Category talk:Daemons

Gods and Daemons Category

Sorry if Im getting caried away with the categories here! I would like to propose merging "Category:Gods and Daemons" with "Category:Characters (Gods)". The "Gods and Daemons" category is a fairly random collection of articles - it contains totally disperate articles ,like "Star Child" and "Hellblade" for example, but has no Eldar Gods, Ctan etc. I think it would be far more sensible (and logical) to have all daemonic articles (the daemons themselves, daemon weapons etc) under one category and all the gods and god-like entities in another. The individual articles themselves will have plenty of links (ie the Khorne page will already link to the Khorne category and daemons etc).

Thus i would suggest two categories -

• "Category:Characters (Gods)" - to contain all the gods of all races/factions
• "Category:Daemons" - to contain all the Chaos specific Daemons, Daemon Weapons etc

and the deletion of the "Category:Gods and Daemons" page Thelemur 02:27, 7 November 2011 (CET)

That's what i've been suggesting and claiming above (note:it has no c'tan and eldar gods because i removed them from that category), altrough instead of "Category:Daemons" it should be "Category:Chaos Daemons", because that category is already used as a army category and the official name of that army is Chaos Daemons, as can be seen here http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landingArmy.jsp?catId=cat440166a&rootCatGameStyle=--Ashendant 02:33, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Yeah - it was your suggestions above that spurred me on to post here, even though the category mess had been annoying me for a while. I'd be happy to have the category as "Chaos Daemons" rather than "Daemons" (although as I mentioned above I dont think going by army lists is always the best idea - it treads dangerously close to game mechanics which we are specifically forbidden from using). Above all, I just feel ther should be an inherant logic to the layout of the articles and categories - so that someone with only a slight knowledge of the subject can look up an article and then be able to find (through categories, portals etc) related subjects , rather than just being presented with a mass of random, often unconnected information Thelemur 02:47, 7 November 2011 (CET)

It's not that close, sometimes you have to read the rules to extrapolate what effect it does on a being and put that effect as fluff without the rule, in this particular case i think the official army name should be used, because well it's official.--Ashendant 02:54, 7 November 2011 (CET)

However i don't mind Daemons, there's the problem of a Avatar being a Daemon in DoW 2, but that's beside the point--Ashendant 02:57, 7 November 2011 (CET)

I appreciate that - I have no problems with using army lists per se, but I dislike things being categorised soley by what codex they are in - that way we get nasty splits like "Dark Eldar Armoury - 3rd Editon" and "Dark Eldar Armoury - 5th Editon", when there should be one armoury page with individual notes on items that are not in the current canon (much like the Necron Pariahs, for example). And as for the Eldar Avatar - it has been described in various souces as being, essentially, a Daemon so I have no problems with it being placed in that category - but 100% definately not as a "Chaos Daemon" Thelemur 03:06, 7 November 2011 (CET)

A problem, i think there no need to list weapons in the daemon category when it's already listed in weapon(chaos) category, we can make it a subcategory too so there isn't any between what are daemon and daemon specific things(an article on true name and daemon weapons is okay), and daemon weapons(article on each individual daemon weapon is not okay).--Ashendant 04:24, 7 November 2011 (CET)

again, I 100% agree - I just couldnt be bothered doing it tonight :). So Should we make one page for Daemon weapons, and redirect all the individual pages there? Thelemur 04:29, 7 November 2011 (CET)

I can't be bothered tonight too, but we don't need to make a new one, i think, we already have Category:Weapons (Chaos) in fact many of those in the daemon category already go to this category, in fact i will make these changes real quick--Ashendant 04:33, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Thanks mate Thelemur 04:35, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Done, put the category Technology (Chaos) as a sub-category of Daemon, which makes Weapon (chaos) a sub-sub-category of Daemon, also added Character (Daemon) as a sub-category of Daemon, and all articles inside the subcategories mentioned above removed the Daemon Category.

Note: i think the horror (daemon) article should be renamed.--Ashendant 04:44, 7 November 2011 (CET)

How about "Horror of Tzeentch" or "Pink Horror"? (as long as we have redirects for pink/blue horror etc. leading to the main article) Thelemur 04:51, 7 November 2011 (CET)

GW website refers to the models as "Pink Horrors of Tzeentch" - so any variation on that theme is good by me Thelemur 04:54, 7 November 2011 (CET)

I was going to say that, since the article lists both types we should go by Horror of Tzeench.--Ashendant 04:57, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Agreed :) Thelemur 04:57, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Done - Thelemur 05:12, 7 November 2011 (CET)

Please move this discussion to the appropriate talk page, thank you. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 09:38, 7 November 2011 (CET)