Talk:Lucius the Eternal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Warhammer 40,000. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Lucius' Fate 2 General edits 3 Edit to Wikipedia style guide 4 Killing Lucius theory

[edit] Lucius' Fate

What happened to this guy after the Battle of Medusa V? Some folks in Relic forum claims that he had been captured by the inquisition. Anyone has better info on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.222.84 (talk • contribs) .

This talk page is for discussing the article itself, not for general 40k related chat. You'd be better off taking this to one of the many, many 40k forums on the net. Cheers --Pak21 10:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I AM discussing the article itself. According to the official campaign results under "Rumors" section this character is captured. If the article on Cypher can include campaign results and speculations, I don't see why the article shouldn't include the possibility that Lucius has been captured--see my point?

[edit] General edits

I've removed some of Lucius incidental information taken from the Horus Heresy novels that does not serve to inform this article on the character (and seems more focused on giving a blow by blow account of events that would be better served in the GiF article as a plot synopsis) as well as the purely fan idea that his disfigurement before the Heresy was a sign of piety to Slaanesh. I've also cleaned up the sentence structures a little and removed unneccessary hyperbole and embellishment of the established fiction.Primarch 02:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Wikipedia style guide

I've altered the article to better conform to the WP:WAF, through rewriting the in-universe tone to an out-of-universe one as well as re-structuring.Primarch 10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit to being slightly confused by this comment, as the whole article appears to be written entirely in an in-universe style: "Lucius is inspired by challenges in combat", "Lucius distinguished himself", "Lucius began carving ritual scars into his face", "Some believed that it was an expression of devotion and piety", "Lucius came to see his new situation as a challenge", "Tarvitz could not defeat Lucius through swordplay", "Lucius eventually rose to the rank of Lord Commander", "Lucius had returned to the world of the living", "Lucius is armed with a daemon-infested whip", etc, etc, etc, which would seem to me to be pretty good examples of the in-universe style described at WP:WAF#Prose examples. The only two comments I can see written in an out-of-universe style are "other sources say it was to deter comments" (which really should cite those sources) and the Medusa V section. Cheers --Pak21 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll wipe the egg off my face and rewrite. Primarch 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better! If the rest of the article can acquire citations as the first paragraph has, this could be easily the best of the Warhammer 40,000 character articles. Cheers --Pak21 13:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the guidance. The article has been almost completely rewritten (though I haven't removed any information, just tried to adjust the tone). I'll make similar adjustments to the Kharn and Abaddon articles shortly.Primarch 01:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killing Lucius theory

I've added citation and verification tags to the addition of a theory on the subject of how to 'kill' Lucius found in the Weapons and Abilities section. It's my belief that this is more or less one fan's musings on the matter, and not appropriate for the nature of the article. Does anyone think it should be removed or given a heading as a "theory" or "fan speculation"?Primarch 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I see two possibilities: either the information has been published in a reliable source in which case it sources can be provided and it's a good addition to the article, or it hasn't, in which case it is original research and should be removed from the article. "Theories" and "fan speculation" essentially have no place on Wikipedia. Cheers --Pak21 09:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The poster him/herself admitted that it was an unsupported theory and I've since removed it. Primarch 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)