Talk:Cassern S. Goto

multilasers
This word appears to be used too many timesand is not given any specific definition. A casual reader is not likely to understand the whole article


 * What are you even talking about, that is the best version (and most accurate) Of C.S. Mulitlaser Multilaser Multilaser Goto I have seen to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:A640:538:A866:E66A:B380:1F18 (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Not a notable author
The issues of C.S. Goto's notability can be disputed, however the extremely divided reactions from the fan community (despite what my initial version of the page may have implied, there were multiple positive opinions of his works) and the Dawn of War connection justify placing a Wikipedia entry about him.--The Fifth Horseman 13:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Story missing from Bibliography
I am aware that the recent "Let the galaxy burn" antology from Black Library includes a previously unpublished story by Goto. I was, however, unable to find out what is that story's title. If anyone knows, please add it.--The Fifth Horseman 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Goto's view of GW IP seems lacking little if any research
The defensive posture Goto makes in his entry here on wiki represents fully what the entire 40K community beleives. Goto hasnt researched GW's IP for his novels well enough to satisfy even cursory browsing through his novels without disdain from readers. To date, I have yet to find anyone that follows his views on how he portrays the warhamer 40000 universe. Fat farseers? Children stuffing rocks into the weapons of highly advanced fast moving vehicles? This hardly satisfies even the most naieve of new readers of GW's worlds. Being able to produce product quickly does not equate to well done. Hellfury 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While this may be true, unless there are any citation from reliable sources to support this view, it should not be included in the article, in accordance with the non-negotiable policy on verifiability. Cheers --Pak21 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would pointing out specific deviations from established Warhammer 40k canon suffice? For example, Eldar Wraithguard use a weapon called "Wraithcannon" (a displacement weapon that teleports pieces of target into a parallel dimension). This is not a detail particularly stressed upon in most GW source materials (indeed, there are only a few mentions of that).
 * In one of the sample texts, Goto made those weapons fire bullets. This is just one proof of inadequate research into subject matter, but I'll prepare a detailed list if you think one is needed.--The Fifth Horseman 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you are a recognised authority on Warhammer 40,000, that would be original research. Cheers --Pak21 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in case of providing citation of verifiable primary sources. In this case, the Warhammer 40k rulebook and some of the supplementary codices. --The Fifth Horseman 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Goto's content differs from that of official Warhammer 40,000 codices, such as Codex: Space Marines. For example, Space Marines do not carry multilasers (yet in Goto's work they seemingly do). This is not debatable or guesswork - they don't, as per the codex. Zahr Dalsk (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair, IF Goto's book says "a wraithcannon fires bullets", and GW's publications say "it doesn't fire bullets", then it's not actually original research to say "Goto's work goes against GW background materials". After all, the points you're actually using in that statement are published. Just like it wouldn't be original research if you had a source that said "A is better than B. And B is better than C", and we said "The source says A is better than C". It may not absolutely, explicitly be stated in 100% clarity, but it's close enough. 86.129.195.145 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NEEEERDS! I am aware of this issue myself, but what does it have to do with the article? Are you going to make a section on CANON DEVIATIONS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.3.133 (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not deviations, just inconsistencies with previously published material. :) --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Interestingly, I just found that the controversy has been mentioned on an interview published on Goto's own website:, and some of it has been vaguely mentioned on his "have your say page" . This would constitute a basis for confirming that a controversy regarding the accuracy of his novels to the details of the setting did in fact exist. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources for controversy
As far as I can see there are no acceptable sources for the whole controversy issue. While I believe this controversy exists, all we have is Goto responding to one poster about one accuracy issues. And it is one of the more defensible of Goto's apparent inaccuracies. As currently written the controversy section seems biased in favour of Goto, lacks decent sources, and either needs a rewrite with sources or deletion. the_raptor 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the bias were introduced in edits made by "Corrector01". I guess that some things will need clarification and explanation (as the fact that publication by Black Library does not automatically make a certain story a part of 40k "canon").

I also had a more detailed list of what exact source materials are contradicted (altough limited to the content present in the samples on Black Library site). Might have deleted it since, will have to check.--The Fifth Horseman 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead link
It seems the "official website" link is dead as of February 2nd 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberMurph (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cassern S. Goto. 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/20080517101427/http://www.blacklibrary.co.uk/ to http://www.blacklibrary.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129014140/http://forum.blacklibrary.com:80/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6451 to http://forum.blacklibrary.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6451

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalism.
It seems like a quick tl;dr might be useful here. Anyways, to summarize why it's been vandalized often, the author is a somewhat controversial figure regarding his WH40k novels, which are often perceived by fans to be of low quality. Many such edits appearing to be coming from a link at this rather nsfw website. Just thought I'd provide a quick summary in case of further vandalism, since the linked forum thread isn't all that clear.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion Due to Notability
Having written, even controversially, some licensed products for a production company without any notabile success and with no material in fifteen years, it seems to me that this contract writer does not merit a wikipedia entry. CyberMurph (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)