Talk:Legion of the Damned

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

What IS This?--Doug O'Connell 23:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like an exceedingly sloppy article. I'll see about getting somebody to clean it up; I know a lot of WH40K fans who'll probably take a crack at it. Rogue 9 00:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Not enough defined

There is not enough defined what the article is talking about. Is it about some book or film? Jan.Kamenicek 11:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To quote the first words of the article, "in the fictional universe of Warhammer 40,000" :-) Cheers --Pak21 12:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-written the history (badly)

I've had a crack at re-writing the history section, as current Games Workshop canon is that the Legion of the Damned could be the Fire Hawks, but no-one is completely certain. But in my opinion, my writing style sucks, so please feel free to clean it up and give it a better "wiki" feel. Just don't put "the LotD ARE the Fire Hawks", or similar, as it's not correct. 86.138.180.105 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That was me - stupid browser loged me out - sorry! Darkson - BANG! 12:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Where does the large quoted section originate from?- it either needs a reference of possibly a reduction if its from GW material.GraemeLeggett 12:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No idea, like I said, I just tidied it up a little. It does ring a bell to me, but wheter it's from an old Codex or Whte Dwarf, I couldn't be sure. Darkson - BANG! 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I contributed a chunk of that paragraph, and whilst I wrote it from memory I do have a habit of recalling certain memorable phrases from the original sources. These sources confirmed that the Legion of the Damned are or were the Fire Hawks, but as I understand it Games Workshop have more recently tried to play down the link and make the Legion's origins more uncertain. So I'm all in favour of the change you made. Ifitmovesnukeit 12:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This title also refers to a novel by William C Dietz

The Legion Series: Legion Of The Damned, The Final Battle, By Blood Alone, By Force Of Arms, For More Than Glory, For Those Who Fell, When All Seems Lost (2007), When Duty Calls (2008.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lachamann (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Which can be found by following the (disambiguation) link at the top of the article page. Darkson - BANG! 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOTD not TM'd and content not Copyrighted

Perhaps you are unaware but The Legion of the Damned is one of the many public IPs GW uses that it cannot TM or copyright because it is already in the public domain as a result of its use in this case in excess of 100 years in literature.

As such the Wiki for LOTD is open to editing by any fan in any manner they wish that contributes to the style and general content of the Wiki listing. Your removal of fan based additions to listing with no protected Copyright or TM is a violation of the rules of the Wikipedia. So long as the listing is made as a separate entry and does not directly edit any entry before or after the entry and does not pro port to be "official content" it is legitimate. The listing in question went out of its way to make it obvious via the story and heading that it was unofficial content. You should not be removing the listing in the case of The Legion of the Damned. In teh case of being a fan you are very much missing the spirit of the issue.

You could make a case for the Ultramarines listing but not in the case of its listing on Wikipedia. GW by actively using and allowing the listing of its TM's and Copyrighted material on a forum and document not owned and published by GW it has given given tacit approval to the regulation of the Wikipedia as a separate entity and that includes editing. Your deleting of this entry is a violation of the procedures of the Wikipedia community.

You should restore the listing as it was. You should NEVER have removed this listing but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply did not understand that the unprotected nature of the listing leaves it open to being expounded upon legally.

Stucarius 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)StucariusStucarius 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I do not know exactly how I managed to scrub that comment. I apologize. I did not realize the nature of your project as the listing did not show up in the general Wikipedia as a special projector if it did it was easily over looked. Even so I do not agree with the way you wiped the entry. Some of the chapters are very much open to fan interpretation and if done in a creative way it opens lots of avenues with out corrupting the core concept. The Legion of the Damned and several other Legions are prime opportunities for fans to do exactly that.
I have participated in GW products and even 40K Rogue Trader since it was Laser Burn in the early 80's. I think it is a shame that much of the rich content contained int eh early Chaos books like the Lost and the Damned has been abandoned.
You should consider that many pieces of the 40K puzzle are open to elaboration by the fans because they were not original IP's from the get go and some like the Necrons and Tyranids were flatly stolen. A little less strident approach by you as an editor might have led to help with the project instead of simply making for an angry fan.
Stucarius 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)StucariusStucarius 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not our rules, it's the rules decided upon by the community. Wikipedia follows WP:A, and fan additions don't conform to that. Sorry. --Falcorian (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)