Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Daemon"
From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
(New page: I don't see a good reason for massing complete articles that already stand on their own (such as 'Chaos Gods') into one big general daemon page. I'm also not fond of the idea of non-exclus...) |
Admiraldick (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't see a good reason for massing complete articles that already stand on their own (such as 'Chaos Gods') into one big general daemon page. I'm also not fond of the idea of non-exclusively-chaos things like [[Familiar]]s redirected to a long list chaos equipment. --[[User:Acidface|Acidface]] 10:03, 31 January 2008 (CET) | I don't see a good reason for massing complete articles that already stand on their own (such as 'Chaos Gods') into one big general daemon page. I'm also not fond of the idea of non-exclusively-chaos things like [[Familiar]]s redirected to a long list chaos equipment. --[[User:Acidface|Acidface]] 10:03, 31 January 2008 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :agreed. there is more than enough information on any one type of daemon to have there own article. there is some value in listing them altogether here, but we shouldn't be redirected here if looking up 'Bloodthirster'.--[[User:Admiraldick|admiraldick]] 11:13, 11 November 2008 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 10:13, 11 November 2008
I don't see a good reason for massing complete articles that already stand on their own (such as 'Chaos Gods') into one big general daemon page. I'm also not fond of the idea of non-exclusively-chaos things like Familiars redirected to a long list chaos equipment. --Acidface 10:03, 31 January 2008 (CET)
- agreed. there is more than enough information on any one type of daemon to have there own article. there is some value in listing them altogether here, but we shouldn't be redirected here if looking up 'Bloodthirster'.--admiraldick 11:13, 11 November 2008 (CET)
