Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 3

Sons of Medusa
Just a heads-up. I noticed this article when it was linked to on the Warseer forums: Sons of Medusa

I quote. "The following material is not official to any storyline concerning Games Workshop fiction and is intended to be a casual and playable reference to a noted chapter without previous definition."

Hardly encyclopedic then, is it?

LordXaras 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Prodded. Thanks for the pointer. --Pak21 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Add
I'm not sure if its a crying shame or not... but I JUST NOW added Warhammer 40,000 to the list of role-playing games. Why, might I ask, has it been neglected from that list? Fantasy is there, but oh no! Leave out poor 'ol 40,000. Probably hurt its feelings... Colonel Marksman 07:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

wow, cant believe that was never picked up on before lol Lowris 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40k isn't a roleplaying game. That's why. Sojourner001 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Inquisitor is, though. Should we edit the list to reflect that? Shrumster 08:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can Someone Check These Edits?
I posted this on the Blood Angels talk, but in case that gets missed:

Can someone check the edits made my this user? He's been removing information from Blood Angel's Articles, as well as removing two books from the sources, claim it's non-canon. I don't know enough to make a judgment call on it though. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My knowledge does not cover Blood Angels chapter itself, but the books he removed from references are real Black Library publications and should therefore be considered "canon". I'm taking the liberty of reverting his edits and pointing the issue to this discussion; one shouldn't simply discard Black Library (a division of Games Workshop) books without further explanation. Take care --Xasf 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! --Falcorian (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreeing with what's been said, but I would also point out this as well: WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Inclusion Guidelines. The current consensus is that Black Library material is considered canon, except when it contradicts newer material.  Cheers! --DarthBinky 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a note, Dan Abnett's The Horus Heresy makes a few major contradictions to canon (re: The Golden Throne), and Abnett himself has apparently stated he has trouble with canon (and weapon strength). So what is to be done about newer books that seem to contradict every other source, contemporaneous and otherwise? Is there an official BL or GW statement regarding the canonicity of books? MSJapan 06:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. See the 6th post at . Everything is equally canonical. Cheers --Pak21 08:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's agood one, then. In the Horus Heresy trilogy, False Gods spells it "Istvaan", and in the hundred or so pages I've read in Galaxy in Flames so far, we have "Isstvan" (every time, in numerous places).  I know the older codexes use Istvaan, and it appears therefore to be a systematic error in a newer, yet equally canonical book.  Has there been any statement on this by BL or GW as to which is correct, other than "our proofreader is a prat"? MSJapan 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At least according to this thread on Warseer, the first canonical reference is in Realm of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness, which spells it "Isstvan". I further give you "Isstvan" from The Black Library, Games Workshop US and Sabertooth. Equally, I give you "Istvaan" from earlier codexes, Games Workshop UK (also on the Abaddon, Iron Warriors and Raven Guard pages) and Games Workshop US. I think the simple answer would be "they don't have a clue", but that would be original research :-) Cheers --Pak21 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Weapon Notations
While editing some 40k-related articles, I've just realized that I'm confused with how to refer to the weapons. Do we capitalize weapons' names or not? I mean, it seems clear when referring to "named" weapons like the Nova Cannon or Exorcist Launcher, but then we have terms that look (IMO) better in lowercase, such as lascannon, autocannon, missile launcher and heavy bolter. What's the consensus on this? Shrumster 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your take on how it should be, however I don't think we have a standard agreed upon. A good test might to be to flip through some Codexes and the Rulebook to see what they do... I don't have mine with me though so I can't. --Falcorian (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon codex examination...(IG Codex) most lowercase if in middle of sentence. Eviscerator is capitalized in IG codex wargear entry. Demolisher cannon is capitalized, and so is Earthshaker & Inferno, but battle cannon is not. Hunting lance is not. (Codex WH) Neural shredder, executioner pistol, animus speculum and exitus rifle is lowercase. Exorcist launcher capitalized. (Codex SM 4th) Crozius Arcanum is capitalized, force weapon is not.


 * In light of this...weird consistency, I propose that we just follow the conventions in the codices (so far, I haven't found anything conflicting) if there aren't any conflicts in capitalization conventions? Shrumster 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like as good a standard as any, and probably more defensible if asked. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do! I'll just update here if I see any inconsistencies. I'll try to make a guide on the main project page if it's appropriate. Shrumster 08:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Page
I'm doing some major alterations to the page so that it's more structured and user-friendly. Hope you guys don't mind too much. Shrumster 10:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Give it a go! --Falcorian (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Phew, done with some tinkering. Hope you guys find the rearrangement more useful. Shrumster 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
I think that this project finally needs a userbox, so ive created a few designs to see what people thik before i submit on into the userbox lists. Any thoughts? --Chickenfeed9 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to scale them down to sort of "Standard" size? Otherwise they kind of stick out. Not that that's a bad thing... ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I like 'em all. How about different colored ones for army themes? :) Nothing spectacular, just thinking 'nid players might want theirs in purple, red for the BA's/Khornies, green for orks/IG, Yellow for Tau, etc. Shrumster 09:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * sure i'll make some variants, i think i will put the centre one as the generic version though. Some others I could make could be "this user plays as tau/space marines/orks", with it linking back here. What do you think?--Chickenfeed9 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

here is one i just made up, i casn do some for the other armies too. what do you think? --Chickenfeed9 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks cool. Might be good to add a formal "Wikiproject: Warhammer 40k" or something like that to the army affiliation ones, to make them distinct from the usual "I like X" userboxes. But the differing types are very promising as it is. Shrumster 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, slightly improved text, how about this? --Chickenfeed9 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That rocks! What would the captions be for other armies? Lol, "This user spills blood for the blood god! at WP:W40k." :) Shrumster 13:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is a complete list of all the userboxes I have created so far. if there are any I have missed out, just tell me. i plan to do some for the individual armies later on. any thoughts? --Chickenfeed9 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They look excellent! Shrumster 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use images are not allowed in userboxes, so all these will need to go other than the main one, the Tau and Biel-Tan. --Pak21 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok yeah just checked the policy and looks like i will have to change them. If anyone can design a version of the logo themselves like the Tau one, I will happily place it in. Still, I think they look better like this...--Chickenfeed9 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as another note, can we use proper caps in the boxes? It should be "WikiProject: Warhammer 40K", for example. MSJapan 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Tyranid one will have to go as well as anything with pictures of GW minis is actually a fair use image; see commons:Commons:Derivative works --Pak21 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ok updated again. Is that better? --Chickenfeed9 19:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice. MSJapan 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I help?
Hi. I'm still a relatively new member to Wikipedia, and I'm not that confident on the more indepth Wiki use (templates, moves and mergers, etc.), but I'd like to help out where I can. I started playing back in the Rogue Trader days, and although I don't play as much nowadays (more into Blood Bowl, Necromunda and Mordheim) I still follow the game as I enjoy the "fluff". Darkson - BANG! 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure you can help! We can use all the people we can get! A very simple way to contribute is just go about reading 40k articles and making corrections where you see the need (missing periods, misspellings, etc.), or if you feel up to it, you can try to provide citations for material from source books your might have, or expand articles, or write new ones, or whatever! It all helps, and we're more than happy to give you a hand if you need to figure out how to do something. --Falcorian (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to help as well. I play 40k at the moment so I should be of some help. General Aion 22:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
If anyone has a Dark Angels Codex, we could use your assistance on Talk:Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000). Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, we're looking for Codex: Angels of Death. I think it was from the 2nd edition of the game. mattbuck 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
I'm starting to gain a little confidence in my modelling, so, I've got a few pictures and should have some more in the near future.

I have problems posting pictures, though, if I remember correctly, its much easier if its your work. Anyway, here's an example: http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f204/ColonelMarksman/AttackoftheDrones.jpg

I have Battle Sisters, Tyranids, and Tau. Colonel Marksman 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, I love the Drones. The title makes a great parody of Star Wars 3. SanchiTachi 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues
I thought it pertinent, in light of the previous section, to link to Games Workshop's IP statement. We may need to start adding legal disclaimers in the pages. It also offers guidelines on posting pictures of their products i.e. credit Games Workshop. The style of crediting GW is also given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vilamus (talk • contribs).
 * We certainly do not need to start adding that sort of disclaimer. Wikipedia's rules on the use of non-free content are designed to ensure that all media are covered by fair use provisions, so we do not need to do anything else. --Pak21 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for consideration on tyranid article
It has been suggested to add a section to the tyranid article specifically pertaining to strategy. Please comment or add possible content.

It has also been suggested that a section be added on the various methods for building models. An example would be to include a picture of say, a carnifex and list the biomorphs it represents. Please comment or add possible content. Multitallented 03:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as I'd like the idea, there is a direct rule conflicting that, namely that Wikipedia is not a game guide. That's at least to the first part, as for putting the models - well, telling you how to put them together falls under what I just said, but mentioning the different add-ons would be ok. ≈  T he Ha unt ed A n ge l  09:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)]
 * I just looked and I don't think that rule exists. Regardless, a gaming guide would be an instruction manual, not a brief summary of an important topic to "flesh out" the army. Would you want a page on Napoleon that ignores his use of cannons? Or a Centurion page that doesn't mention the Testudo? Or Alexander the Great without any mention of the Phalanx? :) SanchiTachi 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. What if we were able to write a line about strategy and have a link to a page about strategy?Multitallented 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We couldn't really write anything about stragety without defying the above rule, but an external link would be ok; just about. ≈  T he Ha unt ed A n ge l  16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That "rule" goes against the philosophy of Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia that gives information that is publicized and known. Since its a game, it would be inappropriate to put in information that the makers of the game provide. Since most of the books around Warhammer deal with strategy, it is a disserve NOT to put in some mention of it. Therefore, Haunted Angel, you are wrong on this. SanchiTachi 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, putting in information on different strategies you could use is in fact Unencyclopedic. The impression I'm getting is that you want to add different things you can do in a game and such, which is not only POV, but in defiance of that rule. You could just say that the Tyranics "are a combat based army - designed to get close to the enemy in order to do serious damage". Again, you could link to such a thing (possibly, even that could eventually be considered spam and unencyclopedic), but just sitting there giving different strategies is pushing it. ≈  T he Ha unt ed A n ge l  18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is what I am saying: If you can find a quote from a book, and find the same thing repeated in other books, then it MUST be included, regardless of if it deals with tactics or not. Rippers are ment to be used as swarms (hence, they are called swarms) and that has an implied strategy. Fast attack units are ment to be used as fast attack, hence the implied strategy. Heavy weapons are used against heavy units or the like. I don't care what people's opinions are. I care about what the books say. I disagree with a lot of strategies put forth in the books, but that doesn't mean someone else might not want to see the information. But if a vehicle is meant as a transport, I expect it to say "this is a transport" which counts as a strategy. SanchiTachi 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah - I wouldn't quite call that "strategy" per se, but in the way with the transport how you just described it, that'd be ok. Actual strategy however, like tactics, I would have to argue against. ≈  T he Ha unt ed A n ge l  23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But you'd notice that certain armies like Tyranids have different "strategies," i.e. the different variants in broods, such as a "defensive" army or an "offensive" army. Certain creatures are denoted for being more offensive base or defensive base and should be noted as such. Saying "if you face Imperial Guard, make sure to blitz them hard and use grenades" that would be absurd (and thats more tactics). However, people need to understand the object and telling how its intended to be used (with appropriate references of course) is important. Plus, some of the fluff background, like how certain Chapters of Space Marines are skilled in seige or other types of combat,w ould also be necessary. But yeah. SanchiTachi 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah - that, I can agree with you with. ≈  T he Ha unt ed A n ge l  23:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I added in the "tactics" section at the back of the Tyranid Codex. I have not filled in the other information provided by Andy Chambers (with the expansion of the army to include Guards, Ravenors, and the broods system). However, the spot I put in is the most "tactical" based and doesn't deal with opinions. It mostly deals with what kinds of creatures are what. SanchiTachi 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have the Codex, but what worries me here is that this is either going to be either a direct copy (copyvio) or one editor's own views (original research), both of which are serious problems. Cheers --Pak21 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that the original section was two pages long in condensed type and that the one who wrote it was the creator of the Tyranids, it is not directly copied. Why don't you go over and look? Tyranids. BTW, Welcome Back. SanchiTachi 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion shouldn't exist at all. 'Tyranid strategy' is not encyclopedic and is bordering on cruft, and has no place in the article - in fact, that goes for most of the content added since I last saw it. Sojourner001 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Sojourner's standards (basing off of non-official policy, mind you), any history section is fancraft. But wait, its not our job to claim what people would and would not want. Its our job to put forth verifiable information from a reputable source and to make sure not to give it undo weight. Having 7 lines on something that has two dense pages on an army about how they are strategically is definately what a military game page needs, especially to keep it from being in-universe. SanchiTachi 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A Proposed Idea
I propose the following:

There be made a central link between the different Adeptus (Astartes, Custodes, Arbites, etc). To do this, either convert a page already in existance, or make a page to be the central link. So far, we have pages like Custodes seemingly floating out in limbo like all the others, and there is no actual feel that they are, in fact, part of one greater system.

The following should be united in some way:

Inquisition Arbites Custodes Astartes Sororis Mechanicus Titanicus

There are more, I just can't think of them all.

They should all be connected in some way to this: High Lords of Terra When I say connection, I mean more than one word or two.

They should be given a circle of sorts, like a categories, expanded information, explanation filled out on how they fit in, etc. The Imperium page would work as a base. Every Imperial page would need to have a link to the Imperium, the Emperor, and their greater organization (the Adeptus) in the first couple lines.

Other pages should be given similar things, connecting them like a heirarchy chart. So far, many of the pages seem to be so disconnected that you don't realize what is a sub page of another (like Machine God is clearly a sub page cross between Adeptus Mechanicus and Gods of Warhammer (40,000)).

Anyway, I will wait to hear what other people think. SanchiTachi 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno, seems to go against the out-of-universe perspective we've been working towards for the last year or so. Shrumster 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It follows the same pattern as Pokemon, other video games, etc etc. What does that mean? It means that those pages that are viewed as Main Pages follow those guidelines. Main Pages get reviewed heavily by Admin to see if they deserve it. Thus, the Admin feel the same way that I do on the subject. Btw, it is not our place to put -our- perspective on it. We give the facts and organized structure as included in the system itself. Anything else is attributing non attributable information onto it. Thus, you cannot go to the Bible page and say "Jesus is not divine." That would not be Encyclopedic or Wikipedic. Furthermore, anyone who says otherwise I will have a problem with, because not only are they liars, but they don't understand the fundamentals of wikipedia. I will go to admin if the above is edited out or changed, because and goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia. Thanks.


 * Furthermore, its our obligation to unit things by category and genre. Hence we have different subject groupings. Anything against what I said would be directly contradicting some of the basic principles of organization. I do not want this to be a problem, but I will not let people act in the smug way that you are acting in such. This is not your group. This is not your Wikipedia. You do not have the right to change the basic fundamentals of wikipedia. You are attributing -your- perspective that does not qualify as Wiki information, ignoring the information that does, and you are going agains tthe principles of organization. Yes, I am offended by what you said. You are also out of touch with the community, because every Space Marine Chapter has similar organizing parts, as did the Adeptus Mechanicus page and the rest. SanchiTachi 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you and Pak seem unwilling to look at what makes out of universe, I have quoted it for you:


 * "Out-of-universe information needs to be set in the context of the original fiction. Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'."


 * Using fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research." WP:WAF


 * Also: "Infoboxes, usually placed in the upper-right portion of an article, give key data about the article's subject in tabular format. For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. Where facts change at different points in a story or series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance." WP:WAF


 * Now please apologize for misrepresenting Wikipedia. Thank you. SanchiTachi 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)