Talk:Gaunt's Ghosts

Brothers of the Snake reference

I've read through Brothers of the Snake, and it doesn't seem to be set in the Sabbat crusade. Being a rather new Wikipedian, I'm not sure how to alter the article so that it reflects this. Would this be considered original research? Allandaros 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to Sharpe series

As of 10:46 EST, 08/04/06, this article has been reverted back to the version with the additional text about the comparison (and controversy) with the Sharpe series.

To prevent further vandalism, a citation has been included which provides evidence that Abnett himself acknowledges the comparison. (Indeed, if asked about it, as he has been at several conventions, he freely admits the inspiration.)--Stu-Rat 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text being added is still original research. The citation given shows only that Abnett has used Sharpe as insipiration; the details of that inspiration are not listed in any way and should therefore not be listed in the article. --Pak21 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted the details are not listed. However, the comparisons are obvious and there is little point in stating that one series was inspired by another without detailing at least some of the inspirations.

Of course, there are several other pieces of original research on this page. Nearly the entirity of the fourth paragraph needs a citation to remain, I believe. There are facts, with no proof, raised in the fifth paragraph.--Stu-Rat 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The existence of one piece of original research is not a (good) justification for putting in more... --Pak21 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably?

"The books remain probably the most popular". Can this be confirmed? It seems to have been just a guess.--Chickenfeed9 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

They are the most popular 40k series, as far as I know the Warhammer Fantasy-based Trollslayer series is the best selling as far as sales per book go. Gizzakk 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gg first.jpg

Image:Gg first.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gg first.jpg

Image:Gg first.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Victory

I was at his book signing in Forbidden Planet in London on March 15th and asked Dan Abnett about whether Gaunt's Ghosts ended with Only in Death, he has confirmed that the next book will be released in 2009, while he didn't give me the title of the book, the next arc will be known as 'The Victory' (He said I should read in to that what I could). Should this go into the wiki page? I've found a forum page for the Black Library where one of the staff confirms it: http://forum.blpublishing.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1473

gwyang 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Spin-off titles

From what I've read of it, Titanicus is definitely a Sabbat Crusade novel, even if not set in the Sabbat Worlds. At the beginning of the novel, the Mechanicus complain in council about Warmaster Macaroth leaving them undefended while on his campaign. -- 203.160.2.130 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

discrepancies section

This section read like this: "At one point, Gaunt references Commissar Yarrick (referred to as "The Great Yarrick"). However, the Sabbat Worlds Crusade in which the Gaunt's Ghosts series is set takes place centuries earlier than the Armageddon Wars that made Yarrick famous. This is incorrect, as the Gaunt's Ghosts series of books is set in the 41st millennia. Yarrick was made famous during the 2nd and 3rd wars for Armageddon in the 40th millennia. The first Sabbat worlds crusade was set in the 34th millennia, and were led by Saint Sabbat, and were then named after the Saint."

The statement that the criticism is incorrect is in error itself. The Gaunt's Ghost's stories are set around 770.M41 (intros to several of the books), while the the second and third wars for Armageddon began in 948.M41 and 998.M41 respectively (4th edition rulebook). The last sentence is irrelevant. As such I have removed these elements. 72.18.60.218 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Inconsistencies

There is an erroneous passage in the Inconsistencies section of the article - I've just re-read Honour Guard, and there's specific mention of a hotshot cell NOT being loaded into Larkin's rifle when he and Lijah Cuu are hunting birds. I've seen confusion on this point elsewhere - the "hotshot" is a type of ammunition for Larkin's rifle, not the rifle itself. 121.216.222.11 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For how many books his written,and a timeline, I was actually really surprised to only see 2 snippets of possible inconsistencies. With how crazy I get about lore, I gotta give props to Abnett. You could pretty much throw in 2 different names and it would then be relatively perfect. --68.225.22.138 (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The description of the inconsistent timeline referencing Commissar Yarrick may in fact be wrong in labelling the Ork invasion of Armageddon as the "first war on Armageddon". In rulebooks it's been revealed that the first war for the planet involved a black crusade led by Abaddon the Despoiler, but that this was suppressed by Imperial authority. This could therefore be changed to "first Ork war on Armageddon" or "second war of Armageddon" to be completely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.84.184 (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hy there. I'm hereby proposing that we merge the articles First and Only (book), Ghostmaker and Necropolis (Warhammer 40,000) into this one (deleting them or turning them into redirects afterwards). IMHO the quality of these articles is sorely lacking and unlikely to be improved any time soon. I'm also concerned about their individual notability (as in Wikipedia:Notability). The book series itself may be notable enough to warrant an article, but the individual novels? Flamarande (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Gereon Untill or Gereon Until?

Couldn't locate a source for the spelling and both had been used in the article. Gone with 'Gereon Until' but please amend and add {{not a typo}} if incorrect. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As I recall its Untill (short for Untillable), I will break out my copies of the books tonight and change (with ref) if my memory is correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary source should be fine. 'Traitor General' page 211. Untill. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gaunt's Ghosts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050103115404/http://www.blacklibrary.com:80/interviews/danwhm37c.html to http://www.blacklibrary.com/interviews/danwhm37c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)