Talk:Warhammer 40,000

These articles are ruined

I'd like to go to the article page links, yet I'm still trying to figure out why you FUCKING RETARDS deleted or merged half the Warhammer 40K pages. Now I can't find a fucking thing and half the article links are to articles that DON'T EXIST.

Seriously, who was the genius that did this? Lemme guess, some overzealous wiki admin "made it so"? This is bullshit. Revert it. You've actually made things terribly worse. 66.153.217.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Go check the AfD history, and you can see exactly who decided to whack the cruft, and why. No need to guess. Also, you can tell by the fact that people on both sides of the discussion write fairly grammatically that nobody (deletionist or inclusionist) is a fucking retard. But I went ahead and removed those red links that were bothering you. Hopefully you find the page more agreeable now.210.160.15.16 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, no, they're still very much considered retards by myself (and others). And, checking the history means little when you don't know WHEN they were removed. The fact is, several well-written and detailed pages (like the WH40K timeline, weapons page, ect.) were all deleted. It doesn't make sense, and it was a damn stupid decision. Yet, it doesn't matter. Wikiadmins are the ultimate authority and do whatever the hell they want. If they say the page gets deleted or stays deleted, there's little use in bothering with trying to improve the situation. But, thanks to all those you ruined perfectly good articles with your particulars (wikipolitics for the win, huh?). I'll just be using the Lexicanum from now on, since shit doesn't mysteriously go missing in the dead of night (never to be seen again) over there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.146.44 (talk • contribs)
    • I'm sure you'll be missed here. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • And I'll miss your sarcasm. In all seriousness, I have done edits to WH40K pages in the past and DID try to help improve them. I still don't think the pages deserved to be deleted and I still think it was a damn stupid decision to go ahead with it. But, like I said, I must bow to wikiadmins wish and will. I certainly can't challenge them. 64.150.146.44 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Who said I was being sarcastic? Anybody who can usefully contribute to 40K articles, and keep them within the boundaries of WP:FICT (provide real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on the development and historical significance, not just a detailed summary of plot, and provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) and WP:SOURCES (not just using Games Workshop material (which includes codexes, the books printed under the Forge World banner like Imperial Armour or the fiction published by Black Library) is valued on Wikipedia.
          Computer game articles don't (or at least shouldn't) just consist of plot lines and information provided by the developers - they include sources such as reviews in reliable magazines, articles written about the impact the game had, and other information related to the way the games relate to the real world. Film articles might list a summary of the plot, but will also include properly sourced information about how they were made, and why certain decisions were made... why should articles about 40K not be subject to those same rules?
          The "meat" of a 40K article should be "This is such-and-such army/faction/character. In the game they are represented by these models, which were designed by such-and-such person. This army/faction/character has such-and-such special abilities in the game. Such-and-such magazine praised the army/faction/character for this-and-that reason, but did not like this-and-that thing about it. For the back story associated with the game, the writers drew inspiration from such-and-such book/myth/film/religious organisation." and so on. That way they adhere to the rules Wikipedia has in place for articles. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, if none the 'meat' that JediLofty has suggested has reliable third party sources to back it up, it's a moot point. All the articles were deleted due to lack notability. In this case, the 'meat' in the deleted articles was purely covered by primary resources.

Even if an article was written exactly in the manner suggested it can be undermined if the sources and coverage were revealed to be primary. Thusly, many well written articles were aggressively deleted solely for that one failure to meet the notability policy. Thankfully, I think most of the content was ported over to wikia and Lexicanum, at least in the beginning until the deletions began to out-pace Falcorian's transwiki efforts. Oh well. 69.158.126.83 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seems like a tempest in a teapot, to me. The articles were great. Awesome. And didn't fit Wikipedia. They've been ported to other wikis (Lexicanum, wikia), where they fit. So...what's the big deal? If somebody wrote an awesome piece of fiction in Wikipedia, and it got moved to another site, would that be some horrible "FUCKING RETARD" incomprehensible decision? No, you'd just think "Ok, that makes sense, it was awesome, but didn't fit here, and now it's been moved to somewhere that fits". Same with the warhammer stuff. It was awesome, incredibly interesting, and informative. It also was in the wrong place by being here. Now it's in the right place. That seems like an improvement, both for the wikia and Lexicanum, and for wikipedia. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• The reason for people's objection is that very few people are familiar with Lexicanum or Wikia. WP is the first stop for just about anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly Tealwisp that's their problem not wikipedia's. This is an encyclopedia, one with rules for inclusion, and if people don't want to accept these rules they can go elsewhere.
And BTW, 66.153.217.223 / 69.158.126.83 / 64.150.146.44 your behaviour in this discussion is unacceptable. Please read WP:EQ, WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. If you don't follow these rules, guidelines and policies for communicating on wikipedia you will be blocked--Cailil ^talk

Ironic. A wikiadmin. They seem to appear only long after the issue at hand is beyond repairing.

First, wikipedia does have rules, yes. Rules are needed. Rules are good. What isn't needed and what isn't good is policy-Nazis that only enforce the rules when they want too. Unfortunately, this covers most wikiadmins. Have you ever noticed how many pages have trivia sub-sections? Technically, they shouldn't be there. Some admins campaign aggressively against it, sometimes leading to large in-fights between people just over a god damn sub-section of a page. Why are the rules enforced to the letter in some pages and utterly abandoned the next?

Secondly, my behavior is not unacceptable. My contributions, effort, and opinion (on whether the page should stay) was decladed "Null and void" without ANY say-so or objection from me. That shit doesn't fly, no matter how you slice it. I have a DAMN GOOD reason to be pissed at this situation, as do many others. How would you like it if pages you had worked diligently on suddenly disappeared and you were given NO explanation or say in the matter? What if you didn't have the admin powers to reverse it? Would you not be angry? Would you not want others to know the bullshit you endured? And I only made minor edits (yet still had to resort to some fact checking). If I were the person(s) behind the page creation, I'd be filing complaints against those that deleted the pages. And, no, I won't be apologizing to anyone I offended, since I haven't received any apologies from my offenders. If you didn't have a hand in the mass page deletions, you shouldn't be offended anyways.

What has been done here is far worse than anything you can accuse me of. It borders on censorship. It isn't right and you know it. I will not remain quiet while the work of myself and others is casted into the garbage can and the policy-Nazis justify it by linking to wikipolicy (even though it met almost all of the guidelines). 64.150.146.44 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Its sad but true, I've been seeing this type of stuff going on for while now whole articles getting deleted or merged and alot of actually normal information getting deleted before anyone has a say in the matter. Starcraft and Warcraft had this happen to there articles, probably Star wars (IDK I need to check though)

• I've seen alot of good articles died because of morons with power. Its very sad.. Ripster40 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree that whoever destroyed the 40k wiki pages deserves to diaf... there was so much information about everything and now it is all gone, so many years of work just deleted because of some idiots. IWarriors (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Almost none of it has been deleted in any useful sense of the word. It's been moved to other wikis where it belongs. If folks are idiots from removing it from wikipedia for not matching wikipedia's requirements, then what does that say of the people who poured years of work into writing something on wikipedia knowing that wikipedia's notability rules are such that it would get deleted? 210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually they have ruined it, in the process of doing some fine work they did manage to delete information about the Black Templars (There is nothing about them in the Space Marine article) and its just sad really that wikipedia is turning out to be like this. Also if there was a problem then why did people let the wiki go on for years then suddenly go decide to butcher the articles?209.169.244.29 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree that letting it go for years was a problem. However, I wouldn't say that the retards were the editors who decided to delete the offending material, the retards were the editors who let people waste their time for years making the articles. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K's connection to Starcraft

There is quite an interesting story here, if someone wants to pursue the citations. The way I understand it, Blizzard was contracted to make a computer game of Warhammer for Games Workshop; the deal fell through, and Blizzard took their partially completed game and made Warcraft out of it. Blizzard devolved Warhammer's four races of Humans, Dwarves, Orcs, and Elves to two forces.
Years later, long after the original contract, and with a completely different project, Blizzard released Starcraft. It seems unlikely that Blizzard could claim rights to use GW concepts to a different game, or on a new project, yet compare the races of Warhammer 40k with those of Starcraft. Tyrannids are a widely varied assortment of species of perfect killing machines, their bodies highly evolved to suit specific tasks within the Tyrannid collective; the very definition of the Zerg. Space Marines are, well, Space Marines. Last and probably most loosely connected, the lithe sinewy bodies of the Eldar belie their prowess in savage hand to hand combat, as is true of the Protoss.
This has become more relevant with the upcoming release of Warhammer Online, brought to life (and paid for) by Mythic. Many are under the misconception that WAR is a copy of WOW, when in fact it is the other way around. Anarchangel (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty it doesn't matter, Warhammer is also just a "Copy" of Lord of the Rings. So the point is moot and everytime I hear "OH world of warcraf is just a copy of WAR" I go "Well War is just a copy of Lord of the rings" So please its moot end it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.244.29 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And Tyrannids are a copy of the Alien by H.R. Giger. DnD copied Tolkien. I accede that point. There are myriad cases of borrowing/stealing/homage, in scifi/fantasy, which are matters of interest alone, which alone is reason to discuss them. This one is also potentially a legal matter. But perhaps you are using 'moot' in the courtroom sense of 'no longer under discussion', rather than its proper and endangered sense of 'for discussion'. In the proper sense, this matter is most certainly moot. In the legal sense, well, that would be for lawyers to decide, wouldn't it? Anarchangel (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal sense yah it is, to the point if you wanted to have legal actions the first two people will be H. G. Wells and Tolkien since those two started the basic sci-fi and fantasy genres. 209.169.244.29 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Another potential source

http://www.tauonline.org/index.php if any of the deletionists are checking this, take a look and plug your holes in it. Tealwisp (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes that source reliable? Pagrashtak 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is - it looks like just another blog-with-a-message-board. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is another source, a games review magazine. They have articles on Dawn of war. Another did a series of articles on the weapons, but I'm having trouble finding it. I'm pretty sure it meets the reliability requirements, but what are you're opinions (I believe the magazine is GameSpot). Tealwisp (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft?

"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate details which may only interest a specific audience. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones. (July 2008)" The template for this is called Fancruft. Darn silly name for an elitist concept if you ask me. Intricate details are what separate Go Fish from Poker, and modern strategy games from, dare I say it, yes I will, Chess. Chess' gameplay is elegantly complex, but it is not complicated by any stretch of the imagination. Modern strategy games are an advancement of society, not some grubby little inconvenience that really ought to be hidden from websurfers.

I would never in a million years have thought of going to the Jean Paul Sartre page and marking it as "This article may contain an excessive amount of nebulous navel-gazing which may or may not have any bearing on the real life of any non-philosophers living or dead". Reason being, I appreciate what philosophy does for society. Should the poster of that Fancruft, and others like him/er learn to appreciate what strategy games do for the people playing them, the world would be a better place. I do believe that this is a perfect example of an ad hominem, or red herring: 'we don't want fan sites' > 'what is it that all fan sites have in common' > 'right, let's ban that then'. Anarchangel (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no cruft on either the Go Fish, Poker, or Chess pages. Nor any cruft on the Sartre page. Cruft is totally unnecessary in strategy games, as well. Warhammer 40K plays the exact same, whether you've just learned the rules, or whether you have memorized how Primarch Fulgrim once gave the Emperor of the Golden Throne a souvenir t-shirt from the planet of Agraxixix saying "I battled the Throbobbly in the 814th Great Galactic Crusade, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt". That stuff may be interesting, but it isn't what separates WH40K from Chess. I do believe that this is a perfect example of a false equivalence, or red herring. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have made it clear what I meant by details. I was speaking of gameplay and game mechanics details, while you appear to be speaking of flavor details, backstory, and such. I agree that the latter are not necessary to make a strategy game; that wasn't my argument.

I contend, just to clarify my personal opinion, that the use of flavor and backstory and even narrative is essential to striving to make a strategy game -better-. Your sarcasm, (and I don't mean any criticism by the use of that word, it is one of my favorite things) and your use of the word cruft to describe it, indicates that you and I disagree, however, about the -value- of flavor, I would never (in the foreseeable future) call it cruft.
I stress, although I feel I had done sufficient to point it out in the original statement, that my use of examples was purely to provide a baseline with which to describe the merit of and the policy regarding strategy games, not examples of cruft or other deficiencies.
The template has been removed; whoever did it deserves credit.

I was mistaken in one way about the relationship between fancruft and the template; the template, unwisely imo, uses fancruft WP:Fancruft page is an essay, which in fact largely dismisses the use of the term; labelling something fancruft is in no way Wiki policy, quite the opposite. The lead paragraph:

Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by their fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. The term is a neologism derived from the older hacker term cruft, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program.

However informal some of what I said may be, I stand by the whole. I qualify the ad hominem argument, almost to the point of retracting it; at the time I believed that WP:Fancruft was Wiki policy. However, I find that the use of the word fancruft in the WP:Fancruft template is misleading, given the essay's content, and may reflect a bias in the concept behind the template and its guiding concepts Anarchangel (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because the article has been radically altered. I understand your feelings about "cruft" and "fancruft", but some of the criticism applies. Games Workshop makes a significant portion of their money filling in the backstory for these strategy games. Players of all ages (but often younger players) develop an almost compulsive desire to fill in the blanks in story provided with incredible detail. Even between fans, this knowledge of backstory becomes a social skill (I remember this at Star Trek conventions). The more "trivia" (here trying to use the word neutrally) one can spout, the more impressed others are. this results in players coming to wikipedia wanting to mimic that level of detail in this encyclopedia. Since this is not designed to be a reference for 40K players, that level of detail is unacceptable. I look at it this way. If you already play 40K avidly and keep up with the backstory, an article like this is totally worthless. If you have read the books you know the story. However, it is also completely useless to someone who has never played 40K. If it is useless to a consummate insider and useless to a complete outsider, we have to revise the level of coverage. In this case it means presenting real world context to fictional material or shortening plot summaries as much as possible. For things like 40K, that means removing most of the backstory. While knowledge of the backstory is interesting to you and many players, a detailed recitation of it here is inappropriate.

If you note that gameplay mechanics and details aren't cruft, I usually tend to agree with you. I would like to be able to slightly expand the gameplay section, but I think it should be kept to material that is relevant to an outside observer. What, if you never played 40K before, would you have questions about if you watched one game? What is different from most miniature wargames? And so on. I don't want to turn this article (or the codex articles) into a list of errata and rule changes, but I want some clear, concise description of the rules (insofar as one can be made). It is probably impossible to completely summarize the rules (in this article), just as it would be impossible to completely summarize the rules for Advanced Third Reich. I don't think that is a good goal. I think we should shoot for a good basic description with some important salient points.

Further, the word "fancruft", like it or lump it, is part of the community. It probably isn't going anywhere. I try to not use the word, myself, but it slips out. Others are less careful or feel fewer concerns about using it. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Growth" section

Much of this is about Games Workshop, not 40k in particular. it should be moved to the GW article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe. A lot of it is about 40K as well. Keep in mind that just because they say "Warhammer" (the journalists) doesn't mean they aren't actually talking about 40K (they usually are). I have no objections to moving some of it, but sourced data on the popularity of the game is hard to come by. Protonk (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the section doesn't really discuss 40k; it discusses Games Workshop as a whole. I don't think that the exact number of minis sold by Citadel each year is as pertinent as, say, the number of copies of 40k sold, or the estimated fanbase. If we don't have sources we should punt the material. That said... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few more days before you start removing stuff. It is pretty difficult finding pertinent sources for this, but I've got a few wriggling on the hook. Protonk (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Miniatures / Terrain detail

Just now this is sort of collapsed into the gameplay section. I feel that this probably deserves its own treatment in a dedicated section. Yes, there'll be overlap between this and other GW articles, but I feel the current article rather gives short shrift to the miniatures which make up the majority of the interest in the hobby (and almost all of the revenue). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be adding more soon. Protonk (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

• Does the "nominally" in the lead and later in the text signify "being something in name or form only" or "according to plan"?

• In name. That is my wording. The "Imperium" of the fiction are humans and are meant to be us 40,000 from now, but there isn't a direct connection to earth or anything like now.

• "Models can "Go to Ground", granting them a bonus to their cover save. In the new rules, infantry units have the option to forgo their shooting for a turn in order to cover more ground. Vehicle damage has been simplified, and vehicles may now ram other vehicles.": I'll leave this up to you guys because I'm not experienced with reviewing game articles. It seems to me that this is potentially too in-universe for WP:WAF.

• I left it there because I haven't played in a decade or so and I don't actually own a copy of the new rulebooks. Hopefully someone who does can fix this up a bit.

• "A series of scenarios may be organized into a campaign, where two or more players fight against each other in a number of battles. These campaigns may feature their own special rules, and are typically tied together by a storyline, which might alter according to the results of each scenario when it is played.": sounds like Wikipedia to me.
• I didn't do images, endsections or infoboxes.
• Happy gaming! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Protonk (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You bet. Got rid of one of the "nominally"s. Cheers! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. We don't need "nominally" here. It is already established that the content is fictional. While the current sourcebooks don't contain anything on it, there has actually been an official timeline in the past going from the present day thru Dark Future and the Age of Strife, into the Great Crusade and on past the Heresy. I thought I'd heard that the long-long Dark Future novels were seeing a release at last, which might mean this is going back into canon. But even if it doesn't, so long as the reader already knows that the content is fictional then we can state outright that the Imperium is the continuation of the current human race. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warhammer 40,000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. After I have read the article thoroughly again, I will be posting comments here. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "This original version came as a very detailed, though rather jumbled, rulebook, which made it most suitable for fighting small skirmishes." - just so I understand, the entire game came as a rulebook? And then more rules were published in rulebooks and magazines?

• This is harder to answer. The game rules and basic storyline came in a rulebook (and later other books and magazines, etc). In order to play the game (though you could play with paper markers if you so desired), you had to buy miniatures and play with them. It is kind of analogous to Dungeons and Dragons. The rulebook determines in a very real way what kind of game it is--how long it takes, how much you have to memorize, etc. As the rulebooks change, we speak about them in synecdoche. The editions of the rulebooks become editions of the game, even though the pieces and the players remain the same. So in the literal sense, no, the came was not completely contained in the rulebook (although in later years, Games Workshop would experiment with selling kits of models, terrain and rulesets, not sure if they still do). But in less literal terms, the game was the ruleset...I hope that helps. It is kind of academic and I think I'm hopeless in effectively translating that into article prose. Protonk (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I am not clear what "units" are (or what they are composed of) although much of the other jargon I can guess. Do persons play as individuals, or do they for groups - units?

• Hopefull the changes in the lead and the gameplay section make this a little more clear. Protonk (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The third edition of the game, released in 1998, again concentrated on streamlining the rules for larger battles." - You suggested something along these lines for the first edition ("create larger and more coherent forces"), but did the second edition concentrate on streamlining the rules for larger battles?

• Slightly rewritten for clarity. The basic idea was that the first edition wasn't really a "polished" work and it's cumbersomeness made it hard to have large battles. Over time, kinks were worked out and the focus of the game changes slightly. I don't have the 1st and 2nd editions in front of me and I don't have some RS explaining that arc, so I'm loathe to go into great detail about it in the article. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• "granting them a bonus to their cover save" - what is a "cover save"?

• I think Thumperward fixed this. 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• You first wikiling codexes in the Gameplay. You should also wikilink it at first mention above.
• Perhaps you are following a video game format, but the History section would make a lot more sense if the Gameplay came first.

• This is a great suggestion. Done. Background>Gameplay>History>Reception>Spinoffs. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• How many players are there, or can there be? Does a player become one of the races? Do players form groups or is it always solo? I am not understanding the overall game. Maybe you could put a brief, simple description from the point of view of an individual player in the beginning, say in the lead. The link to Miniature wargaming helps, but I think the reader should not have to depend solely on reading all the wikilinks to be able to follow the article.

• I'll try to answer this better as I improve the gameplay section. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the first time you mention "participants" is under Modelling. Before that, there is no sense that people play this game.

• Hah. This is the kind of thing I never realize when writing this sort of article. Still working on this in changes to remind myself that humans play this game. :) Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "galaxy" equals "universe", or not?

• Hopefully fixed. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• It would also help if Background were up near the beginning, to orient the general reader. It would help to draw in the reader before you get into the more detailed info that makes no sense to a general reader like me.

• Moved. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should Spin-offs and related fiction come last?

• Moved. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Two Fair use images is probably O.K.

This is not a negative review. I can see the article is well written and very well referenced. I just need some help in following it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for a review like this. This is really exactly what I'm looking for. I used to play the game about a million years ago and ~90% of the editors to the page have played the game or play it currently. An outside viewpoint showing what unspoken assumptions we make is perfect. Let me look at the article itself some and see if I can change things around and then I'll attempt to respond to individual points. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you wouldn't mind giving this another read through for general approachability (now that a few changes have been made), I would greatly appreciate it. No rush. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is infinitely improved in approachability and makes very good sense now. I will read it through for MoS issues, etc. Did you notice that the article has a "citation needed" tag?

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I did. Chris added that when he introduced the "some tournaments require all models be painted sentence". I'm going to look through the newspaper sources I have (which means I have to log back on to lexis or proquest...grr...). If I can't find a source I'll modify the sentence or remove it. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Cn tag is fixed now. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• " that provide the backdrop and history span over millennia (eg, a 70-year civil war, a 1000-year crusade)." - millenia means generally a thousand years, so is a 70-year civil war right?

• I didn't add it, so I'm not sure what that refers to--it may refer to a backstory event that occurs before the "time" set in the game called Horus Heresy. I just removed it.

• " which consist of billions of regiments of thousands of normal soldiers of the worlds of the Imperium, and the Imperial Navy." - too many "of"s.

• Done

• "The Warhammer 40,000 game and fictional universe is made up of many races and species. The main playable armies in the game are the Chaos Daemons, Chaos Space Marines, Daemonhunters, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Space Marines, Tau Empire, Tyranids and Witch Hunters. Most races have variant armies." - maybe this sentence should go before you describe the races above in the section.

• Removed and another sentence (and source) added to clarify.

• "Each battle, at the onset, is assigned a set of additional rules and a goal" - who assigns - does it come out of the rule book?

• Hopefully explained. give it another go.

• There are "scenerios" and then "More complex scenarios exist in the main rulebook." ?? - sounds like there is a lot of leeway in how the gamers make up the game.

• That sentence was leftover from an older revision. I've changed the "scenario" paragraph a bit to make it hopefully less opaque.

• "comprise" - use another word, as you are repeating it at least three times

• But...but... It's so neutral and official sounding!

• "Those scenarios and the campaigns which many scenarios might comprise may be designed by..." - clumsy - too many "may"s

• fixed

I may have a few more comments before I finish. All the links check out and dabs are fine. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article is quite well done. You have clarified the issues. A very good job!

Finval GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose is good. b (MoS): No obvious MoS problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): The references use a uniform format. b (citations to reliable sources): They appear to be reliable and relevant. c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Article sets the context. b (focused): It focuses appropriately on the specifics.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Very neutral. (When I checked book reviews, etc. I was surprised at the strength of the fan base!)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congradulations! You have been very responsive to suggestions which I appreciate. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Inquisition Order Delete Warhammer 40,000 from wikipedia

Since browsing the few remaining Warhammer 40,000 pages left on wikipeida, it's clear to see, what a wonderful tome of information it used to be is now lost to the annuals of time, I move that we delete all traces left since, it honestly hurts my eyes to see the crap that is left.--IWarriors (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than using Wikipedia as a free source of Codexes you could, y'know, save your pocket money and buy the dead-tree versions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP was never a free codex. You forget that there were no listed rules, no hobby sections, and no copyrighted stories. The army listings were only descriptions. Tealwisp (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And the fluff, derived as it was exclusively from primary sources over which GW has shut down dozens of websites over the years for copying material from? Very few GW articles on WP ever contained anything other than fluff, either essay material from the memory of the contributor or near-direct C/Ps from source. Exactly the kind of articles which, were they Geocities pages ten years ago, would have swiftly served takedown notices. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If something hurts your eyes when you look at it, instead of trying to eradicate it, how about...not looking at it? 210.160.15.16 (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

By that logic we wouldn't delete vandalism or pages that somebody wrote about his pet dog. Look, a lot of articles have been transwikied to the Warhammer 40K wikia, and if anything was left out, ask me or another admin and we can move it there for you—even if it's been deleted. Nothing has been "lost", just moved, or possibly hidden if we looked over it during the transwiki effort. Wikipedia has rules about what content it accepts and what content it does not. We've just moved the content not suitable for Wikipedia over to another wiki that likes that kind of content. Pagrashtak 14:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a little confusing. It now occurs to me that you were probably misreading me, Pagrashtak. I wasn't saying "If stuff in the article sucks, don't delete the stuff, ignore it". I was actually speaking against that position, to Iwarriors, who said "this article has been edited in a way I don't like, and it hurts my eyes. Just delete it." I was saying "This article has been edited to properly fit Wikipedia's standards. If it hurts your eyes to see a proper wikipedia article, don't try to delete the article wholesale, just stop looking at it, and go to a site whose standards fit your desires." 210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)