Talk:Tomb Kings (Warhammer)

Untitled
I personally think that the latter part of this article is a bit non-neutral. Especially the last two paragraphs seem too biased. --Anzuhan 20:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Then fix it, silly. ^_^ Adam Marx Squared 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it discussing tactics? Surely background is what's important.

Most difficult units to assemble? For the Tomb Kings or overall? --Secruss (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement: The "Units" section of the page is the first few sentences of their description taken directly from the Tomb Kings army book.GodHead 13:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the naming of the kingdom from "Khemri" to "Nehekhara". According to the army book (the latest one, at least) Nehekhara is the name of the entire domain, whereas Khemri is the dominant city. --Solinox 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which themes were stolen from the mummy? Thefuguestate 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Proably the scarabs. --Secruss (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The scarabs weren't "stolen" from The Mummy. They're a VERY common part of Egyptian mythology, and the Tomb Kings are based largely off of the Egyptians. Groundlord (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much fluff?
As it stands (11 January 2007), there appears to be an excess of fluff for the units section and worse still its in an encyclopedic tone and as such smacks of being lifted directly form the Warhammer Army book. Which might mean copyvio issues.GraemeLeggett 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah for context
I think it is cool that this article is slowly being transformed from pure in-universe plot-telling (pure WP:NOT kind of stuff), into a gameplay-centric article about a real-world game. That's the ticket! &#91;&#91;User:scbomber (only bombs in &#91;&#91;netrek]]]] 04:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has to split the units section into: Lords, Heroes, Core, Special and rare. The Bryce 07:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TombKingsChariot.gif
Image:TombKingsChariot.gif 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 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 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyclopaedic
Hey guys - I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Battle when I was young, and I plan to take it up again. I want one of the newer armies, so this page was very helpful. But... a worrying amount of it isn't very suitable for Wikipedia. It's not properly cited, and there are some clear examples of original research. To put that in layman's terms, instead of reading like an encyclopaedia article, it reads more like the notes of a Games Workshop enthusiast who wants to share his personal experience of the Tomb Kings army.

E.g., speculation about stuff being inspired by the Mummy franchise doesn't belong here unless you can quote a reliable source, and I laughed out loud at the bit which suggests that the use of magic is "basic military technique" (basic Warhammer strategy, maybe!). Either way, Wikipedia isn't a place for people to share their knowledge and original research. It's a place for people to collate the exisiting body of knowledge that can be cited in a scholarly fashion. I recommend a complete overhaul of the page (but maybe you should think about getting a wordpress account or setting up a fan page or something, so the material that's on here doesn't get lost).Señor Service (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)