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just a single link to locations as they are all in one article? GraemeLeggett 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly what I'd like. It'd look a bit skew-whiff having only one link on that line (compared to Alien races and Other games on either side), but maybe we could make that fourth line a load of links to various things. Like, one to locations, one to technology and maybe another to computer games or novels? - Heavens To Betsy 13:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "more" line like for ! GraemeLeggett 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, something like that. I have to say that that was the first time I'd properly looked at the Warhammer Fantasy template and, I must say, I think the 40K one looks far better. - Heavens To Betsy 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planets and Games

message: Looks much better! Well done! --Falcorian (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Figured it needed a bit of white space removal and condensing. -th1rt3en 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, 'fraid I disagree. It certainly is closer to the Warhammer Fantasy template, but I always preferred the simpler elegance of the previous 40K template. I prefer how it was all centred and I prefer the section headers not to have links. Just my take. - Heavens To Betsy 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old version made it unnecessarily twice as long and had a lot of white space. And I didn't model it after that Warhammer Fantasy template, I just condensed it in what's commonly found in navboxes. -th1rt3en 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Design 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000#Inclusion of the category attribute. Chris Cunningham 14:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of the category attribute 

message: Little trivial, aren't they? I think they should be merged to 'Orders Militant' or possibly 'Inquisition' - organisations at a similar level in the Imperial hierarchy fluffwise. Thoughts? Sojourner001 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently they are three independent armies, as per GW's view. Some rumours say their may be a combined codex in the future, however keeping them separate for now is best. There are other armies that could claim a space, such as Adeptus Arbites (Warhammer 40,000), Adeptus Mechanicus, even the Sisters of Battle, however as they don't have codexes they aren’t featured. I am aware that the Alien Hunters never got a codex, however this is accepted as a blip, and it should be seen as along side the other three. Martin23230 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daemon, Witch and Alien Hunters 

message: Why are the Chaos gods not included? They are a pretty major part of the campaign. 66.159.69.132 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Their articles were deleted and merged to the Forces of Chaos article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos gods