Talk:Slaanesh

POV?

I don't really see what's POV about this article. You should elaborate when you put on a tag like that, as it's not really obvious, at least to me. --Keolah 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demonic Legion

I've once again removed the link to The Demonic Legion from this article. In terms of Warhammer and Warhammer 40K, a site with 461 registered members on its forum is nowhere near notable, unless I'm missing something here. Cheers --Pak21 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, TDL is like Druchii.net or Asur.org, synonomous with the legion.

Fr0 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Now, could you please provide a verifiable source for that claim, in accordance with policy? --Pak21 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, by all means Google The Daemonic Legion, search for a forum and let me know what you come up with. Go to the largest Warhammer forums on the net and ask for the most well known source for The Daemonic legion discussion on the net. Apparently you aren't registered on as many forums as I am, nor do you care. :) Fr0 00:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try a slightly different Google: "slaanesh forum", as that's the article you're adding this (very badly formatted) link to. Top hits are Citadel of Delights, Bolter and Chainsword, Librarium Online, CGChannel and Gnutella. I couldn't see The Demonic Legion anywhere on the list. Similar results are seen for the other Chaos gods. --Pak21 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what we are discussing. This is for The Daemonic Legion which is the army that these are based off of, try playing the game or at least researching it. Fr0 05:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a fan site ever notable? I'm going to remove the link. marnues 23:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links are there for a reason, that site is the source of TDL players across the net. I'm going to put it back up. Fr0 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find out what other people think... --Pak21 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daemonic Legion Straw poll

Keep or remove The Daemonic Legion link from the Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh and Tzeentch pages? Add Keep or Remove with an optional one-sentence explanation. Sign with --~~~. Poll closes 08:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove: non-notable within the context of Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 --Pak21
Remove: Inappropriate and non-notable, also the persistant insistance of adding it in spite of arguments against is getting very annoying. --Keolah 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - A very small forum, whose inclusion as a external link in the pages on the Chaos Gods does not (in my opinion) meet any of the criteria listed at the policy for the inclusion of external links. -- Saberwyn
- Amendment - IF a constructive, sourced, and NPOV article can be written on the "Daemonic Legion" as a playable army in Warhammer Fantasy (if it is actually a playable, rulebook army... I'm kinda fuzzy on this one), I would very, very weakly, consider this external link an appropriate inclusion. -- Saberwyn
Remove This is a fan site that is not notable and adds no encyclopedic value to the article. marnues 14:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This site is highly notable, and contributional. If you remove the link, you may as well remove the entire section including Pleasureseekers, and the Chariot. This site is dedicated to the game, not the article. If this article isn't about the game you may as well remove all the daemons that were listed.

Fr0 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This site is relvant and lots experienced gamers there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.191.69.149 (talk • contribs) .

Poll closed: result was to Remove the links --Pak21 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slaanesh and Dark Eldar

In my understanding- and I am researching now for confirmation- the DE use torture as a means of holding off Slaanesh's embrace. --Grant McKenna 18:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sort of; they sacrifice other races' souls so that they are consumed rather than the DE; it seems to me that torturing them first is just to basically tenderize them for the Great Enemy (as well as for fun). Check out the "Torturer's Tale"; Asdrubael Vect hints at it there but doesn't outright state it. I googled the story just now and found this this copy on the GW website. Cheers --DarthBinky 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn

Spawn are NOT daemonic. They should not be under the daemon section! Fr0 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of spamming each God's article's talk with the same statement, why not be bold and remove them yourself? Also, you should add your comment as a new topic so it doesn't get lost- I have taken the liberty of doing it for you here.

I did the recent cleanup and left Spawn in there because someone else saw fit to include them- although I agree, they aren't technically daemons (although they are sort of related). I'll remove them from the four gods' articles. --DarthBinky 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spamming. You seem to want to shit on me when I add something, so quit your bitching. it's been removed, it was posted in DISCUSSION for a reason. Dick. Fr0 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. The personal attacks are not necessary. I was just saying that it would have been better to just make the changes instead of posting the same message at the top of each talk page. I even said I agreed with you, and I made the changes that you wanted. We're on the same side here; if my comment somehow came across as insulting, then I apologize- that was not my intent. --DarthBinky 07:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm irritated that you would write that. Given the past on this page, you can see why I was bit reluctant to change it. Anywho, it's been changed no intention at this point to insult you. Fr0 08:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean about the "past on this page"- I didn't start doing anything to this article until about a week before you made your post. I think you have me confused with someone else. Anyway... this is getting away from the point of the talk page (ie to discuss fixing the article), so we should let this die. Cheers --DarthBinky 16:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of Chaos Gods

Is there any infomation regarding how the other three gods of Chaos were individually created? The article on Kaela Mensha Khaine makes the claim that Nurgle was born out of the fear of death caused by the collapse of boundries between material and warp. Does anyone know whether or not this claim is canonial, or if there are any explainations for the births of Khorne or Slaanesh? 66.24.229.233 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone stuck their own speculation/theory in there. I remember older background saying that Nurgle was born from the great plagues on earth (like the Black Death); besides which, Nurgle *doesn't* represent fear of death, he represents despair, a different concept. The only god whose birth is explained is Slaanesh's in W40k; I have read about this "fear of death" thing somewhere (probly the wikipedia article about the C'tan), but I don't recall it mentioning Nurgle or any other god being born from this fear.

I already removed that speculation from the Nurgle article; looks like the Khaine one will need a look too. Until a canon source says that this happened, we should treat it as speculation and remove it. Cheers --DarthBinky 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to assume the 3 original Chaos Gods were born out of the War in Heaven which was what made the warp what it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.60.92 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icon

Should the icon associated with Slaanesh, such as the examples found here (http://uk.games-workshop.com/hordesofchaos/slaanesh/images/cult-icon.jpg) and here (http://stormofchaos.uk.games-workshop.com/book/images/slaanesh_icon.gif) be added to this page? 66.24.236.62 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As that image isn't a free image, I'm personally not too bothered about it. Cheers --Pak21 10:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fr0 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem?

Part of the article seem taken from [1]. The copied part seem appear prior in signaled page that in wiki history . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.221.101.218 (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gender Ambiguity and Lack of Origin

Just as Birth of the Chaos Gods discussion in this page stated, Slaanesh is the only god whose birth is explained. However, it's obvously lacking in Slaanesh's page. Could someone post it, as it's birth is a pivotal moment for the Eldar history and thus the Warhammer timeline. Also, Slaanesh is gender ambigous as the Warhammer 40k universe has obviously and painstakingly made sure since he defies natural order, I suppose we should lose the gender bias and make it ambigous as well. After all, if the Eldar calls him, "She who thirsts", they must consider him female.

Slaanesh is the diety of pleasure in all of its forms, conventional and perverse. Pleasure is known to all mortals regardless of gender, and therefor it may be wise to consider Slaanesh as being both male and female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.5.6 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]