Talk:The Horus Heresy (novels)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Horus Heresy (novels))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Warhammer 40,000 on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Contents


Audio and Ltd Etd. Books[edit]

It would be logical if the audiobooks so far, and also the limited edition short stories in the Games Day Anthology 2011, Lightning Tower/Dark King chapbook, and Promethean Sun and Aurelian books were also mentioned on this page rather than only in the main Horus Heresy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.233 (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(small) overview page[edit]

Before this, searching for the Horus Heresy novels redirected you back to the tabletop game - given the size of the series so far and the fact that each novel has its own page, a (small) overview page with links to the individual novels would be preferable. Slavedriver (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I think it may be best to merge this page and the individual novels' pages--with a short synopsis for each novel describing the sequence of events--onto the 'Horus Heresy' lore page. The only argument I could see for giving this and the novels each their separate pages is perhaps by comparison to the over-exhaustive pages about 'Star Wars'.Ektogamut (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I Disagree with a merger. -Loke
looks like they were merged anyway, citing this section. Ikip (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to earlier version[edit]

Several good faith edits by 3 users have been reverted. I will give the reasons for the reverts below:

  1. User:AnomieBOT erroneously flagged nested references as orphaned references. There are hidden comments about the nesting next to the "Notes" section heading, and after each nested ref. There is also the {{refn}} template, right at the top of the "Notes" section. A human would have seen this. Secondly, the bot disregarded the article layout, which SEPARATES text from refs, by inserting a ref in the text. Third, text was added to the reference that is wrong: it mentions "following notes" without giving any further explanation, and it removed pertinent info (the non-English language editions). Fourth, the whole exercise came to nothing, as the parser disregarded the added reference in favor of the old {{refn}} reference. Bad!! Stay bot, stay!!
  2. User:Cyberalien18 added information that I cannot find anywhere in official sources (ie Black Library/GW websites etc.) Although the information is correct, the reflink he provided (in Black Library's "Horus Heresy:Coming Soon" page) is misleading. The company has not yet posted any such info on the webpage. The info does exist in commercial websites such as Amazon. The article uses/should use official info only; please let's keep it that way. I encourage Cyberalien18 and anyone else to contribute along these lines and I appreciate their willingness.
  3. User:Khazar2 used Wikipedia:AWB to effect certain minor changes. However with the exception of a typo correction, the other changes introduce semantic incogruities and/or diminish a human editor's understanding of the article structure:
    1. in the "References" section, the change from {{cite ebook}} to {{cite book}}. The alias "cite ebook" is used, first because it accurately describes the actual source cited; secondly because both print AND e-book formats for the same work are cited.
    2. also in "References", the substitution of parameter "type" with "format." This is not correct. The parameter "type" in the edited citations refers to work (ie website) type such as blog, discussion forum, e-magazine, etc. and is properly positioned after the website name. "Format" refers to the webpage and describes file format or similar, and is positioned after the webpage title but before the website name.

Thanks 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Title and categories[edit]

the article title should follow the trade/brand name as in "Horus Heresy Novel Series" and should be italicized (i added {{Italic title}} to itlicize the current title). however the current title does not accurately reflect the content, especially since there are Horus Heresy-branded books that are not part of the Novel Series.

Category:British science fiction novels is about single books, Category:British science fiction is too generic but may be more appropriate. similarly, Category:Science fantasy novels vs. Category:Science fiction book series. if subcategories Category:British science fiction book series, Category:Science fantasy book series and Category:Warhammer 40,000 book series are ever created they would be more appropriate.

thanks. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

i want to propose insertion of the following template in the article page:

{{Cleanup-articletitle|alternate title=Horus Heresy (novels)|''Horus Heresy Novel Series''|section=Talk:Horus_Heresy_(novels)#Title_and_categories|Title and categories|naming convention=[[Wikipedia:PRECISION]]|date=September 2012}}

any comments are welcome. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

book covers[edit]

pls discuss whether adding reproductions of Series book covers per WP:NFC is a good idea.

65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IP's documentation suggestion[edit]


70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - To clarify why this is here, this is nothing more than a single IP editor's suggestion for how they would like to see the article, it is not based on any consensus on any level and should not be considered authoritative in regards to improving the article in any way. If you want to edit the article to improve it, just do it. - SudoGhost 02:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've moved it back to where it belongs on the talk page per WP:TPG, WP:TOPPOST, and Wikipedia:Talk page layout. If you'd like it to be at the top of the page, at minimum that would need a consensus to put it there, hitting "undo" isn't going to accomplish anything because as it is it's ignoring every relevant guideline on Wikipedia. Until there's a consensus, it follows Wikipedia convention. - SudoGhost 16:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
you changed it first. you were reverted. (by the main contributor, that's me). per BRD you are the one who needs to get "consensus" for your original changes, not me. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines holds more weight then "who changed it first." Until there is a consensus to the contrary, WP:TPG says we do talk pages a certain way, and that's not going to be ignored merely to promote ownership of the article. - SudoGhost 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
well i guess we disagree that this is in violation of policy. as for guidelines, i don't think there's violation there either. but i am not going to blindly follow any guideline. there will be exceptions when common sense or goodwill service to other editors (such as this doc) require it in order to make a better article. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:OWN and WP:TPG are pretty common sense things, and this is hardly an exception to that by any stretch. You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't change anything in regards to the content of this talk page. If you believe that your ownership of the article should be promoted at the top of this page you are more then welcome to try to get a consensus for that, but short of a consensus along those lines the talk page follows the convention of talk pages on Wikipedia, that is common sense. - SudoGhost 02:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── i repositioned this section for the reasons explained in the doc. if you believe that this doc project does not belong, i ask again that you submit it to independent review by uninvolved editors. i have stated before that i agree to be bound by their conclusion. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked twice now for this kind of behavior. It does not belong at the top of the talk page. It's been explained why, so I'm not repeating myself. When you find yourself unblocked, you are welcome to attempt to gain a consensus. - SudoGhost 17:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Help documentation discussion[edit]

Heading edited for precision and disambiguation. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

doc for article editors will be forthcoming on this page. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

work in progress, above 70.19.122.39 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
final draft 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

strike out. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've collapsed this, since it took up way too much space on the talk page, and isn't really necessary. Though it might be marginally helpful in that it contains information found elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's largely redundant here; each page does not need this kind of documentation. - SudoGhost 01:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
this talk page is largely inactive, so notions of "space" don't have much meaning. i've no idea how you came up with the idea that doc helpful to editors is unnecessary. it centralises info about an article with complex markup, points to special cases and their handling (including errors not commented on elsewhere), and explains divergence from WP:MOS. all with a view of avoiding exactly the type of time-wasting explanations i'm engaging in right now. and more importantly, with a view of helping other editors understand why and how the article is structured as it is, thereby helping not to waste their time. btw, imo, EVERY wikipedia page needs something similar. it would certainly make for better articles all around. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
consequently, i edited {{cot}} and moved it to the top. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
And I have moved it back down here, per WP:TOPPOST. Please see WP:OWN; this is not your article so a lot of the prescriptive content in that "documentation" is your opinion, but does not dictate how the article should be written. The editing notes on the article are also completely inappropriate, because (1) they refer to the documentation as though it is something that needs to be referred to before editing when that is not the case and (2) editors are more than capable of clicking the "Talk" link on an article, they do not need 5kb of wasted space filling up the editing window essentially saying "See talk". Look at other articles on Wikipedia, even featured articles. They do not have editing notes yelling at editors beneath every section header, nor do they have excessive and redundant documentation on the article's talk page. Please also see WP:BRD; you boldly created those editing notes, now please discuss it and get a consensus before reinserting it, instead of simply hitting "undo". - SudoGhost 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the accusation of WP:OWN is frivolous and false and is completely rejected. if you think that according to the criteria of the WP:OWN page, i have assumed ownership your only option is to report me, because i just don't, and won't, agree: i have not come even close to the listed/implied criteria of improper assumption of ownership.

if you don't take formal measures and you persist in reverting the work, i have no option but report you, because i explained my position and will do again below. if despite this you insist on removing content from the edit window and the talk page, i will consider your behavior disruptive, and your accusations of ownership as uncivil. in that case we should move to another forum, because we simply disagree irrevocably.

i have been the major and near-sole contributor to this page for the past year or so, from the present ip address and from the range 65.88.88.x. i shaped the article to what it has become today, concerned only for making it accessible to readers, while following Wikipedia policies as closely as possible. i never assumed ownership, but i definitely assumed, and continue to assume stewardship of the article (WP:OAS).

in the course of bettering the article, and for reasons partly explained in the Help documentation, i used advanced markup, which although presents quality to readers, it makes things complicated for editors. as a service to other editors, i created the help doc to explain why and how the article is structured, with recommendations not "dictating orders", on how to follow the established structure.

ALL wikipedia guidelines recommend deferring to established practices by the main contributor before making any changes. that's me. i didn't have to spend ANY TIME documenting anything. as i said i did it as a service and inducement to other editors. i care for readers, first, second, and third. that is why we are all here.

i am well within guidelines (Help:Hidden text) in inserting hidden comments at the edit window, not the "article" as you erroneously point out, and i also agreed with your request for an edit notice, if need be. i am also well within guidelines for the talk page in inserting helpful commentary for other editors (because i don't consider myself an owner), and displaying such help prominently.

if you have a problem with the article and/or the doc discuss it. but do not remove any content for frivolous reasons, it is obstructionist and disruptive. the edit window and this talk page will be restored to the status prior to your unwarranted removals. there is nothing more to be said about such behavior here. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to agree, but that doesn't mean the inappropriate editing notes will stay on the article, nor does it mean this "documentation" will stay at the top of the talk page, because by Wikipedia's talk page guidelines newer content goes at the bottom of talk pages, because that is where editors will look. It also doesn't matter how much or how little you have edited this or any article; this "documentation" is still nothing more than your suggestion, and the way you're inserting the editing notes and the documentation makes it read as if it's something that needs to be followed, and it isn't. I'm not trying to remove the documentation, that's why it's still on the page, but it has to be made clear that it's your opinion, not some hard and fast structure that has to be followed; that disrupts how articles are improved. As for the hidden text in the article, it is inappropriate and unnecessarily redundant, and unless you get a consensus for including it has no place on the article. You are welcome to "report me", but you may want to consider how that will turn out, given your edit warring and frivolous claims of "incivility". When you say "i have no option but report you", you're mistaken. You have to option to stop edit warring and discuss the content, getting a consensus for your edit instead of simply hitting "undo". That is another option you have available to you, and it comes highly recommended on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 02:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

reasoning for reverting edits of Sudo (18 April 2013)[edit]

the majority of the "18 April 2013" edits to the article by Sudo were reverted by contributor 70.19.122.39/IP range 65.88.88.x as misapplied, inappropriate, or misinformed. reasoning follows.

Please expand the documentation; several sections are linked below

  • the article includes a mix of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as evidenced by the source listing in the section References (in Horus Heresy (novels)). the sources' provenance is made clear in their respective citations. the included primary souirces serve only to (a) verify that statements attributed to them were actually made by them (b) verify the details of cited editions (c) verify the article editors' description of the Series as an important work for the publisher. their inclusion is well within the considerations detailed at WP:PRIMARY, (see under paragraph "Policy"). further, it is clarified in the section Reception (in Horus Heresy (novels)) and in the doc (#References) that some prima facie questionable sources are unavoidable. ALL such sources are online (or are archived online); any reader can access them and, i believe, may reasonably justify their inclusion based on neutrality and topicality.
–the template {{primary sources}} inserted by Sudo is not appropriate
  • the product's name is not "The Horus Heresy", and the article title does not refer to it. as explained in the text and the doc (Title of article and work), "The Horus Heresy" is a brand, that includes standalone and serial components. just one of these components is the Series of "Horus Heresy" novels. there are other Horus Heresy series, in literature and other media. for disambiguation + clarity (and since the publisher refers to the work as "the Horus Heresy series of novels" or the "Horus Heresy novel series"), the title of the work used throughout the article is the Horus Heresy Novel Series.
–the related edits by Sudo are inappropriate.
  • the section Reception (in Horus Heresy (novels)) is entirely sourced and referenced. the various template notices are misapplied and misinformed.
  • the lead paragraph:
Markup Renders as
{{As of|2013|03}}, ''The Horus Heresy'' as a whole was generally enjoying both popular and critical approval,{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} with corresponding commercial success;{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} favourable sales performance by the publisher has been credited to the ''The Horus Heresy''{{'}}s popularity.{{r|sales-perform}} The considerable Warhammer 40,000 fan base{{r|popularity}} embraced the work,{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} and helped propel the product's sales: titles have consistently appeared in UK and US [[science fiction]] charts, have occupied high positions in [[Nielsen BookScan]] genre lists, and since early 2010 have often charted in [[The New York Times Bestseller List]] for mass-market paperbacks.{{r|sales-direct}} 
As of March 2013, The Horus Heresy as a whole was generally enjoying both popular and critical approval,[citation needed] with corresponding commercial success;[citation needed] favourable sales performance by the publisher has been credited to the The Horus Heresy '​s popularity.[1] The considerable Warhammer 40,000 fan base[2] embraced the work,[citation needed] and helped propel the product's sales: titles have consistently appeared in UK and US science fiction charts, have occupied high positions in Nielsen BookScan genre lists, and since early 2010 have often charted in The New York Times Bestseller List for mass-market paperbacks.[3]
–all footnotes in the Reviews subdivision directly reference the overall "critical approval". they are not included in the lead paragraph of the section to avoid clutter.
–there is 1 footnote linked through the text above that directly references the Series commercial/popular success: <ref name=sales-perform>.
–there are additional footnotes linked to in following section subdivisions that reference the fans embracing the Series <ref name=fan-price>, <ref name=fandom>, and <ref name=fan-talk> etc. again to avoid clutter, they are not included in the lead paragraph of the section.
–the template {{citation needed}} inserted by Sudo is inappropriate.
  • the next paragraph:
Markup Renders as
''The Horus Heresy'' books have been regularly reviewed; reviewers have often returned to the work to offer appraisals of additional releases.{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} Reviews have typically appeared in genre-related media and [[Science fiction fandom|enthusiast]] or specialist websites; non-print and special editions of ''The Horus Heresy'' titles have also been reviewed.{{r|reviews}} Critical reception of individual titles has been mixed, yet the general tone of reviews has been mostly positive. Although ''The Horus Heresy'' overall has been viewed favourably, there have been complaints about its length, the multitude of characters and narrative threads, and the timeline jumps or repetitions caused by the nonlinear storytelling.{{r|crit-balance}} 
The Horus Heresy books have been regularly reviewed; reviewers have often returned to the work to offer appraisals of additional releases.[citation needed] Reviews have typically appeared in genre-related media and enthusiast or specialist websites; non-print and special editions of The Horus Heresy titles have also been reviewed.[4] Critical reception of individual titles has been mixed, yet the general tone of reviews has been mostly positive. Although The Horus Heresy overall has been viewed favourably, there have been complaints about its length, the multitude of characters and narrative threads, and the timeline jumps or repetitions caused by the nonlinear storytelling.[5]
–the footnotes linked through the text above directly reference the fact that reviewers have returned to the Series. further, a quick perusal of the section References (in Horus Heresy (novels)) will show citations of the same reviewer appraising multiple titles.
–the template {{citation needed}} inserted by Sudo is inappropriate.
  • the next subdivision, Fandom contains two links to all-inclusive footnote that reference ALL the statements that Sudo found in need of citation or clarification: <ref name=fandom> and <ref name=fan-talk>
–the related edits by Sudo are inappropriate.
Markup Renders as
Early in its publishing history, ''The Horus Heresy'' became a sales success in its category.{{clarify|date=April 2013}} [[#book1|''Horus Rising'']] by Dan Abnett, the opening title, set the pace shortly after its release, topping [[Locus (magazine)|''Locus'']] magazine's "Locus Bestsellers: Gaming-Related" list of August 2006; {{As of|2012|10|alt=as of [[#book20|Book 20]] (June 2012),}} practically{{clarify|date=April 2013}} every title in ''The Horus Heresy'' had achieved the same or similar performance on this chart.{{r|loc-bsl}} ''Horus Rising''{{'}}s January 2011 [[#CITEREFAbnett2011a|CD audiobook release]] also appeared in ranked sales lists: the (abridged) edition was number 15 in a related chart published by ''[[The Bookseller]]'', covering 2011 UK sales up to September.{{r|bs-b1-cd}} 
Early in its publishing history, The Horus Heresy became a sales success in its category.[clarification needed] Horus Rising by Dan Abnett, the opening title, set the pace shortly after its release, topping Locus magazine's "Locus Bestsellers: Gaming-Related" list of August 2006; as of Book 20 (June 2012), practically[clarification needed] every title in The Horus Heresy had achieved the same or similar performance on this chart.[6] Horus Rising '​s January 2011 CD audiobook release also appeared in ranked sales lists: the (abridged) edition was number 15 in a related chart published by The Bookseller, covering 2011 UK sales up to September.[7]
–here Sudo wants "clarification" for statements that are immediately referenced in footnote <ref name=loc-bsl>, and also in other footnotes linked to in this subdivision, and in other places in the article..
–the related edits by Sudo are inappropriate.
  • these edits are diminishing the article and readers' understanding relative to the previous version; they are unconstructive and unhelpful. they were therefore reverted.

note: the template {{overly detailed}} inserted by the same user, is not, in my opinion, justified. i will reserve further action pending proof of concept, with specifics by Sudo of what should be considered "excessive amount of intricate detail".

70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC) added linefeeds for clarity. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) The article relies too heavily on primary sources, that it contains a few secondary sources does not change the fact that most of the article relies on the primary sources. (2) The Horus Heresy is not, by any reliable sources, referred to as Series. The article should not refer to the subject in a way completely at odds with every single reliable source, since that is WP:OR. To italicize that word in that manner with capitalization suggests that it is a proper noun for the article's subject, and it is not. (3) It is overly detailed per WP:UNDUE; the amount of detail in the article is inconsistent with the amount of attention non-primary reliable sources have given the subject, so per Wikipedia policy the article either needs additional non-primary sources, or the content needs to be cut back significantly. (4) All content that is challenged must be directly supported by reliable sources. If they are elsewhere in the article, then use that reference for that information, do not remove requests for citations with vague comments that they are elsewhere in the article; per Wikipedia policy that is insufficient. - SudoGhost 01:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

be specific: (1) examples in the article where use of primary sources is against policy. just the presence of such sources is not a violation. how does the article rely on them? (2) i agree that the Horus Heresy is not a series, that is why it has its own page as a brand with many product components. this article is specifically about the Series of Horus Heresy Novels. this is how they are referred to in the media/publisher annotations. further not all Horus Heresy novels/novellas/short stories are part of the Series. neither is the Series consisting only of novels but also of anthologies. additionally there are other Horus Heresy series (artbooks, rulebooks, scriptbooks, audio dramas). there has to be a way to distinguish that this is about the Novel Series. the title of the article (which predates my involvement) has problems re: WP:PRECISION. that is why i have asked for input to change it. if you (a) had read the article (b) read this talk page, you would have seen the same. (3) be specific: what constitute "excessive amounts of intricate detail"? do not just say it contradicts policy, exactly point out where it does so. there is a number of non-primary sources referencing the work, which has consisitently appeared in ranked sales lists. wikipedia contains a large number of articles about genre fiction that compare very poorly to this one, which is a significant product in its category. (4) all statements made in the article are directly supported in footnotes linking to citations, most of which are easily verifiable online. be specific about which statement you think is unsupported, or should be considered unreliable. reading the article before making accusations would be nice too. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. There are entire sections, such as "Authors" and "Contributors", that rely solely on primary sources. This is undue, and is likely to be removed entirely, since it is largely redundant with the "Titles" section which already lists each author, making a separate list unnecessary.
  2. The Horus Heresy is a series, not Series. That is a descriptor appropriate for the lede, not a proper noun to be used in the article. Reliable sources do not refer to the subject as Series at any point, in any way. It is not a proper noun nor a title for the subject in any way, so to refer to the article as Series as opposed to The Horus Heresy, which all of the reliable sources do, is against Wikipedia policy and also the Manual of Style and if you would like to restore that content you must provide reliable sources supporting such a change. "Input" is not necessary to change it, because this is not your article, and reliable sources dictate the change. There is a difference between the Horus Heresy and The Horus Heresy, italics signify a work of literature, which distinguishes it from the event, which is also why using italics on Series is inaccurate, because it is not the title of a work of literature.
  3. This is related to point #1 above. Protestations like "read the article" are ad hominem comments and accomplish nothing except to give your comments the appearance of being less than they otherwise would have been, since ad hominems are usually reserved by those with no actual refutation to support their statement.
  4. If all statements were directly supposed with inline sources, then I wouldn't have to put citation needed templates around certain sentences. "Be specific"? I placed a tag at each point, it is impossible to be more specific, and if you remove the citation needed template without providing an inline source directly supporting it, then per Wikipedia policy the unsourced statements will be removed until they are properly sourced. On a slightly related note, I don't know what's going on with in-line citations being notes to refer to references as opposed to actual references, but this article is a train-wreck in that regard. - SudoGhost 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. these are descriptive and in no way constitute a viewpoint that has undue weight. books are written and contributed by some people, and these are properly cited. they are part of the Series as much as the author/contributor of any work that has an article in wikipedia. this is a non-issue and the policy you mention is not applicable.
  2. you are wrong. the publisher specifically names the work the Horus Heresy Series of Novels (emphasis added). the publisher also refers to other series within the Horus Heresy product line differently: the Horus Heresy Art Book Series, the Horus Heresy audio dramas, the Horus Heresy rulebooks etc. for purposes of trade-naming the publisher is a proper, reliable source. calling the product Horus Heresy could mean anything. if you don't like how the particular product within the Horus Heresy line is referred to, offer less ambiguous, and more exact suggestions. i have asked for such in older threads here, you could have started there.
  3. and
  4. i specifically referred to the footnotes with sources that address all the concerns you pointed out, in the opening post of this thread. additional footnotes are interspersed throughout, especially in the section Overview (in Horus Heresy (novels)). i don't have to link every phrase to a footnote; wikipedia guidelines on style and referencing allow sparser spacing of footnotes to avoid clutter. on the other hand, there are no controversial viewpoints described here. the Series is succesful and this is sourced in several places. criticism varies but is la largely positive, and all viewpoints are covered in the text, footnotes and sources.
70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Everything in any article is descriptive, that doesn't absolve an article from avoiding excessively pointless and redundant information. Please show where the publisher refers to the article's subject as Series in any capacity. Also, the article does have to support each contested statement with a direct inline citation; that is Wikipedia policy and has no exceptions. Alluding to footnotes doesn't do anything for you. So far the rationales you have given contradict Wikipedia's guidelines and policies entirely, so the version you reverted to is not going to remain in the article, although you're welcome to get a consensus to say otherwise. - SudoGhost 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
get any book in the Series. open it. listing of the "Horus Heresy Series of Novels" with serialization (numbering) is in the front matter of every volume. this is a multivolume work with many forms and contributors in several media. there are no redundancies; authors/contributors/titles are listed with short descriptions, as in any creative work. i don't allude to footnotes; that is where ALL article statements are supported, and verified: to avoid clutter and make the article visually pleasant by avoiding overload, many footnotes that source multiple statements are not repeated in every instance. that is also allowed under citation/referencing policies. you keep repeating claims that imo any good-faith person would have conceded long time ago. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I asked. Where is it referred to as Series? To say that because in the flap of a book it is referred to as "The Horus Heresy Series of Novels" that it should be called Series is original research and completely against the Manual of Style. Reliable sources do not refer to the subject as Series, nor The Horus Heresy Series of Novels, so the article cannot not refer to the subject as Series, Wikipedia articles cannot create their own name for the subject. Let me say this again: the article must, without exception, provide a direct inline reliable source for each and every contested bit of information. There are no exceptions, for any reason. If someone asks "where does it say this?" it must have a reliable source right next to it showing exactly where it is said. "Clutter" is not an excuse; Wikipedia policy requires this, and if clutter was a concern why are references linked to notes referring to other references? That is unnecessary clutter, inline citations are required, that is the difference. See also WP:AAGF concerning "any good-faith person". - SudoGhost 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
the same argument, again. the publisher refers to the books as a series of novels. since this is a trade name, the publisher is a reliable source. they named it so. as i said, i have been open to suggestions about this before you parachuted in. but your naming suggsetion is ambiguous and does not help readers. all the statements you questioned in section Reception (in Horus Heresy (novels)) are supported inline, mostly with WP:CITEBUNDLE at the end of respective paragraphs, subdivisions or subsections. in a single instance (about the Series being a "canonical exposition") footnotes in other sections ("Background" and "Positioning") are more exacting, however the statement can be verified/inferred if one follows/peruses the cited sources in the footnotes provided at the same section. to me it seems you keep arguing minutiae not worth wasting time over, when many, many other wikipedia articles would reap more benefit from such attention. i suggest you submit this article for independent review; it seems i cannot convince you of anything. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is "ambiguous" it is because the title is ambiguous (an assertion which I disagree with), but it is not Wikipedia's job to "correct" that; after multiple requests you have not presented a single thing that referred to the article as Series, so it is WP:OR and has no place in the article. There is a difference between WP:CITEBUNDLE and what is happening here; there are several different statements in paragraphs with a single, unrelated source at the end of a paragraph supporting something different, that doesn't cut it. There are inline citations, yes, but the article requires direct inline citations. That isn't optional, and if it isn't fixed the content will be removed per Wikipedia policy if the citation needed tags are removed without being replaced with a citation. The "other articles" fallacy doesn't mean anything; if "many other wikipedia articles would reap more benefit from such attention", then you're welcome to work on those other articles, but if that's your way of saying "Let me edit my article the way I want", I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you; this is not your article and has serious issues that need to be corrected, and will be corrected. Hitting "undo" whenever any other editor makes a change will not stop the article from being improved, it will only result in you being blocked from editing, and you cannot contribute to a discussion if you are blocked, resulting in the article being improved without your input. Therefore my suggestion would be to work with others, not against them, especially when the changes being made reflect reliable sources and when citation needed templates are added in lieu of removing the content altogether, which is permitted under Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 16:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
everything is properly supported per wikipedia policy, and all your questions have been answered, many times over. i have nothing else to add. again, i suggest an independent article review, before this descends into you vandalizing an otherwise informative article. i will be perfectly within my rights not to allow such mishandling. first you complain about the hidden text; then about the documentation; then you somehow discover other issues (a moving target). you are just fishing for trouble and this is hardly conducive to looking at your motives as good faith. submit the article for review, and let's get some other perspectives here. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Everything is not properly supported, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue here, you're getting "references are in the article somewhere" mixed up with "directly supported with an inline source", because I'm not seeing it and making a reader search all over the article to find a source that supports a statement is more detrimental to any perceived clutter, especially when (1) that "clutter" is required, and (2) the references referred to by notes referred to in the article makes a confusing mess of the references, which makes finding sources for things not directly supported even more difficult then it would otherwise be on any other article. Also see the definition of vandalism, because nothing here is anywhere close to vandalism, so you are mistaken if you believe that you are "well within your rights" to keep your preferred version of the article and to revert anyone else who edits the article. I am not "fishing for trouble", I'm trying to improve the article just as you are, and there are several issues with the article, so it's hardly "a moving target" to address them one at a time. I'm not saying The Horus Heresy has to be what is used to describe the subject, but it is what reliable sources use, and Series is most certainly not, so until a discussion can determine what is appropriate (and used by reliable sources), it should at the very least reflect sources and WP:MOS, that's all. Ambiguity is not a pressing issue, since there is a difference between the Horus Heresy and The Horus Heresy; if it is not in italics, it is not referring to the series but the event, that's how italics are used to distinguish publications and resolves any ambiguity in having a publication named after its subject matter, this isn't unique to this article, and replacing it with WP:OR certainly isn't an answer. - SudoGhost 16:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── well, it certainly looks like you're nit-picking to me. but i will again attempt to answer this.

  • about the title. this is a policy: Wikipedia:Article titles. this has to be followed. now look down to WP:NATURAL in the same page ("Disambiguation"). we agree that this is not the primary page for "Horus Heresy", so it has (per policy) to be disambigued. is the title "Horus Heresy (novels)" sufficient and precise? there is a distinct series of books (not just novels, but also anthologies of novellas & short stories) numbering 25 volumes as of today, that are treated by every source as one, single work. this work is what the article title refers to. there is other literature, including novellas, anthologies etc. that are not part of this series. right away the article title is less precise than it could, and should, be. the presence of this other literature is hatnoted, and is summarily described in the topic's main page, as the Novel Series is big enough to warrant its own article. so a case can be made (perhaps by another nit-picker), that the article title is in violation of policy. even more important (in my opinion) is the fact that the inaccurate label may confuse a reader who is completely ignorant of the subject. that is my personal audience baseline for editing articles. i will follow policy, but guidelines may or may not be followed if in my opinion they diminish readers' understanding. additionally, it is highly likely that italicizing part of the title (though correct and proper) will mean absolutely nothing to the common reader, who cannot be expected to be familiar with wikipedia nomenclature/style provisions.
    • according to WP:NATURAL i propose to rename the article to "Horus Heresy (book series)". this is not unusual, compare Harry Potter (film series) vs. Harry Potter. it makes clear that (a) the product is a serial (b) it does not exclude other literature forms (novellas/short stories etc.)
    • because the article may make references to both the Horus Heresy and the book series, any such references have to be disambigued also. it is simpler to just refer to the book series in every instance as the "book series" or just the "Series". the italicization and capitalization follow the convention of the article title, and have semantic significance regarding the article title only, as a placeholder for the longer and unwieldy title. something similar is noted in the very first footnote linked to in the text. this does not constitute WP:OR.
  • about the various templates you inserted in the section "Reception":
Markup Renders as
Reviewers{{who|date=April 2013}} have commented on constraints that the underlying universe, and storyline continuity, may impose on authors. They have also ventured into perceived differences (in style or substance) among ''The Horus Heresy'' authors, and have compared the handling of different ''Horus Heresy'' stories by the same author.{{r|crit-auth}} In addition, the evolving ''Horus Heresy'' is said to have gradually acquired a backstory and terminology of its own; this has lead reviewers to question the accessibility of individual stories to new or casual readers.{{r|crit-cmnt}} 
Reviewers[who?] have commented on constraints that the underlying universe, and storyline continuity, may impose on authors. They have also ventured into perceived differences (in style or substance) among The Horus Heresy authors, and have compared the handling of different Horus Heresy stories by the same author.[8] In addition, the evolving Horus Heresy is said to have gradually acquired a backstory and terminology of its own; this has lead reviewers to question the accessibility of individual stories to new or casual readers.[9]

the template {{who}} is inappropriate. "reviewers [who] commented on constraints" is sourced in the footnote "crit-cmnt" which is at the end of the same short paragraph:

<ref name=crit-cmnt>Postulated creative constraints: {{harvtxt|Rhoads|2010|loc=¶ 1}}; {{harvtxt|Dean|2011|loc=¶ 4}}; fans vs. casual readers: {{harvtxt|Fortune|2012|loc=¶ 4}}; {{harvtxt|Rudden|2012|loc=final paragraph}}.</ref>

the context is clear, irrespective of the footnote link's position, a couple dozen words away from the statement.

Markup Renders as
With few exceptions,{{who|date=April 2013}} fans of the gaming and [[fiction]] aspects of the Warhammer 40,000 universe embraced the detailed, canonical exposition of its major myth that ''The Horus Heresy'' represents. ... {{r|fandom}} 
With few exceptions,[who?] fans of the gaming and fiction aspects of the Warhammer 40,000 universe embraced the detailed, canonical exposition of its major myth that The Horus Heresy represents. ... [10]

the template {{who}} is inappropriate. all statements in the subdivision Fandom are sourced at footnotes within the subdivision. the particular statement is sourced in generic-fan-issues footnote "fandom" (how abtuse). the footnote explains the subdivision's statements in the order that they appear on the article text, so right away it deals with the disputed statement:

<ref name=fandom>An apparent minority among fans has considered the ''Series'' publication as unnecessary tampering with the universe's legends, or has disagreed with the shifting of the focus to an earlier period, see reader comments at {{harvnb|Brent (Brent Aleman)|2013}}; elsewhere, see {{harvtxt|Connor MacLeod et al.|2012}} for a fan-authored, detailed analysis of ''Series'' titles, and {{harvtxt|Perrin et al.|2011}} for a discussion of its art; by using published details and minutiae, fans have created unofficial works that fill gaps in ''Series'' coverage, such as a partial "Horus Heresy timeline" {{harv|isilvra|2011}}. The related discussion includes comments on continuity, as does {{harvnb|Antigonos et al.|2011}}; Heresy-related fan fiction has been judged in unofficial competitions by ''Series'' authors or editors, and winners have been collected in short story compilations released as [[public domain]] works through sponsoring [[fansite]]s {{harv|Goulding|2009}}; an ongoing ({{As of|2013|03|lc=y}}) discussion of future ''Series'' releases was at {{harvtxt|Masshuu et al.|2010}}.</ref>

again, the context is clear. all one has to do is carefully read the article, footnotes, and sources (i am biased towards immediate verification, so many sources are online).

Markup Renders as
Early in its publishing history, ''The Horus Heresy'' became a sales success in its category.{{clarify|date=April 2013}} [[#book1|''Horus Rising'']] by Dan Abnett, the opening title, set the pace shortly after its release, topping [[Locus (magazine)|''Locus'']] magazine's "Locus Bestsellers: Gaming-Related" list of August 2006; {{As of|2012|10|alt=as of [[#book20|Book 20]] (June 2012),}} practically{{clarify|date=April 2013}} every title in ''The Horus Heresy'' had achieved the same or similar performance on this chart.{{r|loc-bsl}} ''Horus Rising''{{'}}s January 2011 [[#CITEREFAbnett2011a|CD audiobook release]] also appeared in ranked sales lists: the (abridged) edition was number 15 in a related chart published by ''[[The Bookseller]]'', covering 2011 UK sales up to September.{{r|bs-b1-cd}} 
Early in its publishing history, The Horus Heresy became a sales success in its category.[clarification needed] Horus Rising by Dan Abnett, the opening title, set the pace shortly after its release, topping Locus magazine's "Locus Bestsellers: Gaming-Related" list of August 2006; as of Book 20 (June 2012), practically[clarification needed] every title in The Horus Heresy had achieved the same or similar performance on this chart.[6] Horus Rising '​s January 2011 CD audiobook release also appeared in ranked sales lists: the (abridged) edition was number 15 in a related chart published by The Bookseller, covering 2011 UK sales up to September.[7]

what's to clarify? it is a fact that the Series started with the opening title publishing in April 2006. this is sourced in the footnote "loc-bsl" immediately following the sentence. it topped the cited source's sales list of August 2006 (web link provided at the citation in "References"), but if that is not "early" enough, there's more:

<ref name=loc-bsl>{{harvnb|Locus Online|"Locus Bestsellers"}}. {{interp|For listings of other ''Series'' titles, search ''Locus Online''{{'}}s {{URL|1=http://www.locusmag.com/Monitor/category/bestsellers/|2="Weekly Bestsellers"}} archive pages. Charts lag data collection by 3 months}}.</ref>

as i note in the footnote (and the source in the citation itself), the sales data lead the particular chart by 3 months. so actually that book topped its category in May 2006, a month after publishing. it is true that i don't provide exact listing for the other books "achieving similar performance". one reason is again, brevity and avoidance of clutter; the source after all has extensive online archives where such statements can be verified, as i point out in the footnote. secondly sources are provided for sales successes of the books in several other sources, including the New York Times Bestseller list, which has a much wider coverage than the specialized genre lists of Locus (magazine). if someone cannot infer that a title that appears in the former, likely appears on the latter, then i'm at a loss for further explanation.

unfortunately i have to revert your edits again, but i am open to renaming the title and work as i mentioned above. probably inadvertently, you had also removed info about the 25th title which is technically on sale (preorder). so this will be restored as well.

70.19.122.39 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this perfectly clear: Series is in no way appropriate as a descriptor for the subject; there are no reliable sources that describe it as such in any capacity. Reliable sources describe the subject as The Horus Heresy, not Series. The word "Series" cannot be capitalized or italicized as if it the title of a work of literature, because it is not. Any edit that changes this will be reverted, because it is original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia. WP:ARTICLETITLE describes the title of the article, not the text of the article, so none of that applies to what you're saying. You're also incorrect with the assertion that the event and the series must be disambiguated in some way other than the Manual of Style: the series is in italics, the event is not. This is how works are distinguished on Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to invent a new name for the subject for any reason, not even claims of ambiguity with the event, which could be handled by specifying instances of the event. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, that is policy and must be adhered to. - SudoGhost 01:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
ok, relax, this is not that serious. the reason i used such convoluted naming is because the article title is wrong. i will edit the article to reflect your suggestion. but show some good faith by changing the article title to "Horus Heresy (book series)", since i obviously cannot do it. it is a much better title. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


it seems that i was looking at a cached version and did not realise that you had already edited the article. in any case the effect is the same. now please chnge the title. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, you don't need to include the content of the diff on the talk page. I'm quite aware of the contents of the edit, and honestly I'm not even reading any of that, because I'm already aware of what it says. - SudoGhost 09:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
i diddn't include diffs. i included parts of the article to show that sources do exist and in the proper context. what's the diff between putting a footnote link right after a word rather than at the end of the sentence/paragraph? obviously, the more you deal the minutiae, the more convoluted the explanation has to become. anyway, there's no controversy here. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

insertion of the template {{Overly detailed}} by Sudo[edit]

needs clarification. Sudo will be asked to provide specifics about what prompted this insertion, because i find it completely unwarranted. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion above. - SudoGhost 01:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
well, no. pls specify why this template is needed here. if you are right in inserting the template, i have no problem following. but i don't think you are. so convince me. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
See above, there is no point in discussing this twice. - SudoGhost 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Official website?[edit]

Is this really the "official website"? It looks like a blog, and hasn't been updated since 2011 and things such as the "Connect with The Horus Heresy" buttons (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) don't even work; it's just an image. It is my understanding that this is the official website, if any one website could be said to be "the official" one. - SudoGhost 17:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

i agree that it is iffy, but it is the only official site by the publisher that deals exclusively with the heresy, including synopsis, characters, etc. (though most of the info is online reprint of content in the Art Book Series). also most of the covered titles are Series titles, so... the other site you mention is the publisher's official website, which is cited several times in the article. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no indication that it's the official website, only a website, and not one that's being used any more. Since it is a couple of years out of date, it's not useful to anyone, and is misleading in that it makes it seem that nothing has happened since 2011. - SudoGhost 02:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
whether it is currently active or not, it is the website that includes information about the Horus Heresy, describing the whole event , characters, etc. (so it is useful), and 90% of the titles mentioned are series books. it is also published by the company that holds the copyrights. that makes it the official website, unless one is a massive stickler for detail. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It is a single website of several that provides such information, and being "useful" does not make something the official website, especially when that claim to being useful became out-of-date years ago. Being published by the company that holds the copyrights also does not make it the official website. If anything this seems to be "the official" website, since it also meets all of those criteria but is actually kept up to date and it the site that is actually promoted by the company. I don't think there is a single "official website", and if there is one, it certainly isn't the defunct one that has nothing showing that it's the official website in any way. - SudoGhost 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the excessive hidden text in the article[edit]

The hidden text doesn't belong on the article, so I've removed it again. Per Help:Hidden text, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to assume ownership of an article, and that's exactly what the text is being used for. The "documentation" the text refers to is a single editor's opinion, not based in any consensus and is nothing more than how they would like the article to be written, so there is no cause to include hidden text in caps lock in each and every section of the article directing editors to a single editor's opinion. That is the very first example Help:Hidden text uses as an inappropriate use of hidden text in an article. Even if the hidden text were appropriate, the amount used in the article is unnecessarily excessive, when an Wikipedia:Editnotice would serve the desired function. However, an editnotice doesn't belong on the top of an article to promote a single editor's opinion, that's not the purpose of an editnotice and it's not the purpose of hidden text. - SudoGhost 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

this has been discussed above. so your new commentary doesn't make for interesting reading. i disagree with what you say. again, get another opinion, because you are not convincing me. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You being convinced is not required to remove your hidden text promoting your ownership of the article. Short of consensus to include it it does not belong; you disagreeing does not matter when Help:Hidden text does not support the inclusion of the hidden text. - SudoGhost 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
you know something, you would be right, if you had another argument. but you are wrong. there's no article ownership. and since nothing forbids 1. helping other editors understand the article 2. providing them with the appropriate documentation for such understanding 3. alerting them to the presence of such documentation, in order to 4. make constructive, not destructive edits - then i guess it belongs here. i suggest you do similar in other articles. thousands of articles need something like this doc. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Telling others that they need to look at your documentation before editing, and reverting any edits by other editors is pretty clear WP:OWN. "Helping others understand the article" is saying "Helping others understand how I want the article", and that's exactly the reason the hidden text does not belong and will not remain in the article short of a consensus to the contrary. - SudoGhost 00:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
wrong again. i don't tell anyone they need to look at the doc. you and anyone else can just ignore it. since i am the main contributor and since the article has complex markup, the doc clarifies what i did and why. everything is according to policy, and more importantly presents a good, complete, impartial article to readers. you have no case. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems that at least two other editors disagree with that assessment, and you've now gotten yourself blocked twice for it. Turns out saying "you have no case" doesn't magically make it true. You are more than welcome to try to work with other editors to improve articles, but this "This is my article, you have no case therefore we do it my way" behavior doesn't work on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 17:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

reasoning for reverting edits of 2013/05/16[edit]

these edits were entered while i was involved in a dispute and blocked for 48 hrs.

1. the revision [1] by User:とある白い猫 (removal of hidden comment re: section link)

per WP:TARGET (and common sense) the removed comment is justified. see also Template:Anchor comment.

the edit of this revision is unconstructive and will be reverted.

2. the revision [2] by User:ChrisGualtieri who made several unhelpful/unconstructive edits (AWB "fixes")

AWB is buggy and previously, has made several errors in attempting to "fix" the particular article.

per Template:Italic title: "Normally the template is placed at the top of the article." The output of the template affects the title, therefore it is properly positioned before the hatnote.

AWB replaced specifically inserted non-breaking hyphens with regular hyphens, potentially affecting readability and context.

AWB replaced specifically inserted user-friendly parameter aliases in citation templates potentially affecting editors' ease of use.

these are not "fixes". the edits of this revision are unconstructive and will be reverted.

3. the revisions [3] [4] and [5] by User:ChrisGualtieri (blanket removal of hidden text re: editor's documentation project)

there is a reason for this text, and discussion about it at this talk page. a terse summary without explanation is unjustified.

the edit of this revision is unconstructive and will be reverted.

4. the revisions [6] and [7] by User:ChrisGualtieri (hatnote edit)

here User:ChrisGualtieri says that he "cleans up" but actually introduces confusion and obfuscation. the "Horus Heresy" includes many other works of literature unrelated to this series. redirecting to the appropriate section of the target is the proper and most exacting disambiguation, per guidelines.

the edits of these revisions are unconstructive and will be reverted.

5. the revision by [8] by User:ChrisGualtieri (removal of section)

a whole section was deleted. it is actually pertinent because: (a) the article is about an ongoing book series currently being published. (b) because it is linked from elsewhere in the article and has attendant footnotes that verify the linked statements, which pertain to the deleted section. (c) because it may include a conditional table.

the edit of this revision is unconstructive and will be reverted.

6. the revision [9] by User:ChrisGualtieri (removal of citation)

the particular facebook entry is reliable in the context in which it is used. it verifies statements attributed to the publisher, and statements of others that are explicitly referred to in the text. removing it affects the verifiability of the article. per the policy on reliable/primary sources, there is justification for its inclusion.

the edit of this revision is unconstructive and will be reverted.

7. the revision [10] by User:ChrisGualtieri (removal of a footnote)

this was sloppy. he removed an unrelated footnote.

the edit of this revision is unconstructive and will be reverted.

8. the revision [11] by User:ChrisGualtieri (removal of section)

the entire section was removed. the section had a summary listing of major characters, who are referenced several times in the text. it also included term definitions and other significant information. among other things, the {{Main}} page for this summary section is unfortunately below standard and was offered only as a signifier. further, the section itself was anchored and linked. removal of such relevant and pertinent info is unjustified.

the edit of this revision is unconstructive and will be reverted.

9. the revision [12] by User:ChrisGualtieri (misapplication of template)

the template {{main}} does not belong under the synopsis.

the edit of this revision is unconstructive and will be reverted.

the affected editors will be notified.

70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The invisible text goes against its specific use and serves no valid purpose. It should be removed, we do not need it in every single section. Much of the redundant and useless invisible text bloats out the article. Many references are improperly used. Like how a forum post is being used as a source. Re-adding it is a problem. Facebook is no different. The referencing system you install purposely conceals the source from the reader. These are not reliable sources for an article. "Perrin [pseudonym] et al. (16 November 2011). "Best Horus Heresy cover-art ever, In my opinion". The Bolter and Chainsword (online discussion site)." [13] Its a forum post. This isn't either "Masshuu [pseudonym] et al. (10 May 2010). "Upcoming Horus Heresy Novels". Warhammer 40k Forums, Articles & Blogs (online discussion site). UK: 40K Forums. "Forum: Warhammer 40k Bacground and Stories" [14] Even the timeline is unreliable and cited to a forum post. isilvra [pseudonym] (17 February 2011) [timestamped "09:31 PM"]. "Horus Heresy timeline: Post #3". In (discussion originator) AekoldHelbrass [pseudonym]. [15] These are all examples of unreliable sources and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Let's focus on this before we get to other issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Article clean up[edit]

I like the anchoring and much of the little mark up tweaks which make the page more robust, but I am concerned about the referencing nightmare here. I've never seen such a difficult to follow referencing system which uses the in article ref to point to a foot note which points to another footnote which points to another footnote which points to a mass list of sources. Its not proper in the least, like having pseudonyms be used with 'et.al' to denote forum posts for issues they are not reliable sources on. Like timelines and such. We need to fix the referencing before we can really understand the state of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up the references, but it's a mess and is taking longer than I thought it would. - SudoGhost 03:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


The Emperor was not enraged with Magnus[edit]

I disagree with the use of the word enraged to explain the Emperors reaction to Magnus using his powers to alert of Horus's betrayal. He was not enraged in any way, he was in fact saddened beyond belief and the decision to send in the Wolves was a very difficult one for the Emperor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.120.202.205 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference sales-perform was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference popularity was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference sales-direct was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference reviews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference crit-balance was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference loc-bsl was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference bs-b1-cd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference crit-auth was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference crit-cmnt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference fandom was invoked but never defined (see the help page).