Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add secondary sources to as many articles as possible to satisfy the notability guideline
  • Transwiki and/or upmerge articles for which no secondary sources can be found.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] Warhammer Portal

I have created a Warhammer Portal, any help or expertise you can offer would be of great help. If you are unfamiliar with the portal format, Just tell me and I'll make the edits. Regards, Dfrg.msc 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal is finished. Dfrg.msc 06:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe and plagiarism

I was browsing various articles about 40k and noticed a large number of in-universe tags. I could not understand why, then I reached The Lost and the Damned. Note, please:

Chaos Space Marines lead them into battle, and accompanied by the monstrous Defiler, the Lost and the Damned are a deadly foe to face, particularly when the Aspiring Champions may also call upon Daemons from the warp to do their bidding.

Now come on guys, that syntax and verbosity has got to be copied from Codex:LATD, White Dwarf or similar. Given that the background material is written in-universe, this is probably a BAD place to copy from, even if it was referenced to comply with US and UK copyright law, which is ISN'T. Jeez. Editus Reloaded 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many images possibly liable for deletion

From a couple of discussions I've been having, it appears to be the case that the consensus on Wikipedia is that commercial photographs of miniatures are considered to be "replaceable" by free photographs of miniatures, even though the image itself is still subject to copyright due to be a derivative work of the miniature. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it does appear to be the consensus. This could obviously have some fairly serious consequences for the images we're using on 40K pages if it were enforced. Just a heads up. Cheers --Pak21 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

'Breaks out the camera' --Falcorian (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the problem? The Games-Workshop has no problem whit pics of mins any wher on the web. see www.games-workshop.com for details ~LG~

Pointing people to a whole website is not helpful. If there is a particular page you feel is relevant, link to that. You're also missing the core point: this isn't about a problem with photographs of miniatures (which GW has no realistic right to complain about), this is about using GW's (or others) photographs. Wikipedia needs to as cautious as possible about copyright. Some editors may go a little too far in their caution, but this is a situation where the images are trivial to reproduce; as Falcorian notes get out your figs and start taking photos! — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, thats quite wrong. Taking pictures puts it under 2d picture of a 3d picture, which you need permission from the artistic owner, because you do not actually own the rights to the image. However, the photos from the GW online store are publicity, which are freely distributed and fall under fair use without any problem at all (we would actually contribute to GW gaining money, as oppose to them losing money). So it doesn't take much sense to realize that the Admin going around claiming that "free use" pictures should be put in place has no clue about the law or background of fair use.
(Someone pointed me to this case on IRC - I thought I'd leave some notes)
I'm afraid that there basically can't be "free photographs" of the miniatures; you can license away your portion of the rights (the artistic creativity in the photography, or the painting and assembly were appropriate), but there's an underlying copyright in the miniature itself which you can't put under a free license. This sucks, I know, but it's life. There's a good discussion of the whole "derivative works" issue at commons:Derivative works, and I commend it to you:
Both are copyrighted, in both cases, the copyright of the photograph does not void the original copyright, and in both cases you will need the permission of the original creator. You cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can't upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures.
So what can a project like this do? That's a problem. Under a "free content only" rule, these topics simply can't be illustrated - at least, not without roundabout methods like "and here's a photo of the guy who designed them". This is the sort of reason we allow some unfree content.
I mentioned above the multiple "layers" of copyright - the rights in the miniature, the rights in its manifestation (painting etc), the rights in the photograph. The reason that we prefer "self-taken" photos to "officially sourced" ones, even of unfree material, is simply that whilst we can claim fair use regarding the underlying artistic work (the miniature) it's a lot less reasonable to claim fair use regarding the image - there's no particular reason to ignore the photographer's copyrights when we can replace it with one where we know as many of the "layers" as possible are clean. Does that make sense? Shimgray | talk | 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yay. Image:Kal Jericho.jpg and Image:Tanith-ghosts-blist.gif were kept, while Image:Leonatos.jpg and (earlier) Image:Necronimmortals.jpg were deleted. I love consistency. --Pak21 18:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, what's the deal with WP? Just logged on after a long wikibreak and I find that all the Warhammer 40,000 images I uploaded myself (taken by myself and in many cases, painted by myself or my friends) were deleted. What in the world is happening with WP? User:Shrumster/Gallery_of_Contributions I mean, since the rights to the minis are owned by GW, it is theoretically impossible to have "non-free" pics of *any* GW mini. Even representations and drawings of them are technically copyright GW. So how the hell are we to deal with this? Shrumster 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, the pics are still there. It was just the links from my gallery that were taken down. WP is funny. Shrumster 10:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As you may have discovered by now, non-free images may not be used outside articles as they then don't meet the non-free content criteria. Cheers --Pak21 11:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol, yeah. I just changed the thumbs in my gallery to links. :P Shrumster 11:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joining up?

I'm not sure how necessary it is to ask to join the project, but I'd like to if no one minds. I've only been playing 40k for a couple years (played WFB for a while before switching) but I know a fair bit about the game and the 'fluff' behind it. I joined in the debate about the RfD for the Chaos marines (albiet a bit late, I think), and would like to get involved in cleaning it up. Agharo 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a very strict policy about joining the project, and it can't be deviated from. Here it is:
  • Put your name on the list
  • Edit some articles if you kind of sort of maybe feel like it
If you think you can follow those steps (to the letter!) then you can join. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Gee, that sounds like a lot of responsibility... heh. Will do. Agharo 01:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the list mentioned above to add my name. I'm new to wiki-contribution, but I have 15 years of WH40K experience and would love to contribute. Jabbakahut (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Warhammer_40%2C000#Participants Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 24.118.153.134, New Editor or Vandal?

An IP user has been going around making edits to 40k articles. I can't tell if he's adding somewhat random nonsense, or is geniunly trying to give a hand. If someone else could look over his Contributions, it'd be great! --Falcorian (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a handful of this user's edits. The user possibly means well (i.e., the user may not be an intentional vandal), but has very little command of the English language. What results from the edits I saw reads worse than the articles read before the edits. Where this user changes facts, the user does not cite sources (although the original content is usually unsourced as well), so one cannot say whether this user's edits are factually correct. I am not going to spend more time looking at this user's edits, but they all should be carefully examined by those who know the subject matter and corrected or reverted. Finell (Talk) 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I *think* he's just trying to change the wording to explain things, but as Finell pointed out he seems to have a limited grasp on the English language. It doesn't look like he's trying to vandalize the pages, though.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Agharo (talk • contribs)
Although one or two don't look like he has access to the rulebooks either (check the scout edit that I've reverted) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Check his talk page - I'd say vandal, and any contributions should be watched. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 09:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Crusade

Would somebody take a look at this article and make whatever changes are needed? In particular are the in-universe tone an the lack of sources. 24.4.253.249 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The Horus Heresy Books need covers adding, and I don't know how to do it. Thank You. 84.66.115.236 18:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leman Russ Plagiarism

From Talk:Leman Russ

Much of the content here has been plagiarised from Imperial Armour, most notably the description of the Tank Destroyer. RfD in-deed. 219.90.242.95 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have my book with me, but I'll put a post on the project page and someone will check it. --Falcorian (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the entries for the Destroyer Tank Hunter and the Thunderer were copied word-for-word from the 1st Imperial Armour book. Properly fixed and rewritten. Shrumster 01:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar WikiProjects

I'd argue against some of these recently added projects being "similar". Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If any, WikiProject Warmachine or WikiProject Clix would make more sense as "simialr" projects. Shrumster 12:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency issues

I've been looking through some Horus Heresy-related articles (and Chaos Legions) curious about the source of the corruption and noticed they seem to be inconsistent on the start of the corruption. There's only one article linking to Kor Phaeron, who seems to be the initiator of the whole corruption (but the article itself doesn't describe where and when he was corrupted himself). The Horus Heresy article itself is a mess. I suggest some people who're lore-buffs should track all articles and improve articles. Syrion 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article help

I've just joined up, and have begun writing an article to expand Tau (Warhammer 40,000). It is called Vehicles of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000). Unfortunately I do not own a copy of IA3 (Taros Campaign), and so can't find much info on Tetras, the Manta etc. Anyone who does, could you have a look at the article and add something, thanks. Puretide 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of the category attribute

The category attribute was recently removed from Template:Warhammer 40,000 with the justification that, per WP:SUBCAT, we shouldn't be including every page with the 40k template in the main 40k category because they belong in subcategories.

This seems extremely silly to me. If too many articles are in the main 40k category, then too many articles are using the 40k template. The example given was Night Lords, who are in Category:Chaos Space Marine Legions. But why are they using the 40k template in the first place? They're not mentioned on it, nor are they even on the same order of magnitude of importance to the project as a whole as the things that are.

To me, the solution is to create templates to occupy lesser articles, which themselves will include the appropriate categories in attributes. For instance, the Night Lords could use a theoretical Template: Chaos Space Marine Legions, which would include all the appropriate higher categories.

Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling variants; and the discussion thereof.

After reverting more than a few well-meaning attempts by (unfortunately anonymous) users, can I please suggest we all agree on a spelling variant - and that spelling variant is English. The *English* English, or British English if you want to get all proper about it. So colour instead of color, etc.

The reason for this? Look at what the Warhammer 40,000 products themselves use. They use British spelling variants, because they're all written and printed in Britain. So can we please put an end to useless minor edits to "correct" spelling. More revisions means more database space, means more servers required, means more load, means more bandwidth costs, etc etc.

Please use British spelling variants. Thankyou very much. Discussion welcomed.The Great Unwashed 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any serious disagreement amongst the project members about the use of British English. However, they're not the people making these changes, so discussing it here isn't really much use... (You may also like to look at eg the Armored Company Army List to note that GW do localise (or should that be "localize"? :-) ) their materials when they can). Cheers --Pak21 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm prone to believing that GW would only bother localising names if they thought they'd have a better chance of trademarking the alternative spelling, such is their record. But yeah, BrE unless there's a specific reason not to is the way to go, not least because things like "power armour" are actually trademarks so should be spelled as given. Chris Cunningham 10:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I'm not exactly saying it's high-priority or anything, and I noted above that it's mostly anonymous users doing these changes. Just annoyed me a whole lot, y'see. Carry on, I guess. The Great Unwashed 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent vandalism by IP 68.3.248.160

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.3.248.160

If you look at the contributions, they are all pimping a particular online store. Can we do something to get this person blocked? I just reverted another one on the Space Marines article. Cheers. The Great Unwashed 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

They certainly won't be blocked until they've been warned that their actions are inappropriate. I've put a first level warning on; if they continue, feel free to step up through the {{uw-spam1}} series. Cheers --Pak21 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, he just continued then - onto the Warhammer 40,000 article and then to the Tyranids article. What more do we need? I've never asked that anyone be banned before, so I'm not sure of the process, but I'd think a history of linkspam is pretty solid evidence. The Great Unwashed 09:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, no-one will be blocked unless they've had a 4th level warning. Yeah, it means reverting a few bits of vandalism, but remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. As a vague aside, the same user seems to be back as Count4071... Cheers --Pak21 10:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whole lotta Codex images up for deletion

Hi all - my watchlist is screeching at me that Witch Hunters, Daemonhunters, Tau, Orks and Eldar Codex images are up for deletion under WP:NONFREE. As far as I can tell they meet all the nonfree criteria. What do we need to do to stop them being removed? They are an important part of any article on these races.The Great Unwashed 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At a guess, the rationale doesn't specify which article it applies to. --Pak21 07:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC at Talk:Games Workshop

Hi I've opened an RFC at Talk:Games Workshop#Request for Comment. In July 2007 I removed this section from Games Workshop. A few days ago, and 4 months after the deletion, User:RichSatan said I "broke policy and community tradition" by removing it[1]. At 06:20 (UTC) on November 4th 2007 RichSatan reinserted the majority of the removed text. In my view it violates WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I've opened the request for comment has been opened to ask the wider community for input on whether this material should be abides by site-policy and if it should be kept or removed?--Cailil talk 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub articles must assert their own real world notability

Now that this is policy... I think most of the scope of our project should (by a WP definition) be deleted...

How do we prevent this? The first article seems to be Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but if someone were to nominate Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) tomorrow on the grounds that there are no 3rd party sources, what then? To me, it seems that very few, if any, of the articles covered by this project could meet such a criteria. --Falcorian (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline rather than policy as far as I'm aware, but that doesn't really affect the problem :-( --Pak21 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Really tired from dealing with these wikipedians. AGF and CIVIL aside, they can go screw themselves for all I care. Shrumster 10:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
They have a fair point IMO. Most of this stuff is completely irrlevant to a person who is not a fan of the game. Personally I think the project scope might be better suited to a dedicated wiki. XJDenton 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You are going to hit things like WP:FICT and the thing I try and aim for is real world impact which can include interviews and reviews. I've been working on articles like Damnation Crusade and while it needs expanding I have assembled enough material to cover the real world aspect. So anything that helps avoid making the article a rehash of the WP:PLOT which can raise all sorts of concerns. Also try and find some independent database - I had a look at this (which has been handy for other things) but coverage is thin - still keep an eye out for things like that. There are also various magazines out there which much have features, reviews, etc. and also try and track down mainstream media mentions. It isn't an impossible task and will help produce more solid and well rounded articles that are deletion-proof so everyone wins in the end. The first step is to identify the good and useful general sources of information and then mine them heavily. (Emperor 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
Comic books, novels, computer games, the actual games themselves and things like that should have problems with third party sources, because someone, somewhere has reviewed them or written an article on them. The problem comes when you look at the characters, organizations, and events that we have articles on. With rare exception, I doubt a single one has third party sources that pass WP:S. --Falcorian (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There are specialist gaming magazines and sites and it should be possible to find something. That said it may be that some merges (into lists of characters, races, locations, etc.) and/or transwiking might have to be done. I think the important thing (which you are doing) is to pre-empt any attempts to remove these articles (rather than just admit defeat) so that we can make sure we have sources in place which means the bulk of problems can be avoided. (Emperor 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
For what it's worth, I'm all for a purge of this project's in-universe stuff. It belongs on a dedicated 40k wiki (of which there are good half-dozen now), and we shouldn't be trying to come up with excuses to keep articles on subjects which have essentially zero relevance outside of the game background. Would that all WikiProjects dealing primarily with fictional content had this ethic. Chris Cunningham 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Going off what Denton said, I could care less about half the stuff on this site, including most of the featured articles. This stuff matters to someone, otherwise they would take the time and effort to make it...Sirkad 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the most important articles *might* be saved by linking them with real-world things like Dawn of War, which has game reviews and things from THQ, and so on. Alternatively, we could just try to consolidate them into their parent articles, and see what comes up. Going to another wiki, though, seems like a bad idea to me. For every stable wiki there is out there, several dozen crash and burn. Agharo 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I no longer have the willpower to bother fighting it. There seem to be more Wikilawyers running around making AFD because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than bothering to improve articles. It's not just 40K though. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Amen to that. There's a reason why I've slowed down/stopped contributing to wikipedia over the past couple of months. And I'm a guy who works on biological articles.(Let's see them argue the real-world merit of those!) Shrumster 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there has been a huge crackdown lately. As much as I like Wikipedia, I feel like an exodus is in order for the various hobbys and interests that I have. It is the only way to keep the information and hard work perserved, and I would be devistated to see it all destroyed. However, I miss Wikipedia's ability to centralize all this information. I would rather use it like a portal. - Fearless Son 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I like 40K. I really do. But Chris Cunniham is right, this project's articles are in disgraceful shape, and likely cannot be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. Articles need to be focused on the role fictional things have in the real world, not just their own fictional world, and there's a great many 40K articles that don't even establish the importance of the subject in the fictional world, let alone the real one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I Personally think that we should be moved to a smaller wiki. If every single article in the simpsons wiki was kept on wikipedia, every 3rd click on Random article would be a link there. We could keep most of the major articles, but I honestly don't think the entire world with internet access needs to know about Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) or stuff like that. Besides, on a smaller wiki we would have far more controll over what gets deleted and what doesn't, and we wouldn't have to put (Warhammer 40,000) after every page title.-- Aun'va 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I favor transwikifying, though I want to know, is it possible to have a redirect page redirect to an external wiki? That would satisfy me a bit more, knowing that the information is still accessable from Wikipedia. - Fearless Son 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. Wikipedia doesn't exist to put traffic to fancruft repositories. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is pretty much a fancruft repository in itself (every single episode of certain shows have their entry at wikipedia). I support transfering articles to a seperate wikia or so. There are a lot of good entries here on Wikipedia about in-universe W40K-stuff and it'll be a shame losing it. Syrion 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If you ever want any of this stuff, even from deleted articles, just ask. As an admin, I'll provide it. --Haemo 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Episodes at least have the advantage of a relative abundance of critical commentary and real world influences and such like. Something which the vast majority of 40k cruft articles don't have unfortunately. XJDenton 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we need to start our own Wiki. We'd be able to make our own rules, go into as much depth as we want, and not be subject to the whims of others. I vote we use transformers.wikia.com as a guide on what we should be looking for. --Ancalagon06 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. We will have much more freedom and power over what goes in and what deosn't. A few questions though. How long would it take? Who would be administrators? Any ideas for a name? It whould probable be better if there was a neutral one, not favouring one race. I don't know if i am getting ahead of myself but it seems as though it has a bit of support. And what has happened to my Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) comment ages ago, it has taken a life of its own!Pterodactal (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There shouldn't be articles on every single episode of an obscure television series, nor should there be articles on every aspect of 40k fancruft. If you can't describe the subject of an article as an object after some fashion, it shouldn't be an article. There are numerous wikia devoted to 40k fancruft, and it should reside there, not on wikipedia. This is the kind of topic that tends to attract rabid crufting, so I propose that a very strict team of peers should police the project rigorously - even though it's obvious how difficult this is with the volume of edits that crop up. If most of wikipedia's 40k articles have to go, then they have to go, and I don't object to this happening. Sojourner001 (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
whoa, sad to read this little discussion. I suspect the concept of transwikifying has done more harm than it has done good. For instance, somebody earlier on mentioned a simpsons wiki. I had no idea a major one existed (though if I'd thought about it... yeah, it seems natural one or more would exist). If I want to look up something about the simpsons I go to wikipedia, not anywhere else. Same as with (IF) I was to look up anything about 40K, I'd go to Wikipedia as my first port of call (or maybe directly to GW). Mathmo Talk 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you're misusing Wikipedia. Really, it'd be nice if it could act as the sum of all data on Earth, but that's not its purpose. Readers who simply want to know how GW's treatment of the Orc archetype differs from that of D&D should not have to sit through pages and pages of in-universe fancruft. Dedicated wikis with different policies on objectivity can give these topics much better treatment. Look at how much better-placed Memory Alpha is to handle complicated Trek intrigue than us, for instance. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] preserving content

I'd suggest we make a dedicated effort to take the good stuff on here, and make sure it is on another good 40k wiki. We probably should pick one in particular... Personally, I'm an inclusionist, so I don't mind trying to help make sure the content is kept. I wouldn't count on it though. Mathiastck 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warhammer 40,000 Collectible Card Game

I created a stub on this older WWH40K variant, perhaps somebody who played both it and DM could add a note on the compatibility and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What to include

Should we be including everything that has something to do with WH40K? for example the video games like dawn of war, fire warrior, the new warhammer fantasy rts game? Halo legend 00 10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falcorian's First Five-Year Plan

To prevent a wave of deletion of this project's content, I propose the following (possibly drastic) measures:

  • Transwiki all articles that are likely to violate current policy
  • Merge in appropriate material to parent articles
  • Redirect the articles to parent articles that can be defended from deletion under current policy

Drastic, yes. A lot of work, yes. But I think it's the best solution. Merging/transwiking allows the information to be preserved, while redirecting before deletion leaves the history intact (which is required under the GDFL as I understand it...). Our only other options seem to be trying to change policy, or watch our articles evaporate as people who WP:IDONTLIKEIT discover them...

[edit] 'Parent Article' Discussion

Main article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Mergers And Organization

This of course brings up the question of what is a parent article. Eldar is obvious one as they are an army, Warhammer 40,000 is even more obvious as it is the overarching game. Cherubael obviously is not. But what about Imperial Navy (Warhammer 40,000)? Probably, as a Gothic list... But Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)? Probably... Not? Any thoughts? --Falcorian (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a thought as such, but I have been bold and merged all of Abaddon the Despoiler, Fabius Bile, Cypher (Warhammer 40,000), Khârn the Betrayer and Lucius the Eternal into List of Chaos Space Marines. The target article needs a lot of tidying, but it might have a hope of surviving an AfD (although I don't actually think it would yet...) --Pak21 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done, we're getting there. The only thing I would recommend is that you add a link in like this to aid everyone in keeping track of what's been done. --Falcorian (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki Technical Discussion

Main article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Trans-wikied

I've only seen a few WH40k wikis:

Those seem to be our only option. Of course, there is nothing preventing us from copying to both the Wikia one, and the Warhammerwiki, just a bit more extra work in the long run and probably worth it to spread the content. Is anyone familiar with what exactly must be done to satisfy the GDFL for transwiking? --Falcorian (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have started a page to keep track of progress and discuss it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Trans-wikied. --Falcorian (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, I have been inactive lately as I have been busy IRL, however, I support transwikiing instead of just giving up. I can host the wiki if anyone wants me to - all that would be needed is a domain name to be registered and pointed at one of my servers. That way, it could be completely how we want it.-Localzuk(talk) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I too have been inactive due to real life recently, but I'd love the help. I'm not sure how feasible setting up our own wiki is as two acceptable ones already exist, but it is something that should be discussed. --Falcorian (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So my suggestion would be to use the 40k Wikia... That way it's a little more permanent, although we lose total control (although it doesn't look like we'd have any problems moving in and setting up a system there...). --Falcorian (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little bit worried about these transwikis at the moment; what needs to be done when an article is transwikied is to somehow maintain a list of "five of the principal authors of the Document" as required by the GFDL section 4B, and this doesn't seem to have been done. We can't rely on the edit history being available on Wikipedia to do this - it needs to be on the target wiki itself. Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Crediting the authors would be easy enough through a template if a way can be found to determine them systematically. Looks like http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ can do this, so I'll go and modify the templates and update them. --Falcorian (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, we should be good to go! I've modified the templates I'm using on the transwiki target wikis, and the result can be seen here. I'll fix the others soon and update the template to allow if statements... Then we'll be ready to rock. --Falcorian (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Crusade

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Black Crusade, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Pastordavid 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the prod and proposed merging or transwiking the article instead. Please see its talk page. --Falcorian (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion regarding 40k articles

A notice was left over at the Board and table games wikiproject, but I thought it would be more appropriate here. There's a discussion regarding cutting down 40k articles here: WT:VG#Excessive Warhammer articles. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone working on getting these merged? Pagrashtak 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a topic above on it, but so far have recieved little imput. --Falcorian (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping this project could take care of most of the articles itself, whether through merges or transwikis, but I suppose I might PROD some of the more detailed topics soon. Pagrashtak 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a subpage to discuss what should be merged in where. If you'd add articles to the 'list' there as you see fit, that would help me. I seem to be mostly alone in this so any help you can offer would be great. See it here. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for me, though, as I don't know too much about the series, and the amount of articles is overwhelming to me. Perhaps the best start would be to identify the most specific articles that are unlikely to have anything general enough to merge up and transwiki them. For example, it looks like Vehicles of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000) should be merged into Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000), which would then be merged into Tau (Warhammer 40,000), which might end up merged into Warhammer 40,000 species. After all that, how much from the Vehicles article is going to end up staying? It would be better to just transwiki/delete that article and be done with it rather than spending too much time merging. Pagrashtak 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing and able to do all the merging/transwikiing, but I just need help finding the articles in the first place. All I really need is people (like yourself) to throw articles you think need looking at here and I'll sort them out with transwikiing and redirecting. --Falcorian (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real-world Policy

I haven't been in here in a long time, but where is this "new" "real-world policy" everyone keeps discussing? The articles look... rather cheesy... since I last read any of them, if not hard to read. Constant references to "milky way galaxy" and other such seems to choke up the articles, bog them down, and shift the reading in a jerking back-and-forth motion in trying to describe a fiction. In all I've ever read anywhere in any research, these articles are the first I've seen it (this extensive anyway). Wouldn't the beginning statement, presenting the fact that the information below is fiction, be enough? Why is it so necessary to keep repeating the point? Colonel Marksman (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:WAF. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:FICT is perhaps more relevant as its the one which has changed significantly. --Pak21 (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Also note that I've been categorizing WH40K articles that are tagged with {{in-universe}} into their own category using {{WH-in-universe}}, which places them into Category:Warhammer 40,000 articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Infobox Warhammer 40,000 Chapters}}

Is it worth my time trying to add a mockup of the chapter colours shown on a paper doll Marine (as with {{infobox football club}}) to this template? Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be a nice addition, but not sure how difficult that would be for you. --Falcorian (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh. It looks pretty Herculean, actually. I'm massively impressed by whomever did the work on {{football kit}}, there are dozens of layers of complexity there. That said, I dare say that a start could be made if there were an appropriately-licensed "blank marine" image somewhere... Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I certainly think it would be nice... however, I'm not honestly sure that any of the Chapter articles would survive an AfD, due to the complete lack of any secondary sources, so if this is a lot of work, it could all go away if/when the articles are deleted. --Pak21 (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it certainly seems that way, having spent much of last night tagging basically the entire projectspace with {{WH-in-universe}}... Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, these chapters would be a good place to start merging (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Mergers And Organization), as Category:Space Marine Chapters is the lowest-level category. Pagrashtak 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, but one thing at a time :) tagging them means they can be grabbed in one fell swoop from the wh-in-universe cat. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courage and honour

I'll help where I can. I've been playing since about mid 2nd edition. I admit I don't know all the fluff, but I have almost all of the new codexes and I can keep many of the facts straight. Earlier I leave note in the Ultramarines article to correct a rather glaring entry that basically reduced Tigurius to a one lined comment, instead of being the Ultramarines early warning for the Tyranids. Anyways, I've been periodically contributing, so I figured I'd do like the Emperor's followers and make my presence known. I assassinate with facts. Facts and a baseball bat made of pure logic and mostly pure metal. - NemFX (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

I'm going to be scarce around here until next Tuesday or so. Any help people can offer with creating the giant merger list and transwiking and whatnot would be appreciated. See you all later. --Falcorian (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Marines Characters and Chapters

We have to decide what to do with the chapters and characters. Please share your thoughts here. --Falcorian (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Point The First: Are fictional characters notable?

My answer: Only if they crop up in numerous publications and transcend the material written about them. Thus, Commander Dante might be notable, but Captain Idaeus is not.

Point The Second: If they are notable, where should their information reside?

My answer: Wikipedia disapproves of lists. Therefore, they shouldn't go there, and there isn't sufficient justification for this subject OK-ing list articles where many others do not. Having an article devoted to notable characters for which there are models is a possibility and definitely notable since they are real-world products available to buy and themselves have published articles written about the product itself. However, I'm not sure I approve of this one either. This leads me onto...

Point The Third: Product-Centric or Universe-Centric?

Is a Space Marine character a manufactured product that is available for purchase that has accompanying literature which may be notable, or is a Space Marine character a literary concept that is itself notable, that has an accompanying product?

I would definitely go for the former. As an example, the entirety of the material available on Commander Dante should be:

- Within an article "Space Marines" in a subsection "Notable Space Marines" - Focused on the fact that a Commander Dante with Honour Guard boxed set is available for purchase, show it, and perhaps reference a few White Dwarf snippets - Reference Dante's appearances in published literature, for example the Second War for Armageddon, where the other Space Marine commanders unanimously supported placing him in overall command thanks to his reputation

And that should be it.Sojourner001 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Warhammer 40,000 Wikia

There was talk about starting our own wiki to move the articles from this project to, but I think a better solution has come up. I've volunteered to take over the 40k Wikia (as the founder and admins hadn't been around for years) and so I'm now a sysop/Bureaucrat at The Warhammer 40,000 Wikia which has just short of 500 articles. I've been transwikiing articles over there, and I plan to clean up the 40k articles here and move them over. If anyone from the project wants to give a hand, you're more than welcome! --Falcorian (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if it's kosher to set up transwiki templates which would point to Wikia? Or even if we can integrate with WP's usual transwiki system? Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine WP:EL would give us an answer. I haven't read it in detail, but I'd guess "Putting links is not kosher". ;-) As for Wikipedia's transwiki system... You mean like Main Page? I'd guess no there as well. Or do you mean the process of moving articles? I've looked into this and it's confusing, and the project seems to have shut down? That why I came up with my own methods. However, Admins (at the Wikia) can directly upload articles from Wikipedia (see Cherubael, notive how the edit history moved with it!) and anyone from the Wikipedia Project that wants to give me a hand can have admin rights and well get stuff moved. --Falcorian (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Infact, here we go: Links normally to be avoided: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map. --Falcorian (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we CAN get interwiki links... But I don't know if we:

  1. Qualify for them (size/users/etc)
  2. If it's koser to put them in Wikipedia

Here's an example: Main Page --Falcorian (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since it's part of Wikia, there is an interwiki link. [[Wikia:Warhammer40k|Main Page]] will link like this: Main Page Pagrashtak 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know! --Falcorian (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite what I meant; I mean, is it okay to set up things like {{copy to wikibooks}} for this work?
By the way, the {{wikia}} template is the best way of adding extlinks:
Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything like that in Category:Transwiki templates. In the VG project we use {{Move to gaming wiki}}, which doesn't suggest one particular wiki. I realize that won't work for your needs, though. I think centralizing the transwiki effort at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Mergers And Organization would probably be more effective than tagging the articles in any event. Pagrashtak 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the advantage of the page over the tags is it allows us to set up a clear structure for merges/redirects after we transwiki. --Falcorian (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, it's just that my own editing style is heavily based on tagging things and cleaning them up on a later pass. So if anything develops, please post and update. Thanks guys. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I can whip up a template for ya then. I need all the help I can get and if I template is going to do it, then a template you shall have! --Falcorian (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Made {{WH-transwiki-from}} and {{WH-transwiki-to}} which are just like the merge templates. I'm not really up-to-date on template syntax and whatnot, so someone else should take a look at them. --Falcorian (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Some of the chapters have been merged, but the section they were moved into needs a good rewrite and clean up. Mainly the work will be shortening these multi-page articles to a few paragraphs. Work can be found here for those interested. --Falcorian (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horus and the Emperor's Children

Horus is listed as being a notable character on the inclusion list, and the Emperor's Children are one of the four main Chaos legions, but every time I try to add them to the Warhammer 40k article Darkson removes them with the message "list is not exhaustive", which is clearly not an issue for these two things.

Note: I'm not a member of this project, by the way. --Muna (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[Copied from my reply to the Warhammer 40,000 talk page.
personally don't have a problem with either being added to the respective list, but the last time this was discussed consensus was against adding anything else to the list. To be honest, I think it's daft that neither ARE listed, but personal opinion isn't what Wikipedia is about. If an unofficial vote is being taken, add my vote for both being added. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Horus is already on the list for inclusion [2], which I stated again and again. --Muna (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and it was never added because consensus was that the list was big enough. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Not only is Horus listed there, he was also in the Notable Characters section of the actual page for months - I didn't come along and just add him to it, I just added a link to his name, and you responded by removing his name completely. That's why I'm contesting your edits. --Muna (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd delete the list of variant armies completely. The list is not exhaustive because the number of possible variant armies is far too large to add. Also all of the variant for the Eldar lists like to Eldar Craftworlds four links to the same article is unnecessary. There is also no sourcing for the list. On the matter of Horus I'd put him on the notable characters list but after him no more names need to be added--Cailil talk 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Only just seen this (didn't realise my watchlist wasn't displaying "minor" edits).
Yep, I'm going to hold my hand up on Horus - he was there, then someone screwed up the link, then he was deleted, then you put him back, and I reverted it - my bad, and I offer my sincere apologies. I'll put him back (if someone hasn't beaten me to it).Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gah!

Good lord, what happened to this place? Are you guys still having trouble with Sanchi or whatever his name was? It's disappointing to see that quite a few articles that used to be o a reasonable standard are now a total mess - particularly Tyranids. Not to be self-righteous, but I'd be happy to start helping out again if there was any assurance that good work won't just be undone by someone else's verbal diarrhoea. My personal opinion - cultivated in part by Pak21's firm hand in telling me where I was going wrong back in the day - is that a large proportion of the content in this wikiproject is either rubbish or undeserving of its own article. I've swung far the other way from where I used to be and would quite happily prune most topics down until they were exceedingly spartan if I had my way - am I alone here or do the experienced contributors share this feeling? Sojourner001 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a bunch of us have given up based on the fact that Wikipedia doesn't seem to want our content. --Falcorian (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on what sort of content you're referring to. My understanding is that Wikipedia tends to increase in disapproval proportionate to the amount of detail one tries to include - and rightly so, in my opinion. To be truly encyclopedic involves pruning out almost everything that a fan of the subject would like to see and leaving only the pertinent facts. Essentially, an article is detailed enough when a person with no particular interest in the subject can read the article and understand the pertinent facts without getting bored or confused. I'd like to work towards this end, but I have no doubt that I'll meet with hostility on one side and ambivalence on the other. Sojourner001 (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is of course WP:N, almost none of our articles can pass the third party source requirements. --Falcorian (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm glad at least one person other than myself recognises that. My standpoint is therefore:
  • The notability guidelines are correct and therefore a lot of our 'material' should probably go, or be heavily condensed;
  • Just because other projects on subjects similar to this one (comics, etc) ignore WP:N, doesn't mean we should.
Sojourner001 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. We had a discussion about the best course of action... But not much has been done (mainly because I got tired of being the only one giving it a go and real life and all that). Maybe you could scroll up a little, read the discussion, and see what you think? --Falcorian (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Templars deserve their own page.

I do not agree with those who think that all Second Founding chapters should be merged into the Second Founding page. The Black Templars are a major army with as much fluff as a first founding chapter. And, of course, they have their own codex.

As such, I propose that they be split from the Second Found page and given their own page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FerociousBeast (talk • contribs)

They had their own page, and were uploaded to the Second Founding page because they fell foul of WP:N, especially lack of third-party references. If you can find some, then you're in with a chance. If not, then this is probably the best you can hope for (and don't be surprised if the article doesn't get listed for deletion at some point). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability related to fiction: "Articles on a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewings or sales figures, development and other information from reliable sources." The Black Templars have been written about by GW, have a novel out from the Black Library, there are Black Templar miniatures designed and sold to thousands of people around the world, and on the internet, tactics articles are written for their use on the tabletop practically daily.
I would say, in fact, that any army that has an official codex can be considered notable, as an integral component of a notable game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28toys_and_games%29). -FerociousBeast (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My response is 'so?' They have their own codex and are significant within the context of the game; how does this make them an encyclopaedic topic? Ask yourself: is a person who knows nothing about 40k likely to come across the Black Templars independently of Games Workshop marketing material in general? What is unique and special in a literary sense about them? If you're honest with yourself, you probably know the answer to these questions. I do not dispute the validity of such topics in the context of what a curious person may be interested in reading about; but that doesn't make them suitable for their own entry in an encyclopaedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sojourner001 (talk • contribs)
And articles by GW/novels by BL (part of GW) are not 3rd party. Nor are random tactics articles on the 'net by random people. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you apply this criticism consistently, then there will be only one entry for Warhammer 40,000 on wikipedia. The Warhammer 40,000 page. If that's what you want, fine, but there are plenty of people who will be searching for more info on the rich W40k backstory, and if Wikipedia does not supply it, some other site somewhere will. -FerociousBeast (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly why Falconian set up The Warhammer 40,000 Wikia as mentioned a couple of sections above this one. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I didn't set it up, I just took it over... If you have an article you want copied it's really easy for me to do it. Just leave me a note on my talk page or add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Trans-wikied#Articles for Transwiki. I've fallen way behind recently due to real life, but I'm always free to move stuff. --Falcorian (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)

Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) has been tagged for notability. I have, of course, downloaded and am transwikiing it as we speak. --Falcorian (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VFDs

Blackstone Fortress and Age of Apostasy. Both have been transwiki'd. --Falcorian (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMG

A project to help out the 40k articals? Im in. For the Greater Good! Im a Tau player so assign me to anything that has to do with the Tau. --Jpchewy01 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)