Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Inclusion Guidelines

Canon Policy
As I stated here I thought GW had made a statement about their own canon hierarchy, but I couldn't find what I remembered. The closest I have is this, taken from the GW message boards:

"I'll just chip in here with what Marc tends to say, paraphrasing from memory ...

The games of Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer are abstract versions of the 'real' world created in order to allow people to play balanced games with toy soldiers for fun or competition. The fiction in our novels and magazines, colourful text added to rulebooks and codexes, are as close to the 'real' worlds as possible with the obvious taint of the narrator's viewpoint.

Tech Priest Ragnar"

Anyway, I still think there might have been a statement, and I'm still looking, but I thought I'd post what I'd come upon so far.

Best of luck! --Falcorian (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sabertooth CCG
Where do we think the Horus Heresy CCG by Sabertooth Games fits into the canonicity hierarchy? (This question is inspired by the "Sisters of Silence" entry on Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), as that's the only source for them as far as I can tell from a quick Google). Cheers --Pak21 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would personally put the Horus Heresy CCG last, as it's a licensed product (I think). However, I would also assume "Right until overruled by higher canon", and so if the cards are the only source, then I guess they're right. Now, worthy of inclusion, that's another matter. --Falcorian (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue of "Horus Heresy"-era information is subject to a fair amount of debate amongst the players and fans I normally associate with. Also, there's a fair amount of associated material based on the game (The "Visions of foo" artbook series springs to mind), but in my mind the game stuff should come first, last, and always. I'd personally put it pretty low, but unitl there's a firm ruling, I'll say "correct unless overruled". In addition, due to the debated nature of the card game's status as canon, until siatements are issued one way or another, I think we should mention within the article (not just the reference section) when the CCG is used as a source. -- Saberwyn 21:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'll add it to the list. Cheers --Pak21 10:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh. You already have. I look like an idiot now :-) --Pak21 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies. :P -- Saberwyn 11:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the Visions of... series be upgraded to level 5 canon - they're background books (yes, they showcase art, but they have a significant amount of background too) published by Black Library, and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be considered alongside such work as Xenology. --Charax 10:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is the background in these books is the same as the background for the CCG, and that (as far as I know) is the bulk of the contention related to the series. -- Saberwyn 11:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not half as much contention as Xenology has. Here's the official line on the canonicity of the HH books.--Charax 11:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a quote from the Sabertooth Forum (Combat Carl, staff member from 21.December.2004) concerning the role of Magnus and the Battle of Prospero: The Story and Art of the Horus Heresy CCG is done by Games Workshop itself, done by the very people who are in charge of shaping the entire IP of Warhammer 40,000. Alan Merrett - principle writer of the story - is in charge of IP development. His position is above that of anyone at the studio. He guides and shapes all facets of the IP to make sure the relic doesn't make space puppy squats, as well as dictating what we can and cannot do, and overall guiding the history and information about the world. John Blanche - principle concept artists for Warhammer 40,000 has done all the concepts for the things we move forward on. In fact it is his art that portrays Magnus. He works closely with Alan and the studio to guide the look and feel of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Non-registered-user: Inquisitor Marc 13 June 2006

Just to add a quote here from the BL forum, straight from Marc Gascoigne:

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40k universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it. Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."

So, as he says, the Sabertooth fluff is just as cannonical as any other background book or codex. It makes me wonder why we actually have a fluff hierarchy, since according to the above, it is all on the same level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.74.228 (talk • contribs).


 * Ummmm... yes. What exactly is the difference between that quote and that given by Charax above and referred to below? --Pak21 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No difference. I thought I would just paste it here for all to see.

Moving up in the world
Per Charax's find above, would anyone object to moving the "Visions Of..." books to point 5, as they are Black Library reference books, and include Horus Heresy CCG in this group by association with the background books? -- Saberwyn 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection. That also seems to answer our Forge World questions. --Falcorian (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?
Given the lack of objections to Saberwyn's proposal, I believe we have consensus here. Any objections? Cheers --Pak21 13:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at this time, but I reserve the right to think of new stuff at a later date. -- Saberwyn 08:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the idea of "most recent information should be assumed to be correct", I find this to be totaly backward in aproch. When reading for content I allways asume that later contredictions are pure propoganda on the part of some 40K agency or other. Most obvious example: Rouge trader days you could feild a pure Adeptus Arbitese force, now...? Well you can fudge it with the Guard but thats it. All in all we nead more work here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emperors Harbinger (talk • contribs).
 * It is standard practice across every fictional universe that I know of that newer material overrides older. What makes you think that Warhammer 40,000 is different? More directly, could you provide a source showing that any GW designers concur with your view? Cheers --Pak21 09:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to back Pak on this. Sure, you can say that half the fluff is propoganda (and it has been said that some of the designers have said so, but never publicly) but then what do we have left to work with? Without a direct statement from someone high up in GW, we should assume it works as normal. --Falcorian (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Space Marine Chapter Gallery
What do we think of the canonicity of the Space Marine Chapter Gallery, or in more general things posted on the GW website but not under 'Chapter Approved' or the like? Cheers --Pak21 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For colourschemes, I'll take the gallery, unless trumped by a 4th edition codex or the 'How to Paint Space Marines' book (released the same time as Codex: Space Marines 4th Ed). Other things on the site... it would depend on what they are. -- Saberwyn 20:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Question re: canonicity
When a conflict does appear, is the policy now to simply gloss the conflict over, assuming that the lower-order canon item simply doesn't exist, or should the conflict (if of interest) be mentioned in the article? --Pariahpress 05:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Judgement call. Don't bother mentioning every single little discrepancy you find, but "big" things should be mentioned (see eg Imperial Fists). Cheers --Pak21 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Love it.  --Pariahpress 04:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

guideline?
There needs to be significant community consensus for this to be a guideline. I'd guess that most of the community isn't interested in Warhammer 40'000, and therefore never saw a reason to read it - much less object to it on its talk page. Guidelines should be more general than this. Fresheneesz 01:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? What harm was it doing to anyone being tagged as a guideline? Cheers --Pak21 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a guideline, as determined by the WikiProject. The fact that it only applies to things from W40K is obvious from its title.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Having guidelines *this* specific bloats the area of guidelines. See WP:CREEP for details. Fresheneesz 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain the presence of (eg) Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene), and many of the other very specific naming convention guidelines. I assume you will be removing the guideline tag from all those articles as well? --Pak21 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, Pak21, I like your change of the guideline tag. Fresheneesz 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pak21 is correct, guidelines can be as specific as we choose. If there's interest, we might be able to generalize this to WH:Fantasy and/or miniature games in general (that's akin to how WP:FICT got started). You have misunderstood both WP:CREEP and the merit of having similar tags on all guidelines.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think i understand it quite well. And I think Pak21's change worked nicely. I won't change it back, but I encourage someone else to. What do you think Pak? Fresheneesz 03:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I put the compromise tag on it as I didn't want to see the "proposed" tag on something which had been debated by everyone who's ever likely to care about it, and wasn't going to get into an edit war over this. The only real problem I see with this being tagged as guideline is that subject-specific guidelines could start to overwhelm Wikipedia guidelines and make finding the more important ones (say, WP:BB) harder in that list. I can see a situation where this is tagged as (say) a Wikipedia Warhammer 40,000 guideline, which is a subcat of Wikipedia subject-specific guidelines, which itself is a sub-cat of Wikipedia guidelines. But that sort of structure needs a wider debate than here... Cheers --Pak21 08:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that this might not scale in the long run - but I suspect that if we get many more of these guidelines, we can merge the lot of them. I'm not overly familiar with wargaming, but wouldn't you say the principle of this rule would apply equally to Warhammer Fantasy? What about Bloodbowl? WP:FICT started out as a guideline on Tolkien characters, until we figured out that the same idea applies to other books.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when did WP:FICT start out as a guideline on Tolkien characters? Did that page get deleted - cause theres no history on that. I suspect it did get deleted because it was too specific - putting undue weight on tolkien over the millions of other authors. Fresheneesz 02:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. No, it didn't get deleted. We just figured out the same applies to other books, and made WP:FICT the result.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

notable characters
Who made this decision? The article implies that this was reached by consensus, yet I see no discussion here. Personally, I don't think having this section in the article is appropriate at all. Saying "notable xxx" is basically just wp-speak for "please don't delete me". If these characters are notable, their articles will reflect that. If they are exceptionally notable that they deserve to be mentioned in discussing the overall universe, then that discussion will contain links to those articles. Saying something is notable doesn't make it so (see WP:PEACOCK), and things that are notable don't need to be called as such. This section should be deleted if nobody finds these characters notable enough to do anything other than print their names on a list. Ham Pastrami 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)