Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 1

Character notability
The recent suggestion of merges involving Asdrubael Vect leads me to think we should define some (rough) guidelines for:
 * Characters which get their own page
 * Characters which get a section within their army page
 * Characters which get a mention within the "notable characters" list on their army page
 * (possibly) Characters which get a mention on the main Warhammer 40,000 page; I think we can handle this one on a case-by-case basis.

Any views? Cheers --Pak21 10:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We definitely need some guidelines. I'm not too sure what we could do. Maybe someone could draw up a quantitative guideline? ie. Only characters with references in x books can be included on the x page etc... -Localzuk (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to start with some fairly restrictive guidelines. Something like "Characters should be mentioned only if they meet one of the following criteria:
 * They have their own official special rules (ie published in a rulebook, Codex or via Chapter Approved on the Games Workshop website) for any of Warhammer 40,000, Epic, Battlefleet Gothic or Inquisitor.
 * Games Workshop have produced a special minature for the character.
 * They are a major character in a computer game or Black Library novel (ie La'Kais is in, but Shas'ui T'au Ju and Shas'ui D'yanoi Y'hol are out, or at least relegated to a mention on La'Kais' page).
 * They have had a significant effect on the army lists as seen today (for "historical" characters)."
 * Which characters do people think should be "in" that this rules out? Cheers --Pak21 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A few things:
 * For the books, I'd be inclined to merge the character into an article on the book, unless we're talking about a fairly large series. There's also a few 40K comics out there (Bloodquest and Imperius Dictato are two I recall off the top of my head), which have no articles now, but the characters from these may need to be factored in in the future.
 * I don't think the miniatures and special rules criteria should encompass characters created by Forge World or Fanatic.
 * Again on rules and miniatures, characters from the Inquisitor game should be on a case-by-case basis. There are 12 'stock' characters with miniatures in the inital rulebook, another five released via White Dwarf, and Fate-knows how many released after Fanatic took over. Out of all those, I personally think there is only one of these that can justify an article withouth just copying the information from the book and leaving it at that (because there's nothing left to add): Gregor Eisenhorn.
 * As for listing in other articles, I'd be inclined to place any articles that pass this criteria in the "Notable characters" section of the character's race's article.

That's my thoughts. -- Saberwyn 21:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just created WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability with something quite close to Saberwyn's suggestions. Please comment! Cheers --Pak21 10:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion Guidelines
I've just drafted up a list of inclusion guidelines and orders of canonocity concerning the materials used as sources for the Warhammer 40,000 articles.

Please wander over and comment. Feel free to make changes, just say why... this is just a starting point, and it can be improved upon. -- Saberwyn 12:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a Section for both 'Gaming' characters E.G any character that has a stat line and ine for 'fluff' characters which are noted in the 40k universe but don't have actual rules?
 * The guidelines as they stand include the major characters from the main novel series', and from the games. Any other "fluff" characters would have to show how they have had a significant impact on the fiction and/or playability (preferably both) of the 40k universe. -- Saberwyn 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Main page notability
I'm thinking we need to start with a clean slate concerning the main page notable figures list, so I've created it here.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability/Main Character debate space

Come looksee and comment. -- Saberwyn 10:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Writers category
I propose creating a "Warhammer 40,000 writers" category and including in it (as a first pass) anyone with a wikilink from the references page. Criteria for inclusion would be being a named author on any GW, Forge World or Black Library publication. Any objections, comments? Cheers --Pak21 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Equipment/Tech subcat
What would be the best title for an equipment subcategory? I'd use it to file away the various "Weapons, Equipment..." lists, along with articles such as arco-flagellation, combi-weapons, Necrodermis and Standard Template Construct (not a complete list) -- Saberwyn 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Warhammer 40,000 technology". Not very good, but I don't have a better title at the moment... Cheers --Pak21 15:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That'll do me for the mo! -- Saberwyn 10:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, wait a minute! You're not planning on merging all the technologies into one page are you? Colonel Marksman 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this resulted in the creation of Category:Warhammer 40,000 technology in which these and other articles were moved to from the main category. -- saberwyn 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Watch your mouths!
I noticed that all over Warhammer pages, everyone seems to depict everything and everyone as somehow "evil".

Please keep note that is 1. An opinion, and 2. It would be much better to state that "nobody is a badguy" rather than, "everyone is a badguy". E.g. Tyranids are not the "bad guys", and they are not "evil", they are simply a bug-like race like a herd of locuses... they just happen to eat entire worlds and be monstrously huge with a deadly array of weapons.

The creators of Warhammer and Warhammer40k did an excellent job of making factions/races into very balanced armies so that there is no one good race, and so no one is a better race over another, in gameplay and storyline. Colonel Marksman 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummmm... where do you want to start?
 * The Dark Eldar are unquestionably evil. They could have chosen to follow the route of the Eldar, but instead chose to torture and sacrifice as many members of other races as necessary to preserve their own existence.
 * Much the same goes for the Necrons, or at least the C'tan.
 * The Imperium will happily wipe out entire planets of its own civilians because it doesn't like their political views, and would genocide every other species in the galaxy if they had the ability.
 * Of the Chaos forces, Khorne and Slaanesh both attempt to cause as much suffering and pain as possible, as does Nurgle on a longer timescale. Tzeentch is a possible exception here. I doubt the rest of the Chaos gods are much better.
 * The Eldar view other species as not much better than animals, and certainly wouldn't want to share the Galaxy with them.
 * The Tyranids and (to a lesser extent) the Orks aren't prepared to even countenance the idea that another planet may be able to live in their own way without being dragged into the "correct culture".
 * The Tau are actually much the same: either you join the Greater Good or you die.
 * In present day terms, the military commanders of every single race would be guilty of war crimes, many times over. That's a pretty good definition of "bad guy" to me. Cheers --Pak21 11:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of the articles really get loaded with weasel words in this case, with a lot of "some players think" or "some feel that" phrases. Others are written with serious POV slants, just look at Talk:Vespid (Warhammer 40,000). Just because someone personally doesn't like a race or army for whatever reason (doesn't like the designs, doesn't like the philosophy, doesn't like how they get creamed by turn three every time they fight them, etc.) doesn't mean they can go in and start writing whatever. Another thing is that we're dealing with fictional races and characters in a setting of adventure fiction, where there are morally ambiguous "good guys" and downright nasty "bad guys," just ask any of the development team next time you're at a convention (I remember Andy Chambers at Origins before the Eye of Terror campaign stating "Sure the Orks and Necrons are nasty, but Chaos are the ones who want to eat your soul."). There are developer notes out there that state what their intentions are. Also, there's a lot of statements that just downright lack sources and citations; such as the line "The inclusion of such a race into the game, of course, drew sharp criticism from both long-standing fans of the setting, as well as from some of the game developers themselves" in the Tau article.
 * Anyway, we need to stick to facts. If you want to discuss what the developers may or may not be thinking or what not, take it to a messageboard. Wikipedia isn't the place to fight crusades. --Paul Soth 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We're trying. If you see something that needs to be NPOV'd, NPOV it. If you see something that needs to be sourced, slap Template:Citation needed on the offending sentance/paragraph so others can review it and (a) find a source and cite it, or (b) remove the unsourced bullshit. It's a collaborative effort, and just saying "There are errors, fix them" isn't enough. If you want to help, say "These are the errors, they are here, here's how we can fix them", or just fix them yourself. It would be much appreciated. -- Saberwyn 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay
Is there some reason none of the armies have any hints of any tabletop works? All we have is background and storyline... nothing related to the actual game.

Obviously... keep things simple if a decision is ever made to allow, e.g. "Strategies Using ..." part of an article, and discuss simple strengths and weaknesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Marksman (talk • contribs)


 * I think the problem here is coming up with verifiable sources for this kind of information. --Pak21 11:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pak21 on this, but also think it's a bad idea to include such info because not everyone agrees on it. Just because most people use race X one way, that doesn't mean everyone uses them that way. I pride myself on using my armies in unorthodox ways- ie I use Blood Angels but have not once used the old "Rhino Rush" tactic that was supposedly so bad in 3rd Ed; I have a Necron playing friend who prefers not to use the "phalanx" tactic. Yet I have no problem winning, nor does my friend.

I think things are fine the way they are- keep info about the armies general and relatively vague (bearing in mind the stuff is copyrighted), and let the reader get the relevant Codex and decide for himself how to use them.--DarthBinky 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Gone AWOL
My computer decided it didn't like booting too much, so I'm going to be mostly AWOL for a week or two. I was meaning to merge in the Eldar technology stuff, but I don't think I'll get a chance now. I see that Pak has started (thanks for doing that first part), and if he would finish it it would be great. I'll be back to helping when I can. --Falcorian (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope it's fixed soon... I'll try and get that done in the next couple of days, although I'm not an Eldar player, so I'm basically doing a copy-and-paste of text rather than a true information merge, so if an Eldar expert could check over it all when it's done, that would be good.
 * On much the same note, I'm going to be on holiday (and probably without more than sporadic Net access) from 2006-04-13 until 2006-04-19, so don't expect too many edits from me in that period. Cheers --Pak21 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I should have my Eldar codexes when I get back, so I can do a clean up then. Have a good trip! --Falcorian (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Fall of Medusa V
Please see /Medusa V for some thoughts and discussion on how we should handle this summer's worldwide campaign. Cheers --Pak21 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A draft of the Medusa V article is now available for review, at WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Medusa V. -- Saberwyn 12:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Tau rewrite
Come on down to "User:Saberwyn/Saberwyn's Tau Article" to have a look at my attempted rewrite of the Tau article! While you're there, stop by "User:Saberwyn/Tau Rewrite Holding Pen" and see if there is any externally verifiable information that can be salvaged and placed into the rewrite. -- Saberwyn 13:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite has now been in articlespace for a while. Thanks for all who contributed. -- saberwyn 07:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Eagle issues
Image:Imperial eagle.jpg has been given a no source tag. The thing is, I can't remember where I first found it. I don't suppose anyone would be able to make a nice, clean new image of the Eagle so everyone can know where it came from? --Paul Soth 04:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the page
I think that, especially since the Warhammer 40,000 RPG has been announced, it would be a good idea to split the Warhammer 40,000 page into one about the setting and one about the game (with the setting page linking to all games set in this universe) - it has been done with Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Ausir 09:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've been posting this opinion elsewhere but i've only just found this note. The talk framework for this project is a little disorganised, don't you think? Sojourner001 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested 40k Article Guidelines
I have:
 * An overall page of general guidelines
 * A list that defines different types of articles on differt subjects
 * For Armies "Army Page"
 * For Technology "Technology Page" (equivalent to "Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment Page", or, "WVE page")
 * For Notable Planets "Notable Planet Page"
 * (User:Pak21 already made guidelines for notable characters, but a link to that is included)


 * A statement of purpose for my guidelines
 * Left room for more guidelines to come

--Nothing offical will be done with the guidelines (moved or put to use) until several Wikipedians involved in the Warhammer 40,000 project have verified it.-- Colonel Marksman's Proposed Guidelines

Colonel Marksman 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Witch Hunters/Battle Sisters
Since no one is touching any of these, and they do appear quite scorned, I'll do this myself. Colonel Marksman 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit of an inquisition fan - do you want me to take a look at these? Rsquire 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

40k Articles: Slann(40k) vs Old Ones(40k)
There are two articles referencing the "old ones" in the 40k setting. Which of these articles is correct? They disagree with each other. It seems that the Slann article is wrong since it is not consistant with the "Slann are not the old ones" precident set by Warhammer Fantasy.
 * I think we can do without the Slann page in 40k. The only thing worth salvaging is the reference to the 4th edition rulebook and the Xenos section, but the image of the lizard creature is clearly labeled "Slanni", and not Loxatl. While the Loxatl might be a hint to the Lizardmen, I think we should leave that trace and let GW make their minds up. I support the petition to merge the pages. --LordXaras 16:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Old Ones. -- saberwyn 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pheonix lords
Just a comment for the phoenix lords page,All exarch armor and that includes the lords is studded with soul stones to capture the soul and turn the suit into a mini infinity circuit as exarchs are considered too far gone in their devotion to war to be allowed to mix with the other eldar souls,this also explains the heightened fighting ability of the exarchs as they have the souls of all previous wearers of the suit with them..this is all from GW codexs and manuals
 * Source? I don't recall reading that ever. --Falcorian (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That actually sounds familiar, is it the last edition of the eldar codex? or the edition before,? not sure? or was that the exarch armour... curse my bad memory Lowris 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, on second thought I do recall the all other souls bit... But I don't recall the too far gone part. No codex near though. --Falcorian (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is indeed mentioned in the old 2nd Edition Codex Eldar (page 82, top of the page). However, Falcorian is correct that there is no mention of the 'too far gone' bit; it doesn't contradict the official backstory (it actually kind of makes sense), but it's not explicitly stated either.  It does state that once the new PL puts on the suit, the personality of the original PL becomes dominant.


 * Actually, on further thought, wasn't there one of those little flavor blurbs where a Warlock takes an Exarch's spirit out of the Infinity Circuit so that he can be placed in command of a Wraithlord? That would seem to disprove the 'too far gone' thing, if I'm remembering it right.  --DarthBinky 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I found it! The current Eldar Codex (published in 1999)- the special character Iyanna Arienal, underneath her rules, has a little flavor text which details the process of pulling a Fire Dragon Exarch out of Iyanden's Infinity Circuit so that he can serve as a Wraithguard.--DarthBinky 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

High Gothic, Low Gothic disambiguation
Hello, I was following some links to find "Low Gothic" in the context of an architectural term e.g. High Gothic is a late form of the Frech Medieval style of cathedral building... I landed on the Warhammer article, so clearly some disambiguation needs to be done. I was going to move the page and make a disambiguation but it strikes me that it would be useful if the Warhammer project guidelines would try to create obviously unique articles where there is a possibility of ambiguity e.g. High Gothic (Warhammer 40,000). I know that you got there first, lol, but it would be helpful if this became a project policy. Anyway, keep up the good work. --Ekilfeather 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd say that doesn't really need to be in the project guidelines as it's existing Wikipedia policy anyway. I'd certainly agree with it. Ummm... not much more I can say, other than feel free to be bold and create the dab page. I don't think anyone around here will object. Cheers --Pak21 15:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I acutally have a related proposal, which is move High/Low gothic to a Languages of the Imperium page. We could then either make High/Low gothic Disam pages, or point them to some, which could link to the Languages page, and anything else. Let me see if I can fing a merge and move tag... ;) --Falcorian (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank Ekilfeather for ponting this out this oversite. I should have tought of doing this when I wrote the low gothic artical. I would also like to put forth my suport for Falcorian's proposal. It would help tidy up the catagory a bit and make unified articals easyer. --Emperors Harbinger 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We're discussing it at Talk:Low Gothic. Seems to bee well supported so far, I might do it tonight if there are no objections. --Falcorian (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Greater Good
Firstly, hello to all tho involved in the 40k project. I'm a long-time wiki reader, 40k player and I write for a living - hopefully I can be of some use.

I've just been adding detail to the (already excellent) Grey Knights page. I do have a question, however. Is it within our remit to talk of the moral dimention in the game-universe? I've read the submission above (qf Please keep note that is 1. An opinion, and 2. It would be much better to state that "nobody is a badguy" etc)

Well, I'm new here, so take this as you will, but I feel that this is a facinating universe and that this wiki would benifit from a short, balanced look at where each faction is coming from morally.

That said, hello again, and please be gentle. Rsquire 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing that has to be remembered with respect to all of this is that contributions to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If there are reliable sources which state the "morality" of each faction, then it's perfectly acceptable to cite those sources in the articles. If it's just an opinion without any references to back it up, then it is known as original research and should not be included on Wikipedia. Cheers --Pak21 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that much is obvious, and I guess we are on shaky ground with such notions. I'll shelve it for now, until I can get an audience with Andy Chambers. Not a good start to a wiki career, eh? Rsquire 13:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked here first rather than just going in and putting lots of stuff into articles which other editors would have to remove. That's much, much better than a lot of editors manage! Cheers --Pak21 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I bid you welcome and agree with Pak21, that was a great start! Just spend some time with your average wiki editors, and afterwards when you read these lines again.. You'll understand :) Take care --Xasf 16:54, 07 July 2006 (GMT+3)

The first thing I'm gonna do proper is sort out the Weapons of the Imperium Wiki - it is a mess and could use a re-write - that will kep me busy - ill pop back here for guidance all the time. Rsquire 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just redone the Adeptes Custodes page - it was quite bad before - and I've tried to stay in formatting guidelines. Please, please have a look at it, and tell me what I can do better, particually with links and the like. Thanks. Rsquire 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)