Talk:Primarch

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.

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)
Just to be clear - the Index Astartes doesn't actually contradict Space Marine - the quote from the article is: "They boarded the Sword of Sacrilege before it could flee and recovered what remained of Rogal Dorn. His engraved skeletal hand continues to be maintained in stasis, their holiest icon, and serves as a constant reminder of the commitment expected of a Space Marine." It is made clear his remains are recovered, and that his hand is placed in stasis, connected to the fact that Chapter Masters supposedly engrave his hand. There isn't necessarily a connection between his remains and the engraved hand. I'll change it for now, and I'll check back if there's any objections. Hope this is okay with everyone. 172.143.84.146 —Preceding comment was added at 10:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd correct the above, since I seem to have missed the direct quote. The IA itself says "Considering the circumstances of Rogal Dorn's eventual death..." in the Gene-seed section. 172.206.53.227 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (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)

[edit] Ferrus' fate

At the risk of getting into a reversion war with people who feel the need to revert rather than simply tag something for citation- I'd like to point out that according to the fluff in the Horus Heresy artbooks as well as the Sabertooth site, Ferrus is explicitly killed by Fulgrim.

I made the latest revision in the article to support this. Now, when looking at the table, I noticed that no other primarch had a citation to prove his demise, and I felt that since Wikipedia (and especially 40k examples) articles are often criticised for being messy, that I would avoid adding an unnecessary tag to an otherwise clean and efficient table.

Instead, I added a link at the bottom of the page to the Sabertooth site, where one can find both these quotes in the 'Battle Lore' written by Alan Merret:

"The forces of the rebel Warmaster Horus have won a great victory on the bloodstained plains of Isstvan V. Almost the entirety of three loyal Legions of Space Marines have been annihilated by Horus' traitorous army. The Primarch Ferrus Manus is dead - killed at the hands of his former friend Primarch Fulgrim of the Emperor's Children Legion."

and

"The Warmaster met with Fulgrim in his command bunker.

"You requested a private audience with me Fulgrim. What have you to report?"

"My Esteemed Lord and Master of Isstvan I have brought you a trophy."

At this the Primarch held up the severed head of Ferrus Manus. He casually tossed the grisly object at the feet of Horus."


The artbooks, also written by Merret, further qualify these encounters. There is no "believed" to be had- Fulgrim made Ferrus a head shorter and then giftwrapped it for Horus.

And not that I'm going to start enforcing etiquette around here- but isn't it a little more polite (by the Wiki guideline standards) to tag a debatable change or additional information with a request for citation, rather than to simply revert or delete?

Primarch 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to take the word of Sabretooth has "gospel" on this, as they have had a tendency to re-write their version of history to suit their cards. If the iron Hands article in Index Astartes agrees with Ferrus being killed, that's fine, but if it differs, I'd give the article more precedence, as it was published first in White Drawf, then in one of the index Astartes books. Unfortunately, I can't check, as I don't have that specific book, and I can't find my copy of WD it was in. Anyone any idea of which issue, as that would help narrow my search. User:Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 05:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The 40K wikiproject group has acknowledged that anything published by GW is considered canon. Therefore, Sabertooth and BL (which are both GW divisions) must be considered canon. GW staffers themselves have said as much on the BL site. Not to mention that the Sabertooth fluff is written by Alan Merret himself (as I stated above), who is in charge of all 'fluff' at GW. That's as official as you can get. It's not really up to us to judge what source we 'prefer'.
The IA article never mentions Ferrus' manner of death, which means that it does not contradict the beheading fluff. The IA article is older than the Sabertooth and HH artwork book. Initial reports are that the scene is also played out in the latest BL Horus Heresy novel, 'Fulgrim', due out in a month or so. I would look to the later publications for Ferrus' fate, rather than the older (and possibly outdated) IA articles.
Primarch 08:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Black Library and GW publications are different. Black Library has its own publishing company. If you want to make a page devoteed to the Black Library version, go ahead. This page is devoteed to the Warhammer 40,000 GW game version. Only Codex and official Rulebooks information is allowed, now your unverifiable fan speculation that the Black Library website even says is highly inaccurate and taken from perspectives that can't be trusted.

Gav Thorpe is the head of GW's fiction for its game. Sabertooth games is independent and only owned by GW. Sabertooth game's works are not canon in the Warhammer 40,000 game. Furthermore, Horus Heresy CG has been discontinued and is outdated, and thus, is no longer canon.

Please cite your sources- GW employees on the Black Library site have said unequivocally that Sabertooth and BL are part of the GW company and that all is canon. The fact that the Black Library novel "Fulgrim" supports the Sabrtooth cardgame's fiction is indicative of this.
Can you show any evidence that Gav Thorpe rather than Alan Merret is head of GW fiction and Intellectual Property? No, because it is a false statement. Please take a look at the Sabertooth, Black Library and GW sites for confirmation... you'll find your information is innacurate. Also take a look at the 40k wikiproject guidelines for canonicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Warhammer_40%2C000/Inclusion_Guidelines
Please confirm your information before making changes! Cheers. Primarch 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Cite my source? Black Library is merely owned by Games Workshop. There is no proof that Black Library writes anything correct, and their own website says that the information may be incorrect! Therefore, you citing them is already admitted to being inaccurate or unverifiable. Furthermore, All Horus Heresy books are written for the alternate reality of the Horus Heresy in the Card Game. This is standard knowledge. The Horus Heresy has been discontinued and replaced by the Dark Millenium. That means that any information, if it was once canon, is no longer canon. It has been replaced by the 4th Edition Codexes. Alan Merret isn't the head of anything. Gav Thorpe is Games Workshop's "Lead Background Designer". Alan Merrit only works for Black Library and did work for the Horus Heresy Card Game. He has no say at the parent company, nor does anything produced by Black Library. For more understanding, note that 99% of the stuff put forth by Forge World aren't Tournament Legal. Nor are Sisters of Silence, or Adeptus Custodes. That shows that the GW staff does not recognize the stuff produced by their splinter corporations except in circumstances of Gaunt's Ghosts and Last Chancers, who were placed into the new codexes by, you guessed it, Gav Thorpe. Now bug off. You are just putting in unverifiable fan fiction. 4.139.51.43 18:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Again, please cite your sources! You have not provided any verifiable links or references. GW employees have repeatedly addressed the issue of canonicity with fans as can be seen here: http://forum.blacklibrary.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9015&SearchTerms=canon. Alan Merret's position as head of GW IP (note that he is one of GW's longest serving employees) can be seen here:http://www.blacklibrary.com/author.asp?id=64. Black Library's relation to Games Workshop can be seen here:http://www.blacklibrary.com/faq.asp. Gav Thorpe's (and every other GW/BL writer) work must be approved by Alan Merrett. Even as 'loremaster' he must still go through Merrett's approval as head of intellectual property. Gav Thorpe is an employee of GW and by extension BL as can be seen here:http://www.blacklibrary.com/author.asp?id=94. Marc Gasciogne, publisher at BL publishing had this to say about Merrett-"I feel honour bound to point out that the text was not written by "Sabertooth" but by Alan Merrett, GW's own head of background and one of the three key arbiters of official GW background. Everything in those books is thus straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, as official and as 'canon" as it could possibly be." You can find this quote here:http://forum.blacklibrary.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11919
You can also do further research right here on wikipedia by reading through Games Workshop, Black Library and BL Publishing
Please cite the following in order to back up your original research:
Proof that the HH books are written for the Card Game.
Proof that the Card Game is an 'alternate reality'.
Proof that BL have said that what they publish is not considered canon.
Did you read the Wikiprojects guideline's for canonicity? You'll see that Wikipedia 40k group are largely in disagreeance with your stance (though you're welcome to debate it on the project page). I'll supply the link again, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. I'd also advise you to look up the definition of fan-fiction, when you get a spare moment. Thanks! Primarch 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The only argument you have put forth has been from forums. Forums are not verifiable sources nor legitimate for Wikipedia. Please stop with your OWN problems and start treating others with respect instead of trying to claim that your opinion is more special than the rest of Wikipedia's. 75.105.13.148 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a laughable accusation. If you look above, I provided a link to the Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000 page, in order to show what the majority of 40k Wiki editors have agreed upon. And the links I provided are a mix of official GW websites and other wiki pages. The forums are only a portion of evidence I've supplied. The forum posts to take note of are the ones posted by official employees of GW such as Mark Gasciogne. If you are the same banned user from earlier, you are obviously NOT reading my posts. Until you do so, I'm refusing to reply to yours. When you can discuss this logically and fairly, I'll be more than happy to comply. Please take time to read what I wrote and try to provide at least ONE source or citation. So far, I've done all the work.Primarch 06:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that saying what a group has agreed upon without anyone but you and one other making changes is just a ruse. If an official employee is speaking on official terms, why is there no statement put up on the Games Workshop page saying what you say? Why are there no third party sources verifying anything in the page? Why should this page not be deleted for lacking any third party sources? You keep accusing others, but you seem to just erase anything that wasn't put in by you. NobutoraTakeda 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no definitive statement on either GW, BL or Sabertooth websites in the non-forum sections to support either side of this debate, that is true. What we do have is proof in those sections on the fact that BL and Sabertooth are part of GW and that Alan Merret is the head of IP. We also have word from BL Publishing employees on the forums supporting this fact. I haven't made any accusations, Nobutora, I have simply asked for proof and citations (please quote any unfair accusations that I have thus far made, and I will apologise). Have you noticed that the other user constantly avoids providing citations? And makes attacks against my posts that are unsupported? I am happy to debate the issue, but s/he seems adamantly against the idea of logical discussion and considering the opposing view. Not to mention the fact that s/he keep contradicting him/herself. I'd be happy to discuss the possibility of compromise, where we cite all the various fates of the primarchs, along with their sources as soon as someone is willing to have a reasonable discussion! Primarch 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I followed the link Primarch provided and came to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Warhammer_40%2C000/Inclusion_Guidelines. Following the discussion, it ranks the book at leve five. It says that the other books that people mentioned in the history contradict this book and they fall under level one. Consensus rules against Primarch according to his own citation. NobutoraTakeda 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobotura, can you point out where it says the numbering for fluff is in order of importance? The only text I can see that gives us direction as to how to bias importance or canonicity of fiction is this : "In conjunction with the lists below, the most recent information should be assumed to be correct in the case of contradictions. Comparing the publishing dates of the two sources should reveal which is more recent, therefore more canonical." As you can see, the issue is date of publishing, rather than the form of publishing. Unless I'm missing something then it's only logical that the BL book 'trumps' the IA articles.Primarch 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
What does that even mean, "head of IP"? I've worked for many corporations and I've never heard of the title. If he is a person who is part of the background whatever, why isn't he given a title as the other person was mentioned? And the issue isn't about a date of publishing, because your people ranked it as level 5, and someone was saying that a level 1 book says its wrong. So it can't trump anything from what I can see. Why don't you put plot summaries on pages that talk about the books, anyway? There is too much of this mismashing going around and it seems that it just creates a bunch of lists and charts that are so in-universe its confusing to any outsider. NobutoraTakeda 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobu- there was never any mention of the numbering being equivalent to rank (if there is, PLEASE quote it for me, as I seem to keep missing it). It's an assumption on your part. I require clarification. Please read the page again- it makes it clear that date of publishing is the only implied criteria. I even made it easy by providing the quote for you to read here!Primarch 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, which I really doubt, then that would mean that you have two numbers conflicting with each other, and only the "most recent book" is at the top of the one number, so you would have to put both versions in. But I doubt you are right, because you wouldn't number them and list them in that way if only the date published mattered. You would put "only the date published matters" instead of having it only in the one area for Black Library. NobutoraTakeda 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nob, listen. Here's what it boils down to- my opinion in this matter is backed up by one of the few definitive statements on that page, your opinion is based on your assumption (and to be fair, it's a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption). If we want to pursue this further, perhaps we could ask the editors of that page as to the exact nature of their intent? In any case, if you'd like to consider the compromise that myself and others are putting forward, this part of the disussion will be rendered moot! Primarch 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I venture "Head of IP" is Head of Interlectual Property. This arguement seems to be very much going backwards and forwards. The Games Workshop realms are frequently changing. Indeed will always do, I support that this page does not need deleting, but instead needs to be re-edited with an agreement found, firstly on how to place older information next to newer revalations. Ferrus' death is the more uptodate version of events, and indeed on the Black Libary Forum FAQ it is stated that.

http://forum.blacklibrary.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9494

Sort whatever disagreements you have out, and find a way to come to a conclusion. This page needs to be sorted to chart the story GW has made for the Primach's but also understand there is no "truth". Sad to say it, Ferrus, is dead though now since the publication of the Heresy Series Novels. 09wiki 16:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Why does this page deserve to be its own page? If the information is coming for the Heresy Series Novels, why don't you just make a page for the Heresy Series Novels and contain the information instead of listing it as a chart without any third party sources? NobutoraTakeda 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobutora, no offense, but you do seem to be on a personal crusade here. If this doesn't deserve a page does everything else related to GamesWorkshop fiction not deserve one? Should it just be in one huge page? I agree it needs editing, I have not personally been involved in its production, but I see its value. And it is not just related the Heresy Series, it brings in far more (see the references section). Would you prefer it if the chart was removed and replaced with individual sections for each Primach? I think that would be an idea. What is your exact problem with it being a part of Wiki? 09wiki 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, why can't the information just be included in the pages of the books that have the information instead of being summarized in every page possible? NobutoraTakeda 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally do not have time at the moment to speak to the original author and sort the obvious failings that have been pointed out, citiation and referencing is, to put it mildly, inconsistent. Also wording could be better. However, as when dealing with any Sci-Fi or Fantasy fiction, people have to be free to make up their own minds on what is of large enough significance within those universes to be on here. I personally believe, with the role played by these characters that a sum up page would be beneficial. I only recently stumbled upon this page, but I found it both useful, and indeed leading to further content, thus as originally I was merely a wiki user I can see its intent. This page is attempting to bring together work from many sources from the last 20years, I think it needs further work and editing, not deleting. If the original author or anyone else would like to discuss how to re-work the article with me I would be more than happy to be brought onboard with that process. 09wiki 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
09wiki, thankyou for clarifying my points. Nobutora, if you would follow my links to the black library personnel page on Alan Merret (Again, I have already supplied this above!), you will see his position described as head of Intellectual Property (I also supplied a link to a wiki page to explain what IP was. I don't see why people refuse to look before they leap. It would save a lot of time). As someone who works in the entertainment industry, I can tell you right now that it means he has the final word on all creative direction. Taking into account that he is the man who killed Ferrus Mannus, I'd say we have to put some importance on what he writes.
I agree that the page needs rewriting and a new system for references, and I would be happy to help provide all relevant 'fates' for each primarch along with citations. I find the idea of deleting this page and simply talking about the primarch's lives and fates on separate pages to be an inelegant solution. For one, most pieces of GW fiction contradict one another- i.e. one source says that Ferrus died fighting Orks, another that he simply dissapeared at Istvaan V, and the latest that he was beheaded by Fulgrim. So if we were to only deal with the novel's interpretations on the the specific novel pages, then we would also need to create a codex page for the codex interpretation of Ferrus' death, a Sabertooth page for the Sabertooth interpretation of Ferrus' death and an Index Astartes page for the IA Ferrus version. This is messy and inefficient. It will need a lot of cross references and footnotes and potentially confuse readers who will wonder where they can get a cohesive and unified source for the primarchs. My vote would be to keep the page and alter it to reflect all aspects of Primarch fiction that GW have published over the years, without prejudice. We could list each 'fate' in order of publication. Primarch 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Working in the entertainment industry? Please provide some source that says "IP" means all the stuff you say. There is a better argument that you are just trying to own the page because your name is the same as the article. NobutoraTakeda 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nob, for the last time...read my post. It has a link to a whole article detailing Intellectual Property (I've just provided it now for the THIRD TIME). Out of interest, the three key arbiters of GW background are Alan Merrett (head of background and manager of IP), Rick Priestley (creator of WH, in charge of game design and overall direction) and John Blanche (art and underlying imagery).
And please don't make this personal or ridiculous. I refuse to get drawn into the mess you're creating on your talk page and other wiki pages. You seem to be quite skilled at causing fights and dissension with other editors- something I don't have time for. Let's just keep discussion to the topic rather than personal...agreed? Primarch 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A quick search provided this interview with Erik Mogensen (Licensing Manager for Games Workshop's Warhammer franchise), where he describes Alan Merrett as "Alan Merrett our IP Manager (he’s the man who ultimately yay or nay’s anything creative that GW or any of our partners do)":
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm?setview=features&loadFeature=1069&gameID=239&page=1&bhcp=1.
He is also described as "Workshop's IP guru and gatekeeper":
http://www.sabertoothgames.com/horus/lore_articles.asp.
Lastly, to completely quote from my previous Black Library link that describes Alan "As one of Games Workshop's longest serving employees, Alan Merrett has held many important posts over the years - from being in charge of miniatures design, the production studio, the Golden Demon awards and the Black Library - to his current position overseeing the development of Games Workshop's wealth of intellectual proprety. Underpinning all these key roles has been his complete enthusiasm for the model soldier - an enthusiasm which has resulted in Alan being one of the driving forces behind Games Workshop's imagery.". I'm sure any research you or anyone else conducts into Alan Merrett and into the nature of IP will only yield supporting results. Thankyou. Primarch 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Your link doesn't have anything saying that Alan Merrett, as "IP Director", is responsible for doing the things you say he does. A title alone does not explain a job. He could be a lowly secretary or the head for all anyone knows. If he "yays" or "nays" then what does that even mean? If a CEO were to produce a literary book that says "Alan Merret was wrong and Warhammer sucks" would that means that you can delete the page? You haven't produced a third party source that says "when two books conflict, you should trust this source over that source". You seem to be personally involved with the page and I think it has something to do with your screen name. NobutoraTakeda 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am speechless. Absolutely speechless. An IP director can not be a secretary- your sense of reasoning is confounding. I am finished discussing this with you. Primarch 10:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You have provided no verifiable evidence to back up your claim. NobutoraTakeda 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of your personal education: http://www.games-workshop.com/ippolicy.htm Primarch 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, 40k has contradicted itself for years, it part of how it is written, most of the "fiction" produced since 2nd Edition has been "point of view of a fictional character" and it has been left up to the reader to deduce what truth lies within it. It part of the beauty of the universe itself. My feelings support, a bringing together of that information here. As for what is "canon", the Sabretooth stuff is, whether you like it or not, as i think i linked earlier. It is official Games Workshop line, this page should bring together all information, and be presented in a way that shows this conflicting information.

Primach, I assume this is your product, I personally would look to give each Primach there own section, and bring in all you can about them and what has been their history since 1st Edition. That would be a very useful tool for people interested in this. And indeed a valuble tomb of information. As I said, if you would like help with that I am more than happy to provide.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/author.asp?id=64 < Gives a run down of Alan Merret's position within GW. 09wiki 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided that link above twice, as well as quoting it. I hope somebody attempts to read it this time!Primarch 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is why Wikipedia requires third party sources. Until third party sources can be provided to show the notability and the need, they do not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to talk about the individual book plots and interpretations, then why don't you create a page with those books instead? NobutoraTakeda 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For want of sounding a little rude Nobutora, but could you please, to me, someone that has come across this rather recently, please spell out your exact problems with this page, and why you think they have not been addressed. The exact problem over Alan Merret's postion as far as I am concerned has been sorted, I have provided you with reference. I have also provided an idea for moving forward, you do not seem to be being very constructive here.

To answer why not for one book, the information that should be placed here is brought from many books over the last 20 years. So doing one for each individual book seems, somewhat, pointless, why not boil it down to one page?

We are looking for a constructive move forward. If you believe the page should just be removed, I will leave it for the decision of the wikipedia, and see how they think the situation should be solved. 09wiki 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Alan Merret's position has been sorted to satisfaction. I also think that some good has come out of the discussion for how we can improve this page, rather than simply delete it. Nob, even though I am done discussing Alan Merret and IP with you, I am still looking forward to hearing constructive advice from yourself, should you wish to help us define some guidelines for this page. As I said earlier, I believe that creating pages for every publication (novels, IA, codex, card games, etc) that depicts a primarch and his fate to be a messy and inelegant solution. Primarch 10:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorted to satisfaction? You have provided no verifiable information. Only a vague quote from a website. If you feel that creating a page for those items, then how can you say that the Primarchs are notable when the sources you claimed they are from don't have pages because they aren't notable enough. Plus, no point of view says you can't just pick one item and not another, and this is an aspect of synthesis when you combine the many things that conflict. Don't you see how many problems this page causes? NobutoraTakeda 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have provided multiple references to his position as head of IP. The GW website does not officially list his position, but as you'll note, it doesn't list any other positions either. Including Gav Thorpe's. Primarch 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobutora from this point on I will not be responding to any of your comments, I have provided a clear source to back up Alan Merret's position and I believe what it says is perfectly clear. I have repeatedly asked for constructive opinion from you for moving forward, and clear guidelines as to what your current issues are. All I have recieved since is vague notions of complaint over no clear issue and it is getting rather dull.

If you would care to full articulate your feelings I will read them, but I am not too sure you will.

Tomorrow I will put down a proposal on here for moving forwards and detail it, for responces from those interested in being involved. 09wiki 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides your condescending tone, you have not provided any clear source that details what his job is and what the other in the rank and structure of the company are, which means that you have failed to provide any justifiable reason to hold his word over another. That is Original Research synthesis, and to say one idea is canon and the other is not is Original Research synthesis and a point of view violation. NobutoraTakeda 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, your "clear source" uses terms like "overfiend" to describe positions. I really don't think that can be used as a verifiable source of anything to determine who is ranked where in comparrison to who. Or is that whom? NobutoraTakeda 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I for one look forward to your proposal. --Falcorian (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Primarch 08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would care to know just where in http://www.blacklibrary.com/author.asp?id=64 it says the word "overfiend".. I am sorry but it is quite clear to me you have not looked at the given links to your question.

I am sorry if I appear condescending but I have repeatedly asked for you to explain your position to which so far you have done nothing but repeat what has gone before, which has no substance what so ever. You have also now blatantly shown that you have not looked at all at the information I provided you with, indeed going to the point of saying I provided you with something I did not, and never have. I would ask for you to make an apology for that. My source is perfectly clear and perfectly acceptable. It is in no way asking for any leap of faith, it is a direct source from the employing company.. 09wiki 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You challenge me on substance? I'm not the one trying to claim that the article has merit. You have to prove merit using third party sources. So far you have quoted pages that are not verifiable, not third party, or other similar problems. Provide third party verifiable information and the page could stay. However, there is none. Your author page was linked from here. http://www.blacklibrary.com/author.asp I looked it up to see if it is a legitimate source of information. It is not. Here are some comments:

"He hasn't got a separate website, but he rules the Black Library website with a cruel and illimitable dominion not seen since Sauron popped his clogs, so you can easily catch his attention on our forums." http://www.blacklibrary.com/author.asp?id=12 "This fascination for black icky things (and a grudging admiration for the good guys) has remained to this day" "right up until Degree level before he discovered he didn't really like being taught it and wasn't particularly good at it anyway. After this he wandered the wasteland of unemployment for a number of years" http://www.blacklibrary.com/author.asp?id=45 "Andy likes science fiction, fantasy, Tom Sharpe books, loud music, old guitarrs, old cars, travel, cats (hello Nurgle), Scalextric, chicken dhansak, beer and dry ice machines." They are all equally bad and it must have been a different link that mentions that title. I think I provided enough proof that the biographies aren't verifiable sources of information. NobutoraTakeda 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being highly selective with what you quote, in order to enforce your own bias. Any other reasonable person who follows those links will be able to discern the facts of the biography apart from the cute facetious elements. Not to mention that it is obviously a THIRD PARTY SOURCE. You are clutching at straws and destroying your own credibility with this display. Primarch 08:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Black Library is a third party source? ahahahahahahahaha. You would say anything to justify anything, wouldn't you Primarch. I bet you would contest people making the page plural, too. Merrett has no say at Games Workshop. Gav Thorpe is head of background material. Merret doesn't get to write the codexes. Gav does. He decided what stays, what goes, and he even put in his version of the Last Chancers. To quote Inuyasha, "your brain is broken".
Well proven. Gav is beholden to none, because you say so. I'm done.Primarch 05:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is redundant. Ferrus Manus is very dead. He quite explicitly died in the novel 'Fulgrim'.

[edit] Fully protected

I've fully protected this page for 2 days as it seems the editors are currently in the middle of an edit war. Please discuss all changes here until the page is unprotected (and please avoid more edit wars- WP:3RR) Cheers, all- CattleGirl talk 09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Even for my part in this edit war, I was beginning to become concerned for wiki-readers who would become confused by the constant changing. Thankyou for stepping in- I don't know how to do these 'protect' things. Let the discussion continue!Primarch 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion from me for moving forward, that this page is radically overhauled with all knowledge brought in that can be found. Clear referencing system, and also a more approachable format to those not very knowledgable about the Warhammer 40K universe. Rather than pure deletion. Any feedback appreciated. 09wiki 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I second 09wiki's suggestion. I'd rather not do this myself as I don't have a lot of time on my hands, but am more than happy to contribute. I think that rather than Wikipedia editors attempting to determine canon, the page should simply represent all interpretations of the primarchs along with references. An in-universe tone should be avoided (the current introductory paragraph is guilty of this, in my opinion). The missing primarchs should only be detailed in terms of what GW has printed about them, and not include fan speculation such as the Blood Raven's 'unknown primarch' and so on. Looking forward to hearing other opinions!Primarch 10:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus (or do we need to get one from others)? Or a plan of action? Already, there's reverts in action on the subject of Ferrus' death between those who support recent 'fluff' and those who don't. I'm holding off altering it to reflect the recent fluff on Fulgrim and Ferrus until we come to a conclusion...Primarch 13:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a quick note

Just a quick note to say that it is possile that User:NobutoraTakeda is a sockpuppet for indefinetly blocked User:SanchiTachi (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would that mean he is the same anonymous user who has been agressively participating in the 'revert war' and this debate? I wondered where 'he' went. Looking back, their posts all seem to share similar grammatical and spelling habits. Primarch 10:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring? You are just whining because you are fans and someone challenges you on trying to turn wikipedia into a fanforum. My edits before making this name were the following: "# (cur) (last) 04:10, 15 July 2007 75.105.13.148 (Talk) (10,762 bytes) (This page lacks any third party sources, is written in universe, and is written by sources many have claimed to admit as being untrustworthy and this pageshould be deleted as not notworthy) (undo)

  1. (cur) (last) 03:59, 15 July 2007 75.105.13.148 (Talk) (10,715 bytes) (Reverting Unverifiable information from two people that have series OWN issues and are starting revert wars on information that the majority seems to be against) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 01:12, 15 July 2007 75.105.13.148 (Talk) (10,715 bytes) (Undid revision 144695431 by Darkson Abuse of Popups when there is no vandalism, 3RR, and adding in already stated unVerifiable content) (undo)"

I'm sure an admin can verify that as me and my addition of different tags and my edit was based on fixing what revert war was caused by both you and Darkson. NobutoraTakeda 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nob, it takes two to partake in an edit war and for some strange reason, the other participant is no longer around. Conveniently enough, you've arrived to carry his torch. I won't try to accuse the other guy of 'starting' it, all I can do is take responsibility for my part and try to make this page better with the co-operation of others. I think the fact that you seem to be an almost professional trouble maker and that you've got serveal conflicts going with other editors shows that you are not to be taken seriously (your user discussion page is damning proof). Your refusal to reason or discuss matters logically makes communication with you a useless pursuit. I have asked you not to make this personal, yet you still attempting to provoke with every post. I have offered as many olive branches to you as I can stomach and I'm finished with you. Primarch 08:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curze's Fate

Slite mistake here. While Curze did let the assassin reach him, there is no solid prof that she succeded in killing him. The only indecations that the assassin reached him was a video feed of Curze hinting out loudly to her that her infotration skills were laughibly poor and a written record of the same assassin tell her superiours that she was succesfull, both of witch are doubtfull in their vality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.123 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was his severed head bouncing along the floor in 'Lord of Night'...Primarch (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Canon regarding final primarch

Not wanting to step into the middle of a revision war, I should point out here the VERY OLD an no-longer canon explaination for the final primarch that I was told at least ten years ago by a senior gamesworkshop creator during a convention (He was a neighbour and I'd given him a lift). It's no longer the official canon but I find it odd that no mention is made of it. The second primarch (Missing) was in fact Sigma - or intended to be - back when the warhammer fantasy world was described as being inside the eye of terror. This changed with the publication of the 1993 rules when a new canon was brought in, the warhammer fantasy world was sent away to a new galaxy. If you think about Sigma though, you'll notice that all the pieces fit ( appeared from nowhere, Uniting the tribes, unmatched human strength, long life then disapears mysteriously) and this is the reason that no new canons are being written (As yet) for the missing primarch. I don't intend to step into the middle of it with this since it's totally unciteable these days but I am suprised that no mention of it was made, just because its no-longer canon I wasn't aware it was a secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.121.247 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As you said, it's totally unciteable. It was mentioned at one point, but was removed after nearly a year of asking for a citation here.Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extra notes

Each of the primarches had a relation to one of the 20 Imperial zodiac symbols. Horus was Saggitarius (I forget which book says this) but the Empereror gives him a very worn ring with a saggitarius symbol on it, describing the history that it used to be a person riding a horse while firing a bow, but becoming so legendary that people saw the two as one. To back this up, in the book Lord of the Night, the Callidus assasin removes Konrad Curze/Night Haunters ring. Each of the primarches had a ring and a totem animal.

Currently, the overall consensus of fans is; if the two primarches's leigions are still in service (i.e. they still exist despite not having the primarches, and the leigions themselves weren't wiped out) then the two would be the Rainbow Warriors and the Valedictors. This seems to have been proven once before by a former GW employee.

Personally, I think the reason why they weren't made official was because the RW's were a little.. flamboyant, and the Valedictors were probably an intellectual property conflict.

Hope that info is of some use. - NemFX (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)