Talk:Word Bearers

Erm, This is all basically copied from the main Wikipedia. I didn't think that was allowed, Perhaps a re-write is in order? - Orky 7:05 AM, August 12, 2006 (EST).

Everything in the Wikipedia is FREE stuff, so I don't see a problem as long as it's not copied from a GW publication. You could add a link to Wikiepdia of course under "Sources". --Inquisitor S. 13:24, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

Still though, It might make look Lexicanum better if all of our articles are written anew. I'd write a new one, but I'm not too familiar with the Word Bearers. -Orky 6:45 PM, 12 August, 2006 (EST).

Yes, but for the time being (=till somebody rewrites it) there's no need to remove it. --Inquisitor S. 12:51, 13 August 2006 (CEST)

Not to brag, but ive been a Word Bearers player for many years. Ill try to get around to editing this article if I have time, but all ill likely do is rewrite some of the information and add if I find any.

There isnt much information on the Word Bearers. Ill search around for some new information. Theres a bit of info about the Word Bearers in the new Space Wolves codex. LorgarXVII-Father of the Word Bearers

Materials to be added upon template completion

Noted Elements of the Ultramarines

Noteable Members

Heresy Era

• Justerius - Dreadnought
• Kargori - Dreadnought

-Sergeants of the Word Bearers-

Gauste - Terminator Squad

Skane - Heavy Support Squad

Post-Heresy

References will be included upon editing

Chapters and Hosts

I’m fine with moving the modern warbands to the info box, but mixing them in with the heresy-era chapters just creates a confused mess. There’s no indication these chapters still exist in the present era in the same form, so it needs to be divided into heresy and post-heresy.

Moreover it seems the information on specific Hosts was deleted. Articles edits should not reduce available information. Overall I advise revising the latest edit and keeping chapters in a list in heresy-era organization, and hosts in post-heresy organization or the infobox Harriticus (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Harriticus here. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

-distinguishing pre/post heresy is not as relevant as distinguishing between active/gone. but yes why not, it might be easier to classify this way. altho why does it sparks debate on traitor pages, and not on loyalists pages where successors were already lumped in the infobox, unclassified?

-the following statement is about listings leading to other articles, and not actual written paragraphs where information is embedded into i strongly disagree with the statement about «available information shouldn't be removed» which basically means «don't touch the bloat», and forbid any change aside from cosmetics and senselessly adding things. As long as another article exists about Warband X or character Y, the information will be available in that article, and thats what matters most . if we take this page as an example, Lorgar is mentioned multiple times and a reader should quickly understand his importance.yet he is listed TWICE in the notable characters section. We got it the third time he was mentioned and i ask, what's the point? and it's just ONE example, to illustrate the concept of bloating an article. Likewise, listings all characters/subfactions into the main article damages the reading experience, and is not necessary when "List articles" are created to offload the bloat.

-On a more general note, i understand that the lexicanum is a hobby for many of us and its never nice to see your work, or things that have been «this way» for a long time, being changed, but user experience and ergonomy should come first and incite change––Siegfriedfr (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well since you did consent I've made the changes.

In the greater topic, you might have a point with regards to redundant information that is listed multiple times on the same page. I didn't really object to you shortening the character lists on Legion pages for instance (though the dedicated character pages are not up to date as I find updating them with the present template format bothersome and nobody else has done it). However on the topic of Word Bearers Hosts, that was the only place they were available on the entire site so eliminating it reduced information available on the Lexicanum. On Lexicanum we aim to provide as much information on Warhammer 40,000 lore as possible regardless of how obscure or seemingly insignificant. I do not think article length/bloat are particularly pressing issues, the biggest problem atm for the Lexicanum is in fact a lack of updated information (especially with regards to the many novels) and many consider our articles too short as it is. But if you want to shorten things without eliminating information available on the site I do not think that's a problem. Though sometimes even redundant lists are necessary for contextual and organizational reasons (for instance, the battle timelines).

With regards to the Chapters, it simply created confusion and disorganization as there doesn't seem to be an indication that these formations exist in the present setting. If the Chapters still existed in M41/42, I wouldn't have cared if they were listed in the same category as present warbands. :::Harriticus (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)