Talk:Drukhari

message: While reading through I noticed that there doesn't appear to be any clear origin for the DE.  The article goes from what the regular Elder did when Slaneesh was born to the DE's "thirst" without explaining anything.
::That is detailed in 'The Torturer's Tale', which the article points to in the History section. That's all there is, unfortunately. Currently the Dark Eldar are notoriously neglected background-wise by Games Workshop. Doctor Atomic 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: It's my understanding that these are a group of Eldar pirates and mercenaries, but are not actually Dark Eldar. I am also sure that not all Dark Eldar mercenaries are known as Void Dragons. Does anyone know anything to the contrary? I'll remove their mention in the article if not. Doctor Atomic 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that the Void Dragons are one of the Eldar Pirate groups (similar to the Eldritch Raiders) from the original Book of the Astronomican, and therefore Eldar Outcasts (or Craftworld Eldar) rather than Dark Eldar.  I know, it seems silly that there are two different types of Eldar Pirates, but that's the way it is.  --Pariah Press 05:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Void Dragons 

message: It is clear that this article should NOT be moved into the basic "warhammer 40k" article. However, in and of itself it does not have a place as its own article. The Asdrubael Vect article should be part of the Dark Eldar article.
If I have mis-placed this and someone is attempting to delete the "Dark Eldar" entry or have it moved to be part of the basic 40k article then I am deffinately against that. But I am for the Asdrubael Vect article being added to the Dark Eldar article.
If adding them to the Dark Eldar article is not favorable to the majority then this article should most certainly be kept as its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demotox (talk • contribs) .
:Dark Eldar merit their own page just as do the other armies and races from 40k. It should certainly not be merged into the main 40k article. I think it's a good idea to merge both the Commorragh and Vect articles as their own sections within this one. Doctor Atomic 05:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, there has never been a suggestion that this page is merged into Warhammer 40,000; there was a well-intentioned suggestion that Asdrubael Vect be merged there, but that's now been redirected here, which is possibly what is causing the confusion. However, I do think this would be a good time to discuss our thoughts on which characters should have their own articles, etc. Cheers --Pak21 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Asdrubael Vect now merged here. Cheers --Pak21 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I kind of feel Asdrubael Vect is too in-universe at the moment, it could just be me. (Lordevilvenom 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article delete/merge status 

message: I have proposed a guideline for character notablity within Warhammer 40,000 articles which I believe may effect the listings on this page. Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability and comment. Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have now agreed some guidelines, and I believe that The Decapitator does not meet any of the criteria specified. If you believe he does, please give the reasons here. (If you wish to discuss changes to the guidelines, please do this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability). Cheers --Pak21 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He meets the criterium "They have their own official special rules...". His rules are in Codex: Dark Eldar (he rocks, too). Doctor Atomic 02:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He stays, then. Thanks --Pak21 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable characters 

message: I've just placed headings in the character section... And just figured out that the whole article is lacking in them... I'll try to fix that up in  a sec. --Falcorian (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

message: The info about her Kabal (the Flayed Skull, to which her warband 'the Emasculators' belongs) isn't something I've seen before and doesn't have a reference. Can someone corroborate this? If not, I'll snip it out. Doctor Atomic 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kruellagh

message: Should there be a section on the Ships used by the Dark Eldar raiders in the Specialist-game Batlefleet Gothic?
Since they only have two kinds of ships (one cruiser-class ship and one Escort-class ship), the section would not be difficiult to implent... but does it belong in the article? 81.229.68.97 12:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that, this page is about Dark Eldar within the context of the 40k fiction franchise, in general. It is not exclusive to the 40k scale tabletop game. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships 

message: I have noticed that this article has a few sections where it slightly veers off into subjective appraisals of how effective the units are in the tabletop 40k game. Any claim that x unit/technology/strategy is one of the most feared/effective/powerful, is highly subjective without extensive statistical evidence to support such a claim. (and none has been cited) 216.36.188.184 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible peacock terms? 

message: Now that the DArk Eldar codex is relesed, maybe we should edit the page, for start, say the c9dex is already out and update that. 92.1.33.210 (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update is probably needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dark Eldar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103101705/http://uk.games-workshop.com:80/darkeldar/torturer/ to http://uk.games-workshop.com/darkeldar/torturer/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified