Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pterodactal (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 15 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive
Archives
  1. February to August 2006

Images

I have realised that there are a huge number of images being used on the Warhammer 40,000 articles that are used under fair use rules. However, they do not generally have fair use rational behind them. We really need to go through each article and add the rational in the form of a comment as shown on the fair use page. -Localzuk (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, I will create Category:Warhammer 40,000 images for all the images used on 40k pages to allow us to keep track of this sort of thing unless anyone objects. I think I've got most of the images on my watchlist already, but other people having a look after I've been through is probably a good idea. Cheers --Pak21 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea to create such a cat on the commons as well... We've had some violations there as well. --Falcorian (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like commons:Category:Warhammer 40,000? :-) --Pak21 14:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean like... Yes... Like that. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Warhammer 40,000 images created and populated. Cheers --Pak21 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. So I guess the next step is to pull our the boarder-line cases and discuss them... Maybe when I get home, but no promises. --Falcorian (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pak21/Warhammer 40,000 images is my first attempt to at least classify all the images into their "type". Any help always welcome. Cheers --Pak21 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now updated; I've bolded all the entries which I think have problems. Virtually nothing has the rationale on the page(s) the image is used on, but that can be somewhat of a mechanical thing once we've got the rest sorted out. Cheers --Pak21 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As people may notice from the watchlist noise, I've just gone through and added a pointer to the rationale for all the miniature images we've borrowed from the GW site. If anybody else ever wants to do any of this, you may find User:Pak21/Rationale useful. Just use
{{subst:User:Pak21/Rationale|IMAGENAME}}
(don't forget the "subst:") and the pointer to the rationale will magically appear. Cheers --Pak21 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rationale for chapter logos etc

A proposed fair use rationale for most of the Chapter (etc) logos we're using:

== Fair use for [[CHAPTER NAME]] ==
This image, CHAPTER NAME.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (~~~) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
  1. it is the official logo of the organization
  2. it is a low-resolution image and cannot be used to make illegal reproductions of Games Workshop material
  3. it does not affect the ability of Games Workshop to market their products in any way.

If that sounds reasonable to everybody, I'll add it onto the chapter logo pages sometime when I have slightly more free time than I have now... Cheers --Pak21 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except Image:RavenGuard.gif and Image:Tauseal.jpg which had no source information and are now tagged as such. Cheers --Pak21 09:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Vector Logos?

I've noticed that in a number of the Star Wars articles (such as Galactic Empire (Star Wars)), user-made vector images of the various faction logos are used. Rather then using some of the blurry, second-hand images for logos in our articles, would someone be willing to make clean, crisp versions for us? --Paul Soth 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly skilled with FreeHand and would be happy to help out in this regard Schoon 20:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, congratulations to all project members for doing such a fine job. I've just noticed that the project logo is a photo of some Tyranids miniatures. (Of course I've seen the project template dozens of times in various articles but this never drew my attention before). Wouldn't something more general like this be more appropriate? Just my two cents.. --Xasf 15:07, 30 June 2006 (GMT+3)

just like to add that this is the same for the Eldar Pterodactal 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the same for the Eldar? Cheers --Pak21 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The project logo cannot be a fair-use image. Cheers --Pak21 12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well then.. I'll try contacting GW Legal Department for permission, it is their product we are promoting here after all ;) I'll keep you guys posted if I can get anything.. Take care --Xasf 15:29, 30 June 2006 (GMT+3)
Anyone want to take bets? GW's legal department is infamously brutal. As a proposal though, if we have an artist on board, a nice hand drawn logo just for us would be great, like Image:WPW-banner.png for the Warcraft portal. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the new Image:W40000 Symbol.png? File:W40000 Symbol.png the wub "?!" 10:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, nice job! Take care --Xasf 13:21, 8 August 2006 (GMT+3)
Very nice! Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go thinking it's mine! It's part of the windfall from Commons:User:ThomaK WarheaD. the wub "?!" 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good find at least. I'll drop him a note! --Falcorian (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass merger.

Ok, I know I am the new guy in this project but I have noticed this simple thing we could do to tighten up the catagory and get several "Stubs" out of the trash and into a more usefull format. I propose a large 'History of the 40K Universe' Page where Dark Age of Technology, Age of Strife, Great Crusade and other articals about the history of the 40K Universe will be colected into one place. Pages previously ocupied could be deleted or changed to redirects. What do you all think? --Emperors Harbinger 22:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC) PS: Will someone PLEASE give us a better name for the new page?[reply]

Sounds like a fine idea to me. --Falcorian (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can bring a nice cohesion to the subject.. Well worth a try.. Take care --Xasf 09:17, 05 July 2006 (GMT+3)
It's certainly seemed to me in the past that each of the current "history" articles overlaps with the others, so this seems like a good idea to me. As for title, I can only suggest "History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe". Don't worry too much about that though: we can always change it later if necessary. Cheers --Pak21 08:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could eash race not have their own history page? eg the dark age, age of strife and great crusade could all become History of the Imperium, just if all races histories were on one universal page it cud grow too large? just a thought Lowris 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lowris has just feilded a exceptional sugestion. I had wonderd how we would deal with historys such as the Tau and Eldar which deviate wildly from the Imperial veiw. This aproch will give us exactly what we nead. If everything is in order I will begin the proces tomorow. --Emperors Harbinger 18:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's necessary for all races. Certainly the Imperium/Mankind, since their history's long and fairly well developed. I could see one for the Eldar too, as there are 3+ sub-factions who have a shared history, and it would cut down on the already long Eldar page. But Necrons, Tau, Orks, Chaos Marines and so on are all either too "young" (CSM's are only about 10,000 or so years old, Tau are about the same) and/or don't really have enough of a history that would be long enough to separate. --DarthBinky 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to rewrite/check the Eldar's History. i have a 06 codex so have mountains of information and could find more. Pterodactal 08:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The necrons are the oldest race available? I would agree with the tau as they are too young, chaos marines... nah, your prob right, it would have to be chaos as a whole thing, orks, well there isnt much to say? they havnt really changed, i think there is enough on the necrontyr/necrons to do a history page, there currently is a necrontyr page that isnt really doing anything and it cud be merged in? Lowris 19:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Necrons are the oldest, but they fall into that second category I mentioned- there's not a whole lot of story to them, since most of their history involves sleeping for millions of years. What story does exist is covered pretty well in the C'tan article, since the Necron history mostly revolves around the C'tan anyway. I think the Necrontyr article should probly go (ie be merged, deleted, whatever), since it's only really repeating info that can be found elsewhere. --DarthBinky 20:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could move the information from the c'tan article to a history of the necrons or even merge the c'tan in, i honestly think they have enough information and background to merit their own history page, it may require some reshuffling of the existing pages but maybe an update is needed? just my opinion Lowris 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. But we could put it up to a vote, and go with the consensus which that reaches. --DarthBinky 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yar, has to be done anyway Lowris 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1.2

Before we QUITE get to voteing I think we nead a better sense of the issue as it stands now. Feal free to speak up if your opinion of the situation differs from my own. --Emperors Harbinger 23:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1.2: All 'stub' Warhammer 40K history articles are to be merged into more comprehensive articles or into appropriate race pages. The following is a table of where subsequently each history is to be located.

  • Necrons/C'tan: Insufficient data to require separate history. Pages to be merged and a streamlined history section assembled.
  • Tau: Insufficient history to merit separate page.
  • Orks: Present Ork page already covers as much information as we have on the subject.
  • Chaos: History too closely tied to that of the Imperium and/or Eldar to have a separate page.
  • Tyranids: Similar problems as both Chaos & the Tau/Necrons.
I still disagree about the Necrons needing their own history page. Taking the history out of the C'tan article will take a lot away from it. Not to mention that the history of the Necrons is more appropriately called "history of the C'tan" anyway (since the Necrons have been mindless robots for millions of years), and most of the "history" is based on legends, as stated at the start of the C'tan article. But if everyone disagrees, I'll yield to the consensus.
As for the proposal itself, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say exactly. It seems that you are just rewording the prior discussion in a more confusing manner; but I'm not sure, so I'm asking just in case you meant something different. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to understand. Cheers. --DarthBinky 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support faction based history pages. However, I propose one master article titled something grandiose like "THE HISTORY OF WARHAMMER 40,000!!!" which could have a very general over view up top, and then a brief history of each race (since I think we can find enough fluff to at least briefly touch on everyone) in sections, with {{main}} linking to each faction article from within. It would be a larger project, but I think the end result would be well worth it.--Falcorian (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I would propose standardizing the names of the articles as History of the Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), History of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), History of the Orks (Warhammer 40,000), etc. Basicly, History of BLAH (Warhammer 40,000).
Ok DarthBinky, I realy do not understand what your saying here. The preivious disscusion format was about clear as mud to me, thus the table & bullet points. With the C'tan there isnt enough there to warent a seperate history page. What I am sugesting is a unified streamlined section inside the new 'necron/c'tan' page. I think that the bit of a retool I did up above will clear that up.
Falcorian I think your sugetions have real merit but I dont know if they are workable. I have however gone with the 'History of the X' format you sugested. 'Whats in a Name' eh? --Emperors Harbinger 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] I don't know what part is confusing to you. But let's try something else and hopefully makes things clearer. :) To put it as simply as possible, I think only a "History of the Imperium" article and a "History of the Eldar" article needs to be made; the rest are not necessary in my opinion. My reasons:

  1. Imperium - there are many different important parts to their history- Dark Age of Technology, Age of Strife, Great Crusade, Age of Apostasy, the recent major campaigns (Armageddon, EOT, Medusa V), etc, etc. I agree that it might be best to attempt to merge them into one big page and streamlined.
  2. Eldar - there are three major factions of Eldar (Craftworld, Dark, Harlies) plus other minor factions (Outcasts, Exodites, etc) who all share the same history. It would be best to make one big common history and link to it, rather than have the same history rehashed in the article for each of these subfactions.
  3. The rest of the races/factions I don't believe need their own grand "history" page. The rest do not really have enough of a history to warrant such a page (Necrons, Tau, Orks), or are too closely linked to other factions and have little independent history of their own (this one's pretty much just Chaos, although you could argue that Tyranids and Orks fit this too). Making a separate page for them would just be problematic, I think, because the article would be short, unless we copy verbatim out of the Codexes and such (and that's probably illegal).
  4. As for merging the C'tan and Necrons, I don't think that's necessary. Special characters do get their own articles, and I think it's fine to have the C'tan follow that precedent.

This might seem to make things a bit Imperial-centric, but that's the nature of the universe; most of the fiction is written from the Imperial perspective, thus we have more info about their history than that of the other races. Until Necrons and 'Nids start talking, and Orks start trying to record their own history, there's not really anything we can do about that.

Everything ok now? :) --DarthBinky 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think we need a "History of the Galaxy" section. It would tie down the various loose threads and overlaps of many articles. An example would be the Great Crusade and Horus Heresy, both of which need to be covered really in the same article, as one leads right on to the other, and it is defficult to tell where one ends and the other should begin. If such an article was created, I think it should be from a sort of bird's eye view of events, in the format of the encyclopedic that is suitable for Wikipedia. It should not be from the point of view of any race, and merely document all known events of significance(or various accounts of events) that have occured that lead to the 40K we know now. So we could start with "The Creation of the Galaxy" which could explain that the Warp co-exists alongside the materium, and then "The Birth of Life" that details the early lives of the C'tan, Old Ones, and Necrontyr. The "The War In Heaven" which explains itself, and so on until we reach "The Age of the Imperium". Various links could be given for characters and races, where more detailed histories and various interpretations of the fluff can be given. Such a move would definitely have my unnecessary and useless vote, and I think many other fans of the fiction would appreciate the efforts put into providing such a comprehensive article.

Bear in mind that per WP:WAF, we should keep the article in an "out of universe" tone. We are already pushing the cruft envelope (I readily admit that I too am guilty of it), so we really ought to cut back on in-universe history type stuff. We have to remember that we're talking about fiction, and write the articles accordingly. Cheers --DarthBinky 20:56, 31

July 2006 (UTC)

I've created the basics of the History article. It can stay as a work-in-progress for the moment, so don't go deleting it. I'm including fairly brief but descriptive references, but can link to the main pages on those subjects quite easily.Sojourner001 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to check the Eldar Page if need BePterodactal 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed stub rescope

I've suggested renaming and rescoping the 40K stub type to "all things Warhammer", as they're related in a number of respects, and there's not enough for two stub types, here. Separate templates would be kept, for clarity, and to facilitate re-splitting if both (currently meaning the WHFs) grow to threshold. Alternatively, you might consider helping and encouraging your co-'hammerists to start their own wikiproject... Alai 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject split

(comment moved from project page)

I think it's important to distinguish Game content and Background at the highest level, in effect having two quasi-seperate wiki projects, one from a game perspective and one from a fiction perspective. The two really do deserve to be distinct - you can play the game without knowing anything about the background and you can enjoy the background without ever touching the game. Sojourner001 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really necessary. What you say is true, that one can be familiar with one and not the other- but they are strongly linked, and even GW writes them together in the Codexes (ie they frequently neglect to separate "fluff text" from actual rules, unlike in Warhammer Fantasy). Not only that, but we are already going overboard with background info, bearing in mind WP:WAF- we should be cutting back on overly long and in-depth background info, not adding more. --DarthBinky 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DarthBinky, the splitting of the warhammer 40k pages could only lead to more confusion, and it has to be said a person who has interest in one aspect of the game normally has a similar interest in the other Lowris 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, perhaps that's a little extreme. Still, having been rather thoroughly schooled in the ways of wiki, i really do think that the main article structure has to be reoriented, with the major titles talking about the game and the products, with background' topics as subsections within them to explain the context of the game mechanics. These sections can quite happily be linked to a more major section in a few monolithic 'background' articles if needs be. It's extremely tempting to write in-universe in the structure we have, and don't I know it! I personally like that style, but them's the rules.
Also, I'm as guilty of this as anyone but we really do need to work on references. I may have missed this but is there a definite referencing style we're supposed to use here? Harvard seems more logical. Do dig out your books and corroborate any oddities you find, even in the old established articles.Sojourner001 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm coming in late, but was there any further development on this front? I think Sojourner's amended suggestion is worhtwhile, as I find the unnoted transition of certain articles between fiction and gaming information to be jarring. Primarch 01:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've started fixing this with some of the pages I've encountered. I've managed to clean up the Space Marine vehicles section of the Vehicles of the Imperium list (and have split them into a separate article due to size constraints). Shrumster 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Eh? I'm guessing you think you are seeing articles that do not separate the "real-world" information with the "fictional" information, then? It appears to be your focus in referring to the articles. Colonel Marksman 15:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Projects

(inappropriate comment moved from main project page)

On the subject of sister projects:

Recent discussion has forced me to reconsider my stance on contributing and structuring Warhammer information on wikipedia. I am currently in two minds over writing style. On the one hand, I am absolutely determined that some form of detailed repository on the wealth of material ('cruft') that is 40k should be available to people. On the other hand, I don't think I'm ever going to be able to argue this with more orthodox wikipedians.

So, I propose a compromise. I propose that we follow the example of Memory Alpha.

Everything that is In-Universe, highly detailed or in any way valuable yet uncyclopedic, should be ported out elsewhere. What remains should be a skeleton reference of a type that satisfies the rules in the strictest sense. I am actually surprised that this hasn't happened yet.

What say you, Fluff-Nuts? Sojourner001 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reinventing the wheel --Pak21 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Lexicanum's copyright policy?
They don't have one. Their stance is basically "this is illegal but GW is unlikely to come after us, so who cares". Not what i want to be associated with.Sojourner001 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got as far as Lexicanum:Guidelines which says "Do not infringe on copyright: The publication of text or pictures without permission of the rightful owner can lead to serious problems for the project. This is especially relevent to Games Workshop and the patent rights regulations are here." I make no comment on whether they enforce that or not. --Pak21 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"All uses of the intellectual property here are without license and are thereby a violation of copyright. However, it is unlikely that Games Workshop will complain of a copyright violation, as long as these guidelines are followed." Lines 5, 6; second section, article on GW Copyright linked from the mainpage sidebar.
In short; no thanks.Sojourner001 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That statement you've quoted is basically incorrect. If GW IP is used in accordance with GW's policy, as they suggest you do, then it's not a copyright violation as you have explicit permission from GW to do. I can see what they're getting at, but they've phrased it in the wrong way. Anyway, this is getting very off-topic here. --Pak21 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it... they (the Lexicanum people) provide a link at the bottom of the page there to GW's actual policy, in their own words. It used to be written exactly as Lexicanum has it, but apparently GW has since changed it. If you follow that link, you will find GW's policy states pretty much exactly what Lexicanum's version says- even the "all usage is infringement, but GW probably won't bother to prosecute if..." bit. --DarthBinky 15:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on history of universe

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe is up for deletion on AfD - thought you guys, as the interested party, should be informed. LinaMishima 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:40K#Votes for deletion would appear to have it covered already :-) Cheers --Pak21 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games Workshop Online Community

I'm not a member of this project, but I thought you might want to expand the Games Workshop Online Community section on 40K.

--Grimhelm 11:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree with MSJapan's comments on the article's talk page that they are non-notable fansites which should be deleted per WP:WEB. --Pak21 08:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality or quantity?

I must admit that at this stage I find myself slightly confused as to the point of this WikiProject: what have we actually accomplished? We've created one guideline as to notable characters, and... ummm... realistically, that's it. I don't think we can say we've really created one good article (Warhammer 40,000 is probably the closest, but I wouldn't say it meets the criteria). If Wikipedia 1.0 were released today, there's a chance there wouldn't be a single mention of Warhammer 40,000 in it. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, but I seriously think we need to refocus our efforts on making some high-quality articles, rather than just getting more and more low quality ones, and watching the quality of some of our other ones slide downhill.

Views, comments, suggestions, (polite) flames welcome. --Pak21 10:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've become very busy with school recently, so the things I've meant to improve have not. However, I think we might want to start a weekly/montly good article drive, to try to focus some people into improving articles. Any thoughts? --Falcorian (talk) 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Count me in, I did the GK and Custodian entries and they have been refined but if you need more just say Rsquire 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also willing and able. Is this the best place to come to find out what needs doing? Are there set tasks or pages for us to focus on?Primarch 01:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, which is what I think we need to implement. --Falcorian (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm happy to start straight away. Maybe we could focus on getting one group or category uniformly up to standard and then move to another category after that? The majority of my knowledge rests with Space Marines (chapters, legions, primarchs, etc), so I'm up for that to be the first. One legion/chapter article is often quite different to the next. Otherwise though, I have a general 40k knowledge and am alwways happy to work with structure, grammar and references on whatever category the group wants to focus on. Just a thought. Would this be the right place to set down guidelines for structure of each article? Primarch 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article structure might be a very good place to start, then we can see what needs to be worked on. --Falcorian (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think of a proposed structure just below. When we all reach consensus, I'm happy to begin rewriting. Primarch 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed structure for first founding Space Marine legions

Here's what I see as the key elements of these articles. Main titles in caps with subtitles below them:

INTRO
HISTORY
-Primarch (and The Emperor?)
-The Emperor (move to above?)
-Great Crusade
-Horus Heresy
-Post Heresy
CHARACTER
-Beliefs
-Appearance
-Notable characters
ORGANISATION
-Hq/Homeworld
-Recruitment
COMBAT DOCTRINE
-Background
-Game
-Battlecry
SUCCESSOR CHAPTERS


Primarch could be merged with The Emperor, so that the Primarch's story is told from birth to reunion with his father. Post Heresy would detail all events, including notable battles, but without the need to give them their own sub headings. "Background" in COMBAT DOCTRINE is just to seperate fluff/fiction from the Game aspect.

Subjects that I think we could lose:

CONSPIRACY THEORIES/CONTRADICTIONS
INFLUENCES/INSPIRATIONS
QUOTES

I think that wherever contradictions occur, they can be addressed in the body of the text. With influences (such as Night Haunter being inspired by Batman) are more or less fan conjecture.

Comments, additions and input appreciated!Primarch 10:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with all the army articles is WP:WAF. I don't see how this proposal will improve that. Cheers --Pak21 10:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're making the assumption that this proposal was aimed at addressing the WP:WAF, rather than the actual intent to create a cohesiveness across the articles so that they look and act like a uniform resource. In any case, I believe that once there is a strict structure to work within, each article can be rewritten to an out-of-universe perspective. First though, I believe that we need to agree on what content should be included. A simple rewrite of the in-universe/purple prose of these articles now will still result in messy contradictive articles if the structures aren't addressed, IMO. Primarch 10:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the subjects of Primarch and The Emperor are so intertwined for the 1st Founding Legions that they can safely be combined. Any objections? Schoon 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It doesn't seem like members are particularly interested or motivated by this proposal. So, I'll be bold and say that if nobody objects within the space of another week, I'll begin restructuring and rewriting the First Founding army articles myself. For examples of the WP:WAF style of writing I'm hoping to employ, check out the Lucius the Eternal, Khârn the Betrayer and Abaddon the Despoiler articles I've recently edited (with a tip or two from Pak21). I hope that the style and tone is one people find appropriate. Ta. Primarch 09:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give it a try. The proposal looks good, and I agree about the stuff we can cut out. I look forward to seeing what you can turn out. (And sorry for seeming to disappear just as you put it up, I get lost in school the as week progresses. ;)) --Falcorian (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more content that you can put in that actually relates to gameplay particularly rules, tactics, major differences from other units, changes that have happened across the various editions of WH40K and Epic the less the fluff matters. GraemeLeggett 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I'd like to clear up what the split should be in terms of fluff vs game in these articles. We need to make these divisions clear, otherwsie they'll simply be confusing to anyone who doesn't know 40k, IMO. Primarch 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Medusa

Just a heads-up. I noticed this article when it was linked to on the Warseer forums: Sons of Medusa

I quote. "The following material is not official to any storyline concerning Games Workshop fiction and is intended to be a casual and playable reference to a noted chapter without previous definition."

Hardly encyclopedic then, is it?

LordXaras 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded. Thanks for the pointer. --Pak21 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add

I'm not sure if its a crying shame or not... but I JUST NOW added Warhammer 40,000 to the list of role-playing games. Why, might I ask, has it been neglected from that list? Fantasy is there, but oh no! Leave out poor 'ol 40,000. Probably hurt its feelings... Colonel Marksman 07:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, cant believe that was never picked up on before lol Lowris 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Someone Check These Edits?

I posted this on the Blood Angels talk, but in case that gets missed:

Can someone check the edits made my this user? He's been removing information from Blood Angel's Articles, as well as removing two books from the sources, claim it's non-canon. I don't know enough to make a judgment call on it though. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge does not cover Blood Angels chapter itself, but the books he removed from references are real Black Library publications [1][2] and should therefore be considered "canon". I'm taking the liberty of reverting his edits and pointing the issue to this discussion; one shouldn't simply discard Black Library (a division of Games Workshop) books without further explanation. Take care --Xasf 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! --Falcorian (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agreeing with what's been said, but I would also point out this as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Inclusion Guidelines. The current consensus is that Black Library material is considered canon, except when it contradicts newer material. Cheers! --DarthBinky 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, Dan Abnett's The Horus Heresy makes a few major contradictions to canon (re: The Golden Throne), and Abnett himself has apparently stated he has trouble with canon (and weapon strength). So what is to be done about newer books that seem to contradict every other source, contemporaneous and otherwise? Is there an official BL or GW statement regarding the canonicity of books? MSJapan 06:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See the 6th post at [3]. Everything is equally canonical. Cheers --Pak21 08:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Warhammer_40,000&oldid=100834996"