Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

User talk:TheNuclearSoldier

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Lexicanum! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the [Lexicanum:Help help pages]. Again, welcome and have fun! Bigred (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2017 (MDT)

Lasgun edits

You forgot to put the cardgame as the source for the M35 ... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2018 (MDT)

Oh thanks! I made that edit late at night and it slipped my mind.--TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2018 (MDT)
No problem, happens. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2018 (MDT)

Necropolis Hawks

I added the overlooked internal links. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2019 (MDT)


You forgot to add Chapter to your last edit of article Servitor. Add it, please. Thank you. See also Lexicanum:Citation.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2019 (MDT)

Rogue Trader‎

You forgot to add Source to your edit of Rogue Trader‎. Add it, please. Thank you. See also Lexicanum:Citation. Also I remind you that ignoring these rules will lead to the deletion of the information added by you.--Darkelf77 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2019 (MDT)

Weblink formatting

See here. Reason: here. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2019 (MDT)


Wherever that screenshot came from: personal accounts of authors are not accepted sources if the information has not been confirmed in an officially published and sanctioned source. You may add a mention of the items under "Notes" at the end of an article with the explicit caveat that it is not officially confirmed and without entering the info into the article proper. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2019 (MST)

Alrighty. Ill make the revision.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2019 (MST)
You cannot do it like you did. First: The "source" does not even say where it is taken from, it links to an external hosting service (and the link is already broken by the way). So first of all if a screenshot is used as a source it has to be hosted on the Lexicanum. Then of course it has to say explicitly from which social media platform it was taken from with a link to the original posts. I can easily manufacture a screenshot of a social media post saying that Orks are really disguised Tau, so can everybody else. Second: wording. The author does not "reveal", he "claims". Everything which is not officially confirmed is simply a claim, whereas a "reveal" implies a fact. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2019 (MST)
At this point. I'm too tired from the day. I just reverted the edit. All the developer did was clarify the lore that already existed in the Badab War books. Go look on Eadwine Brown's Facebook page around 21st of August 2015. Im going to bed.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2019 (MST)
Well, it is as it is. The sourcing guidelines are srict by necessity and for me personally the private statements of GW employees are, well, private and therefore not official unless officially taken up. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2019 (MST)

Two unknown legions

Please do not insert your own speculation into articles, thank you. Especially articles like the one about the unknown legions should be treated with extreeeeeeeeeeme care in this regard. And honestly your interpretation seemed somewhat arbitrary, at least with the text you wrote explaining it. -Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2019 (MST)

Several of the subsections of that article already have speculation on them to clarify the meaning of the information/excerpts. Why is mine unacceptable?TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2019 (MST)
After carefully reading the whole article I disagree. With the exception about the passage suposedly taken from IA HH Vol. III which I can't follow and which is badly written. But how you jump to the conclusion that the two Space Marines represent the Thousand Sons and one of the Lost Legions is completely beyond me and you make no attempt to explain it in your text. If you can re-formulate it in a way that can be logically followed I am willing to re-consider the issue. Plus in any case you would also have to explain why 20 Space Marines in grey armour automatically has to mean they stand for the 20 Legions. Remember that an article has to be written so that it makes sense to somebody who has not read the source. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2019 (MST)

M15 Edits

You deleted the entry of the Emperor going to Molech in M15. However this is incorrect. The passage in Vengeful Spirit Chapter 16 states that the Emperor went to Molech "at the dawn of the great diaspora". This took place in the Dark Age of Technology, which according to Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rulebook pg.167 began in M15. Harriticus (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Its a lore conflict. We have the Journal of Keeper Cripias stating that the Dark Age of Technology happened in M21 (The journal was written in 993.M41, and he states that the DAoT happen exactly 20,000 years before the time of writing.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
Okay, then noting the conflict the appropriate articles is probably the best idea Harriticus (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Still leaves the issue of where to make it on the timeline. for the moment, I put the dates mentioned in the journal along side the ones mentioned in the 5e rule bookTheNuclearSoldier (talk)


Please add Category to all the pictures you added.--Darkelf77 (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Necromunda pattern lasgun sources

From the revision history of Lasgun I see that it was you who a) first inserted unsourced info about the Necromunda pattern and b) later added sources that seem completely bogus unless you have a completely different version of the Inquisitor core rulebook from mine. See here (and some revisions before for the creation of the text). Soooo I would really like to hear how that happened. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Check Warhammer 40,000: Inquisitor Core Rule Book Page 66 (56 if using the 1.1 version), ranged weapons. There are Lasgun (MP), Lasgun (NP), and Lasgun (TP). Then under that it lists that the MP = Mars Pattern, NP = Necromunda Pattern, and TP = Triplex Pattern. TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
I did check the sources you gave. And did you check what you wrote? And what you marked with that source? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
You do know that it has been 3 years, right? I'll look back through my material. You could try to be less of a smartass.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I did ask a question in a normal way after it was discovered that the sources were supposedly bogus. And that lots of people took this as "true" based on these "sources" and the way it was put. So you would do well to measure your own tone. And that is that, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
And the point is not to establish that the given sources are wrong, that I know by checking. The point is to know where the other text comes (came) from and if it is an acceptable source so that the content can be re-used in the article as the whole Lasgun article needs an overhaul. So far I have only found the text on the internet by other pages who (presumably) copied it from the Lexicanum. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thats fine if the point was to alert me that I missed a source or miscited something, but that was also THREE years ago. You are acting like it just happened. Your tone throughout all of this has been nothing short of hostile. If the article's source is missing or errored, removed it until the source can be found again. I remember that some of the info "such as the laser weapons pack" came from the Inquisitor game's model bits pack called the "laser weapons pack". I'll keep looking for where the meat of it came from.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess you were not the one having the hassle to have to discuss and defend the info in a discussion - that then turned out to be at least wrongly attributed. Yes, it was three years ago, yes it could possibly have formulated in a slightly more diplomatic way. So let's settle for the fact you put the wrong sources and you might (or not, depending on your motivation) look to find it again. The "Inquisitor laser weapons pack" by the way is also not sourced in an acceptable way - by somebody else who has also been contacted already. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thats fine. If I can find the source again, I'll let you know. I think it was in a hard copy material somewhere, tho. Like really old stuff. If I dont have whatever it was, Ill try and get a new copy.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't be surprised if it was one the Fanatic magazines. What worries me a bit about the Inquisitor bitz pack is that according to the CCM wiki (or was it SoL?) that pack (or a similar las weapons pack) is listed as "unreleased". Which would make things a lot harder to "prove". --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


I think something went wrong during your last missing sources (always appreciated) fix. But I can't say if it is a fragment accidentally pasted that should be removed. Or an intended source that should be kept that was accidentally damaged. So better have a look yourself, thx. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


Hello, please only use jp(e)g file format unless a very specific reason requires PNG (like transparent backgrounds), thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk)

And please add Category.--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
How do I add categories? I dont see the optionTheNuclearSoldier (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no explicit field for categories, you add them in the description. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Whats the formatting?TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if it is outdated this should be sufficient. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Necromunda pattern hyperlink

I guess this was hyperlinked because many worlds have patterns for a range of equipment (tanks, guns...). And I feel this makes sense to have collective articles about which patterns are produced on which world. So I will re-create it in this case. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


Please add the source here, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Still missing a pagenumber or chapternumber, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Combi-weapon kitbash and general external links problem

I would agree that this most probably is a kitbash. And since the alleged official link is dead and no working archive page is to be found you have my fiat to simply exterminate the file. But this is an excellent point to ask you to please start using Internet archive links instead of normal external links. It is really simple as I have just learnt it myself - including the actual archiving of pages. The problem being that GW systematically deletes old product pages making things like with this probable kitbash happen. I will very soon make this an official policy anyway, so you might as well already start now with implementing it, thanks. The correct format etc. is the same here. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds goodTheNuclearSoldier (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Known Members of the Dark Angels

I’ve noticed the changes you’ve made to the list. While I see what you were trying to do, and I think you’ve done good work trying to improve it (certainly the table did need to be filled in more), I don’t think splitting the table like that is very helpful (if you wanted to find Heresy-era Dark Angels, why not just sort the table using the arrow at the top of the ‘Era’ column?). I also think putting that many columns on the table just looks terrible (especially on a mobile device). Thoughts? KazilDarkeye (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To note, ever since the format change to these articles its become too cumbersome for me to bother trying to update them. There should at the very least be separate tables for each letter. Harriticus (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kazil, There are a couple of issues. One is we dont know all the eras yet. I'm still trying to track them down. Even then, say you want to find a character and you know he is from the DA chapter instead of the legion, so you sort by era. Well then all that does is split the eras between Pre/During Heresy and Post-Heresy (thus why I just separated them entirely, and prevents you from sorting the tables to their rank or company or order. Its a problem of there being so many characters across so many eras between what are essentially 3 entirely separate organizations. Not to mention the multiple characters who have held the same rank and position in the chapter. Look at how many Masters of the 4th Company there have been. I am open to ideas for refining the tables, but I stand by my decision to split them.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Harriticus: Splitting tables in my opinion defeats the purpose of having sortable tables. @NuclearSoldier: Why three entirely separate organizations? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Großmeister Dark Angels (legion), Dark Angels (chapter), Fallen. The legion and the chapter are so different, with different ranks and organization. And the Fallen are a whole different thing themselves.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, I might not be exactly up to date, but are there actually "Chapter-Fallen"? Because in my opinion we could lump the Legion and The Fallen together. Otherwise we would also have to make separate lists for all loyalists and traitors for the Legions that followed Horus... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
No the Fallen are only from the old legion. So I guess I could see reintegrating those two lists? But it does feel nice having a listen solely for the FallenTheNuclearSoldier (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
There is absolutely no objection to having an additional list of just the Fallen. Just they should also be in the Legion list as they were part of the Legion and it would feel wrong not to have them there. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
You have a very solid point. Idea. Reintegrate the Fallen list back into the Legion list. But keep the legion/chapter split. Then make a new page for the Fallen only list.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Apart from that the same goes for the probably small overlap between Legion and Chapter. I have no problems with more lists, as long as I find each item in every list I expect to find it in. Generally speaking we should also have a look how Wikipedia handles this issue. I had a quick look but was not terribly successful so far. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


Please see my note on the talk page re: the misspelling. KazilDarkeye (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)