Talk:Warhammer 40,000 comics

A Start

I put up a basis, and will be filling in more information.

Under Plot Synopsis should be another bolded catagory (not a sub catagory) that discusses critical review of the works. If someone could find/provide such, it would be appreciated. SanchiTachi 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

I have a concern about the name. There is often a confusion between trade paperbacks and graphic novels whihc seems to be cropping up here too. If, as the opening sentence says, "Many of these Graphic Novels have their origins in the Warhammer Monthly before being published as stand alone works or larger, bound collections of these works." then wouldn't it be better to deal with the lot under the more general heading Warhammer 40,000 (comics)? This includes comic books, graphic novels, comics from anthologies, the trades of previously published material, etc. and is more consistent with the naming guidelines of the comics project. (Emperor 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

1. Graphic novels are not comics. 2. Graphic novels are what they are called on the Black Library website. This page only includes those works. 3. This is not about the running comics, and only about the Black Library works, as the opening says. This is not part of the comics project, but part of the Warhammer project. SanchiTachi 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll keep the discussion here so other people can join in. To answer: 1. Graphic novels are comics. From Comics: "The most common forms of printed comics are comic strips (most commonly four panels long) in newspapers and magazines, and longer comic stories in comic books, graphic novels and comic albums." 2. If the page includes volumes that "have their origins in the Warhammer Monthly before being published as stand alone works or larger, bound collections of these works." then they are trade paperbacks not graphic novels - publishers are welcome to call them what they like but that doesn't make them that. see his example 3. This does fall within the remit of the comics project as they are graphic novels. You don't have to take my word for it - you can ask on the talk page for the project that is linked from the header. It can be part of two projects. (Emperor 04:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

This is a Warhammer project, not a Comics group project. The naming conventions of our group follow the publishers naming conventions. Please respect that or I will remove the top catagory from being listed her and ask that the comics group, if they want to discuss this in their own manner, to do such on their own, different page. The "origins" is a nod to the fact that many of them had a few of their pages published in Warhammer Monthly before being funded for their own works. However, this page is not about the comics in Warhammer Monthly, nor about anything besides those works published by Black Library that fall under their catagory of "graphic novels." SanchiTachi 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Graphic novel, I would point out that the definition produced by your own group follows what these works are: "A graphic novel is a type of comic book, usually with a lengthy and complex storyline similar to those of novels, and often aimed at mature audiences. The term also encompasses comic short story anthologies, and in some cases bound collections of previously published comic-book series." These are all individually bound books spanning 200 - 400 pages (except for Lone Wolf, which is only 90 pages). SanchiTachi 05:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't threaten to remove project tags because someone disagrees with you Sanchi. Not only is it childish, but shows fundamental disregard for Wikipedia process. For someone so adamant about quoting it left and right, I wouldn't be so quick to ignore it when it suits you. Graphic novels are comics, as they come from comics. It falls under their banner whether you like it or not. That said, I've renamed it to a list, as Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000) violates at least three different points of Wikipedia naming conventions; specifically, it's disambiguated incorrectly (it'd be Warhammer 40,000 (graphic novels) if anything), capitalized incorrectly, and Warhammer 40,000 is not the title of the novels. So long as you focus on just the graphic novels, neither of you have a reason to complain. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be my prefered solution. As I have said on the Warhammer spin-offs page I think there is plnty of material to create Warhammer 40,000 (comics). From the looks of this entry there looks to be enough material for one specifically looking at graphic novels. However, the trade paperback information should be on any comics page. As you say the current name violates Wikipedia naming protocol and I would support a move to Warhammer 40,000 (graphic novels). (Emperor 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually I see you've undone Some guy's move to List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels. I'm afraid that the move was perfectly reasonable and in accordance with naming conventions, which the current name isn't. (Emperor 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

The list title is a temp thing, as it was the best title I could think of that fit naming conventions. I wouldn't be opposed to one of those titles. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine for now. We need to clarfy the source of these. If it is that "The graphic novels are for the most part compilations of stories published in Warhammer Monthly, though some have added material or unique storylines not found in the original." The these are simply trade paperback collections of published comics and these should be Warhammer 40,000 (comics) looking at the various comic output and note these collections. There shouldn't be a problem with that being more a holding page using {{Main}} to link to further discussion of the stories (as you'd have a page for a novel) and we already have Damnation Crusade which seems fine as a standalone (although it needs expanding) - it also shows up the problem with things as they are. Would it count as a comic until the point that Boom Studios release a trade paperback at which point it would need to be moved over to "graphic novels"? It is worth noting also that what they describe as "graphic novels" are really little more than prestige format comics - for example Titan (ISBN 1841541095) is 64 pages long, making The Titan: God Machine volume (ISBN 1844161234) a trade paperback too. So even when they aren't specifically trades collecting stories from Warhammer Monthly they are mainly prestige format comics collected in trades (with some actual graphic novels in). So from what is given there (and the fcat that there is genuine cause for concern) I'd have to vote for this to be over at Warhammer 40,000 (comics) as it is broader and more inclusive. (Emperor 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Now if Sanchi would just be willing to discuss instead of trying to get me blocked, we'd have something. If the page were generalized to include the actual source comics, I'd say Warhammer 40,000 (comics) would be a fine title. As it stands, though, it seems to be too specific for that title. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no 'law' that a page has to belong to just one project. A TV show can belong to TV, subject, series, and so on and so forth. A graphic novel based on a game should, logically, belong to both. As for the name, what does Warhammer call the stuff? That should be the name, and anything in parenthesis would be a disambig descriptor, like Someguy0830 says. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the name of this article begins with "List of". This article has more content than a list. Why isn't the title Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels? In the title Warhammer 40,000 (graphic novels), the parentheses imply disambiguation, which is not appropriate unless Warhammer 40,000 is actually the title of the novels, or at least a subtitle or series title that appears on the cover. Finell (Talk) 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I merely put it at a title that fit with naming conventions. Emperor has some good suggestions for a better title. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Move or Change the Name

1. This is a Warhammer project, not any other group. If any other project would like to join, please constant the Warhammer project and request that. 2. The naming convention is based on Warhammer. The "Graphic Novel" title is a title derived from the Warhammer catagory. 3. The "Graphic Novels" is completely capitalized because it falls under a proper noun (as the title used by them is as a proper noun). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanchiTachi (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 May 2007

Let's get this straight from the start - Wikiprojects are co-ordination tools - NO wikiproject OWNS a single page. NO special authority is given to a wikiproject to decide that they own a page. NO wikiproject can decide that another project has to ask permission to edit or do something with page. Wikiprojects need to communicate to each other and come to consensus about how to proceed - because no project has any special authority. That's the start and the end of it. --Fredrick day 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also any moves/renaming are reached at by discussion amongst the editors who try to reach a consensus based on Wikipedia guidelines. I am putting the Comics Project header back and I'd request that you not remove it without consultation. (Emperor 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Isn't the correct title for this "list of..."?" --Fredrick day 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is. Sanchi just has WP:OWN issues with everything he does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• For starters, what Fredrick day (talk · contribs) said is absolutely correct; no Wikiproject "owns" this article. No editor has to request to make edits either at the article space or talkpage from any Wikiproject. I want to make that crystal clear. Beyond that, I would implore all parties to cease moving this article back and forth between two names. you've already boldly moved this around and reverted, now is the time for discussion. I'm adding this page to my watchlist... if I see any more shenanigans I will have no choice but to protect the article... and it will undoubtedly be the wrong version I protect.--Isotope23 16:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we ALL use a more WP:CIVIL tone here? Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Therefore, there necessarily should be only 1 article on a specific topic. We don't have separate Richard Wagner articles by the music project, the opera project, the German culture project, and the Biography project. Many articles fall within multiple projects and have multiple project tags. But even projects do not have control or special rights over articles that fall within their self-defined subject areas. Anyone has equal rights to edit anything. No editor, group of editors, WP:CABAL, or WP:PROJECT WP:OWNs any article. Therefore, everyone has to get along. Civility helps. A genuine spirit of cooperation and collaboration helps even more, and is the core of Wikipedia. Can everyone please forgive, or at least forget, past arguments, and even past misunderstandings of or failures to abide by WP:POLICY and move forward constructively. Finell (Talk) 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Move protected

Ok - this page has now been protected against further moving. There's nothing more pointless and more time-wasting than move-warring, so now's the time to start discussing the matter. I see that talks have already started but the moving is still going on - Alison ☺ 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Things need to settle down so we can have a reasoned debate and actually resolve the issues. (Emperor 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

The Wikiproject who created the page has the right to have it as it is. This page is not a comics page, and is dealing with a proper title, not generic graphic novels. Not only is the current title wrong, its also far from what the topic is. The users Emperor et al do not want to contribute to this page, but hijack it and vandalize it. SanchiTachi 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong - the wikiproject set-up is a co-ordinating tool, any editor can do what he likes to the page as long as it is in keeping with wikipedia policies and guidelines - it's irrelevant how a wikiproject would like to have a page as it has no rights to a page at all. --Fredrick day 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Wikiproject guidelines do not supersede Wikipedia guidelines. It's the opposite. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - you folks work out a solution and get back to WP:RFPP when you're ready and we'll review. Thanks again :) - Alison ☺ 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of this article discussion to reach consensus

Please discuss below what you feel what the name of this article should be.

• From reading WP:NAME - List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels seems to be the correct(est) name currently on offer. I am suggesting it should remain at the name for the moment and any move or change to name should be discussed and agreed here first. --Fredrick day 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Some other suggestions: Warhammer 40,000 (graphic novels), Warhammer 40,000 (comics), and Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels. As Finell notes, the first implies disambiguation where there isn't. I just listed it for completeness. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• 2¢-ish... I agree with Fredrick, List of... seems the closest fit for this. The proposed change implies that there is a Warhammer 40,000 (comics) or (novels) article (and, no, I haven't checked the later, though I know there are a set of prose books set in the 40K universe). This title is clear about the contents of the article, and it works nicely with where most of the searches and links are likely to come from, the 40K side. Though shortening it as per Someguy also makes sense, this looks like it is more than "just a list".
  Any clarifications should be made in the article, with all parties involved. - J Greb 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Minor addendum: Someone may want to check the proper British nomenclature for this type of book. I've got a nagging feeling "graphic novel" and "tradepapberback", the American terms, aren't quite right... - J Greb 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• What's the actual name of the product line ala Warhammer? I did a net search and came up with Warhammer 40,000 Graphic Novels. Amazon calls one of the books Imperial Gothic: The Collected Warhammer 40000 comics of Dan Abnett (Warhammer 40000) which, at first glance, implies we should go for Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40000), except that emphasizes the subject incorrectly. This is first and formost a warhammer product. I think we all agree there. I think maybe a main article about the novels and comics of warhammer wouldn't be amiss (no idea how to title that! Fictional Works based on Warhammer 40,000?). From there, a split for Warhammer 40,000 (comics) would be most appropriate. List of... doesn't really fit. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Warhammer 40,000 (comics) also implies disambiguation because of the parentheses. Even accepting that graphic novels are a sub-species of comics, graphic novels is more appropriate as part of the title because it is more specific. I am only speaking about the title: this has nothing to do with whether the comics project can tag or participate in the article, which they of course can. As I said above, in my opinion List of is inappropriate because the article has more content than a list. PLEASE NOTE: I took the liberty of removing the red-links from the proposed titles and substituting boldface because redlinks are tracked on Wikipedia and are interpreted as requests for the creation of a new article with that title. Finell (Talk) 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Graphic Novels is a proper noun for a project produced by Warhammer 40,000 as background "fluff" in the format of graphic novels for the miniature game. It is companion to the Art Books and Novels projects. The page is about the project itself and how the project works. The page is not about the individual plots, but about how the plots fit into the greater world. Hence, the article conventions of what books are in the series, which characters, and a small plot synposis. The purpose is a bridge to the character pages listed on such projects as Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) with graphic novels that discuss the miniatures. Please understand that this is about background for 28 mm tall resin, plastic, or metal miniatures, and that they have had artists design picture books, novels, or graphic novels about them.

This is also not a list. There is a list of Black Library publications detailing all of this already. This has a completely different focus from that page. And yes, there will be a project page on the Novels and the Art Books when we have the chance. There are only 7 active members right now and there are over 200 pages of our project that need work on. SanchiTachi 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, the title of the project was created by British speakers, as the Games Workshop company the Black Library is in England and came up with the title of the project. And yes, information on the miniatures will be provided. However, this page was just created, and this is too overwhelming to allow for such information to be put in, especially with users moving things back and forth unfairly. SanchiTachi 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Warhammer 40,000 (comics) - as explained above what is currently on the page is largely trade paperbacks possibly with one or two graphic novels. These trades are made from series that were published in Warhammer Monthly and other comics from the Black Library, some of which clearly fits within the definition of prestige format comics (which themselves have been collecting into larger trades). It appears the term "graphic novels" has been applied to them but this is appears to be done for marketing reasons and doesn't reflect the origin of the majority of the things under discussion. Given the definition on Comics: "The most common forms of printed comics are comic strips (most commonly four panels long) in newspapers and magazines, and longer comic stories in comic books, graphic novels and comic albums." The name Warhammer 40,000 (comics) is the most inclusive and smooths out any issues arising from what would otherwsie be an ongoing debate about what does and doesn't get defined as a graphic novel (which seems pointless if the right name addresses this). It is worth noting that there are also Warhammer 40k comics that are uncollected (early work and new seriess like Damnation Crusade) and under the current naming this wouldn't be allowed in until it is collected as a trade, which doesn't seem logical. Also given the depth of content already here, and with the fact there is more that can be added, it doesn't fit with "List of" either. (Emperor 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Yeah I like that - anyone else for Warhammer 40,000 (comics) ? --Fredrick day 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I know some people are concerned about the parentheses but this needn't be a major issue - see for example: Aliens (comic book), Aliens (novel), Aliens vs. Predator (series), Predator (novel series), etc. The naming might need tightening up to be concistent but the main point stays that there isn't an issue with this. If there were and it was a sticking point Warhammer 40,000 comics doesn't strike me as being a bad compromise if one were needed. As I think I've said elsewhere I'd also support the creation of Warhammer 40,000 (novels) (or Warhammer 40,000 novels if need be). (Emperor 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Not the best examples... unless you are making the argument that the property needs a dab between media: W40K (wargame) (default), W40k (novels), W40K (computer games), and W40K (comics). That's something that does not seem to be needed here. Further, the dabs (comic book) and (graphic novel) are awkward since they imply the title is W40K, which by the article it isn't. - J Greb 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The project is not about graphic novels of warhammer, its about the project titled Graphic Novels which is a companion project to the miniature line. Please look at the entry on Daemonifuge to see where the models come in, etc, and then you will realize that the title Graphic Novels is an actual group created by Games Workshop to expand their universe in the same way their Codexes expand the game rules. SanchiTachi 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The page is about the graphic novels, not the project. If it were about the project, it'd be entirely different. You'd have listed production staff, continuity checkers, etc. Regardless, there's no need to comment on everyone who disagrees with you. You've made your piece, so let consuensus do its work. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the heart of the issue. SanchiTachi, the original version in your sandbox starts "There are many graphic novels produced by the Black Library (a section of the BL Publishing division of Games Workshop) for the fiction Warhammer 40,000 universe. Called Graphic Novels by the Black Library, they, as with the novels, are expansions on the background and history to the boardgame. ... Most of these graphic novels are written by authors with experience writting novels, articles, and other fictional (and sometimes non-fictional gaming) works for Warhammer 40,000. Also, many of these graphic novels have their origins in the Warhammer Monthly before being published as stand alone works or larger, bound collections." and then the entry goes on to describe these 'graphic novels'. This isn't the entry you seem to think it is - that entry has a much wider scope and takes in a range of products. You have also not supplied any references to this broader project. There are a lot of editors expressing concern about this and asking for clarification. My suggestion is you write the entry you think this should be in your sandbox and let this entry be what it actually is - an entry about the comics based in the Warhammer 40k universe. That is the crux of the problem and something you have failed to address. (Emperor 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

• I would support Warhammer 40,000 (comics) or List of... or Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels. The problem with Graphic novels (Warhammer 40,000) is that it puts the disambiguating information "graphic novels" before the title "Warhammer 40,000". (I'm using title here in the broader sense, e.g., The Chronicles of Narnia.) By way of comparison, there are articles for List of Star Trek novels, List of Star Wars comics, and Buffyverse novels. --GentlemanGhost 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The (Warhammer 40,000) is the disambiguation information, as the project's name is Graphic Novels and is part of Warhammer 40,000. SanchiTachi 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "graphic novel" is not a proper noun. I've checked Black Library's website. They capitalize everything they are selling, including "Baseball Hat". Moreover, the phrase "graphic novel" does not appear in the titles of the works in question. Consequently, it should not be used as the title of the article. If anything, it should be used to help disambiguate. I can understand your desire to have all the articles within the scope of your WikiProject be named "Foo (Warhammer 40,000)". However, in this case, it does not match the standards of WP:NAME. --GentlemanGhost 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've already thrown in my support for basically any other name (Sanchi's aside). Warhammer 40,000 (comics) would be fine. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps a quibble, but I do not see what the parentheses contribute. There are no other articles to disambiguate and they complicate the URL with %20, etc. Finell (Talk) 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  So just Warhammer 40,000 comics then? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The page is not about comics. The page is about the project titled Graphic Novels and isn't about comics at all. Its about the storylines produced under the project Graphic Novels which is a companion to the project Novels and Art Books produced by Games Workshop. SanchiTachi 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can only support Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000). Please read what I had to repeat so many times. Graphic Novels is a production line created as background source fluff to tie into the main Warhammer 40,000 universe. It follows a series of articles in White Dwarf, miniatures produced, etc etc, plus focuses on a line of graphic novels. It is separate but companion to project Novels and project Art Books created by Games Workshop. Please go to the Black Library website if you want to see what works they are (they have them listed in their own groups based on the projects. Thanks. SanchiTachi 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for this (i.e. a press release, website, etc.) indicating this production line is properly named "Graphic Novels"? I think a link would be helpful to make your case.--Isotope23 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the cover of Dan Abnett's Imperial Gothic [1] Sideways it says "The collected Warhammer 40,000 comics of Dan Abnett." Although what they chose to call their line of comics is all by-the-by as one of the issues I raised was that there are other comics based on the Warhammer 40k universe and we may as well pitch the entry to be inclusive of them all. (Emperor 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I have quoted the website many times. There is only so many times that one can do that before good faith is lost when requested. However, I will put it up in case that you didn't see the link used countless times: [2] Thats the company that publishes it. You can see it under the "graphic novel" section. If you go to the online store link that was on the original title, you will see the same thing [3] under Publications a d then under "Graphic Novels". The individual books say that they are part of the Graphic Novels background production for the Warhammer universe. The books are kept separate from the novels and do not trample over which characters are used. SanchiTachi 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Dan Abnett's work is one collection included in the Graphic Novels publication set. By the standard of the page as dealing with the publication project and not individual works being graphic novels or not, the issue would be moot. SanchiTachi 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I'm not trying to be difficult here, but as J Greb (talk · contribs) stated below, I've looked at both of those links and I see nothing to indicate this is a "project" per se. Graphic Novels would certainly appear to indicate a type of product, not a branding (as in the Codicies example below). I'm not convinced that this is a proper name per se for a project given the links provided so far.--Isotope23 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you've posted this multiple times... and, yes, I've looked at the on-line store you're referencing (comments can and should be made about putting links to stores in a reference section btw)... so please step back and try to read this objectively:
    The store is using the term "graphic novel" to refer to a specific type of product, not as a title. Just like a Codex (title) is a game supplement (type of product). Games Workshop did a nice piece of marketing by branding a large chunk of their supplements as Codicies, a term no other game company was using at the time. They effectively made a term for a type of product into a title. That doesn't work with common terms already in use for a type of product.
    Graphic novels had existed as a product type, and by that name, prior to GW deciding to publish theirs. They still exists, and will continue to exist, independent of GW. Insisting that the term alone be treated as a proper title, in any usage, is wrong. Where GW publishes something as "Wahammer 40,000 Graphic Novel: ChaosCentre", yes it gets capitalized. But when it's "GW's graphic novels using the W40K setting", it doesn't get caps. And the later case is exactly what this article is.
    (Yes, I know, but I was posting my thoughts at the same time as GG...) - J Greb 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth noting that if you go to the Black Library site [4] and click Warhammer 40K you get a drop down menu that includes "all graphic novels" (lower case/plural). A lot of companies use the term for marketing purposes (as it lets some people believe they aren't really reading a comic) but have a read of the intervoew wtih Igor Goldkind who claims to have introduced the term into the UK, basically for marketing purposes. If this entry was intended to be "Warhammer 40k trade paperbacks published by Black Library" then that is rather restrictive when other companies also produce comics and the right name can make all these problems go away. You wouldn't have "James Bond books published by {enguin" (or something similar). (Emperor 19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

The codex are a separate project under the publishing group. You have to remember, they publish and write these works. Hency why certain authors do only certain things. The Graphic Novels in caps is not about graphic novels, as some of the works arent actual graphic novels. It deals with all things in the project, which includes side miniatures, rules, and the like. SanchiTachi 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So "Graphic Novels" aren't graphic novels? Despite your sandboxed version (the one I must assume reflects your take on this) stating "There are many graphic novels produced by the Black Library (a section of the BL Publishing division of Games Workshop) for the fiction Warhammer 40,000 universe. Called Graphic Novels by the Black Library, they, as with the novels, are expansions on the background and history to the boardgame." I've looked around the Black Library site and the Games Workshop store you link to and can find nothing that suggests that. Can you supply a source for this claim? (Emperor 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Graphic Novels are a series of works, books, essays, articles, etc, that revolve around a group of graphic novels and the miniature line they are included with. The comparative project is Dan Abnett's works on the Tanith First and Only with the Tanith First and Only Miniatures and the command squad, the many articles in white dwarf, and the side rules produced to use those miniatures. This is why I said this was a Warhammer project, not a comics project, as it is probably very confusing to people used to just comics, and with the page not complete, it will be confusing to outsiders. However, I, and others of the group, havent had time to do it, as I first produced the page late last night and had to deal with all of this today. SanchiTachi 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are graphic novels then it falls within the Comics Project remit so that angle is not an issue. What is the issue is that you have not properly explained what this is or provided sources demonstrating what you say is verfiable. I have looked for these sources on official sites and drawn a blank. Your initial opening paragraph on the entry, as well as all the sources fail to support this view. You have produced a page that only describes graphic novels, does not mention essays, miniatures, etc. and doesn't provide any sources to say that there is some kind of project that combines these - a project seemingly called "Graphic Novels". Any confusion being caused is resulting from the shortfall bewteen what you are saying this entry is about and all the information we currently have at hand. I also think that the difference between what this is and what you think it is is causing a lot of your frustrtion resulting in all the issues we've seen.

The only solution I can see is the one I've proposed. We move this to a more general naming that can cover graphic novels and comics set in the Warhammer 40k universe (because what I don't want to get lost in all this is that it is a good overview of the area and one that is much needed) and you need to go back to the sandbox and create the entry you actually have in mind because whatever you think this entry is, it isn't. I'd suggest calling the new entry something like "Graphic Novel project" and start it out with a clear introduction describing what it actually is "The Graphic Novel project is a range of output set in the Warhammer 40k universe which includes comics, books, articles, essays and minatures...." and make sure it is well sourced or it is going to rapidly hit the WP:OR wall.

Hopefully, some kind of approach along these lines will help move things to some kind of resolution. (Emperor 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

You cannot start claiming OR for an article that has not yet had the chance to put in the information because people keep reverting and editing out content! Furthermore, if you looked at the content, such as Daemonifuge's and Bloodquest's section you will see that they have the information that I am putting forth. I have not yet had the time to go through the hundreds of White Dwarf issues to start putting up content and other uses of them and you are not assuming good faith by refusing to give this even a day! This is why this is a Warhammer project, and not a Comics project, it requires expertise to put together that many not familiar with Warhammer wouldn't understand. So just back off, give it a few days, and then return. If you still have questions then, bring them up. SanchiTachi 22:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am calling nothing OR. I am saying that you have provided no sources despite being asked numerous times - if you were to start an entry on what you are saying this project is it would be OR as there are no sources. Equally you cannot just order myself or other editors to "back off" genuine concerns have been raised and you have made no attempts to address them. If people are removing information then provide the sources here. (Emperor 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

• • By that logic, an article on Warhammer miniatures it should be called Miniatures (Warhammer 40,000). I don't see any place where Warhammer's publishers call this a 'project'. From where did you get this term? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no article on Warhammer miniatures, but on the armies that the miniatures are collected under. Please see Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) for an example. Furthermore, if you look at Ephrael Stern, she was included under the publication (the model) and had rules released for her in White Dwarf, online, etc. Seeing as how this deals with character synopsis also on White Dwarf, miniatures produced, etc, it can fairly be described as a project. SanchiTachi 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• my vote would be for Warhammer 40,000 comics or Warhammer 40,000 (comics), the first being my overall perference. Darkson - BANG! 20:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I must mention that calling it "comics" would have it run into Warhammer Monthly, which has hundreds of comics and would overwhelm this page. Furthermore, if it becomes comics, then having the miniatures discussed and having the rules published in white dwarf and on their website would no longer have a place, which would mean a new creation of a page for that, which would be basically a same copy of the page that is there now. SanchiTachi 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the Warhammer Monthly article is not all that large. Still, I can see how it could grow much larger. However, all that needs to be done to keep it from overwhelming this article is to refer to it using {{Main}}. Also, I don't think the title of the page (whatever it may become) precludes having related content within the article. You can still have miniature and rules content within a comics article, just as we have comics content within television articles, film content within book articles, etc. --GentlemanGhost 20:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But the emphasis is not on the comics, but on the gaming. Hence, why I complain about the comic people coming in. The comic should be seen as the the last thing, with the gaming first, the background second, the characters third, and then the fact that they might be in a comic format last. Many of the stories are expanded on or given rules in White Dwarf. Its just that I don't have complete access to all the information, but many of the Warhammer people do. SanchiTachi 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Current Lead is Very Inaccurate

This is not a list of graphic novels, but an analysis on the Games Workshop project called Graphic Novels and how that project influences/expands on the Warhammer 40,000 game. User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels is the intended header for the page and adequately reflects the conventions already determined by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. This is not a discussion on the comic format, nor of the graphic novel format, nor individual pages. This is a page devoteed to the topic of the project Graphic Novels. If you want to create a page on comics of Warhammer, feel free to do so, but please release the information above so it can be put back into its proper place to discuss the Graphic Novels project of the Games Workshop company. Thanks. SanchiTachi 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what page you are looking at but this page does NOT do what you describe (which is odd considering you wrote most of it) - it's a descriptive account of the contents of the TPBS that have been released. It's a page about the content of some TPBs - that's it. So if you want the article, you are suggesting - I suggest you go and write it! --Fredrick day 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is a disconnect between what SanchiTachi (talk · contribs) is asserting is the purpose of the page at User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels and what is written there. It's not at all clear from User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels that this is an article about the project itself; it appears to be a brief overview of the collection along with a short subsection on the individual works. IMO, if this article was intended to discuss the project itself and it's place in the WH 40K universe it would need a substantial rewrite.--Isotope23 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I had only a few hours to even put in half the information that belongs in the page! Gesh. Maybe if you didn't attempt to hijack the page you could have waited. Look at the Daemonifuge section and you will see how its expanding and where it was intended. Can't you people understand that this page was just created? Hell, look at the history section. There are still plenty of more paragraphs to put in. Gesh. SanchiTachi 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the "hijacking"? Please be civil. No one's stopping you from adding to the page. However, as the notice says, you should be prepared because your work might be "edited mercilessly". --GentlemanGhost 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody has "hijacked" the page SanchiTachi (talk · contribs). Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. By moving the article from User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels into the main space, you've opened it up to general editing by the rest of the community.

My point above was simply that you are saying that this is not a list of the graphic novels, but from the outside looking in, it certainly appears that it in fact is a list of the graphic novels. If that was not the intent, it might be a good idea to modify User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels to make it more clear that this article is about the project itself and it's purpose in-universe.--Isotope23 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hijacking is perfectly usable. When one project group determines the use of a word, and another project group wants to take that page and use it for another use of a word, that is hijacking. Furthermore, my words aren't being edited, they are being moved and retitled improperly. Isotope, please look at the Daemonifuge section to see how this is not a list, and please respect the fact that this was just created and it takes time (at least a day) to build a page, and I've been having to deal with people constantly moving the page and putting in order such edits without realize what the project is about (the Graphic Novels project) and not having any actual background to contribute. Yes, Wiki requires verifiable information, and the people currently editing/complaining aren't here to provide that. Please reserve your comments until after the page has been expanded. Furthermore, "in-universe" is dealing with fiction as fact. This page is dealing with fiction as elaboration of a miniature game, and as a project designed to provide background detail on miniatures. SanchiTachi 19:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article wasn't ready for other people to edit, you should have left it in your user space. It now belongs to everyone. Doczilla 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thats a lesson that I learned the hard way, isn't it. I was hoping to have other people with some of the works (I only own 4 of the ones listed) would help fill it in. However, it seems that people without the works are the ones who came, not ones who know the subject. The article was ready for other people to contribute, but not ready for people outside to start making the page something it isn't. If they were confused, they could have just asked about it on the talk page instead of just whole sale proclaiming things about the page. Remember that assume good faith rule that no one seems to care about (that and consensus). Btw, the "dont be a dick" is part of my amusing words series, and yeah, I knowSanchiTachi 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On Recent Edits

The images produced in this publication deal exclusively with miniatures created as companions to the works discussed. They do not belong on any other page. To put them on the Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) page is to ignore the image policy, which only allows current characters to be used (i.e. those with official canon rules or with models still produced by the mainstream company for that specific army). This does not include side rules which need permission to be used in tournaments. Furthermore, the Leonidas picture must stay, as it was the model created for the book, on the article dealing with models (and more) created for books, whereas the other article is just for the plot of the book and does not include the gaming. SanchiTachi 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are other problem edits: 1. Second citation of Ephrael Stern when above paragraph already has such. That second citation is not needed, because the context of Ephrael Stern does not change.

2. That ref was fixed until the recent edit warring of Someguy

SanchiTachi 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they weren't. Don't blame me for your mistakes, fix them. As for the images, they don't belong here. This is about the novels, not the figures. The images belong with their subject, which is either the person in question or the line in which they were created. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not have the right to edit my post. Please follow WP:EQ standards. This page is not about the novels. How can you not understand that this is about the project that involves novels, articles, miniatures, etc. Gesh. The novels already have their individual pages devoteed to them. SanchiTachi 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not have the right to edit my post - Looking through other Talk pages you've been involved on, the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind here. You can't moan at other editors doing to you what you happily do to others. Darkson - BANG! 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

People are struggling to see how this entry relates to novels and miniatures as that isn't how you've started it and you have so far failed to provide a reference to support this despite being asked numerous times. We aren't mind readers. If you started an entry about graphic novels with the titles about graphics novels then everyone else here assumes it is about graphic novels. If you claim it is a larger project called "Graphic Novels" you haven't proided any proof this exists. What you think this entry is and what it is seem to be two very different things. (Emperor 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

So the pictures of the miniatures and the references to the miniatures leads you to believe that there is no connection between the two? Seriously, come back when you know what you are talking about, and instead let the development be done by people familiar with the works. SanchiTachi 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That would include you then. Don't be a dick, because it only hurts your case. The miniatures are described in one paragraph, which doesn't even talk about the specific figures. Furthermore, you placed the images in non-relevant sections. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Again it seems the reminder to be WP:CIVIL is required. Putting two things in close association doesn't make them connected. Putting them on this page does not make the page proof of a "Graphic Novel" project. You have been asked numerous times for WP:RS to show this connection. Again what you think this page is and what it actually is (according to the introduction you wrote) are very different things. rather than telling myself and other editors to "back off" and making baseless accustions about other people's motives (and the motives of whole Projects here) I'd suggest your time might be better spent providing references for your claims. You also need to look at the scope of this entry as you yourself set it out (and otehrs have gone along with) and compare them to what you consider it to be - there is a significant shortfall and trying to get the square peg through the round hole is te root of an awful lot of the misunderstanding. This could have all been cleared up in minutes and a way forward plotted, but that hasn't happened and at the moment we are going around in circles and I notice the entry has been completely locked down until this can all be resolved. I hope you spend the time constructively. (Emperor 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

For all those concerned. When I have made recent edits, I have fixed many things and have incorporated what User:GentlemanGhost and Fredrick day have inserted. I have also repaired the reference in Bloodquest that Someguy0830 keeps reverting back into a dead link. I have removed the large gap mid page which Someguy0830 keeps reverting back. I have also restored the miniatures which are used to show what the limited edition miniatures looked like, which is important to establishing the connection between the books in question and the miniature game Warhammer 40,000.

His lead is also very inaccurate: "This is a list of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels. The novels are produced by the Black Library (a section of the BL Publishing division of Games Workshop). The graphic novels are for the most part compilations of stories published in Warhammer Monthly, though some have added material or unique storylines not found in the original. They are intended as a companion for the Warhammer 40,000 miniatures."

If you notice, he does not have a source to claim that "most" are a "compliation" from Warhammer Monthly. Nor does he own a Warhammer Monthly or could tell what works are in one. This is factually wrong. While two comics had their origins in Warhammer Monthly, those works are over 200 pages in their final edition, whereas, the Warhammer Monthly only ran at most 40 pages of each.

My version: "Warhammer 40,000 is a fictional universe built around the future Imperium of Man for the Games Workshop miniatures base games. These novels are produced by the Black Library (a section of the BL Publishing division of Games Workshop) in order to create background and storyline for existing aspects of the game and even to create original storylines and characters that are playable."

As you can see, it establishes the works as fiction, tells where they come from, and tells what their purpose is.

Furthermore, he puts in a second wiki ref to Stern which is unnecessary, because she has on in the immediately previous paragraph. SanchiTachi 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

References

A Serious Question

This is a topic dealing with a specific work, i.e. Warhammer 40,000. Unless you play the game, own the books, etc, what do you expect to do except for contributing superficialities? If thats all you can do, why not wait until the page has had its information placed first, and then come back after a week? This page requires ownership/access to the books at hand, ownership/access to the miniatures, ownership/access to White Dwarf, and the rest. So far, there have been claims made about the page that can be handled after a few days of letting people with access to the above put the information in. Instead of questioning, challenging, and constantly trying to revert, why not let the people with the knowledge put it in before passing judgments and other claims? SanchiTachi 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I can understand your concern about people with "no knowledge" editing articles which you care deeply about. However, that does not alleviate the need for verifiable sources. I'm sure most of us would be amenable to your point of view if you could demonstrate a verifiable source which shows that the "Graphic Novels" are more than mere comics books, but rather a grander project as you have described. --GentlemanGhost 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It would take time to put them all up. Remember, there are tons of different articles, and not many are online. I have provided one to you privately. Here is it again: [5], this was an article that also existed in part in the White Dwarf Magazine. There are many of such articles. They are designed to connect the miniatures and the armys with the magazines. This particular one is in the gaming section for the Witch Hunters army. [6] This article was designed to create Gaunts Ghost characters from the Gaunts Ghost novel by Dan Abnett. Does that give you a sense of what I am talking about yet? If they had copies of White Dwarf online, I could provide you with pages. I created this page to fill the need of miniatures that come from specific books, and to describe specifically what armies are connected to which works, and how those works interact with the Warhammer 40,000 game. If you are unwilling to let this page be such a page, then I suggest we delete this page, as the individual graphic novels have a comics related page devoted to how they are comic books. SanchiTachi 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not prove the existence of this Graphic Novels project you keep bringing up. This is your original research creating the project out of thin air. Name a source which specifically labels the project as the Graphic Novels project, in that case and to the ends you've made up. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thus spoketh Someguy0830, my stalker, the self proclaimed God of all Wiki knowledge, and his word is proof. If you felt that way, put an Original Research tag and leave. However, you have proven that you are here to disrupt. You do not have access to the works in question, nor access to works discussing the works in question. You do not understand the topic, nor can contribute to anything beyond superficialities. You want to make the page how you want it, go ahead. I will just move my information to the appropriate page where it belongs and you can do whatever you want with this page because you have claimed ownership over what you don't even have the works to contribute to it! SanchiTachi 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer the question. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Again - be civil. Rather than making accusations it might be a good idea to address the question. (Emperor 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Leaving aside that this link [7] is to a work of fiction and doesn't prove anything I suspect (again) that what you intend for this entry is far to broad. You would be better advised to provide the details of the miniatures on the campaign/character pages, e.g. Eye of Terror for Bloodquest. This is already how it is done on other Warhammer 40k entries: The Gaunt's Ghosts miniatures aren't discussed on the book series entry but on Tanith (Warhammer 40,000)#Miniatures. You can then link back to the relevant book/graphic novel for their details, which itself would link to the character/campaign setting. This makes a lot more sense than the current approach which is trying to shoehorn a lot of material together under the heading of a project which has yet to be proved. The books/graphic novels are only part of a larger series of settings and the right place for the discussions seems to be on the entries dealing with characters/settings not the books/graphic novels. The precendet is there and it seems a much more workable way of doing things than this. (Emperor 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

You have no right to demand anything. If you feel that the article doesn't do what it is intended to do, either delete it or provide the information it intends to do. Since you don't have the material to do the second, please stop claiming things about the article and instead process it for deletion. Those are your two options under Wikipedia. Harassing me constantly after I have already addressed legitimate concerns is not being civil, as you are failing to do. SanchiTachi 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You've haven't addressed anything, as Emperor points out. Answer the question. I don't want to have to ask again. Do you have a source or not? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You should also understand that if you call an entry graphic novels, open it by saying it is about the graphic novels and then go on to describe the graphic novels then people can't be blamed for thinking that is what the entry is about. Especially when such an entry seems perectly reasonable and a good idea and it was a good start on such an entry. Then when other people try to contribute you say that isn't what the entry is about but it about some project you haven't provided sources for and one which is beyond the scope of this actual entry (as laid out by you). What I've suggested is that we rename this entry to reflect what it actually is and you sandbox the entry you think it should be.

For the record I would also support the creation of a similar entry Warhammer 40,000 (novels) (or Warhammer 40,000 novels) as a similar overview to the various novels: Category:Warhammer 40,000 novels. (Emperor 00:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Oh, you know what this page is, right? Please, fill in information on the works yourself. Oh wait, you don't have any of the works, nor know anything about the topic. SanchiTachi 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, while the page is protected, there should be plenty of time for you to complete the article that you describe. I look forward to seeing it. --GentlemanGhost 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Emperor and Someguy0830 would rather try to bully their way around this page, make claims to what the article is about, and mouth off, claiming things when they cannot provide anything to the project. If they feel the page doesn't belong, they would have processed it for deletion. Gentleman, you seem to be one of the few wishing to actually see this page come out for the best. I thank you for that. And yes, just wait for the updates. SanchiTachi 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I then assume your making accusations (again) and failing to address the questions that have been raised by numerous editors means that you aren't able to provide a reliable source that there is such a project?

I am not suggesting anything be deleted (and nothing I've read suggests anyone else is). I think you made a good start on the entry. The problem is you have started a different entry to the one you seem to think it is. Above I have suggested that this might be because the approach you are trying is flawed and shown precendents from within the Warhammer 40k entries of how this has been done effectively.

So no deletion but a requests for answers to legitimate questions along with suggested solutions which are more workable than your current approach. (Emperor 01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Can I just say that the latest edit [8] is no way to help move things forward. The entry is locked and will only be unlcoked if we can work out a solution. I have pointed out problems with your approach and suggested a solution that is not only workable but based on the way things have previously been done for similar areas within Warhammer 40k.

Just striking out your comments achieves nothing. Unless this means you are officially removing yourself from further debate on the future direction of this entry. If so, you understand that you will have to abide by the consensus decision? (Emperor 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Both SanchiTachi and Someguy0830 have taken their concerns to the admin's noticeboard, respectively: [9] and [10]. If anyone wants to discuss their conduct that seems the best arena. Later today/tomorrow (depending on timezone) I'll draw a line under the above and hopefully we can try and start the process of resolving this. (Emperor 03:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Request for uncontroversial change during edit protection

{{editprotected}} If possible, can the reference(s) to the nomination(s) for the Eagle Award be linked to the corresponding article Eagle Awards? Thank you! --GentlemanGhost 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected requests are really usually for specific edits. If you want to put the page in your user sandbox or in a temporary talk subpage, you can make the edits there and I'll merge them (with consensus, of course). Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Moving things forward

I have drawn a literal (and hopefully metaphorical) line under the above under the above discussion. As there are offers to help with personal disputes [11] I'm hoping that we can now move forward and resolve this issue. Hopefully everyone (and I mean everyone - this isn't directed at any one person) can keep their accusations, WP:ABF and general drama out of here and either in the other venues for this (or better keep it to themselves) as all that has done is dirupt any efforts to fix things. So what I'm going to do is post my preferred solution to get the ball rolling - feel free to add your own solutions, disagree politely, tweak ideas, etc. and hopefully we can reach a consensus and get this entry unlocked. So onwards:

• My solution:
  • Move this to Warhammer 40,000 comics - there has been some concern about the parentheses in "Warhammer 40,000 (0comics)" and (unless someone comes up with a naming guideline prefering one over the other) either name seems OK to me.
  • Move the miniature information to the relevant character/campaign entry based on this reasoning:
    • It has precedent within the Warhammer entries. The miniatures based on the Gaunt's Ghosts novel series are not on that entry but on the broader entry Tanith (Warhammer 40,000)#Miniatures
    • It is intuitive, as the there could be a range of media dealing with a character/setting and the right place for the miniatures is in the more central entry. This entry would link to the media and vice versa.
• Examples: Bloodquest-related miniatures are already discussed on the relevant character page: Leonatos#Leonatos within the game and if a wider range of figures/rules need discussing the setting seems the best place: Eye of Terror. Daemonifuge could be discussed at Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000), Deathwatch on Deathwatch (Warhammer 40,000), etc.
• Summary: So it is fairly straightforward, it keeps all the entries general and useful to the non-specialist but interlinks thme to provide more depth and detail for those who want it. Most importantly it follows from the way things are already being done. (Emperor 13:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Emperor proposes a good, well-reasoned solution. I would only raise, but NOT answer, the question of whether Warhammer 40,000 comics or Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels is the more apt title. Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs has a section headed Graphic novels that points here as the Main article. Should that section be merged with Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs#Comics or changed in some other way? The Comics section does not link here; should it? Again, I am asking, NOT proposing. I will not debate these questions either way nor do the edits myself. Finell (Talk) 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

2¢-ish... I honestly think that the use of (...) implies that the books all fall under the title "Warhammer 40,000". It would be best not to set off a part of the article title with parentheses.

As far as comics/graphic novel... I think that looks at format and presentation. I'd say that if the material published through BL has the following:

• Square binding
• Heavy stock cover
• High quality page stock
• Generally, no ads

I'd say they are graphic novels, even though the material was printed elsewhere first.

The above is predicated on the article being focused on these particular products. It becomes a different animal if the focus is on the strips themselves and their history.

On a slight side note... there is at least one source, here, that indicates that there is/was a monthly comic book using "Warhammer" as its title. Unfortunately, aside from its existence, some of the covers, and that it was a Canadian publication, the GDC has nothing indexed. These could be, for all we know, reprints of the same British material that is in the BL graphic novels.

- J Greb 18:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the reason there is a section called "Graphic Novels" pointing here is because SanchiTachi made it when they started this entry [12] and yes it should really be under the Comics section. The thing is that there are Warhammer 40k comics - they were published in Warhammer Monthly (itself previously called Warhammer Comic - presumably the one J Greb notes above, more information at INFERNO!) and the bulk of what is listed here are the trade paperback collections. Remember that Black Library aren't the only publishers and Boom! Studios now have a Warhammer 40k comic title [13] the first arc of which is Damnation Crusade. Removing the parentheses also allows one to pitch it as "comics from the Warhammer 40k universe" as opposed to various comics called Warhammer 40k (although see the Aliens and Predator examples I give above show that needn't be taken literally). With a more restrictive title like "Warhammer 40k graphic novels" you close down the scope so that you end up in the odd position of not including comics until they are collected into trade form. It also means you get into a tiresome and hair splitting area where although graphic novels are used to describe trades by marketing people they are really just comics in a book form. As mentioned Comics includes the series that appeared in Warhammer Comic (later Warhammer Monthly), prestige format comics (some of what are described as graphic novels are on 50 or 60 pages long), original graphic novels and the latest comic book series. (Emperor 19:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

I also feel the more general title (Warhammer 40k comics) would be appropriate. However, one should look into Sanchi's complaints that we are somehow being redundant with this page. Whatever his goals for this page may be, we should be sure he hasn't copied the information from somewhere else or already made a page covering this. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I received such a messaage declaring the entry redundant if it looked at the comics [14] but I see no evidence of anything similar (the BL link provided doesn't cover them) and it wouldn't get listy as he himself gave it such a good start it is already well beyond that point (hence our moving beyond the suggestion of the title containing the word list). A while back I mentioned the need for an entry looking at Warhammer 40k comics and Sanchi made just such an entry. (Emperor 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

That settles that. File for unprotection then? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have received another message. Apparently as the characters/situations/settings are discussed elsewhere this makes this section redundant. I have actually addressed this above as I am aware of entries like Kal Jerico (I am partly here because of the strong crossover between Warhammer 40k and 2000 AD) who appears in the eponymous comics and I discussed the use of the {{Main}} template already alongside a good summary (so it wouldn't become listy either). Hopefully everntually all the comics arcs will have their own entries - this entry is really an overview to the much broader field - the idea if that the sections get large enough that they need splitting to their own entry. Equally there aren't entries for quite a few of these here (one would have an eye on splitting off to a future entry) while other comics are only part of a larger story and need a longer summary.

I recommend taking things slowly on unprotecting. What concerns me is if we unprotect it and it gets AfDed straight out of the box, so I want to make sure there is a good consensus on the name as well as the scope of the entry before it is unprotected or I can see things getting messy again. (Emperor 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

It would survive AFD as it stands and that's before you get into adding other sources that exist out there for those TPBS. --Fredrick day 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Whatever intentions there may be for the Warhammer pages, which to be quite frank look to be a mile wide and only an inch deep right now (but that's a complaint for another place), the purpose this article serves (or even would serve) is not covered anywhere else. This couldn't possibly fail an AfD. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confident it would but I'd rather avoid the hassle and if there is talk floating around about this entry being redundant and a possible for deletion I'd rather make sure the majority of us are on the same page. All the drama has made me rather jumpy and so I am being over-cautious. It is also only my opinion and if others are fine with that then you are perfectly welcome to ignore my natural caution (I know it is often the opposite of being bold). ;) (Emperor 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

After all this nonsense, my desire to accomplish something is overriding my caution. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that definitely makes me think we should wait a bit longer ;) (Emperor 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Fair enough. A day or so should be fine to draw in any other opinions. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say we have broad agreement for such a move? --Fredrick day 21:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to leave it open 24 hours at least - this has been a bitterly contest issue and I think it'd be better to get as much input in now so we can make sure get it right. (Emperor 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

no problem with that. --Fredrick day 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And it has now been 24 hours. Given the "car crash" nature of the problems there has been a lot more focus on this entry that usual and (also given my alerting the connected projects) one must assume those who felt strongly about this have had their say by now. So I'm making a last call on this as it has all gone on far too long and I know a few editors were eager to get the edit block removed. Anyone else got any input? (Emperor 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

This article, unless I am misunderstanding something, appears to be about the Black Library graphic novels, not the other Warhammer 40,000 comics (which either are or could be the subject of another article or a list). Therefore, I think Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels is more specific, and therefore more appropriate, than Warhammer 40,000 comics as the title. User:SanchiTachi has strong views that appear to be well reasoned, and has also done a lot of work on the Warhammer 40,000 articles and is very knowledgeable about the subject. Since the WP:AN/I, he has moderated his behavior, which is something that we should all welcome and should positively reinforce. One way of doing that is to adopt his preference of graphic novels over comics for the title; I would not be saying this if his preference appeared to be arbitrary or misguided. Finell (Talk) 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above these were published as comics and are now collected as trade paperbacks (there may also be some original graphic novels thrown in) so having the criteria as wether they have or have not been collected in a single volume seems overly restrictive. I checked and Damnation Crusade would now qualify as there is a trade due but that just highlights the problems with such a restrictive naming system when the naiming is controversial (as they are largely trade paperbacks). The original naming comes from the claim that there is a "Graphic Novel project" and not because the books themselves are described as graphic novels. No evidence has ever been provided that there is such a project and going for the more inclusive name also gets us away from a confusing and unclear concept. So graphic novels is a messy term which comes with baggage that almost always results in a deal of debate which can easily be avoided in the naming. Compare graphic novel with trade paperback (comics) and then check out the debate over whether something is or isn't a graphic novel on entries like [15] [16] . So it is an inaccurate description that creates a strange inclusion criteria (which itself can result in graphic novel vs trade debate) and can be avoided by going with the broader term which would allow this entry to be an overview of the Warhammer 40k comic output. (Emperor 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

we have consensus amongst editors (excluding the obvious exception) - let's get this moved and unlocked. we are just going in circles otherwise --Fredrick day 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree we have consensus, but now we have two articles with the same information, albeit expanded in Tachi's case because he's not restricted by a page lockdown. One has to go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Obviously it isn't set in stone and there are some minor issues about the name but I think we can get it unlocked and move things forward. (Emperor 20:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Excuse me, but you already agreed that this page wasn't about the gaming or the history of the miniatures. My page is. My page isn't about the graphic novels, or comics, nor discusses them as graphic novels or comics. My page also has the novels and all other publications by BL that have miniatures or relate to the gaming mechanics. SanchiTachi 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree - the other entry (while based on the same content) is now a very different page and doesn't have a lot of bearing on this one - especially in the debate on getting this unlocked so this can be edited. As mentioned I have created another section for discussing the othe entry - can we try and keep this on topic? (Emperor 21:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

You don't have a page - Wikipedia has a similar page in main space - this is a distiction that seems to illude you time and time again. --Fredrick day 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So my sandbox isn't my property? Last time I checked, GFDL did not apply to user space, and I do claim ownership there. This has been accepted by admin and the corporation. SanchiTachi 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah I thought you were refering to the black library page in mainspace. apologies. --Fredrick day 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The sandbox is yours to play in, but GDFL applies everywhere: userspace, template space, wikispace, and everything inbetween. You shouldn't even have images on it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've requested the block on editing be removed. We all seem on the same page about the content. If there are any issues about the name once we've had a chance to flesh out the entry then we can discuss it and come to another consensus then. The important thing now is to actually edit the thing ;) (Emperor 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Black Library gaming

I have since used my sand box to create a new page, which takes both novels, graphic novels, and comics of the black library and discusses their link between the books and the Warhammer 40,000 games. The page is here: Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000). My sandbox still has the "critical review" section, which should be incorporated into either the main pages of the works or onto this page, or even both. That page is found here: User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels_Current. The page that I created (at Black Library gaming) is to discuss the works and their connection to the various games.

Such information should not be put on the individual novel pages, as they are not necessarily about the novels, and such information cannot be placed on the individual army pages, as the information is not "Canon" perse (Gaunts Ghost for Warhammer 40,000 and Eisenhorn for Inquisitor are the exceptions).

I am not finished with the page. I am only 60% of the way through, and I have not included the White Dwarf information. This is the last post I will make dealing with this page. Feel free to do whatever you want with it. I have made the page which I originally intended and am working on the information there. SanchiTachi 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That page looks solid. It makes no claims to be part of a larger project for which there is no evidence, it has a good introduction which explains its scope and it deals with the range of media that they have based the figures and rules on. No one was denying such a thing happened (or even that it wasn't worth its own page) the problem arose because this page wasn't the one you seemed to think it is while that pag clearly is. As it also should avoid clashes over content it also makes things simpler for this entry. (Emperor 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm a bit torn on that one - this is the more focused page, the other provides better context. --Fredrick day 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note (as described in summary) - My sandbox has "critical review" which is needed for a page discussing the works as part of a genre. There also needs to be citations of the works describing their format, how they fit different forms, etc etc. My page doesn't deal with any of those things, as it deals solely with the BL lines of novels, short stories, articles, and the rest (I expanded it to novels and short stories to make it more on topic of the miniatures). I did write the excerpts/plot summaries of the different works, so it is only fair for people not to complain that I didn't variate them too much (plus, you can always go to the original source to expand on them). Furthermore, my summaries are overall, if you want to discuss them as part of a genre, I suggest you have individual summaries for the individual works. Also, you would need to hunt down which parts of which novels were included in the Warhammer Monthly and (its short lived successor) Warhammer Comics. SanchiTachi 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You still made a content fork that almost exactly mimics this page, under the explict knowledge that you couldn't get your way here. Regardless of what your page does that this doesn't, it's still a fork. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a major issue as long as both entries are allowed to grow - they have very different remits and will eventually not resemble each other. It also not one for thes ection trying to reach a consensus to get this entry unlocked so I have made a new section. It is alos probably better addressed over on the other entry. (Emperor 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

If that other one is expanded and reworked into what it's title suggests, I'd have no complaint. Different articles wouldn't be an issue. That they're basically the same now, and deliberately so, is the problem. But, if this can be remade, no harm no foul. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They have already diverged considerably - the other entry deals with a much broader range of media within a tightly defined remit. Granted some of the content is similar but that is because we haven't yet had a chance to edit this page within the scope of the consensus we have agreed on. I don't see it being a big issue given time (think of it like Arnie and de Vito in the film Twins, perhaps - similar origins different development). The only way it'd be a real cause for concerns is if a passing editor declares it a content fork and slaps an AfD on it before we've even had a chance to work on the entry properly. Given the discussion here I think we should be able to avoid that happening. I look at it like this: a while back I suggested making a page giving an overview of the Warhammer 40k comics - this is it. If a page like the Black Library gaming one had existed I wouldn't have considered them covering the same ground to any major extent (noether does it cover the same ground as the Warhammer 40k novels it discuss) and I would have made an entry that (after we have had a chance to edit it) would look a bit like this one. Granted the birth process has been a little strained and the process has been far from ideal but eventually it will not be seen as being even a minor issue (ultimately I suspect they will compliment and support each other). Just my opinion but I don't think a big issue need be made of it and the important thing now is to get moving on getting this page unlocked and edited. (Emperor 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. To be honest, the only reason I didn't do the AfD in the first place was because I hoped Tachi had something different planned for it. I'm hoping that, despite his continued refusal to cooperate, whatever he does with it is done before someone else comes to my conclusion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It'll be fine I sure. That is the entry he seemed to think this one was but without the claims to a large project that couldn't be supported. It makes sense and is consistent and should survive an AfD (I'd vote to keep it anyway - as it is. With more work it won't even be an issue). (Emperor 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Images - no fair use rationale

All of the images used in this article currently have no fair use rationale. --GentlemanGhost 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. They are all book covers and so are available for use for promotional purposes (Amazon make them freely available for starters). I haven't had to prepare a fair use rationale before but I'd imagine if we put our heads togther we can come upwith one to cover all the images, using the outlines at WP:FURG. (Emperor 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Some guy got them all. :) Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 12:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi

It has been confirmed he has been editting this and other pages anonymously Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi - I'll go through and doublecheck the users edits just to make sure they haven't been up to no good. (Emperor 00:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Titanomnibus.jpg

Image:Titanomnibus.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodquest.jpg

Image:Bloodquest.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lone wolves cover.jpg

Image:Lone wolves cover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Whm1.jpg

Image:Whm1.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Daemonifuge.jpg

The image Image:Daemonifuge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Warhammer 40,000 comics. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607221354/http://www.blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60100199032&type=Book to http://www.blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60100199032&type=Book
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408164110/http://blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60710199010&type=Book to http://www.blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60710199010&type=Book
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blacklibrary.com/whm/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)