Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 8

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 246 articles are assigned to this project, of which 102, or 41.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup for weapons
A lot of Imperium/Chaos vehicle articles have links to articles which don't exist. I am removing them as I go along, bu there are seriously loads. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful sources
I've been asked to post this source here, as it might prove useful. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's a pretty awesome read. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

One more potential source: http://www.tauonline.org/index.php Tealwisp (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * and another http://www.area52.com.au/index.htm I'll add more as I find them, and these are both useful for almost any army. Tealwisp (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - did you read the source Explodicle linked? It is an article from an established magazine which uses interviews with notable science fiction authors to provide background material on the Games Workshop company. Your links are fan sites dealing with miniature releases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I said potential. The first one hadn't struck me as a fansite, to be honest, but then I don't spend to much time on them.  And yes, I did read the first posted article.  Tealwisp (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Tealwisp (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure a magazine (well-circulated and reliable) qualifies as a reliable source. Any objections? The article(s) in question are proffesional reviews of Dawn of War, which provides notability of the universe, at least, if not the really obscure stuff. Tealwisp (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Too deletionist
How many articles has this project deleted? You're dangerously close to deleting everything about the tabletop game. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Dangerously close" to completion of a proposed cleanup of in-universe cruft originally planned in November of last year (check the archives). I don't consider this to be a bad thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: In particular see the discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 6.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This project doesn't delete articles. The articles in this project get deleted. We can't help that there is very limited coverage of WH 40K sub-topics in independent media. Unless some new secondary sources pop up (like the one above) or the notability guidelines change (not likely), this project (which is now at 140 articles) is liable to drop to 50 or so over time. the same problems exist here as do at most fiction wikiprojects. there is a staggering amount of detail created by Games Workshop and editors who work on 40K articles feel compelled to add a big chunk of it. That results in very large articles (and many of them) which are inaccessible to the general reader. Hopefully one of the reasons this happened was because there wasn't a quality scale for articles. Now that there is, maybe people can try to get articles up to B class or GA class and that might help us out. This may not be possible if too many editors have left the project for the 40K wikia or left altogether. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't. I hope that this project can be revived and we can get some good articles put together on core subjects. Protonk (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I do have to agree, many facets of wikipedia, especially related to fictional settings seem to have come under attack in the last year. The rise of alternative wikis is at least partially related, but for stuff like 40k, it's far bigger in the non-internet world then many other large projects, but it seems to be lumped in with many other setting which have their own well made alternative wikis, which 40k is most definitely lacking at this point. Unfortunately, it's being hit by the same purge as such series as Star Wars and Star Trek, which have well established alternative wikis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Member activity
I'm going to be sending out some messages to see which members of the project are still active and still interested in the project itself. If you don't want to receive one please let me know on my talk page or just post something here. The .txt list I have is from an older parse of the participants list (about 4 days old), so simply removing your name from the list of participants won't mean you don't get the message. If you are still active and interested in the project you can also let me know here and I'll spare you the automated message. the hope is that we end up with a manageable list of project members and not a >1 year old roll call. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
I find it very hard to imagine that any named character or group in this series would not be a usable redirect at the very least, even if the article is not sustainable. . As I do not have the knowledge to improve articles on this subject myself, I have been changing those in danger of deletion into redirects to where seems appropriate. This does not mean that I oppose reverting that, and instead fixing and defending the article, or finding a better redirect or merge. Please fix as needed. DGG (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be sure to remove the project tag from the talk page after you redirect it? I've just got the assessment up and going and I'd like to keep good numbers for the articles.  Thanks for your help. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Standardise format
We ought to set up a standard "template" for articles, in order to aid editors in writing articles. Hopefully we could improve the articles instead of letting them go to deletion. Tealwisp (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You Guys Made Slashdot (And Deletionpedia)
Slashdot has an article about Deletionpedia, mentioning: "Geek lore seems to be a particular target for deletion, with the deleted page of the month a comprehensive guide to 'Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)'.[...]" The weapons article is the article of the month at deletionpedia. Nicely done. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! I wonder how many comments which basically amounted to "Wikipedia is not paper" got modded +5 insightful.  Slashdot is a good sight, but the crowd there tends to have pretty firm opinions about how other people run their businesses. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, Slashdot has been entirely useless since boingboing became popular. Which was what, seven years ago? I am eagerly awaiting the first time that someone links to that article from an AfD though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * didn't take long a userpage, not afd. And I like slashdot's comments more than BB's.  The threading system and moderation works....kind of (as long as you correct for biases in the userbase).  Boingboing just has strict moderation and flat threaded comments. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also made ars. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Warhammer 40,000
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * At the minute there is only one article being included. Why? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like they determined the importance with a page rank style system. The other articles didn't have enough incoming links from other linked articles.  I'm surprised Dawn of War didn't get in. Protonk (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Game in play
Does anyone have a free image of a game in play or an army on a field of terrain? All we seem to use are promo shots and it really limits where they can be placed. I'm stretching FU as it is with the images on the 40K page. I checked Commons but all of that stuff is fanart. Protonk (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It just happens that I recently attempted to do a journalism project on a 40k blackreach event. So yes, I have about 50 pictures, not all good, though, and a lot of them are of the players.  But I do have images, unfortunately, its all imperium and orks, and I think the occasional one of my Tau.  The other obstacle is that I have no idea how to upload images.  Tealwisp (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Upload it at commons. Players standing around a game table would be perfect.  If you have any trouble (or don't want to fuss with it), you can email me and I'll upload them. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, a close up image of a miniature is probably a derivative work and will be deleted. However, a good case can be made that simply having miniatures in the picture doesn't meet that.  In other words, you can pose in front of a statue or next to a figurine you painted and it is harder to claim that is a derivative work. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any pictures of myself, but I have pictures of other people playing, however, I don't know if they want their pictures on wikipedia. I think I might be able to get pictures of myself in a few days, though.  Tealwisp (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Got some off flicker and added them to Warhammer 40,000 and Miniature wargaming. Thanks though. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Space Marine chapter list
I moved the list of Marine chapters to userspace a while ago, and unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to work on it. I am looking for input, though, and I am interested in what everyone else thinks should be noted in the article. Please discuss on the Talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Wikia/wikipedia
As usual in the is not policy page there is an argument about the policies which may be giving wiki focus or just keeping it back. One issue is interwikification. An I think WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 is the best example: I have noticed that WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 pages have little or no links to the warhammer wikia (I was expecting a big navigation bar at the top). Is that done on purpose to boicot the odd policy or a result of the work of red tape loonies? (minor> Why do all pages have warnings?) --Squidonius (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)(I am/was a fan of the game but only a molecular biology editor)
 * Oh, pages in the project space? I don't care either way.  You can add links to warhammer wikis in a tasteful fashion.  On articles the links will have to be remanded to the external links section but they should be there.  As for the warnings, who knows?  Most of them are up there because the articles cover subjects which are unsourced, unsourcable or focused only on in-universe material.  If you don't think a tag applies, just remove it. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a warhammer editor, as all I know is probably really old. I was enquiring as to why there was nothing like this here on the side of the page, but from your reply I gather that it is because nobody has made one, in that case please have this! just add to the top of the page (see template:wh40kwikia for details), feel free to edit it freely or ignore it. --Squidonius (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  23:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)