Talk:Age of Strife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Age of Strife article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Warhammer 40,000 on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.

Contents

[edit] Description of emperor after horus

what, not description of what happened to the emperor after the horus heresy etc? Magic Pickle 23:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would there be a description of that? This article is about the Age of Strife, which was long before the Heresy (which is linked in the article). The Emperor's fate would be where it belongs- in the article about him and/or in the one about the Horus Heresy.--DarthBinky 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that, despite its title, the article isn't about the Age of Strife. Everything from "The End of the Age" onwards (ie half the article) is about things which happened after the Age of Strife. If we mention all that, why not mention the fate of the Emperor? Alternatively (as a better idea), cut out the stuff about post-Strife history :-) Cheers --Pak21 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't totally understand what you're saying. The End section tells how/why the age ends, and very briefly mentions the following age- it's entirely relevant. I guess I do understand that yes, the Legacy part talks about post-AoS stuff, but it's the effect the Age had on the later Imperium; ie why it's important to know about the age in the first place. Why are the AdMech looking for STC? Because it was lost during the chaos of the AoS. Why does the Imperium have this xenophobia/anti-mutant/anti-psyker/etc deal? In large part due to the AoS being caused by those things. So forth.
But the Horus Heresy is unrelated. The Emperor going into the Throne is unrelated. Those events did not happen as a result of the AoS itself, but as a result of events in the Great Crusade, which led to the Heresy. I mean, would you write an article about WW2 and make a point of telling how Eisenhower died (which was completely unrelated to the war and was over 20 years after it ended)? But, sticking with the WW2 example, there is a section in the Wikipedia article on WW2 talking about the effect of the war- it's called "Aftermath" there, but it's the same idea.
If I'm the only one who thinks this, that's fine, I won't push it. I could even understand trimming down the legacy section. But I don't agree that it's all irrelevant from "End of the Age" onward. Respectfully, that's my €.02. :) --DarthBinky 06:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[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] Criticism section

Is it really necessary? In its current state, it appears to be little more than a big amalgamation of lapses in logic seemingly derived from nitpicking. Surely it requires removal or revision. CABAL 06:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly original research in my opinion. Removed. Cheers --Pak21 07:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Iron Men" stuff

I assume this is the work of the Demon Gavin Thorpe in his eternal quest to ruin 40k, but can I just have this confirmed that this is from the Necrons codex? It's definitely not from any of the older works. Chris Cunningham 09:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be in Codex Necrons? There is no mention of Necrons there, it states that Iron Men were constructs created by humans to use as soldiers. The article says "the development of the artificial constructs now only known as the "Iron Men"". Well I can tell you from having read Codex Necrons, that humans did not develop Necrons. So no, Iron Men are not Necrons, they aren't referred to in Codex Necrons, they just happen to have a name which could also pass as a Necron nickname. The Necron timeline goes from about 50-60 million years ago to the 41st millennium, so it is in the older works, evidently its just in one you haven't read, or in one that you have read, and you just missed that section, cos lets face it, I doubt than anyone knows every single little bit of WH40 background, there is just too much of it, likely sources for would seem be the Novels, Core Books (Afterall, it could have been in 1 edition, and then edited out in the next, after all, Autoguns were edited out of the latest Imperial Guard Codex), or the IG, SM, Eldar or Dark Eldar or maybe Chaos Codices, as they are the most active faction in the Age of Strife. Andrew7588
I picked Codex Necrons for the rather unsurprising reason that it's the only post-2E book given in the references section. So if it isn't in Codex Necrons, it's completely unsourced, and I'm going to remove it as nonsense. Yay. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What about "Priestley, Rick (1998). Warhammer 40,000, 3rd Edition, Nottingham: Games Workshop. ISBN 1-84154-000-5."? Anyway, I'm going through my 40K books now, so I'll see if I can reference it, although I personally think it should stay in, but marked that a citation is needed, as your personal dislike of it doesn't make it nonsense. Andrew7588
I don't remember it being in 3E either. My problem with it is that I think it's a WP:HOAX, to be honest, because it's completely at odds with the background of the Dark Age given in any sourcebook I've read. Chris Cunningham 10:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the latest edition of Codex: Necrons I know of (3E) does hint at the necrons being involved with the Iron Men. I don't know if they are the Iron Men, "descended" from the Iron Men, or if they had some other involvement, as the text is extremely vague and the hints can only be picked up if one is already familiar with Iron Men. further, judging by the description in First and Only, in which Imperial Guard actually did find an STC that made Iron Men, necrons look almost exactly like untainted Iron Men. that brings up my second point, that we should maybe say something about chaos taint of STCs.Llama (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)