Talk:Drukhari

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins[edit]

While reading through I noticed that there doesn't appear to be any clear origin for the DE. The article goes from what the regular Elder did when Slaneesh was born to the DE's "thirst" without explaining anything.

That is detailed in 'The Torturer's Tale', which the article points to in the History section. That's all there is, unfortunately. Currently the Dark Eldar are notoriously neglected background-wise by Games Workshop. Doctor Atomic 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, in the History section, aobut the Dark eldar and their origins. People keep on supposing that the Dark Eldar are the remains of the pleasure cults. This is not at all true. When Slaanesh was born, only the Eldar on the edges who lived in their craftworlds reamined. All the pleasure cults who were situated in the center of the empire died. Wherever the pleasure cults were located, Slaanesh came into existence there, which is why all the pleasure cults died. Out of the remaining Eldar, they split into two groups. One decided to follow the path of restraint and wore spirit stones, and the other group decided to do acts of depravity to each other and to the other races of the galaxy, in the hopes that Slaanesh would eventually grow bored of the Eldar race as her primary playthings and to move onto another race and to leave the Eldar race alone. The first group is the Eldar, and the second group is the Dark Eldar as we know them today. That is paraphrased from Codex: Dark Eldar. Also, if you still think that the Dark Eldar are the old pleasure cultists, then here's another paraphrase from the Dark Eldar codex. At the mention of Slaanesh's name, the Dark Eldar will grow afraid and the name will only serve to drive them to further acts of hedonism and violence as if to escape her.

So guys, please stop changing the Dark Eldar history, as if the Dark Eldar are the pleasure cultists, because they're not. If all you've done is read the Eldar codex and not the Dark Eldar codex, then please don't edit the history page. One time I had to clean up the History page becasue some guy was writing about the craftworlds of the eldar and not at all the Dark Eldar. - Cheers, Dexter

There really needs to be something in here about the fall of the Eldar, I think. Maybe a cross-article link? 86.180.79.195 (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Craftworld Eldar and the Dark Eldar both come from the same Ancient Eldar - these had the power to squash suns at a whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSSM (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can i sugest that we now use the new codex? will bring the entire thing more up-to-date — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSSM (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Draining[edit]

This is an important part of DE fluff and is supported by both the Codex and The Torturers Tale, so whoever keeps removing it, could they, like, not? =)- Doctor Atomic


Void Dragons[edit]

It's my understanding that these are a group of Eldar pirates and mercenaries, but are not actually Dark Eldar. I am also sure that not all Dark Eldar mercenaries are known as Void Dragons. Does anyone know anything to the contrary? I'll remove their mention in the article if not. Doctor Atomic 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that the Void Dragons are one of the Eldar Pirate groups (similar to the Eldritch Raiders) from the original Book of the Astronomican, and therefore Eldar Outcasts (or Craftworld Eldar) rather than Dark Eldar. I know, it seems silly that there are two different types of Eldar Pirates, but that's the way it is. --Pariah Press 05:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article delete/merge status[edit]

It is clear that this article should NOT be moved into the basic "warhammer 40k" article. However, in and of itself it does not have a place as its own article. The Asdrubael Vect article should be part of the Dark Eldar article.

If I have mis-placed this and someone is attempting to delete the "Dark Eldar" entry or have it moved to be part of the basic 40k article then I am deffinately against that. But I am for the Asdrubael Vect article being added to the Dark Eldar article.

If adding them to the Dark Eldar article is not favorable to the majority then this article should most certainly be kept as its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demotox (talk • contribs) .

Dark Eldar merit their own page just as do the other armies and races from 40k. It should certainly not be merged into the main 40k article. I think it's a good idea to merge both the Commorragh and Vect articles as their own sections within this one. Doctor Atomic 05:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there has never been a suggestion that this page is merged into Warhammer 40,000; there was a well-intentioned suggestion that Asdrubael Vect be merged there, but that's now been redirected here, which is possibly what is causing the confusion. However, I do think this would be a good time to discuss our thoughts on which characters should have their own articles, etc. Cheers --Pak21 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asdrubael Vect now merged here. Cheers --Pak21 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of feel Asdrubael Vect is too in-universe at the moment, it could just be me. (Lordevilvenom 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Notable characters[edit]

I have proposed a guideline for character notablity within Warhammer 40,000 articles which I believe may effect the listings on this page. Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability and comment. Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have now agreed some guidelines, and I believe that The Decapitator does not meet any of the criteria specified. If you believe he does, please give the reasons here. (If you wish to discuss changes to the guidelines, please do this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability). Cheers --Pak21 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He meets the criterium "They have their own official special rules...". His rules are in Codex: Dark Eldar (he rocks, too). Doctor Atomic 02:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He stays, then. Thanks --Pak21 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headings[edit]

I've just placed headings in the character section... And just figured out that the whole article is lacking in them... I'll try to fix that up in a sec. --Falcorian (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Looks better now. Doctor Atomic 06:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested 40k Article Guidelines[edit]

I have:

  • An overall page of general guidelines
  • A list that defines different types of articles on differt subjects
  • For Armies "Army Page"
  • For Technology "Technology Page" (equivalent to "Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment Page", or, "WVE page")
  • For Notable Planets "Notable Planet Page"
  • (User:Pak21 already made guidelones for notable characters, but a link to that is included)
  • A statement of purpose for my guidelines
  • Left room for more guidelines to come

--Nothing offical will be done with the guidelines (moved or put to use) until several Wikipedians involved in the Warhammer 40,000 project have verified it.-- Colonel Marksman's Proposed Guidelines

Colonel Marksman 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kruellagh[edit]

The info about her Kabal (the Flayed Skull, to which her warband 'the Emasculators' belongs) isn't something I've seen before and doesn't have a reference. Can someone corroborate this? If not, I'll snip it out. Doctor Atomic 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Dark Eldar Codex under her name in the special characters section.

Ships[edit]

Should there be a section on the Ships used by the Dark Eldar raiders in the Specialist-game Batlefleet Gothic?

Since they only have two kinds of ships (one cruiser-class ship and one Escort-class ship), the section would not be difficiult to implent... but does it belong in the article? 81.229.68.97 12:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of feel that it should go in Battlefleet Gothic because its a seperate game system. (Lordevilvenom 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree with that, this page is about Dark Eldar within the context of the 40k fiction franchise, in general. It is not exclusive to the 40k scale tabletop game. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible peacock terms?[edit]

I have noticed that this article has a few sections where it slightly veers off into subjective appraisals of how effective the units are in the tabletop 40k game. Any claim that x unit/technology/strategy is one of the most feared/effective/powerful, is highly subjective without extensive statistical evidence to support such a claim. (and none has been cited) 216.36.188.184 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update is probably needed[edit]

Now that the DArk Eldar codex is relesed, maybe we should edit the page, for start, say the c9dex is already out and update that. 92.1.33.210 (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dark Eldar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drukhari&oldid=1006042374"