Talk:Wood Elves (Warhammer)

Untitled
This article needs a cleanup..lots of spelling and grammatical errors, and entries that don't sound all that encyclopedic. I'll see what I can do later after I'm off work, but some spelling errors/inconsistencies at least need to be fixed. Joeslop

Whoa, don't put any stats pertaining to units in GW games. It breaks their IP Johhny-turbo 14:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we really be listing all the unit types and their strengths? That's not exactly relevant for someone who's come along, looking for general info on the army. A list would do, like that in the Bretonnia article. Should we really be so caught up in minutiae?
 * yes please. I came looking for info on the wood elves, and I had much more use of this one than I had of Bretonnia. Keep the info, just what I wanted :) A mere listing of units is just boring and useless Trubadurix 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m sure anyone who’s remotely interested in looking for the army on wikipedia is already familiar with the units. Background (paticularly when it's spread across several books) is the thing to keep tabs on.

I think giving some more general information on the actually units would be good. What detail there is right now, is so sparse that people are better off going to GW's site to learn about them. As long as the fluff comes from our own mouths but still describes the units we'd be better off. Perhaps a little more on what they are capable of, ie. Glade Riders, fast calvary capable of firing bows at the enemy or flanking units. Pathofskulls 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Page move
We have an article named Wood-elves, which is separate from this article, Wood Elves. I think this page should be moved to Wood-elves (Warhammer) to avoid confusion. If noone has any objections to this, I'll go ahead and do this myself and make Wood Elves a redirect. --Sam Pointon 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a picture in the article?

Links added
I've added two links to the bottom of the page - to the Asrai.org site and the Lost Glade site respectively. Lathaniel 14:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Too much text and too little wikilinking. Looks suspscisously like a precis/paraphrase or even copyvio of the various GW materials. GraemeLeggett 11:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Major cleanup needs to be done here, the page is messy at best and indecipherable in general.

Fair use rationale for Image:92-01-60.jpg
Image:92-01-60.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 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 09:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)