Talk:List of Astra Militarum regiments

Categorization

Please note that the categorization for a regiment has to be the following way: [[Category:Imperial Guard and PDFs|Armageddon/ Cadia/ Krieg whatever]], else it will be categorized under the number... --Inquisitor S. 17:24, 2 October 2006 (CEST)

"Gobsmasha" somehow managed to delete 70% of the regiments. Undoing with prejudice. --Zigguratei 06:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed some "sup" references, putting page number in sources instead of leaving it between the ^{sup tags}. Example: "whatever^{1,p. 50}" became "whatever^1a" and on the source list below ^1a is listed as p. 50.

• Problem 1: most of the regiments are sourced from the point of view of the codex/novel, except that their page number is not given.
• Problem 2: What is this 7f? The source is clearly the image at page 7 of the Imperial Guard Codex 3rd edition number 2. Although in my own copy image is without caption. So it is just an image without description. How did it come it is considered a source for a Valhallian Regiment?
  

--Jacob Sterlov 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While technically correct and possible in the case of lists we prefer to leave the pagenumber between the sup tags to avoid too long sources sections at the end of the article. Problem 1: I don't understand what you mean: you want to say people did not specify the page number? Problem 2: don't have the codex with me, so can't look at the picture (and can't remember which picture it is). So I would need a description of the image to help my memory. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 11:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. Saw the picture now. I know for sure that in another source (possibly the first version 3rd edition codex or a White Dwarf) there is a caption to this picture. Something like "The xy. Valhalla marches to war" or along these lines. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 11:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum 2 from Codex Imperial Guard 3rd Edition 1st Revision page 6:

--Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful hit, for the Emperor's Sake! That's the caption I've never seen before.

Talking about the 1st problem, it's just as you said. I started modifying the page since I saw someone had put page numbers in place of letters ^{1, p. 50} instead of ^1a. After setting up those numbers, I noticed there were a lot of things without sourced pages, so I said: they provide the correct source and this is better than nothing, but they miss page numbers. That's all. I was just registering such a fact in the discussion page just after saving my changes, so when I (or someone else) come back, he will see my problem 1 and he will know what to do in order to improve the page. At the moment, I do not have all the manuals, so I had to stop without completing the page numbers. --Jacob Sterlov 19:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Anyway we will slightly change the sourcing procedure (no, nothing dramatic, just taking over a new code which will still look the same as now when converted. And that new code will make it easier to mark down missing pagenumbers for future research, too. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 11:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

87th Bluebloods

I moved "87th Bluebloods" from "B" to "Unknown worlds" because I highly doubt there is world called Blueblood. Hopefully that doesn't upset anyone.

Overcrowding?

• I know this page is going to be pretty crowded, but my recommendation to reduce that a bit is to have the Traitor regiments (e.g. Semtrek Freemen) into their own article. I would also suggest splitting the page by letters (e.g just A, or A-B, A-F or something like that). KazilDarkeye (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2018 (MDT)

I don't see why they need their own article. A list page is as long as it needs to show the appropriate information. Splitting the page up by letters would be a good idea though --Harriticus (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2018 (MDT)

In principle there is a possibility to split pages, yes. However is there no technical reason, for example that the page doesn't load anymore because it is too big (we had that problem in the past, I don't know if that can still happen now), I would probably advise against it. After all you have the possibility to jump to specific alphabetical subsections right at the beginning of the article. As for the topic of traitor regiments: Well, they were loyal at some point, so they belong here. Which doesn't mean there shouldn't be a separate list of known traitor regiments. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2018 (MDT)