User talk:Vo0DoO40k

Superscriptions
No need to worry, I'm just testing a auto-superscripter program I'm writing specifically for cleaning up wiki text. It still has a few bugs in it though, which is why I'm constantly reverting my edits.

According to head admin Montonius, there shouldn't be a st/nd/rd/th after Legion designations i.e. XIXth Legion should be XIX Legion. It's not hugely urgent that we change all of these on all the wiki pages, but should you encounter them in future it would be great if you could remove them.

Thanks for all the work on superscripting!

--&#61;&#61;Shas&#39;o&#39;Kais&#61;&#61; (talk) 22:46, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

RE: Great Britain or Albania
Hey Vo0Do040K,

Albia is commonly confused with Albyon. Albia is known to have clashed frequently with the Panpacific Empire under the rule of the Unspeakable King. Where Albyon was ruled by the tyrannical Uilleam the Red, who was defeated by the Emperor's forces and imprisoned in the dungeon of Khangba Marwu in the Himalazian (Himalayan) Mountains. The articles have been updated to reflect the original canon as written on the Unification Wars article. Sorry for the confusion.

Algrim Whitefang, WH40K Wiki Senior Associate Administrator  (talk)  19:52, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

Hey just thought I'd say nice job catching that whole "Space Marine Chapter" / "Space Marine Chapters" category issue, one of those things that just floats under the radar, but its essential that tags are working so good work. I untagged all the pages in the "Chapter" page, so all should be well. See ya around.

DivusMechanicus (talk) 15:37, March 3, 2016 (UTC) DivusMechanicus

Descrepancy
Hey, I noticed on the first war for Armageddon, it says Angron was banished for 100 years and on a grins chosen it says 1000 years which is true? ~Alpha~ 15:50, April 26, 2016 (UTC)Alpha~Alpha~ 15:50, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Adept Vo0DoO,

Thank you for your recent edits on the Crimson Fists, Excoriators and Imperial Fists pages. However, with that being said, though I appreciate your efforts to standardize these pages, in the future DO NOT remove sources that have been added to an article. I noticed that you removed my references to the "The Beast Arises" Series and the subsequent novels. These were posted in accordance to our wiki's "Manual of Style" and rules. If you disagree with the format, please bring your concerns to myself or Zixes. I understand you might disagree, but keep in mind, ultimately it is we, the Mods, who have final say-so on any particular edit to an article. This is your first warning. Do no remove content from an article again, or this could result in possible disciplinary action against your account (ie temporary suspension and/or ban for an indeterminate period). Thank you for your understanding!

Ave Imperator!

Algrim Whitefang, WH40K Wiki Senior Associate Administrator  (talk)  19:52, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

Superscriptions
Thank you for the welcome! It's so gratifying to be greeted so warmly after so long away.

As to your question, I prefer that no superscriptions be used, period. However, after speaking with Algrim, who likes their use, I have agreed that I will not alter any superscriptions where they already exist, but that I will not be using them on any new material. Superscriptions should NEVER be used with Roman numerals, for reasons I explained on Algrim's talk page if you wish to look. So, I would say please leave them in place wherever they are now, but no further use of them in future. I know this violates the principle of wiki consistency, which is unfortunate, but that's the deal I struck and that's what we'll hold to.

On another note, thanks for all your help, I've reviewed your contributions to the wiki and they're great, keep it up!

Montonius (talk) 20:45, September 17, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Voodo! I've noticed that you have added the roman superscriptions to the Mantis Warriors page a day or two ago. I do remember that Montonius asked you to stop doing that. Because, as it turns out, the more superscriptions the page has, the more time it takes for the phone-users to load our wiki pages.

I am sure that you can be useful in other ways. I hope that no harm was done.

Zixes (talk) 22:16, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Fortress-Monastery
Hey Voodoo,

Thanks for all your hard work on the standardisations. It's really appreciated and very necessary if often overlooked and painstaking work.

As to fortress-monastery...sigh, that's a hard one. Both forms were originally correct and were used by GW across the various editions. Looking back on it I guess I changed them where I felt the text was best served, and that changed from page to page. But in general, the rule should be lower case when talking about a fortress-monastery and upper case when talking about the Ultramarines Fortress-Monastery to make the differential between the regular and proper noun. However, I realise I was not enforcing this standard across all pages. That's my bad, I apologise. So let's use this one from now on. I will hold myself to it in future. I wouldn't waste your time going back through all the other pages to fix it, let's just make sure we use it going forward. Thanks so much for bringing the error to my attention.

Montonius (talk) 06:15, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

RE: Thanks!
Hey VoODoO40K,

Thanks for the accolades! It is much appreciated...yeah, so now you have just a taste of the headache we mods have to deal with on a daily basis! Good times, ain't it? Keep up the outstanding work! Your efforts on behalf of the wiki is greatly appreciated, and has not gone unnoticed!

Superscriptions
Please do not add superscriptions where they do not exist. They are no longer to be used on pages where they are not already in place. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 01:22, December 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hi VooDoo

Let me make this clearer as I realize the policy has become confusing because our admins have conflicting views. Leave all superscriptions alone where they already exist. All pages newly created going forward will not be using them at all. But those that already exist are to be left as is. When you edit a page where they already exist, and you make an edit adding a number (say writing VI Legion where it didn't exist before) you CAN add the superscription so that the page remains consistent. I just don't want them added to any pages we create moving forward. It's not my preferred outcome, but it's the compromise we arrived at, and I don't want our editors wasting time redoing so many pages. If you need more guidance let me know. Thanks for your effort. Montonius (talk) 04:10, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

Spelling
Please be careful in changing the spelling of words. "Phenomenon" and "climactic" were changed to mispelled words in the Red Hunters article. If you do not recognise the spelling of an unusual word, please spell check it before making the change. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 07:35, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Past Tense
Generally past tense is fine as long as everything in the section is written in the same tense one way or the other. Just be aware that those sections are generally written in the same tense that appears in the Games Workshop materials from which they are drawn. I can't give you a general rule because of this; pick what works best in the context of what you're seeing in the article. The only rule is make it consistent across the whole article then, and make sure that any tense changes you make do not cause any loss of information.

One other thing; I need to clarify the use of capitalisations for fortress-monastery. It should be treated according to the rules for proper nouns, i.e., The Crimson Fist (or Crimson Fists') Fortress-Monastery, but the fortress-monastery of the Crimson Fists. The term is only capitalised when used as a proper noun, which is what I meant when we discussed this before; I'm sorry I was not clearer. For a better illustration of this, the changes I made that you altered today were correct usage, and I have restored them so that you might use them as an example. In general, you should only very rarely be capitalising the term. If you're still not sure, just look up the rules for proper nouns on the Internet and apply them to the term going forward, and that should be fine. Montonius (talk) 06:30, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help. If you have other grammar questions, please ask. Montonius (talk) 06:41, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Plural
It is the singular. The Scythes of the Emperor IS a Chapter of Space Marines. The verb IS modifies the singular CHAPTER, not the title Scythes. Like much in current English, it sounds wrong when spoken but is gramatically correct.

Also, please do not remove sources. You removed a book with a similar title like Disciples and Apostles when they were separate books with intentionally similar titles. I really need you to start checking your edits more closely for these kinds of easily avoided errors, as this is forcing me to spend time to check your work. I must be able to trust that the type of standardisations and corrections you're doing requires no checking, because that slows me down a great deal to restore changes that should not have been made to pages I long ago edited. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 22:36, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

VooDoo 99% of your edits are fine; I should have made that clear; and you do a great job for someone working in a second language for unglamourous tasks that do have to be done for the wiki and are very important. I'm glad we have you doing the standardisation job. But it's not only about reading things over; if you're not sure about something, as with the Disciples-Apostles mix-up, use the Internet as a resource to fact check. In this instance, if I wasn't sure that one of the books was real, I would have typed both into the Internet and seen if both existed. Use all the tools at your disposal before making a decision, and if you have grammar questions, or questions about why I made a particular decision that you don't understand, please feel free to ask. I know it can be a pain in the ass, but what you're doing is vital for the wiki and it has paid off in producing a wiki that I believe is quite simply one of the highest quality on the Internet. Montonius (talk) 17:21, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Opportunity
VooDoo,

There are big improvements coming to the site, and I am going to need some more staff members who I can work with and have shown fidelity to our pretty strict formatting and quality standards. I'd like to offer you the chance to join the staff as a Moderator. This would require you to be willing to continue to follow our rules and guidelines in editing and creating content, and would lead to a closer collaboration with myself and our other main Admin, Algrim Whitefang. All that's necessary is a willingness to make regular contributions (i.e several times a week), take on some tasks as assigned by myself or the other Admins at certain times when the work load is heavy, and a willingness to take direction from myself and Algrim on new initiatives or content we are currently pushing. For now, nothing would change and you would have the opportunity to complete your standardisation project for both the Space Marine Chapters and the Chaos Space Marine warbands as you planned. If you're interested, I will then briing the idea to Algrim, If he agrees, we'll make you a Moderator. Look over the role of Admins and Mods on the main page if you want to know more about the role. Interested? Montonius (talk) 07:21, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Battle Barge / Gloriana-class Battleship
Hey VoODoO40K,

After re-reading the canon as stated in The Horus Heresy - Book Three: Extermination (Forge World Series) by Alan Bligh, "Warships of the Great Crusade," pg. 15 they are technically principal (or capital) class warships of the Battleship class variety. Of course there are many variants of this class which includes the Gloriana. It also goes on to explain about the development of the Battle Barge, which are not a single designation or class as such, but rather a term given to any variant or retrofit of battleship class hull modified and optimised for use by the Legiones Astartes specifically for Space Marine planetary assault and ship-to-ship boarding actions. So basically, the term battleship and battle-barge are often used interchangeably, and has been done so throughout the various canon sources as well as the HH novels. Therefore, I felt that they should be included on the Battle Barge article. I know it's kind of confusing, but it is what it is. Hopefully, I've shed some light on this often confusing topic.

Algrim Whitefang, WH40K Wiki Senior Associate Administrator  (talk)  21:15, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Promotion to Moderator


In recognition of your continuing contributions to the wiki in a very unrewarding job, you have been officially promoted to a Moderator of the Warhammer 40k Wiki and are now a member of the staff. Conmgratulations and keep up the good work! You now possess rollback capability so that you can rollback user's mistakes with a single click of the button. Use it wisely! Montonius (talk) 02:56, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

Angels of Fury
I was counting on you to keep an eye on problematic things like these! The thing is, the Codex: Space Marines of 5th Ed. does not state the battle's name. It's just a long list of conflicts that took place in 998.M41, each one of which is marked with a number on the galaxy map - not necessarily next to any recognisable location. In this case it takes place somewhere between Fenris and Ogrys, the 'ruined' homeworld of the Invaders. Maybe you'll know of a better way to include the info :/

Bibliotecario Traductor Jefe Aresius King (talk) 20:15, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

PS: Congrats for your deserved promotion!

Terran Crusade
Your fill-in was fine. Roboute Guilliman is open for you to do the same, it's mostly just makign the same changes though ;) Thanks. Montonius (talk) 20:29, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Roboute Guilliman
Do whatever is easiest for you, these are very large pages. However, doublecheck that after any chnages you make the text has not been altered (unless you're fixing an obviosu error) as I have already gone over these texts with a fine-tooth comb and made a number of changes from the source material. Thanks for your help. Montonius (talk) 21:51, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Wording
Hi VooDoo,

Please do not alter the wording of articles I have already editied unless you are sure that it was a typo. If you think a word is incorrect, please look it up in an online dictionary first before altering it. Warhammer 40k writers often use archaic English terminology for effect that can seem unfamiliar but is not incorrect. Also, please never change measurements in an article from feet to metres -- they are dramatically different lengths, as a metre is equivalent to about three English feet. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 18:31, April 28, 2017 (UTC)

Metres
Helmet is modern, helm is archaic, going all the way back to Anglo-Saxon Old English. Helmet enters English from Norman-French and first appeared in Middle English in the Late Middle Ages, so I should say it is technically more modern ! LOL. Warhammer is written by overwhelmingly British authors. The older they are, the more prone they are to use Imperial measurements; the younger ones are good Europeans, and use metric. LOL. We use whatever the primary source for the article uses; I would use all metric myself for consistency's sake, but the source material is the source material, and so we used feet for this one. If you did the conversion that's one thing, but you cannot exchange one directly for the other; they mean very different things.

If you want a primer on stylistic conventions, read Creating Content -- it should explain our grammar conventions in more detail. Montonius (talk) 03:12, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Information.
Thanks for the info. I have worked on some other wikis, but I understand that every wiki tends to have unique rules and styles. I'll try my best to adhere to the required standard. Lemonny3663 (talk) 20:37, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

Guilliman
It was mostly very good work.

One thing -- we don't use the British convention with quotation marks. We use double, not single quotation marks for everything except quotes within quotes, and commas should be INSIDE quotes, not outside. The American version was chosen because the British variant is more confusing and harder to infer meaning in complex quotes. Also, Compliance refers to Imperial Compliance so it should be capitalised, Warpspace is capitalised because the noun it is derived from    -- "the Warp" --    is a proper noun. In general, I don't usually make errors in proper noun construction, so if I've capitalised it and proofed the page myself, it should be left intact. Of course, thank you for picking up the capitalisation of the Emperor's pronoun, but I never proofed the part of the page between the intro and the addition of the Gathering Storm material because of the page length. If you have questions on why something is capitalised and the answer is not immediately clear, please ask. English language fantasy literature like Warhammer often has non-standard proper noun rules because it's a created world.

Go ahead and do the copy/paste for the rest from the edits for the other pages using the same material, as you noted I have gone over it and everything should be fine. Thanks for your work! Montonius  ( talk ) 17:52, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

Compliant is simply the adjectival form of Imperial Compliance. It is capitalised because one is in the state of Imperial Compliance. Since it is referring to a very specific meaning, not the general meaning of just compliance with someone's wishes but Compliant in the meaning of the specific policy, it would be capitalised. Again, fantasy literature and its very specific terms of art or mythological terminology.

Yes, the American version is very different from European practice with quotes, numbers (3,000), and measurements (feet, miles). We chose the variants that made English most readable, though this did obviously produce some dissonance. American practice in certain grammatical forms are better than their original and more archaic British forms. The same is true for spelling, but we chose to keep the British spelling to mantain the flavour of the original works, which are defiantly English (not even British to be honest) culturally -- neither American nor Teutonic in preference, no question! Montonius (talk) 22:15, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

Chapter Colour Scheme Picture
You want it at the start of the Chapter History section if it exists so that it does not run visually into the Infobox, which is why I moved it. If there is no Chapter History section, then nothing you can do about it. Montonius (talk) 20:37, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Admin Work
Hi VooDoo,

Please don't remove an Admin's work from a page, as you did with the Primaris Space Marines; that's really not your role and can cause friction with the rest of the staff. Let me be the judge of other people's work and where it should be placed (and take the heat for disagreements!), that's my job as Lead Admin. You focus on your tasks, and if you have suggestions for alterations or improvements to a page prepared by an Admin, please bring that up to the relevant Admin on his Talk Page, and let them decide if they should be implemented, particularly if it's about their own work.

Thanks, and keep up the great job! Montonius (talk) 19:57, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Gothic
Unfortunately this is another piece of canon which has different answers and no definitive one. High Gothic and Low Gothic were very specific terms until the introduction of the Horus Heresy line. They started to just use the term "Terran Gothic" and didn't explain which of the Gothics that is. I am assuming that in that era, it refers to the pseudo-Latin High Gothic, and Low Gothic is the standard English used ten thousand years later, but that's an assumption that has yet to be confirmed. In the pages you are referring to, Arabic numerals SHOULD be Low Gothic and Roman numerals SHOULD be HIgh Gothic, BUT that isn't canon. So you pretty much cannot standardise it at this time and must leave it as is. I would also point out that on the Space Marine pages, those directions are also used by painters, and so they sometimes need the "real-world" equivalent names so the painter can know what to use. Again, no way to standardise that until Games Workshop makes more clear what these languages equate to within the in-universe fiction.

Long story short, leave it as written on the pages for now. Montonius (talk) 21:05, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

charnel Guard
Oops, forgive me, when I wrote that, I meant to add a sentence before that one which states the Charnel Guard severing ties with the Maelstrom Warders. Then I was going to add the sentence " This action would inadvertently spare the Chapter from the horrors of the  Badab War ." I was about to write it but something came up and I had to leave in a hurry. Sorry about that, I guess I'll just stick to my wiki for now on.

Founding Article
My man,

I just spent over an hour on the Founding article, and when I went to publish my edits they were gone. Please, don't touch an article if someone else is editing it! I can't stress this enough...I just lost over an HOUR worth of work!

Algrim Whitefang, WH40K Wiki Senior Associate Administrator  (talk)  07:52, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

Ultima Founding
Since that isn't canon at this time, no. Montonius (talk) 19:55, June 1, 2017 (UTC)

Grey Knights
Hi VooDoo,

In the future, please do not remove information from a page. If there is a problem with a section, tell me about it, and I'll make a decision about what can be changed or deleted, unless it's literally just something repeated twice word for word ona  apage. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 20:05, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well, that's what I'm talking about. If the text is literally IDENTICAL to a passage elsewhere on a page, you can, of course remove it. But it must be something that was accidentally copied in two places and the author probably missed removing it. Some of these pages have been worked over four, five times, and people forget that a piece of text may already have been copied into a different section of a very large article. Because many of our articles are so large, this can happen. So if you see  identical passages, of course you can remove repetition, just make sure it is identical. Otherwise, ask me to take a look at it before we remove it. It may just need to be reworded or repurposed. In this case, the passages were not exactly IDENTICAL and the earlier passage could be repurposed for the article intro, which is just a summation of the article's main points. Since the article is very large, a reader won't even really remember the similarity very well by the time they get all the way down to that section, which actually introduces the Grey Knights' separate rank structure and leads out to pages of its own. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Montonius (talk) 05:05, June 7, 2017 (UTC)

Chapter Planets
Hi VooDoo,

You've noticed I've begun to red link the Chapter planets. In the beginning we didn't do that because most of them were simply one sentence throw-aways that had no information. But eventually the plan now is to add a page for every Chapter planet to the wiki,,,one day, when I can find the time. So the red links are preparation for that. Just to let you know the plan. Montonius (talk) 19:40, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please do. That would help me a lot. Montonius (talk) 20:17, June 13, 2017 (UTC)