Talk:Forge World

Split
Perhaps the content of this page should be split into two articles, one for the fictional meaning from 40k and another for the company? Pacey 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The 2 are inherently linked - and as this page is short I don't think splitting would be very advantageous. -Localzuk (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Personally, I don't think that they are linked inherently, but I take your point about the lack of info. It might be worth doing at a later date if the article is expanded. Pacey 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now that it has come to it, I have split it :) It is now part here and part at the new Planets of Warhammer 40,000 page -Localzuk (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I am proposing that all the Category:Warhammer 40,000 planets articles be merged into a single Planets of Warhammer 40,000 article. Please read this page and place all comments on this page. -Localzuk (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There may be merit in what you suggest, but forgeworld is not a planet but a class of planet based on it's industry so the question then becomes should this article become part of the new article you propose? Waza 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that it should be, as the title of the article I propose is Planets of Warhammer 40,000 - so doesn't tie it down to actually describing planets but can also go into detail about 'classes of planets' (there is also Death World which is in the same boat).
 * Also, I think the information regarding 'Forge World' as in the company/real entity should be left as it is or merged with the Games Workshop article. (I am copying this to the discussion on the project page so that we have a centralised place of discussion.-Localzuk (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Notability
The easiest way to show notability for a publicly-traded company is to reference financial analyses. Forge World is occasionally mentioned in third-party financial reports regarding Games Workshop, being as it is a subsidiary with a substantially different business model than its parent company. http://www.thisisbusiness-eastmidlands.co.uk/news/nottinghamshire/games-workshop-half-year-sales-up-to-%C2%A361m.aspx The problem is that it is rarely going to get much coverage in this respect, since the company has never had reason to step out from underneath GW's apron strings.Khanaris (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)