User talk:Tealwisp/Space Marine Chapters

New Article Format

Please discuss suggestions for the new article here before making the changes. The format for the new article is going to be this: Intro: description of what a chapter is, Body: A link to articles for each letter, listing the most notable chapters in each. It will include a description of the first founding chapters.

Let me know if you want it to be different. Tealwisp (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe a more simple table format like List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films uses? With a lead like you describe, of course. Protonk (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A table wouldn't be bad. Feel free to upload a template to the article, but please try to position it so that I can still easily divide the letter-sections into independent articles. I don't know how to set up a table on wikipedia, so I'd appreciate your help with that sort of thing. I think the table should have an entry for each of the founding chapters. Links to other articles could be placed in the table, or after it. Or before it. I'll leave it to the community. Tealwisp (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could put a description of your vision for the table? I understand each segment, but I'm sure you had an idea for how they would all work together. Tealwisp (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have very few concrete ideas. Take a peek at some featured lists to see how it is done around the project. See how much content they put it and what is left out. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Help can be found here and here. As for waiting for "community input", when a page is in your userspace, most editors will give it a wide berth with the exceptions of edits made to keep it out of article categories. This move (since I pointed the redirect elsewhere) will likely be noticed only by those who have the page watchlisted. Even then, they may not want to get directly involved. My suggestion is make a pen and paper (or whatever you use for a draft) list with some short descriptions a la the example table shown on the workpage. then just add the bulk of the items in. when they are all added with minimal detail, see which ones need to be expanded. If those have articles themselves (not a permanent state), leave the expansion off the list. If not, keep it minimal. I think the result will be very helpful for navigation and reference. Protonk (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Which chapters to include

I'm really not sure. I have yet to see a source independent from GW discuss the chapters individually (maybe ultramarines), except those chapters in the computer game. My guess is, start with the original chapters in that table/list format I demoed (if you like it) and then have that "history merged" at Wikipedia:Requested moves back to the mainspace article. I will honestly tell you that even though 40K interests me I have not retained enough info about the individual fictional elements to be of much use. Protonk (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about details of the fiction, just what would likely pass muster with the prodding users. You've been here a while longer than I, so I need input on whether something is notable enough to include in a page that is arguably important to 40k, but not necessarily to the world at large. Tealwisp (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the 64 thousand dollar question. The answer is, we still don't know. Part of the ongoing Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise is discussing that. The rough consensus now is that most elements in a list should be bluelinked (or sourced if not significant enough for their own articles)or the list should summarize some third party list of the same elements, but that is by no means unanimous. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I just got a poster, released by GW, with 100 Space Marine chapters. We can go from that, I think, if we organize by First founding chapter and list their derivative chapters. Tealwisp (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)