Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 4

Images
I have realised that there are a huge number of images being used on the Warhammer 40,000 articles that are used under fair use rules. However, they do not generally have fair use rational behind them. We really need to go through each article and add the rational in the form of a comment as shown on the fair use page. -Localzuk (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, I will create Category:Warhammer 40,000 images for all the images used on 40k pages to allow us to keep track of this sort of thing unless anyone objects. I think I've got most of the images on my watchlist already, but other people having a look after I've been through is probably a good idea. Cheers --Pak21 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea to create such a cat on the commons as well... We've had some violations there as well. --Falcorian (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean like commons:Category:Warhammer 40,000? :-) --Pak21 14:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean like... Yes... Like that. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Warhammer 40,000 images created and populated. Cheers --Pak21 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice. So I guess the next step is to pull our the boarder-line cases and discuss them... Maybe when I get home, but no promises. --Falcorian (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Pak21/Warhammer 40,000 images is my first attempt to at least classify all the images into their "type". Any help always welcome. Cheers --Pak21 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now updated; I've bolded all the entries which I think have problems. Virtually nothing has the rationale on the page(s) the image is used on, but that can be somewhat of a mechanical thing once we've got the rest sorted out. Cheers --Pak21 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As people may notice from the watchlist noise, I've just gone through and added a pointer to the rationale for all the miniature images we've borrowed from the GW site. If anybody else ever wants to do any of this, you may find User:Pak21/Rationale useful. Just use

IMAGENAME
 * (don't forget the "subst:") and the pointer to the rationale will magically appear. Cheers --Pak21 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rationale for chapter logos etc
A proposed fair use rationale for most of the Chapter (etc) logos we're using:


 * == Fair use for CHAPTER NAME ==
 * This image, CHAPTER NAME.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * it is the official logo of the organization
 * it is a low-resolution image and cannot be used to make illegal reproductions of Games Workshop material
 * it does not affect the ability of Games Workshop to market their products in any way.

If that sounds reasonable to everybody, I'll add it onto the chapter logo pages sometime when I have slightly more free time than I have now... Cheers --Pak21 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All done, except Image:RavenGuard.gif and Image:Tauseal.jpg which had no source information and are now tagged as such. Cheers --Pak21 09:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean Vector Logos?
I've noticed that in a number of the Star Wars articles (such as Galactic Empire (Star Wars)), user-made vector images of the various faction logos are used. Rather then using some of the blurry, second-hand images for logos in our articles, would someone be willing to make clean, crisp versions for us? --Paul Soth 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly skilled with FreeHand and would be happy to help out in this regard Schoon 20:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Strategy and appeal to players
Howdo. Back in November / December 2006, I posted these comments on the talk page of the Armies & Species Guidelines. As there was no response either way, but especially in light of the above Tyranid comments, I thought I'd post here. I'm firmly against any discussion of strategy or appeal to players being on any 40K article at all, but I hope to include examples of discussions from both sides below to generate some more debate. Obviously, the comments below are already coloured by my declared stance.

Strategy
Just to confirm, I have read the additions made to the Tyranid article and the above auggestions a few times. As an aside, the section is drawn from a publication relating to 40K second edition and a long out-of-date army list.

Please read point 4 (Instruction manuals) under WP:NOT.

See also this discussion on the Games project's talk page.

See also this guideline on the Board and table games project's main page. Here, they seem to be allowing discussion on strategy if it appears published in the games own rules (which is what has been followed in the Tyranids article).

I think for games which are very regimented (see chess strategy - pre-planned grid restricts movement to specific areas, rules have not changes since Adam was a lad) or are notable for their strategic complexity, strategy should be included in articles. Especially, as in the case of chess, there are libraries full of independent strategy publications which make the same comments. For something like 40K which includes the element of chance (dice) and for which every battlefield and mission presents new complexities making every game completely different, any discussion on strategy can only be either too vague to be worth the effort or end up being a detailed account of the abilities of each unit which should not be on Wikipedia.

Even where strategy notes are from a verifiable source, they are always going to be the personal opinion of the original author. We can't present them as facts just because they're in print.

I disagree with the view that, just because something's been printed it should be in Wikipedia. I disagree with including anything that tells a reader, "Heavy weapons are used against heavy targets". If I want to sprint my lascannon-sporting Devastators up the length of the board to assault a Hive Tyrant without firing a shot, I don't want Wikipedia telling me that is or isn't strategically sound. Besides, they might win!

I realise I've probably not articulated why strategy for 40K shouldn't be included very well. It just. . . feels so wrong.

Appeal to players
As in my original comments, this is always going to be either personal opinion or copied verbatim from the section of the same name in some codexes (in which case, we'd need to say "Games Workshop feels x appeals to players because . . . ". Until, say, independent research is published as to why fans of certain armies actually like them, how on earth can we say why something might appeal to someone.

For example, one of us might put on the Space Marine article, "They appeal to players because a relatively smaller number are required, making an army more affordable." Someone else might say, "I don't two give two hoots about how much they cost, I like them because they're strong and tough. I resent you assuming I'm so tight I only like them because they're cheap." Then it devolves into original research as editors on Wikipedia come to a consensus. I've really exaggerated things, but you get the idea.

Anyway that's me on these two. Opinions sought. Discussion encouraged. Abuse, insults and agression welcome on my user talk page. - Heavens To Betsy 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strategy: I agree with almost all your analysis, principally derived from "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual". The articles should be written for the general reader who knows next to nothing about 40K, and they simply aren't interested in any specific tactical points. That said, a sentence or two from a reliable source giving an overall feel for how an army plays, for examply that Eldar generally use hit-and-run tactics whereas the IG will just sit there and pound you may be appropriate to give the reader a feel for a difference between the armies in the game. I guess the distinction I'm making here is between short-term tactics and longer term strategy.


 * Appeal to players: As you say, any player opinions are original research, and quoting stuff from Codexes is going to be a problem, either on copyvio grounds (if it's very close to the original), or original research grounds (if it's not).


 * To me, both these issue stem from the same "problem": there is essentially no independently published material on 40K, which makes it very hard to write a verifiable article. We have the Codexes, which are all well and good but definitely primary sources, White Dwarf, which is pretty much also a primary source, and zillions of forum posts, which aren't reliable. Is there a solution to this? I don't know... Cheers --Pak21 13:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm responding down here behind Pak, because I don't want to respond above until Heavens to Betsy gets a chance to sign the above entry, but I will move this up when done (plus, I'm responding in spirit to what Pak brings up). Please check out the Tyranids page. I originaly put in the section after many people kept throwing in random bits unsourced across the page and seemed to want such a section in. I used the Tyranids book to attempt a happy medium. On further review, I decided to cut down the sections and make them more condensed. Would that page's strategy section serve as an appropriate example on how to approach such a matter or not? SanchiTachi 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not entirely sure what you expect me to sign. My edit ran from "Howdo. Back in November . . . " to " . . . agression welcome on my user talk page", and I signed this edit on the 2nd of May, as you can see. I've looked at the changes you made to the Tyranids article on the 8th of May. Everything which aggrieved me about the section is still there and I'm struggling to see the point in it, but my comments above were not specific to that article. I was soliciting opinion on 40K articles in general, none of which I believe should discuss tactics, strategy or potential appeal to customers / players, even if that discussion was eventually made readable, relevant and worthwhile. - Heavens To Betsy 09:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Moved Survey Discussion
(The discussion was originally Here. The discussion has changed and was edited based on a wiki rule and given explanation below. If you want to see it, its still in the history, but is no longer necessary. SanchiTachi 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)) The previous discussion can be found here BT Discussion. They are no longer included here because of the movement of the debate/combination of the two separate issues.

I archived the rest of this into the above subpage. I wanted to put forth that I feel that I care more about working on a few Wikipages that need attention more than I wish to fight over what the definition/common spelling of words are. It doesn't matter about "winning" or the like, and I am not here to win. However, my time is precious and frustration is not something that is good, so I will step back and say that I will have nothing to do with any more arguments on this subject matter, and I will not pay attention to spelling edits one way or another, regardless of who, what, where, when, or why. This has been frustrating for me, so I believe it has been frustrating for any others who participated. So I apologize for any frustration that this was caused, and that I should have ceded before I even bothered to say anything. Spelling is a very silly thing, but silly things cause people to do silly things. SanchiTachi 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Library and Books
I was wondering if we could do a central page to list all the books and give a tiny (50 word for books with a page, 150 for books without a page) summary of them with appropriate information and links to appropriate pages (armies/groups in the book, characters, etc) and organized by date (and possible "game" edition). I could not find such a page, but I think it would be appropriate. It would also give tiny books a place to be talked about. Also, a list of the Codexes should be at the bottom. I think the catagories should be books by which edition/time (so the four big time periods, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th) and then one last catagory for Codexes. Perhaps also a mention of White Dwarf (a summary of what it is) and any other supplimental books one could think of, such as the alternate games in the same universe - space hulk, epic, etc). If they are linked at the top of the different pages (i.e Black Templars page would have a link to Black Templars codex on the page I propose) then it would definately stop any questions about it being too "in-universe." I think its a win win, but I say this because it would be taking the reference page that we have and expand it (and possibly merge some tiny articles into it, like the Horus Heresy page). It would also minimize the amount given to certain books/fluff in pages. But yeah, I'm rambling now. SanchiTachi 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's what you meant, but there's already a Codex page.
 * Or have I completely misunderstood? Darkson - BANG! 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be merged into the above. Plus, see how tiny they are? There should be a list of at least the contents, or a description about what makes them different than other editions. Plus, it would need to have all the old ones too, so people can see what is what. The page would be big. Maybe expand the Codex to the above specifications and have a reference to it (main article here), and of course link both pages (codex and novel page) at the top of each Warhammer 40,000 link. Effectively, there should be at least four wikilinks at the introduction of each page (the Warhammer 40k page, the codex/rulebooks page if separate, the timeline/history page, and the novels/other books page, if separate from the Codex). SanchiTachi 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and useful, especially for the novels. Shrumster 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Remember the Following
Our duty here is to put forth verifiable information. This is not canon, nor does it have anything to do with canon. This means that information from editions 1-4 is the same as each other. If you want to mark which information comes from which edition, good, because that would make it seem less in world. However, it is not our duty to remove information because it isn't "current." If any information is appropriately sourced, please keep it. If you cannot find a source for a piece of information, please ask for one. If you want to add information, please only do so with a source. That applies to talk pages also, because the same rule applies in both.

Games Workshop books are a credible source. Yes, they conflict with each other, but it is not our job to rationalize that, but only our job to put different points of view. This includes White Dwarf information and Black Library information. Yes, they all count as independent sources dealing with the same topic. Why? Because they aren't colluded together and many of them do things on their own or have their own take on an issue. They just happen to have the same publisher, and the publisher doesn't really care as much about unity as they do about money. If you can put further outside sources, such as newspapers or other published material (books not published by GW, or magazines that mention GW), then that would be very helpful.

I mention all of this because it seems that many are wanting to forget these vital pieces of information. It is not our duty to come up with our own terms or to try to synthesize material. That is not verifiable and its personal research. Yes, that applies to the use of the word variant. If you want to mention variant, it better be used in the way that GW uses it, same with chapter, clan, etc. They used specific terms for a reason. Wiki is not here to try and "improve" on it. SanchiTachi 04:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. "Variant" is a word with a general meaning in English; it does not have to be used in exactly the sense that GW use it in publications in order for this not to be original research. --Pak21 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the word Codex should be used any way you want. As with Army. As with any of the other terms. But wait, that would violate No Original Research and No Point of View. Its once thing to claim that you can use the word Variant, its another to claim that such a word would be used to title a catalog/citation of different groups together. Any clumping together of different armies or groups not labeled in the way GW has labeled them is Original Research.
 * "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." What Wiki is Not
 * Notice the "defining terms" counting as original research. Thanks. SanchiTachi 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SanchiTachi, you can't apply one policy and ignore the others when it suits you. GW in fact does have particular guidelines (which change from edition to edition), and the whole point of an encyclopedia is to synthesize material (as opposed to reprinting source material).  I would also state that your usage seems to be the one defining new terms.  The only way to resolve the issue would be to have separate sections for every edition, and talk about every book within that edition. MSJapan 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have proposed that idea. I stand by putting what editions say what on the topic and keeping the older information. But the only use of the word variant was the way I quoted it from the Witch Hunters and the Daemonhunters book. They call them variant armies rather blatantly. To ignore that is to say that the word "variant" is used from the dictionary, which means any under such a section is original research. SanchiTachi 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that using the dictionary to define a term is common sense and not original research. To seperate things out into different editions would lead to poorly structured, overly verbose and repetitive articles. Using the dictionary as the definition of 'variant' is simply common sense.-Localzuk(talk) 15:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not put up evidence from Wiki to contradict me, thus, I must say that your assumption is original research and does not apply. The Dictionary is not a credible source for defining subcatagories/listings of Armies in Games Workshop based games. The dictionary can only tell you what a variant is, but not how to apply it. Furthermore, if we use the Dictionary's term, Black Templars stays in as a variant, which makes your whole argument moot.
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/variant
 * Now if we use the dictionary's definition, Tau can come in as variants for Space Marines or Tyranids as variants of Eldar, because you have made the definition so imprecise that you cannot rightfully deny such. Thus, your use of "common sense" is inprecise. SanchiTachi 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What are we arguing about, exactly? The deinition of "variant?"  I agree with SanchiTachi's top paragraph that material derived from older sources is equally valid as newer material.  Where contraditions are noteworthy, they should be mentioned in the article.  I do not think that we should have seperate articles for "1st edition Ultra-Marines" vs. "2nd edition Ultramarines" an such, though.  --Pariah Press 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Characters
Can we start including, at the end, of any character entry in the Army Pages a note if there was a model released (what year/years if they updated the model) and what rule books (all that include the model) where the character can be found. If the character is from a book, please note the books (or the series of books if it is only a summary page and note all of the books on the larger entry page). I'm going to go through a few when I can. I believe it will help distinguish between what characters are what/from what. SanchiTachi 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. This isn't a 40K-wiki. Things like listing every special character, sources for rules, dates of miniatures, etc., shouldn't be on what you call the Army Pages, in my opinion. I think this might be an idea for the character's own page, when describing that character's real world development in the game. This also goes for, for example, listing biomorphs from Codex: Tyranids; this encyclopaedia is not here to list a book's contents. We should not be providing detailed information for people who want to know what a book says without reading it themselves. We're not a gaming resource. Apologies for going off your original topic slightly. - Heavens To Betsy 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, by not putting in the above information then you are not showing why the character is notable or giving the appropriate real world details which is required in Wiki Fantasy Pages. You should be putting in where the book is from. I only put the above as a reminder, not as a suggestion. Biomorphs are noteworthy, since they not only been in three codexes and dozens of White Dwarfs, but also used in many books. SanchiTachi 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, character entries should include models released not at the end, but integrated into the main text. If we're to approach this from an out-of-universe perspective, we don't really care if Abaddon was Horus' second-in command-turned-warmaster-black crusader-whatever. What we want to focus on is that he's a special character for a particular army, and a metal miniature for him was released in xxxx, designed by xxx, etc. Just an example. Shrumster 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we have to realize that many of the characters also have books or storylines around them, which would need to be added (see the above quote about how to dance around the Out of Universe and talking about Fantasy). As long as we minimalize it (one paragraph for an army entry, maybe three or four in their bigger grouping, i.e. the page on the novel) and make blatant that the character is in this book and that book, or that there is this model or that model, then you effectively removed it. In Universe is a phenomena created as a whole when the section lacks any of this. Putting 1 Out of Universe line per every "in" line allows you to effectively remove In Universe. We just have to make it unmistakable that the characters are from a game/book/etc. SanchiTachi 15:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to Chaos
Someone needs to update the Chaos Space Marines to standards of the other armies of Warhammer 40,000. It can't be me, because I know almost jack squat. Just wanted to bring this to special attention. Colonel Marksman 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming Dispute
You may be interested in helping resolve a dispute on List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels, namely "What should this article be titled?". It was originally created at Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000), which was felt by some to be not appropriate, and it should be Warhammer 40,000 (comics) or similar. The discussion is hot and heavy, and I do appologize for that, but I think it's of interest to this project. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add that the above is a representative from the comics wikiproject, who wishes to adopt it as part of their grouping. SanchiTachi 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to 'adopt' it to 'my' grouping, I think that as a comic AND a game, it deserves representation of both projects. :) I believe in working together to make a better, more consistent, set of articles regardless of the project. But. Yes. I am in the comics proj, I do think the name would be better served as Warhammer 40,000 (comics), and I feel both our projects can work together in harmony. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The title Comics is misleading, because the page does not emphasize comics. Miniatures would be just as necessary to describe the topic if you follow the way you suggest. SanchiTachi 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm trying to move things forward to come to a solution which would allow the entry to be reopened and your input and ideas are important to finding an answer that is workable. (Emperor 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Banner wording
Having seen Sanchi getting in a tiss about WikiComics getting involved in his latest page, I've come to realise that the wording on the banner can be taking as slightly misleading, especially to new Wiki editors:

This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Warhammer 40,000. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page , or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

The sentence I've bolded can be read as "don't edit the page unless you're a project memeber". now, I know that's not what it's meant as, but perhaps a slight rewording? (And I've no idea if that's a stock project wwording, so if it is, ignore this one). Darkson - BANG! 22:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it a tiff? And Darkson, does this mean that you are back? :) SanchiTachi 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's slang, though it's tizz, not tiss (never written it before): http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tizz number 3, though if you want to admit to 1 or 2, that's your perogative. ;)
 * And no, but I'm still working on 40K pages where I want to. Darkson - BANG! 23:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG barf. See, I thought you said Tiff because it means "a slight or petty quarrel", emphasizing the petty part. Meh. SanchiTachi 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Spot checking some other wikiprojects, it does not appear to be a stock wwording, Darkson. Check out WP Dir Games for some examples if you're looking for rewording. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BL Type Stuff
Hey, I'm not sure where to ask this but I'll place it here since you guys probably know the most about 40k goings-on on wikipedia. But I'm sure there used to be a set of articles for the Ravenor and Eisenhorn trilogys with the plot details and characters? I can't seem to find them, or their deletion log and they don't seem to have been merged into the relevant articles.

Just wondering because I got Ravenor Rogue a few weeks ago, and haven't started reading it because I can't remember exactly what happened in Ravenor Returned. ≈  Maurauth  ( nemesis ) 09:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The entries you are looking for are Gregor Eisenhorn and Gideon Ravenor. The author's page links through to them if you need to track them down again: Dan Abnett. (Emperor 13:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC))