Talk:Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mythology

According to the information given regarding the war between the old ones, their allies, and the necrons, the eldar War in Heaven is the same thing.

The 2nd edition eldar book does not mention the old ones/necrons, as they did not exist when it was written. However the newer material makes it quite clear that the c'tan were the yngir (who khaine formed an alliance with, only to turn on them). Modern information states that the eldar gods fought the c'tan in the War in Heaven. Thus the Eldar mythic cycle War in Heaven is in fact the same as the conflict between the old ones and c'tan.

The myth is a myth, not to be confused with the historical event. The one may have inspired the other, but it wouldn't be appropriate to remove the myth in favour of the Necron story because they are two different stories.

Japan / Subtext

The subtext reads more like and op-ed piece and less like an encyclopedia article. Should it stay?

Falcorian 06:28, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. I'm a player and this is the first place I've seen such statements made. While I agree that perhaps some of the statements are true, I think it's more a case of parallel evolution than the designers making a statement. Very much eye of the beholder stuff perhaps. EsonLinji 09:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have had serious doubts about this section ever since its addition (by an anonymous user). I have followed the 40K universe since its inception and have never come across any serious WWII comparisons of this kind. (1) Google shows no evidence that this is anything other than a personal interpretation. (2) The point is not a strong one, and possibly racist. Is it correct to imply that the Japanese' "savagery is unbound"? Or plausible that Eldar are "considered polite and gentle people"? Likewise, "ferocity and willingness to sacrifice" is true of many 40K races. In summary, I'm removing the section. --Air 14:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like the right course of action. --Falcorian 03:21, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wraithbone

I'm not really happy with the last sentence I added regarding how wraithbone is not just the structure, but inner workings as well. A fuller description of the concept follows, if someone can write it better please do.

Imagine an electric car. you have the chassis, and inside there are lots of wires and so forth for all the different systems, power from the battery to the engines, lights, etc. Now, with a similar car made of wraithbone, rather than having all the wires, part of the chassis would be formed so that power would flow through the chassis to where it was needed.

I hope that makes the idea a bit clearer. EsonLinji 09:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compiling Eldar Info.

Do we really need to have all these subpages for the Eldar? It seems like we have very little real information about the race at all, and half a dozen stub pages for each and every subgroup. Wouldn't it be a little more productive to delete the Craftworld/Exodite/Pirate/Etc pages and make these part of this main page? We're currently pretty lacking on any real outline of teh Eldar history or nature, anyway. If there is ever so much said about any of the the subgroups, they could be split off as necessary. As it is, what little information there is seems horribly fractured. --HJC 01:55, 1st Mar 2005

I agree. If I had time today I would merge them in - have marked Craftworld as needing merged into the main article. Fancy the job HJC? --Air 14:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've done some serious work tonight expanding the Eldar article and adding in various sections so that it actually has entries on most aspects of the race. Unless someone objects to it, some time in the next couple days I'll find time to set the other Eldar subpages to redirect to this one (except for the Dark Eldar). Hopefully all is well with the changes. Im new to this, so someone let me know if Im on the wrong track... - HJC, 00:53, 2 Mar. 2005

Looks great. Nice job HJC! --Air 09:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through an put in redirects on the other pages that used to be stubs of all this info, and as such Ive also removed the links from this article to those. The exception is the Harlequin page, which has substantial information. I'm not sure whether to try and integrate it here or leave it as a separate page. The Harlequins are a fairly distinct group. It might be better to actually cut out the Harlequin section here and link to the other article. Any thoughts on what to do? -HJC, 17 March 2005, 15:36 GMT

I know, it may be a bit late, but can someone please , include vital parts of the eldar in the article such as the description of the Eldar Runes (Soulstone,The Eldar Of the stars,salvation,freedom,eldar of history, solitaire,world spirit,Outcasts,the dark kin,soul drinker,the souless ones, and the god of laughter), another thing is there is not much mention of the Eldar Codex,not much information on the Phonix Lords (Maugan Ra,Jain Zar. etc),also a points count for each Eldar model could be done. Wongdai, 10:16 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Games Workshop doesn't like people listing individual model costs. If you want to know that you need to buy the codex. WeatheredPebble 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Exodites = Wood Elves?

Does anyone else think that the Eldar Exodites are more similar to Wood Elves then High Elves? (whose equivelent is the Craftworld Eldar of course) Johhny-turbo 02:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that. They're both the more rustic groups left over from the historical empires. I think the Exodites even have the Isha/Kurnous worship that the Wood Elves do. The Dark Eldar are obviously paralleled to the Dark Elves. Harlequins don't seem to have any real partner in Warhammer Fantasy. - HJC 18:04 UTC, 26 May 2005.

Where's your sources? Colonel Marksman 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not related to Warhammer

Eldar are not high elves in space, Exodites are not wood elves in space and Dark Eldar are most certainly not dark elves in space. Their background, attitudes, origins etc are completely different. They may all have pointy ears and look vaugely similar (clean, green and spooky respectively), but looks can be decieving.

All of this is conjecture unless a reference can be provided to say what actually is fact. As this is about a fictional universe we need to work with what is canon - so references to codexes, rulebooks (any Games Workshop publication in fact). -Localzuk ^(talk) 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe just the opposite, which is that no canon states that it is related, and therefore should be removed. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to have it stay, though perhaps clarified. While the Eldar kindreds are not direct equivalents of their WFB counterparts, they are clearly representative of the more generic counterparts in Tolkien-derived fantasy as a whole. Dark Eldar are quite clearly a sci-fi version of generic Dark Elves, similarly Craftworlders are a sci-fi version of the nobler strains of generic fantasy Elf. It's pointless to deny this when the similarities are so clear, and so clearly deliberate. The backwards Exodites living on their primordial jungle worlds equate reasonable closely to Wood Elves, though it is a looser parallel than the others. Regardless, the 'Eldar are not Elves' argument is being too picky, no offence but I think it's quibbling over small beer and ignoring the wider picture. In broad generic terms only, Eldar are a kind of elf. GW have always intended them to be thus, indeed when first released almost 2 decades ago, Eldar were actually called 'Space Elves'. - Doctor Atomic

The problem is that about 90% or more of the Warhammer 40,000 related articles are unreferenced. There has to be a point when we say to editors 'stop changing things by adding or removing things unless you can provide references'. If we went on an info-cull of unreferenced stuff in the articles related to Warhammer 40,000 then we would be left with about 2 articles

Also, to the above comment, it does not matter what you think is being picky really - it matters what the sources say. I would love to see this article become properly referenced, with each statement related to a page of a book or URL. As it stands, it is a fancruft filled article as are almost all of the Warhammer 40,000 articles. -Localzuk ^(talk) 09:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You won't find many GW sources explicitly stating that 'Eldar are a kind of generic elf in sci-fi', but I don't think that's an issue because it is a demonstrable fact. There are many reasons one can cite, not least the fantasy parellel of other races in 40k, and the features that Eldar share in common with generic Elves. It's clear that Orks are a parellel to Orcs, no? And that humans share features with their WFB equivalents, namely religious zeal, 'knightly orders'/Marines, rennaissance stylings. Then there are the Squats/dwarves (now Demiurg/dwarves), Necrons/undead, Ratlings/halflings, Ogryns/Ogres... It is just senseless to deny the Eldar/elf connection with these in mind, specific source or not. I can provide a specific source for the early 'Space Elves', right here [1]. The B&W bit at the bottom is from an old Citadel Miniatures catalogue. -Doctor Atomic

Thought it was worth pointing out that the counterparts are only loosely connected - this, at least, is better than the previous reading which would suggest a closer connection to people not familiar with the 40k and WFB universes. Doctor Atomic 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious that Eldar are Elves in space. They have a lot of the same gods as the Fantasy Elves, they look alike, tend to act alike (snobbish, superior and if not allied with the "Good Guys" then at least enemies of the "Bad Guys"). In the Codex there is even a small reference to Shining Spears being similar to "the duelling Dragon Knights of the Exodite worlds", which one who is reading between the lines might take as Dragon Princes of Caledon. Of course Games-Workshop isn't gonna out and say that they product are unoriginal and not completely different, just like Microsoft doesn't any comparison between computers and X-Boxes. 69.17.155.35 09:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable characters

I have proposed a guideline for character notablity within Warhammer 40,000 articles which I believe may effect the listings on this page. Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability and comment. Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We have now agreed some guidelines, and I believe that it's possible that "Farseer Macha of Biel Tan" and "Farseer Taldeer of Ulthwe" do not meet any of the criteria specified. If you have any more information on this, please add it here. (If you wish to discuss changes to the guidelines, please do this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability). Cheers --Pak21 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see all the Dawn of War characters written about in the one article, but the Edar ones don;t need to be mentioned here... they're pretty small fry in the game. -- Saberwyn 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, the list is missing characters from Codex:Craftworld Eldar. If anyone has access to it, it would be great to add them... I would but my Codex is not with me. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tar-Van

Is this canonical? A Google for "tar-van craftworld"[2] gives precisely zero hits. Cheers --Pak21 09:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it... and I'd like to think I'm at least a little up-to-date on my own army... --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed, going to ask User for information on it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summaries

Could those people editing the mythology-related bits of the article please give some edit summaries? At the moment, I don't know if we're reverting changes because they thought to be non-encyclopedic, because they're copyvio or for some other reason? Cheers --Pak21 09:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry. I was the one who added the summary of the War in Heaven. It's a paraphrasal, entirely my own words. The story itself is given in chunks in the Eldar 2nd ed. codex, and it's okay to summarise content, I believe. You can find GW's IP policy here - http://www.games-workshop.com/ippolicy.htm. The other thing I changed would be the War in Heaven thing, since it's important to differentiate between the Eldar myth and the historical event - which is, in any case, just a sub-heading in Codex: Necrons. Saying that the Eldar myth is based upon the Necron/Old Ones war is non-canonical. —This unsigned comment was added by 203.63.0.36 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks. It's clearly not copyvio then, but I'm still not sure it's particularly encyclopedic information (what real information does it give to the general reader), and would be tempted to remove it. Cheers --Pak21 09:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose it's removal. The more information in my mind, the better. Those not interested can skip it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ammedie

Does anyone know of this craftworld? I dont recall it from the codexes but it could have come up in the BL books? Im not sure that its official though, saying that im not an Eldar player so I could be very wrong Lowris 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A Google for it leads to very little apart from a poster on Librarium Online, which makes me very suspicious. I believe Falcorian is our local Eldar expert, though :-) Cheers --Pak21 11:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Technology

Who's to say that Eldar technology is far more advanced save the C'tan and Necrons?

It's just different. It's not really fair to even say that Ork have low techological advances either, the books and Codexes never said that. Ork are pretty creative if you ask me. Who else can take hulks of junk and make space travel out of it? Colonel Marksman 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Games Workshop. "The Eldar are one of the most technologically advanced races in the galaxy." [3]. Next, please. --Pak21 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note: "one of the most". I'll agree with that. Colonel Marksman 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the other race articles have a summary of how that army generally plays in the game, which I think would give this wiki a bit more practical value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.38.233 (talk • contribs) .

While that may be true, it's very difficult to come up with verifiable information (ie that which is not original research) of this kind. Do you have any suggested sources? Cheers --Pak21 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Length of Article

Holy crap, this is longer than the Space Marine page!

1. Summary of the Epic story about the entire history of Eldar mythology? Come on.

2. Harliquins should be listed amongst "Craftworld Eldar", although noted they are not necessarily their own standing Craftworld. In other words, the Harliquins aren't even an "offical" army, and they have their own section unlike the others.

• In fact, there are a LOT of Craftworlds that I never heard of before, with no references to them. (Not to say they don't exist, just prove to me they do)
• Jargon is in there (40k dating. A lot of people don't know how that works)

3. The Outcast and Pirate section shouldn't be in there. Instead, I suggest outcasts should go under "Path of the Warrior" or "Other Paths". If it should be in it's own section (even though it starts off by saying they are not clearly defined), put it at the bottom of the Paths (the Path is typically normal, but the abnormal is on top of it).

4. Just like the Space Marines, each and every unit is described.

5. "Eldar Gods" should be under Mythology. Changed

Fix these and your article won't be so dang long. Remember, this is an article on an encyolopedia, not a collection of all the information available possible. Colonel Marksman 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New Codex [2006]

The new codex contains several tweaks to fluff which will need to be recognised; when it is officially released I'll do so. --Grant McKenna 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anaen

Is this canonical? The complete lack of Google hits for "anaen eldar" worries me more than a little. Cheers --Pak21 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of any information canonical or otherwise being presented, I have removed the the mention. Cheers --Pak21 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been reinserted but i agree, it is neither of my codexes Pterodactal 10:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Page

Hey, I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia but thought I'd throw in my two cents. This page is fairly long, thought that splitting the info over a few pages and leaving general info on the main page might be the way to go. I know there's a new codex coming out, but can't imagine too many changes to the Eldar in general. Anyway here's my suggestions. Feel free to comment.

- Merging the Mythology and Gods section while leaving a basic summary on the main page. Done

- Moving the Individaul Craftworld descriptions to a seperate page. Just leaving a list of the Craftworlds on the main page. Done

- Moving the paths to sperate pages, which would summarise the unit, colour scheme, have a minature and/or famous picture of the unit. And a link to the founding Pheonix lord if any.

This is a good idea but instead of linking to the Pheonix lords page link to the relevant pheonix lord on List of Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) Pterodactal 00:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

- Creation of a notable characters page and leaving a list of famous characters on the main page. Done

This should be pretty easy to implement just by splitting the info already on this page and creating new pages for the excess info. Comments?

Cameron

Changed some stuff

Just reworked it a bit, the Exodite bit for example was so screwed up it was not funny. Whoever has heard of nomadic farmers? Added some info for Y'nnead, and some stuff about the Dome of the Crystal Seers (I've forgotten the original GW source but it gets enough hits under google: [4] my encyclopaedic voice is quite poor unfortunately so it would be great if someone could clean up some of what I wrote, or delete some if necessary (just don't completely revert)

There also has to be some info about soulstones and waystones (is it just somewhere I missed?), which are hugely important to the Eldar. As well I thought that it was the path of the witch (not the seer) and that bone-seers were actually on the same path as bone-singers. Can anyone verify that?

Lastly the best way to reorganize I believe would be to have a page for the Eldar race, and then have that link to pages for Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and Exodites. Not only would that shorten this page and organize the eldar section, but it would be easier to keep all the eldar "armies" in sync.

So, is this good for a first wiki-edit that's not vandalism? ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chake99 (talk • contribs) .

Looks like a good start! Welcome to wikipedia! --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please also come and visit WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, where we attempt to do some coordination of all the Warhammer 40,000 articles. Cheers --Pak21 08:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Outcasts merge

I've added tags on suggesting that Eldar Outcasts (Warhammer 40,000) be merged into the Pirates and Outcasts section. The two already have substantial chunks of the same text, so I think we should either merge it in, or {{main}} it out. A merge seems the right way to do this to me, but I don't really want to make this page much longer than it currently is. Any opinions? Cheers --Pak21 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcorian (talk • contribs) .

Done. Cheers --Pak21 09:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Just as I failed to get it right in my edit summary: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability. Cheers --Pak21 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Library

The Black Library needs at least the briefest description here, or the content about the Black Library should be at Black_Libary. Mathiastck 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mythology section

Is this section GW background written in a mythological style or a direct lift from somewhere. Either way it doesn't belong here in this form. GraemeLeggett 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Exodites

Are Exodites in the actual game or just story? Culverin? ^Talk 05:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In older editions you could field some Exodite units (Exodites who were riding Dragons). The current editon only provides the background information, nothing else. Games Workshop is rather infamous for doing that. Flamarande 15:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

24.178.253.181 used to deface

Another defacement: 21:00, 8 November 2006 24.178.253.181 (Talk) (→Author Credits). This user defaced the Conrad Hubbard entry.

My Changes

I split the page, created a gods page, moved the characters around and condensed them, and then moved stuff up/down based on fluff (fluff rises to the top) and mechanics (mechanics always sinks). I cut it down back to the 50k amount, which is optimum for page size. What do you guys think? SanchiTachi 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What about moving the path of the individual unit entries over to their own page and condense the "paths" down into more readable sections? SanchiTachi 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead Pterodactal 00:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ecodex.jpg

Image:Ecodex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:E-Eldrad-Ulthran large.gif

The image Image:E-Eldrad-Ulthran large.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Phoenix-Lord-Asurmen large.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

As Games Workshop is a British company, would it not be prudent to use British spellings for all articles regarding their products? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boico101 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Having looked through the article, it seems only some words were spelt with American spellings, they have been changed. Boico101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC).