Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 5

message: added Yarrick to the list of important characters, he's just as important as Thraka was in the history of Armaggedon Shas'o sodit 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its kinda weird to have the people there without explaining -why- they are important. Thus, each race should have a main person and list about 3 or four lines. Doing that, you could put Thraka and then have Yarrick in the paragraph. The two go hand in hand, but the Emperor always trumps Yarrick in terms of humans, but is more important in Ork history. SanchiTachi 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability/Main Character debate space for a very clear discussion on which characters should and should not be included and start a debate on Yarrick if you believe he should be included. Cheers --Pak21 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yarrick 

message: All names that are on the list are "notable." Some may be less notable, but any at the Online Store are definately notable in terms of Wikipedia (as they have their own individualized marketing line under the subheading of their main Army).
There is no argument to be made that chapters are not variants, as two books make it clear that "all loyal chapters" are variants of the Space Marines, and the heading says "The main playable armies in the game are the Chaos Space Marines, Daemonhunters, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Space Marines, Tau, Tyranids and Witch Hunters" which makes any individual Space Marine groups variants of the main line.
Furthermore, Ultramarines, as with the rest, use the generic model base and then have additional special units. 
I suggest that if someone wants to add a variant army, to list a legitimate reason why its there. Such reasons are it being listed on the website, has a "Chapter Approved" article based around them, is mentioned in the Codex (like the Genestealer Cults), or something similar. The inclusion of variants is to give someone new to the game a chance to find different army lists beyond just the main ones (and their supporting Wikipage).
:The problem I see with your logic here is that the Ultramarines are considered to be the most Codex Astartes-compliant Chapter (for quite a few rules revisions now), and are therefore the base from which all other Chapters diverge to a greater or lesser extent.  So, the Ultras cannot be a variant, because then there is no base from which to vary.  
:There are also plenty of non-notable variants, partially because there are (supposedly) "unnamed" First Founding Chapters, and partially because anyone is free to make up any Chapter they want and call it a variant of something else.  By the above statement, you could pretty much find a few mentions here and there in a White Dwarf of one person's painting scheme and claim it as a legit variant, which is simply not on.  As for notability based simply on mention, Rainbow Warriors, anyone? 
:I see a similar problem here now as was before, and that is that one person is attempting to redefine things the way he sees it, rather than taking into consideration the way everyone else sees it, and I suggest that this be addressed before we have another issue. MSJapan 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say has nothing to do with the Warhammer page and is in-universe only. I put forth the fact that they have their own colors, have their own special characters, have two unique units (Honour Guard and Tyranid Hunters), and their own history that makes them a variant, as the book even says, all Space Marine Chapters are variants. The Codex Astartes has nothing to do with an army in the game being a variant or not of their "general" army. They are not the generic Space Marine. None of the officials chapters are, as the Daemonhunter and the Witch Hunter books introduce what the "generic" Space Marine is (i.e. no special rules, no special units, which Ultramarines now have both). Thanks. SanchiTachi 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for your information, it doesn't matter what you say about redefining, as the armies listed were the original armies listed and agreed to way before you and anyone else came along editing it otherwise. Furthermore, I put up evidence supporting my case. Verifiability is a powerful rule on Wikipedia. Please respect it. SanchiTachi 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your logic this time, there are no generics.  Every army has particular characteristics, their own colors, characters and history.  As you say, if we don't know what a generic Marine is, how do you have any basis for a definition of a variant? So if everyone's a variant, no one is.  Furthermore, what is the value of determining a variant outside of the game?  none of this stuff is real, so I could easily argue that you're complaining about removing nothing from nothing.  That should sound like nothing but semantics, because that is precisely what you are arguing about here, and that your semantics don't match everybody else's.  Pursuant to your last statement, read WP:OWN. MSJapan 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, any army that doesn't have special units or break from the traditional rules falls under the generic Space Marine according to the text. And no, the only one "owning" the page are you and anyone else who tries to remove groups from the page. They are cited. They are notable. They were put there by people before you and you can't stand them being there. I defended them from being removed like so many others. You can't stand them being there and obsess with their removal. I don't think you understand the rules of Wikipedia, which include notability and verifiability, which the list all meets, and there is no legitimate reason to remove them. Sorry, but you are just showing that you are here only to express your own Point of View, which seems just to obsess and dominate groups off the page because it satisfies you in whatever strange way. If you don't like the variant section, go and leave. Just because you don't seem to enjoy it doesn't mean that it hasn't met verifiability and notability standards and must be included according to Wiki standards. You speak for only two people. If you look at the history, I speak for quite far more. SanchiTachi 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because MSJapan likes to claim that everyone supports him (without any proof), I will repost Pak's statement from above: "Personally, I think they should be listed. Consider this from a non-specialist's point of view: if he saw me playing with a Dark Angel army against a Blood Angels army, they'd clearly think that the two were related, apart from being painted a different colour. As for Ultramarines, much the same argument applies: they're the "variant" with no special rules (although what's the deal with Tyranid Hunters these days?). As another data point, the GW website lists Dark Angels and Black Templars on the main Space Marines webpage. Cheers --Pak21 09:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't claim support, I merely pointed out that other people have their  own opinions that you should consider before passing unilateral judgment on article contents.  If you want to do this "your way or the highway", use your own webspace. MSJapan 03:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how I didn't put it originally in there, only cited sources and defended it from being maliciously edited out, you are the one pulling the whole ownership, feeling that you have the right to delete what other people put in without even having a legitimate Wiki reason, and you ignore legitimate Wiki reasons why its there. SanchiTachi 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Examples of variant armies include the following (however, this list is not exhaustive):" - so why do we need every army there? Darkson - BANG! 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My "Wiki-proof" is that the newest Codex: Space Marines, as well as many of the other SM-related codexes for years have stated that Ultramarines are "generic marines" - their army is the one everyone else's is based off of (that's why they have their own section in the Store, BTW).  Therefore, there is no way you can claim them as a variant, because it's everybody  else that's the variant (which is why if UM are a variant, as you say, then somehow there's no generic template.  That's a pretty obvious indicator that there's a mistake there).  I'm not ignoring reasons at all, the fact is that what you say makes no sense when you do look at sources, and you are deciding to use your interpretations of things as opposed to what the sources say (you say "in-game usage has no value", for example - if it has no value we can say nothing about the game whatsoever, and we might as well AfD this article, the whole project, and every other article dealing with anything that's not "real.") MSJapan 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats not proof in any kind of way to consider it. I already put forth the burden of evidence for why it is there. You only want it removed so you can dominate the page. You don't have a consensus to remove it. There are over 4 people so far that put it back in. There are only two who have removed it. Even the paragraph above states that all chapters are variants! And I looked through the whole Space Marine codex and not once did it say they were generic, especially with characters that can only be played by the Ultramarine armies and have special rules! And yes, there is a generic template. See the Witch Hunters book and the Daemonhunters books. It says that you cannot use any special rules or special characters. That means that you cannot use Tyranid Hunters. That means that you cannot use Ultramarines as Ultramarines. How can you not understand something as simple as that? What the hell is your problem that you are obsessing so much about removing Ultramarines from a page? It doesn't make sense and you are going crazy trying to delete what others have wanted in for a very long time. Its not your page, get over yourself. SanchiTachi 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you purposely ignore that I put forth notability requirements? Furthermore, you can claim I am taking over the page all you want, but its proved that you acted without looking for consensus and removed what four other people have put in or reput in. Furthermore, you ignore both verifiability and notability and you see to control the list for whatever crazy idea. SanchiTachi 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do Not Remove Any Names From the Variant List