Talk:List of Space Marine Chapters

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Does anyone have a definitive list? I think some chapters are missing and I wonder if all chapters listed here are really GW/chapter approved. I could be wrong ofcourse. -- JoeneB, 11:53 14 June 2006 (CEST).

  • The only way I can think of to find a definitive list is to trawl through every single piece of fluff/background ever produced and make a list. What we have could be right or wrong and this place badly lacks sourcing to prove the existance of many of these chapters.--Jonru 12:02, 14 June 2006 (CEST)
    • Ok, I've looked through some stuff I have here, including the Art of Warhammer book. I remembered seeing a poster in it which listed Adeptus Astartes chapters. I figured, if this poster excists in a official WH40k art book, those chapters must be official. I also checked the english GW site and ForgeWorld site. All chapters and chaos legions now listed are official GW chapters or chapter approved (as far as I know that is...). Now it is possible some chapters that were here before my big edit are now not listed but as there was no source listing, there was no certainty that these were official. -- JoeneB, 15:27, 14 June 2006 (CEST)
  • I've added the chapters mentioned in the Renegade chapters article. Where mentioned as Chaos turned chapters I've added this notation next to the Renegade indication. Those who are not clearly marked as Chaos chapters in their individual articles I've just noted them as renegade... assuming of course the info in those article is accurate as some of them have no sourcing listed. -- JoeneB, 23:26, 16 November 2006 (CET)
  • I just got a poster released by GW which lists 100 chapters. I will try to post it as soon as possible, but I am very busy at the moment. Shas'ui'Teal'wisp 01:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving articles to the end of titles

Some of the chapters begin with an article such as 'The'. This is against the Lexicanum naming policy. I would propose that these be changed.

Offending titles:

I have added the following:

However, I was hesitant to remove the first listings without a consensus. Please provide feedback.--Rlyehable 21:59, 5 February 2007 (CET)

Please sign contributions on talk pages. --Inquisitor S. 17:41, 27 January 2007 (CET)

This would be better in my opinion. As far as I know, it is customary with most listings that "the" is placed at the end, and I think it look better/more professional. Also the articles concerning this are now listed under T... which in my mind doesn't make sense. -- JoeneB, 18:27, 27 January 2007 (CET)

Definition of "canon"

For the space marine listing how do you determine "cannon"?

  1. Rules for chapter in a 40k rulebook.
  2. Rules for chapter in White Dwarf.
  3. Paint scheme in 40k art book (example: "How to paint space marines")
  4. Paint scheme in White Dwarf (article: "Space marine colors").
  5. Name mentioned in 40k rulebook (Index Astartes, Chapter Approved 2002, etc.)
  6. Name mentioned in 40K story (novel, White Dwarf, etc.)
  7. Paint scheme in White Dwarf painting showcase article (i.e. Golden Daemon, etc.)
  8. Name mentioned in Citadel Journel.
  9. Name mentioned on GW website (any country, Black Gobo e-zine, etc., Armegeddon or Eye of Terror website).
  10. Name mentioned during world wide campaign, but not found on website (difficult to cite).
  11. Name in GW email from world wide campaign.
  12. Name in GW sanctioned (but not necessarily world wide) tournament/campaign (example: GW UK's Campaign Weekends Badab War Rules (.pdf)).
  13. other?

--Rlyehable 22:12, 5 February 2007 (CET)

  1. Rules for chapter in a 40k rulebook. -Yes.
  2. Rules for chapter in White Dwarf. -Yes.
  3. Paint scheme in 40k art book (example: "How to paint space marines") -Yes.
  4. Paint scheme in White Dwarf (article: "Space marine colors"). -Yes.
  5. Name mentioned in 40k rulebook (Index Astartes, Chapter Approved 2002, etc.) -Yes.
  6. Name mentioned in 40K story (novel, White Dwarf, etc.) -Yes.
  7. Paint scheme in White Dwarf painting showcase article (i.e. Golden Daemon, etc.) - Not really as an official chapter, in the German Lex we have got a list for official chapters and another list for fanmade chapters that are mentioned in a publication.
  8. Name mentioned in Citadel Journel. -Yes.
  9. Name mentioned on GW website (any country, Black Gobo e-zine, etc., Armegeddon or Eye of Terror website). -Yes. Additionally marked with a corresponding country template if necessary.
  10. Name mentioned during world wide campaign, but not found on website (difficult to cite). -Yes if it's an official source. However I don't think that should happen...? It should either be in WD, campaign site or corresponding book.
  11. Name in GW email from world wide campaign. -Yes.
  12. Name in GW sanctioned (but not necessarily world wide) tournament/campaign (example: GW UK's Campaign Weekends Badab War Rules (.pdf)). -Yes. But no if it's fan stuff from somebody who played outside official boundaries.
  13. other? -Depends upon.

--Inquisitor S. 23:10, 5 February 2007 (CET)

Move name only chapters

Would anyone mind if I moved all the chapters which exist only as a name (of which there are quite a few) to a section at the end of this list? These name-only chapters may be canonical, having been mentioned in official publications such as Chapter Approved 2001, but there seems little point in putting them into the main list before anything else is known about them. It's not very rewarding to click on their name and find there's just nothing there! -- newsdeskdan, 19:06, 9 February 2007 (GMT)

That does not seem logical to me, articles with little content are not collected in back section of a lexicon/ encyclopedia either. --Inquisitor S. 20:46, 9 February 2007 (CET)

I see what you're saying but these aren't articles - they're just names! Perhaps it would be better to simply remove the square bracket link code from the chapters about which literally nothing, bar the name, is known? That way they remain on the list but don't disappoint! If anything is written about them at a future date the link could be reinstated - would that work? -- newsdeskdan, 19:58 9 February 2007 (GMT).

Normally empty articles (meaning the links) are shown in red instead of brown, so everybody should know which article is without content. --Inquisitor S. 20:57, 9 February 2007 (CET)

I would suggest that we place an asterisk ( * ) before or at the end of the name to indicate that only the name of the chapter is known. Examples:

  • *Heardofs8
  • Nameonly*,8

--Rlyehable 23:13, 9 February 2007 (CET)

I agree with Inquisitor S. Why use another way to denote there is only the name when it is clear that the article is empty (which is probably due to lack of info)? Besides, if any info may turn up/be created by GW, it's easy to add this by just following the "red-is-for-empty-article" link and add it without first having to re-instate the link or remove the notation you are suggesting... But that's just me :) -- JoeneB, 9 February 2007, 23:47 (CET)

I know what you're saying about the 'red link' thing but someone has already created pages for all the 'blank' chapters which are just, well, blank (but which still result in a brown link)! A case in point is the Angels of Penance. Check out what Lexicanum is saying about them. In some cases chapters have blanks like this even when stuff exist about them - surely these are the ones which deserve a brown link! Couldn't we distinguish between the two somehow? I'm happy to leave things the way they are, however, if that's your final word Inquisitor S.! --newsdeskdan 9 February 2007, 23.07 (GMT)

Well, I don't really like to distinguish between chapters by the amount of stuff we know about them, that would just not be justified or logical. A list simply is a list, so please leave it as it used to be, I do not really see this as much of an issue (at least at the moment). We can only try and fill in what we know, and if it's only the source where they appear by name, then so be it, it's not our fault;) --Inquisitor S. 05:27, 10 February 2007 (CET)

Citation Requests

The following entries need a source identified:

  • Children of Purgatos - Chaos Space Marines/Renegade chapters - Codex Chaos Space Marines, 3rd Edition (second version)
  • Crimson Tears -- Deleted
  • Extinction Angels - Chaos Space Marines/Renegade chapters - Codex Chaos Space Marines, 3rd Edition (second version)
  • Imperial Dragons
  • Knights Angelis -- Deleted
  • Quaestors -- Deleted
  • Steel Cobras - Chaos Space Marines/Renegade chapters - Codex Chaos Space Marines, 3rd Edition (second version), also "Index Astartes: Renegades" article in White Dwarf
  • Storm Templars -- Deleted
  • Warhawks - Destroyed during the 5th Black Crusade - as mentioned for Venerators.
Have you already checked with the German Lex? It usually lists the sources you need. --Inquisitor S. 15:25, 13 February 2007 (CET)
Citation for some of the above added. --Dorle 18:44, 13 February 2007 (CET)

Have you already checked with the German Lex? It usually lists the sources you need. --Inquisitor S. No. I, personally, would not cite a source unless I had access to the source material. I, personally, do not consider other articles to be authoritive enoght for me to cite. Perhaps, I am too stringent.

Well that depends. If I tell you that these sources are correct, you could consider them authentic ;) However I would have to check this on every individual article ^^ --Inquisitor S. 19:20, 13 February 2007 (CET)
Inquisitor S., I am not intending to discredit anyone. I just want to ensure my credibility by only citing what I have checked. :-) --Rlyehable 02:08, 14 February 2007 (CET)

Immortal Hearts

There is a reference to this chapter on Wikipedia List of Space Marines Chapter. Are they canon?

And also for Reclaimers and Terror Tigers.

You would have to look at their source for the information. Wikipedia, itself, does not constitue a valid source for the Lexicanum. If you can verify the source, put the chapters in the list and place a related article. Otherwise don't add them. --Rlyehable 15:01, 25 February 2007 (CET)
German Lexicanum - Immortal Hearts are mentioned in Epic Armageddon rulebook. Reclaimers are from Ciaphas Cain novels. Terror Tigers are supposedly mentioned in a WD article and a BL novel, this however would have to be checked and put down ad concrete number and novel. --Inquisitor S. 16:18, 25 February 2007 (CET)

here is a list places you can go to to possibly find a full list of chapters: -you can go to google and type in non codex space marine chapters -you should also check out the games workshop website, I'm pretty sure there was a forum there.if not then you could always go to google and type in space marine forum or something like that.


Emperor's Wolves and Blood Disciples

Currently, we have the Emperor's Wolves relocated to the Blood Disciples page. But from what I've gathered from the infomation on the Blood Disciples page, they are part of the loyal Emperor's Wolves chapter who turned to chaos. So what would be the best thing to do? --ShockMox 18:12, 12 June 2008 (CEST)

Terror Tiger Marine Chapter

The Terror Tigers Space Marine Chapter are mentioned in the second book of The Inquisition War Trilogy (Harlequin) by Ian Watson. Recently reissued in Omnibus edition.

The Nameless

ive seen a chapter called 'the nameless'on the bottom right of the galaxy map in the space marines codex 5th edition. Should it be added to the list?

This list contains several mistakes - we should deleted it and rewrite it anew

Look ppl, I like to be blunt and honest so here it goes: IMHO this article should be deleted asap. Afterwards it should be rewritten from scratch with proper sources in the proper places.

If you look at the list you will realize that many of the listed names are not chapters at all. Several of them are mere Chaos warbands. The list/article is also somewhat poor in details. The new article could/would follow the example set in Lost Chapter. I'm quite willing to do it, but I think it's better to delete this article first. This would enable me to work with an empty clean slate (I'm somewhat lazy and it's simply way easier to create a new article than to see, check, verify and then improve several dozen entries). Aehren 19:51, 4 August 2011 (CEST)

I would get rid of the list completely and go for a pictorial list in galery form. As for the details: lists are not supposed to contain a lot of details. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 09:17, 5 August 2011 (CEST)
Agreed. Aehren, may I suggest you work on this project on your user page, then you can simply copy-paste it over once you're happy with it. That way you have a blank slate to start with and the current article can stay up for visitors to use until it's fixed. We have pictures of a lot of the chapters on the pictorial pages and their own articles so you shouldn't have to find all that many. Good luck on the project if you take it on, it's a big one!--Mob 06:27, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

Agreed as well. However, I think we should save the article onto someone's overflow page and have it be worked on there. Then we can send the revisions to this main page. Commisar Gegnillum 15:42, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

let me know if you need help --augustmanifesto 04:34, 8 August 2011 (CEST)

Does this chapter exist?

A chapter "Golden Angels" was added by a user, User:Tflash, who is unexperienced at best and inserting fan-fluff at worst. Does a Golden Angels chapter exist? --DetlefK 17:23, 20 October 2011 (CEST)

Can't see his addition. Where is it? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 18:41, 20 October 2011 (CEST)
I went through his list of user-edits (special page in the toolbox). --DetlefK 19:42, 20 October 2011 (CEST)
I'm not sure if this helps, but the only reference outside of this wiki I can find of the Golden Angels is on a Fan Fic forum "http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/archive/index.php?t-60023.html" in Chapter 3 of some guys story. There are no other references I can find online at all, and no references in any of the books, codices and Imperial Armours' I have either. I'm pretty sure it's Fan Fic. - Kobun 22:17, 20 October 2011 (BST)

A table

Maybe this list should be turned into a table, with the following:

  • Name
  • Origin
  • Founding
  • Status(Renegade, Loyal, Extinct)

More stuff could be added like current chaptermaster and homeworld but i feel that at least those 4 mentioned above would help a lot--Ashendant 15:07, 21 December 2011 (CET)

Don't make it to complicated. The 4 up there look fine to me :) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 15:20, 21 December 2011 (CET)
I hum don't know the code for making tables in this particular wiki :S...--Ashendant 20:33, 21 December 2011 (CET)
Just copy/paste from the titan list. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 21:25, 21 December 2011 (CET)
Like this?--Ashendant 22:40, 21 December 2011 (CET)
Name Origin Founding Status Source
Alpha Legion

I'll put this article Under WIP.--Ashendant 22:53, 21 December 2011 (CET)

Ok this is a fairly huge article that i lost all my patience to do more today, for the sake of my sanity i'll continue this tomorrow, if anybody wants to help i would be very thankful.--Ashendant 00:08, 22 December 2011 (CET)
Yes, this is even worse than the Titan list. But please note that two people can't work on this page at the same time (editting conflicts). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 09:15, 22 December 2011 (CET)
Ok... finished for today... if anybody wants to add founding and origin chapters please do it will help a lot.--Ashendant 16:49, 22 December 2011 (CET)
Good job! Ok, so what do we want to call First Founding Chapters (under the founding column)- as I've seen that argument before (because they weren't technically 'Founded' and the 2nd Founding is technically the first). Options are First Founding, Primogenitors, Original Legion, or anything that anyone else might be able to come up with. Thornblood 16:58, 22 December 2011 (CET)

Well... In fact they are not legions anymore. So I would not call them like that. Primogenitors is sth completely different (2nd founding offspring of the Ultramarines). First (1st) founding would be suitable. Why do you think they were not "founded"? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 18:22, 22 December 2011 (CET)

Status

About Status we need to create some sort of standard for them otherwise it gets to confusing.
Only one per chapter, and i was thinking of the following
  • Chaos - (The average chaos related space marine chapter/warband(no need to repeat the word renegade in it since chaos already declares that chapter as a renegade))
  • Renegade - (Non-chaos renegades)
  • Imperium - (Average Space Marine Chapter)
  • Expunged - (For the 2 Unknown Legions)
  • Extinct - (Destroyed)
What do you think?--Ashendant 21:19, 22 December 2011 (CET)
Exchange "Status" for "Allegiance". Chaos - Imperium - Renegade. Extinct is not good. Chapters are rarely completely destroyed. And in any case their allegiance is more important. So IF we have to include that it would still be Imperium (destroyed). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 22:45, 22 December 2011 (CET)
I hate the word destroyed in this case, i prefer Extinct much more, and i prefer if it was more like "Imperium -Extinct". Changing to allegiance seems to be a better idea. And i want to keep Expunged because we have no idea what happened to those 2 legions.--Ashendant 00:07, 23 December 2011 (CET)
But surely the 2 expunged Legions won't appear in the list anyway, as they are unknown. Thelemur 00:17, 23 December 2011 (CET)
Legion II and Legion XI, i will add them to this list once the damm thing is completed, also i'm not adding anything more to this article today so feel free to update it.--Ashendant 00:30, 23 December 2011 (CET)
Im not sure about the use of the word "extinct", it is not generally used to refer to organisations - it is usually only used to describe species or volcanoes Thelemur 02:26, 23 December 2011 (CET)
Regarding Renegade vs Chaos affiliation. I think there should be an article which describes what a Renegade chapter is and the differences it has with Chaos and have the Renegade affiliation link to that. To a newcomer to the 40k universe, understanding the difference could indeed be complicated.--Harriticus 02:36, 23 December 2011 (CET)
I agree, I think (in the context of this table) renegade should refer to chapters that have broken away from the Imperium but are not alligned to Chaos. However the Renegade Space Marine Chapters (List) page is mostly comprised of Chaos chapters so perhaps we need a less confusing term than "renegade". I also think that the Astral Claws/Red Corsairs should be listed as Chaos rather than renegade, as whilst they did not initially rebel for Chaosy reasons they have since turned to Chaos worship. Thelemur 02:43, 23 December 2011 (CET)
My proposal is the name of List of Renegade Space Marine Chapters article is changed to List of Chaos Space Marine Warbands (most of the CSM forces listed there are warbands, not chapters) while a new article, list of Renegade space marine chapters, is created and attached to the Renegade Space Marine description article. Another alternative is to simply delete the List of Renegade Chapters article and just use this as the source for all Space Marine reference, as it includes both Chaos, Imperial, and Renegade chapters.--Harriticus 02:58, 23 December 2011 (CET)
I agree that the Renegade Chapters list should be changed to Chaos Space Marine Warbands - this will keep things consistant and help avoid confusion. If we do have a seperate list for non-chaos renegade chapters (the list would be small - but there are definately a few that would fit in) I dont think we should call them "Renegades". Whilst this would be accurate in a sense, during the Rougue Trader period Chaos Marines were generally refered to as "Chaos Renegades", so this could be confusing. This is also why I suggest not using the term "Renegade" in this list - the term can me interpreted in 2 different ways. Perhaps "Rebel" or "Rogue" chapters, or some similar term could be used and a disambig page set up for "Renegades". Thelemur 03:30, 23 December 2011 (CET)
Well the 5th edition rulebook and the 4th edition CSM codex talks about non-Chaos affiliated chapters which they dub renegade. However I'd be fine with Rogue.--Harriticus 03:41, 23 December 2011 (CET)
Tbh - I think Renegade just sounds better (and as you say - it is used in current sources), I was just concerned that it might lead to confusion. I suppose if we re-name the renegades list to chaos, then that will free up the term renegade to refer soley to non-chaos forces. We would just have to make sure that all the "Renegade" links are moved to the appropriate topic. I suppose that can wait until we finish this list though. Im still not convinced by the use of the word "extinct" though, it just doesnt sound correct to me. Thelemur 03:50, 23 December 2011 (CET)
I agree with renaming the renegade to chaos space marine warbands and then make a renegade chapters for non-chaos renegade chapters.
About the Extinct thing i feel that Destroyed sounds wrong in this case, and that Extinct feel better, because besides being destroyed a space marine chapter could also be dissolved and other stuff like that.--Ashendant 05:02, 23 December 2011 (CET)

Cool - we will stick with extict atm then (though I may raise the topic again later :) ). I'm going to work on filling out a bit more of the list tonight, though I obv wont be able to do it all. I'm quite happy to move the renegade stuff to the appropriate sections, but not until this list is finished. Also Ive left some of the Renegade links as red-links in the list atm - we can sort it all out when the articles are properly set up. Thelemur 05:11, 23 December 2011 (CET)

Renegade should indeed only refer to non-Chaos. With Extinct I am not happy. You'll never have any guarantee that the last SM was killed off (who knows where some might be seconded to). And as long as there is one Marine, they are not extinct. Destroyed on the other hand describes the situation much better. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 10:42, 23 December 2011 (CET)
Destroyed doesn't work either because there are cases of certain space marine chapters being Dissolved and other stuff, we want a single that encompass all ways of saying that chapter no longer existing without explaining which was the method.--Ashendant 16:21, 23 December 2011 (CET)
For the origin part we should probably do the following changes:
  • Legions instead of having N/A they should have the primarch name(since their geneseed was made from their genetic stock).
  • When the geneseed comes from various chapter it should have a simple "Varied" (ex. Deathwatch, warriors of agganor).
  • Come up with a term for all kinds of rumoured/possible and stick to it.(i suggest presumed like i use in another wiki)--Ashendant 16:27, 23 December 2011 (CET)

Finished(ish)

I couldnt sleep - so I filled in all the entries. You should all get me a teddy bear for Xmas :p. I'm sure there are things i've missed so if other peeps could re-check and edit, that would be great. One thing I know I may have done wrong - several of the chapters I've listed as descended from the Raven Guard are described as being "alledged" to come from that stock - I just couldnt be bothered to check the source, so that may be worth re-checking, thanks. Next stop - fixing the "Renegade Articles". Thelemur 07:30, 23 December 2011 (CET)

There are no Teddybears. Maybe we can find a Servobearskull. With big fangs. And laser eyes. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 10:43, 23 December 2011 (CET)
I removed almost all of the notes i the Name of the chapter section, because all that were on those note can be easily read on the article itself and it's redundant to add them(basicly it's unnecessary filler), i didn't remove the Skulltakers name note because it was the only one that looked actually important.
Now all that is left to do is confirm the unsourced and fill out the blanks.--Ashendant 23:04, 23 December 2011 (CET)
List of blanks
  • Golden Angels(Fanfiction?)
  • Golden Halos (Source)
  • Warhawks (Source)
  • Killmongers (Origin, Founding)
  • Fire Reavers (Origin, Founding)
  • Sons of Hate (Origin, Founding)
  • Red Rage (Origin, Founding)
  • Heralds of Ultramar (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Terror Tigers (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Marines Vigilant (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Sons of Gideon (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Crimson Scions (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Halo Brethren (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Hammers of Retribution (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Stone Gauntlets (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Red Seraphs (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Crimson Scythes (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Knights Unyielding (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
  • Templars of Blood (Origin, Founding, Allegiance)
--Ashendant 23:12, 23 December 2011 (CET)

Most of the notes you removed from the Name section were illustrating that certain chapters have had different names (and therefore appear in this table two or three times). I think this is relevant and useful information to include and makes the table easier to use for the reader. For example the reader can tell at a glance that the "Mentors" and "Mentor Legion" are the same thing at a glance without having to go to that article to confirm it. Similarly the reader clicking on "Imperial Heralds" would be re-directed to "Word Bearers" without knowing why, and would have to read through a rather huge article to find out that Imperial Heralds was their original name (TBH - I dont know if the Word Bearers article even mentions it at all). Thelemur 23:30, 23 December 2011 (CET)

In this first case it should be more like this this Mentors/Mentors Legion(I want to keep this list small and simple so i want to avoid stuff like "AKA" and Formerly Known)
In the second case that sort of thing should be listed right in the first line of the chapter article (ex:The World Bearers (formerly known as the Imperial Heralds))like i see in most wikis.--Ashendant 00:21, 24 December 2011 (CET)
I really dont see why you have put "Space Sharks/Carcharadons/Carcharadon Astra" as a title then. (It also means that there the alphabetical nature of the list is rather ruined). Thelemur 00:52, 24 December 2011 (CET)
You're right on both accounts, there's no need for repetition and the alphabetic order should be respected.--Ashendant 02:16, 24 December 2011 (CET)
I think we need to rename List of Renegade Chapters to List of Chaos Space Marine Warbands now (I don't think I can do that...). I'll create a Renegade Chapter description article which links to a list of Renegade Chapters. As I said before other alternatives are simply deleting the Renegade List and just having this article be the supreme list for all Space Marines. Another alternative is to rename List of Renegade Chapters to "List of Renegade & Chaos Space Marine Warbands". But now that this article is finished it's the next step me thinks.--Harriticus 03:06, 24 December 2011 (CET)
We should probably delete those other 2 articles, since this one already covers those 2.--Ashendant 03:10, 24 December 2011 (CET)
However a new Renegade Space Marines or Renegade Chapters article should be made to explain what that is.--Ashendant 03:18, 24 December 2011 (CET)
I'm going to start work on the 2 new lists now. Thelemur 03:39, 24 December 2011 (CET)

New Section

We now have 4 distinct lists -

Obviously this has been a fairly major overhaul of the previous pages and there are probably many things we have missed. Specific problems I think we will have to deal with include -

  • The red-link chapters that Ashendant mentioned earlier
  • Adding the appropriate links to the exising chapter pages (presumably every chapter page should contain the List of Space Marine Chapters link plus the Loyal /Renegade/ Chaos link relevant to that page)
  • Sources need cleaned up on the Chaos Warband page - I couldnt face doing it tonight
  • Fixing all the redirects for the old Renegade Space Marine Chapters (List) and Renegade Chapters pages (Specifically the "What links here" pages will either need to be changed from "renegade" to "chaos" or at least have the appropriate re-directs set up)

I am very happy to work on any/all of these issues, but obv if we share the workload between us it will be alot easier. (And Inquisitor S may give us Servobearskulls as a reward). Thelemur 06:45, 24 December 2011 (CET)

Also, just to be cheesy for a moment, I've enjoyed working with other users on this (rather than just doing my own articles) and I hope you all have a great Xmas :) Thelemur 06:45, 24 December 2011 (CET)
Retrieved from "https://lex.124811.xyz/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Space_Marine_Chapters&oldid=376383"