Talk:Primarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 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

[edit] Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

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)

[edit] Canonical Correctness

I have a few issues with the introduction to this article:

  • Primarchs, as far as I'm aware, weren't cloned
  • They weren't 'bred' as this implies biological parents with those features
  • Nowhere does it say that the missing two legion's primarchs weren't found
  • The issue of mutations is possibly in the wrong order in the article; most sources conjecture the mutations to be as a result of their dispersal through the warp

As nobody's visited this page in some time I'll alter it now and anyone who objects can revert it.Sojourner001 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but please remember to cite sources as you do so. Cheers --Pak21 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nowhere does it say that the missing two legion's primarchs weren't found." Quite the opposite, in fact. Several sources state that all of the Primarchs WERE found. --Pariah Press 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of primarchs

Okay, I'm well aware of all the issues regarding how canonicity works in the WH40K universe. Nevertheless, the book Space Marine (for which I will eventually write a Wiki page) clearly states that the skeleton of Rogal Dorn, the primarch of the Imperial Fists, stands encased in clear amber within the reclusiam aboard the Phalanx (known only as the "Fortress Monastery" in this book, name comes from other sources). In the book, the skeleton is critical to many of the religious rituals of the chapter, and "it is the privilege of the commander of the chapter to inscribe his heraldry as minutely as he can" on the fingerbones of the primarch (the hands are kept separately). I am unaware of any official material since Space Marine contradicting this (I will stand corrected, naturally, if anyone can provide me with anything, including Chapter Approved etc, which voids this book), so on that basis I will edit the entry for the great man himself. :)--Johno 03:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


In reference to Rogal Dorn, the book Space Marine is out of date in many ways (including Squats as a race in 40k), and Rogal Dorn's skeleton is one of these retconned pieces. According to the Black Library website, they won't consider a reprint of the novel as even with a rewrite, the 'fluff' contained is too outdated to fit into the current state of 40k fiction. The Imperial Fists Index Astartes article which is considered more current, states that only a single skeletal hand was found after Dorn boarded a chaos cruiser single handedly (pun not intended). No doubt, this allows Games Workshop (or players) the loophole to bring the Primarch back, should they ever wish too. I would suggest re-editing the article to reflect the fact that the skeleton on board the Phalanx may no longer be the case -Primarch 03 Sep 2006

My personal view on this is that this article should just state whatever the most recent canon information says (per Primarch's find, that only a single hand remains). We can go into more detail on the Imperial Fists page if necessary. Cheers --Pak21 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Pak21. Makes sense and is far less messy that way. Primarch 11:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I've just altered the fate of Alpharius, since the previous entry did not reflect the ambiguity of 40k canon surrounding his death at the hands of Guilliman and seemed to present a fan based opinion that it was a false account. I hope this is acceptable to other contributors. Primarch 04:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing primarchs

We appear to be having a small edit war about the "Missing Primarchs" section :-( My suggestion is that we reduce the theories stated to just those which we have verifiable evidence for which is (as far as I know) just the fact that the 3rd edition rulebook stated them as "all records deleted". A reference to the GW quote saying they are deliberately leaving them blank would be great as well if someone can find one. Cheers --Pak21 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As far as official theories or hints go- the passage in False Gods (McNeill, Graham (2006). False Gods. Nottingham: Black Library) where Horus apparently goes back in time and breaks open the incubation capsule of Primarch XI is one that I believe should be included. While the effect this had on the infant Primarch is inconclusive, it has had a large impact on fan's theories on what happened to that particular "Missing Primarch".Primarch 02:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Done --Pak21 11:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the passage in False Gods is a dream of Horus' while he's poisoned on Davin, in which he saw various visions given to him by the Chaos gods. The truth of anything they showed him is highly suspect, as is the very idea that he travelled back in time instead of simply dreaming that he smashed Primarch XI's tube. Perhaps the event shouldn't be presented as fact.
Anon, if you read the article paragraph about 'False Gods' closely, you'll see that it isn't stated as fact and the only thing it actually says is that it is one of the few canonical reference hints to what happened to primarch XI. On this point though, somebody has added information about "primarch rubineck" who, if I recall correctly, has been explained by GW as a mistake on the author's part and officially passed off as a title of respect for the character, rather than his being one of the 20. I'll give it a further disclaimer for now, though I do believe it should be removed wholly from the article. Primarch 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a definitive, verifiable reference to Primarch Rubinek. There's your assertion (also known as original research) that it has been explained by GW as a mistake. I see no reason to remove the information until such point as your assertion has a verifiable source. Cheers --Pak21 09:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, understood, which is why I only added a disclaimer. I'll do my best to find the necessary proof. In any case, there is also a "definitive, verifiable" reference to a Primarch in one of Abnett's novels as well. Also explained away as a mistake. But we might as well place that in if we're going with Rubineck. Primarch 02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now added the other highly suspect, but verifiable reference to a Primarch to the passage and changed the disclaimer to one that I think we can both live with. I'll keep trying to find official word on either of these "errors". Primarch 03:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primarch ordering/grouping

Is there a canonical ordering for the Primarchs? The reason I ask is it would be nice to group them in the table by Loyal/Traitor allegiances. Alternately, we could list the order they were discovered (if this data is known) and include a color-code or separate column to indicate their allegiance. brain 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They are listed in discovery order :-) Cheers --Pak21 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This is wrong, they are listed in Chapter Founding order. Horus has always been the first found primarch, but the Dark Angles were the first Chapter of Space Marines created, using samples preserved from the lost Primarchs. It can be conjectured that all the Space Marine legions were created before leaving earth and later gifted to the progenitor Primarch based on genetic stock. The ordering of Primarch discovery has never been revealed to my knoweledge except for Horus first and Alpharius last. Cameronmurtagh 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Extra info in Fate of the Primarchs

Does anyone else find the additional information below the table in this section to be completely redundant? It seems to be restating what is in the table. I suggest deleting the redundant summary. Primarch 09:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's been further editing to that section which has made it even more ridiculous. If nobody objects, I'm going to remove it by the end of the week. Primarch 07:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean the following text?
In particular current deceased Primarchs are: Alpharius, Sanguinus, Rogal Dorn, Horus and Konrad Curze. Rogal Dorn was not proven to be deceased as only his hand was recovered. Current Missing primarchs who could return are : Ferrus Mannus, Corax, Vulkan, Leman Russ, Roubute Gulliman (incapacitated)and Jaghatai Khan.
Current Damned primarchs are : Magnus the Red, Mortarion, Lorgar, Perturabo, Fulgrim and Angron.
If so, I agree with you. --Falcorian (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes that's it... I should have been clearer. Anyway, it seems to be a rehash of the information in the table above. I can't understand why it's even there...Primarch 07:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Done!Primarch 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dorn's fate

Whoa. Somebody has written in a porky pie about Dorn dying during the siege of Terra. I'm reverting it. Primarch 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrimarch_ec21.html"