Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Proposed Additions to Variants

The following are listed and explaination follows on why they are a variant and why they are notable as a variant. SanchiTachi 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The Daemonhunters Codex says that one can put forth a complete Grey Knights army, or they could run a Daemonhost army with a renegade Inquisitor and Imperial Storm Troopers.
  • The Witch Hunters Codex allows for a complete Sisters of Battle army and used to have an Ecclesiarchy army of priests and fanatics.
  • Deathwatch to be added to the Space Marines variants.
  • Salamanders to be added to the Space Marines variants, as they have their own rules, special characters, etc. They also were included in the Armageddon book and had special rules based on that.
  • Blood Ravens to be added to the Space Marines variants, as they are in the game and include their own rules.
  • Raven Guard to be added to the Space Marines variants, as they have their own special character and rules.
  • The two Tau paths that one can choose in the Dawn of War: Dark Crusade video game. They have specific units and rules given to each.
  • The Three Hive Fleets for Tyranids, each one has its own unique story, has its own unique way of attacking, its own color scheme and own unit makeup.
  • There are some other Ork groups, but I can't think of them right now. If someone could post, that would help.
Leave the detail out of this main article - it can go under the respective articlesGraemeLeggett 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
On the Orks? I think a general mention of Clanz (at least in the top part after the Space Marines spiel about Chapters being variants, to include legions being variants of Chaos and Clanz being variants of Orks). But regardless, I thought they were adding in a new group, unless I'm just thinking of Black Orcs from fantasy. SanchiTachi 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Graeme: while all those variants are verifiable, putting all this information into the main article doesn't improve it (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and all that). If we can't find a verifiable criterion which allows a smaller number of different armies to be listed, how about we just remove that listing entirely? Cheers --Pak21 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed that (their complete removal) before and support it wholeheartedly. SanchiTachi 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Reason to Remove Excess

Edited for succinctness

Manual of Style External Links see here. "Certain optional standard sections should be added at the bottom of an article"

The sections are option. The Unofficial Wiki is a fan page and cannot be included in external links. The official page is referenced in the main page, so its redundant. The Wiki quotes and the rest are Wiki pages and have to be in "see also" if we follow the guidelines as strictly as Pak suggests. SanchiTachi 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Future references?

Anyone know how many of the reference links got a "retrived on 29th May" tag? Darkson - BANG! 22:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

lmao SanchiTachi 01:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Not a future reference, but maybe in the future someone will compile information from this to put as a reference: [1] From [2] A third party source/analysis of Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000.

"... notably sf but also fantasies like Robert E. Howard's Conan (1987) and Andre Norton's Witch World (1988). Outside the USA, Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing (Games Workshop 1986, Hogshead Publishing 1995) is ... and rules supplements, and also has an sf spinoff, Warhammer 40,000 (1991). ..." p 383

"... series, Route 666 * (anth 1990) in the Dark Future series, and Deathwing * (anth 1990) with Jones in the Warhammer 40,000 series. As a critic, DP was initially associated with J. G. BALLARD, whose works he promoted vigorously; the contents of ..." p 788

The Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute and John Grant. At least a mention that it was mentioned in such a collection of notable fantasy works. SanchiTachi 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, some more references: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8].

If someone wants to chop them up and add them, plus with the section above to its own section (critical review) or put it in the history section at the bottom, that would be great. If not, I will try to work on it later. Two big RPG/Fiction resources to go off of, which helps with expanding on notability. SanchiTachi 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Variants, again

Please stop adding loads of variants to the list. It is not supposed to be exhaustive and the ones listed are simply examples, that is all. I have lowered the number for each to 3 - it makes the point whilst avoiding unneeded listitis.-Localzuk(talk) 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lexicanum

SanchiTachi (via sockpuppets) is repeatedly removing the link to the Lexicanum on the basis that "fansites are not allowed[.] It says it right there and on the external links page, stop breaking the rules.". However, WP:EL nowhere mentions the word "fansite", and its comment on open wikis is that those links are normally to be avoided "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I believe the Lexicanum does have a reasonable history of stability and a substantial number of editors, and its addition to this page is useful for readers, as it allows them to get more detail on the Warhammer 40,000 universe than is possible on Wikipedia itself. Does anyone else have any views on this? Cheers --Pak21 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Added it back in, and reported Snachi's latest socks. I also see nothing on WP:EL that outlaws Lexicanum. User:Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no real problem with fansites in themselves. Each must be reviewed independently and determined whether they are of any value at all. There certainly shouldn't be a blanket ban on referencing them. However, I've only just looked at Lexicanium for the first time today and have to say I didn't think much of it. Talking of the gloriously rational and succinct SanciTachi (and I do miss the dear old chap/chapess), Lexicanium just really reminds me of all the things I didn't like about his/her edits. Unreferenced, un-timed information for information's sake. Personal opinions. No sense of how Brother Damos of the Angels Porphyr differs from Dark Eldar Warrior. I'd prefer not to have this showing as a reference under External links and certainly not called "the" unofficial Warhammer 40,000 wiki. External links should be GW's main 40k page (plus maybe Forge World's Imperial Armour page and the Black Library's 40k page) and maybe any reviews/previews from other sites that aren't already used as references. - Heavens To Betsy 11:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
There's also a Wikia 40K wiki as well (started June 2005), so I don't think there's a need to give Lexicanum any sort of precedent. I think we should use wikilinks if the wikis are good, though I would point out that Lexicanum is free to not follow WP citation rules, AFAIK, so I wouldn't call a lack of references a problem unless the material is thoroughly nonsensical. MSJapan 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thing is external links aren't for references - that is what the reference section is for after all. I usually use ELs for further reading on the subject which I don't hold to such a high standard.
Of course the ironic thing about Sanchi removing the Lexicanum link is that after leaving here they started editting over there [9]. (Emperor 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
Other Wiki Wiki Link
Lexicanum 40k with French and German Warhammer 40,000 Main Page
Relic 40k's Dawn of War Dawn of War Page
TV Wiki 40k Entries Warhammer 40,000 Page
Wikia 40k Wiki Warhammer 40,000 Main Page
Uncyclopedia 40k Wiki Parody Page Warhammer 40,000 Page

Some guys were talking about this at work so I decided to provide a collection of Warhammer 40,000 wiki pages that I know of. If it can't go on the page, why not just post it at the top of the talk? Its not the best but I just whipped it together on the fly. I hope this chart helps even though it kinda sucks. - A GW HQ employee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.139.78.17 (talkcontribs) 00:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

Just in case anyone isn't aware of it, User:4.139.78.17 is almost certainly User:SanchiTachi again and certainly not a "GW HQ employee" as the entirety of the 4.x.x.x IP range is allocated to "Level 3 Communications, Inc." in Broomfield, Colorado, US. --Pak21 06:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted the previous. I'm on my lunch break and I came to check for a response. This was not what I expected, but is easy to deal with. The 4.139 IP range is internet coming from Baltimore City. It is not for Colorado. All internet from Baltimore County, Howard County, and Anne Arundel County comes from Baltimore City, and there are only three main internet providers. The Broomfield Colorado bit is obviously whoever owns the connection. I know from experience that we cannot use company computers to access things like this, so it would depend on whatever internet connection from whatever nearby location, such as the coffee shops in Glen Burnie along Route 2 and Route 10, or at the McDonalds right down the road. But its shows a lot of understanding for you to be so polite, to do some research on the topic, and to definately stay on topic. But if you want to make claims about a whole area of Baltimore, which happens to have the Head Quarters for Games Workshop and many employees at the HQ and the Bunker who are interested in what Wikipedia says about it, then go ahead. Obviously no one stopped you so far.

Hi guys, just stumbled on this issue by accident and I want to clarify some minor points. In my opinion the reason why SanchiTachi removed the Lexicanum references is because he more or less was thrown out of the Lexicanum project because of aggressive and indecent behaviour so I (personally) think he's just seeking revenge. Apart from that issue I won't recommend any of you to cite Lexicanum without checking on the provided sources, that's what we do even between the different languages of the project ;) I myself as one of the creators of Lexicanum admit that the wiki itself of course is a fan-project, but the articles should (obviously it's quite difficult to check everything myself) be based on official sources only. With best regards --Inquisitor S. 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

WH40K related articles are going to be open to soapbox attempts (WP:SOAP) due to the commercial nature of modelling. I've recently noted the Dark Angels conversion picture Image:Dark_angel_captain.jpg used on 3 pages by the author and I think we should be wary of advertising. Why should a 40K model represent "miniature gaming" and why should a private coversion be used in a 40K section? I realise it is a thin line and 1 model or company may well be used as imagery (and it is a nice image) but why one over another and why not more representative images? Being posted by the painter is fairly blatant too. I copied this paragraph form the miniature gaming page because it is relevant here too.

Geordie michael 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have already said on the other talk page, the original uploader only added it to miniature figure (gaming). I was the editor who added it to the other two pages, and in this article I don't think it is too much of a problem. However, I do understand why you may wish to remove it from the miniature figure article and this one, if you can find a "more representative" image, as you suggest.
I also formatted the link you mentioned. --Grimhelm 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Crazy idea, but I'm sure somebody must have 40K minis, right? :) I think if we have some standardly painted nonconverted minis from a few different armies inserted as pictures by the owners, they could be GFDL-compliant, without looking like advertising, and be representative. MSJapan 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Photos of GW minis are always copyright GW; see Commons:Derivative works#Casebook for the details. I'm not sure this affects your proposed solution too much though. Cheers --Pak21 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a good idea because this article does need more pictures in order to be improved. The conversion is under the section "Modelling", so it is hard to find a representative picture there, but elsewhere the article would do well to have some good pictures as you suggest. Still, I'm not as familiar with this game, so do what you feel is best. --Grimhelm 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually in this instance, the picture may be perfectly suitable. I would like to draw attention to the propogation of the image however, that begins to seem like WP:SOAP. This is a good example of WH40K modelling and conversion. But it's the third instance of the image and is far less suitable on the other pages. I think less obvious advertising or more suitable images on the other 2 pages would be helpful. After all, once the image is viewed the author's good work is there for people to see if they are inclined.Geordie michael 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure "derivative" applies here, because the minis are what 40K is based on, and as long as they're done in standard colors without conversion, I don't see that they could be called derivative. MSJapan 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In terms of copyright law, "derivative" does not have the negative connations you appear to think it does; see eg meaning 2 at Wiktionary. Photographs of miniatures are definitely derivative works under copyright law. --Pak21 15:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

30 minutes to 3 hours

In the infobox, I think this should be changed to unmetred or something simillar. Crazyboy899 12:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific Wiki?

On the Diablo page, at the bottom with the other links there is a link to a Diablo-Specific Wikipedia, Also there is the very big WowWiki.com, Is there a WarHammer 40.000 eqiuvalent? and if not, should one be made? -Rovdyr 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Google is your friend ;) There are tons, by the looks of things. Chris Cunningham 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Primarchs

Why no primarchs? Seriously other than the Emperor and horus these are clearly 18 of the most influential 40k characters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.9.12 (talk)

Not entirely sure what you're asking for here, but if you mean in the "Character" section, it's not meant to be exhaustive. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


The Greater Good

I've removed the link to the utilitarianism page from the Greater Good phrase. If the Tau actually are utilitarians, it's certainly not made clear in the fluff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boonk (talkcontribs) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility.Sounds alot like to the 'greater good' concept, in my opinion. --Opacic (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they are, but can you find a reference to cite that says they are? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV of History

?

instead it focused attention away from the highly customizable rank-and-file units of the Rogue Trader version to concentrate on over-powerful "special characters" which had access to equipment and abilities far beyond normal units and even "regular" heroes. Of course to field these army-shattering individuals a player had to buy the appropriate miniature, which was larger, heavier and pricier than the normal ones. This shift signaled the turning point for Games Workshop away from its roots as the gamers' company to a more commercial-corporate mindset.


I believe the above quoted in the History section has a clear bias. The fact that GW changed W40K's game mechanics is true, but inserting one's own reasons for this shift blaming it on GW being a 'greedy corporation' is simply too much. I believe the original writer had a preference to the old rules and is venting.Tedington (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Old rules were simply better, I was not "venting" anything...games workshop changed rules with the precise aim of peddling miniatures to pre-teens and did away with several manuals of rules it had been busy publishing for 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.36.84 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the contentious section to attempt to find a balance - the changed rules did lead to over-powerful special characters, but arguing that this was because GW wanted to make more money is a bit silly. Seeing as you could field 2000 point armies of five to ten miniatures, costing maybe £50 (less than an entire IG platoon now), that's not really supported. It's certainly not encyclopaedic to include this. Is this an acceptable wording for people? Supersheep (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

-Sorry, what? That's still bias, whilst I'm not a fan of the pre-teen kiddies you find at your local Games Workshop it's no reason to imply their killing the game or dumbing it down. --Opacic (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry..

I screwed up the code at the beginning by accident adding an external link, could someone fix it please?

Sorry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkyman404 (talkcontribs)

Neutrality Disputed?

Is the History section really still being disputed as to whether or not it's a NPOV? I really can't see anything that portrays GW in a negative or incredibly positive light in regards to what it's done with the franchise.--Opacic (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Horus and the Emperor's Children

Horus is listed on the project page as being a notable character, and the Emperor's Children are one of the four main Chaos legions, but every time I try to add them to the article Darkson removes them with the message "list is not exhaustive", which is clearly not an issue for these two things. --Muna (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with either being added to the respective list, but the last time this was discussed consensus was against adding anything else to the list. To be honest, I think it's daft that neither ARE listed, but personal opinion isn't what Wikipedia is about. If an unofficial vote is being taken, add my vote for both being added. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As this is also on the 40K project page, I suggest rather than spiltting discussion, all comments are made here instead. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 13:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vassal 40k Module

If had added the follwoing:


===Playing by Internet=== There is a Warhammer 40K Module for the Board-, Card- and Tabletopsimulationsoftware [[VASSAL (Software)|Vassal]]. This Module enable the player to play Warhammer 40 live by Internet against people from all over the world<ref>[http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/VASSAL_40k_Module VASSAL 40k Module articel (Lexicanum)]</ref>. That module includes a virtual table, counters, random dice and graphics for most units and characters of all fraction. The newest version is 3.5.5<ref>[http://www.mediafire.com/?df4ygbgbxvx Version 3.5.5]</ref>.

It was removed by Darkson. I think it shouldn`t, as it many readers might like to get this information. Why shoud it be removed (without a discussion)?--Dark Scipio (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because a 40K vassal is illegal (at least one 40K vassal module has been removed by GWs lawyers), and could possibly get Wikipedia into trouble for "advertising" it.
At least that's the way I see it.Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Its is in no way illegal. All GW-related modules were removed from the Vassal page after a request by GW, but Vassal did this because of their own module hosting policy, not because GW had any right to olige them to that. The module itsself is not illegal. And that was not the reason given when you removed it (while also calling that boasting is clearly not the way people on wikipedia should interact). --Dark Scipio (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that it IS illegal, as 40K is Games Workshops intellectual property and all units, factions (including their names and designs) are copyrighted, and trademarked by GW. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well crack cocaine is illegal, and so is murder (at least in this country). Legality is no reason not to include something in wikipedia. If third-party reliable sources can be found discussing VASSAL and the GW 40k module take-down then why not include it to the article? --Davémon (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is incomplete. Your hypothetical is, to write about crack and murder, not writing the cell phone numbers of crack dealers and assassins. One is discussion of crime, the other is enabling crime. A shame, though, that GW prefers selling plastic to selling a world-wide game table. See my entry below for why Blizzard is rich and they are not, because of this decision. And thanks for adding it to Talk; that site will be my next stop.Anarchangel (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable third-party sources that should be okay. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Module uses no intellectual property of Games Workshop. Perhaps you will want to look into a matter before you make any statements. Of course there are some realtions, but it all independet work, no rules for example. It nothing more than a virtual battlefield. If we take your statement serious, all articles about Fanwork, Mods and even this whole Warhammer 40k Wikiarticle must be removed. --Dark Scipio (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

40K Radio

40K Radio is a great podcast all about 40K, and there should be a link to it somewhere. Also comment on the variety of the fanbase.Captain0loken (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats right. --Dark Scipio (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Horus Heresy

Given that searching for the Horus Heresy novels went back to the tabletop game, I made a very small page to disambiguate them - just as "Dawn of War" shouldn't redirect to this page. It's not intended to be anything other than an overview of the novels, which are a seperate entity from the game. Slavedriver (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and potential protection

I've noticed that this page has reasently been vandalized at least once a day -sometimes more- for the past several days. So, as I stated in the notes of my revert, if there is so much as one vandalism in the next seven days, I will ask for page protection on this page. (Justyn (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

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 (talkcontribs)
      • I'm sure you'll be missed here. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow 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 meFollow 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 (talkcontribs) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.32.54 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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)
Just insert the informations lost here into the Lexicanum, the best Warhammer wiki. --92.229.83.236 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I ended up at warhammer after a little wiki-wander, I know nothing nothing about warhammer other than I think the little models are cute, but I agree with the angry guy. Pokemon has pages and pages and pages here on wiki, even though they have their own 'bulbipedia' or something. Why can't warhammer have their numerous articles? Genuine question. 115.64.96.194 (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask if the main WH40k article explictly linked to the Lexicanum?

Well if the problem is the unofficial resource isn't well known enough, then just hae a link in the main article. (Or even a section of 'Further Online Reading'... and ' stop deleting articles ' until ' everything ' is copied over! Then feel free to delete everything and start over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.122.216 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is more visible if you follow the normal guidelines for a new topic and stick it at the bottom. Put it up here and everyone assumes that it is older. The link at the bottom of the article is enough, I should think. If people are looking for further information, External Links is where they would look.Khanaris (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2009 (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)
Dude if you're going to go legal then you don't have the right to invoke "moot" since you're definitely not Tolkien. And unless you're Tolkien, then arguments which evade the main issue is rendered "useless". Like your claim of "moot" is "useless" in this matter. It's a fact that starcraft copied warhammer. And that's all there is to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.162.6 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I accept that SC certainly walks and talks like a copy of 40K. Is there some source that has ever discussed the subject? Protonk (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes! I remember a gaming mag from a few years ago with an article about why peoples' favorite games were crap, and one of those mentioned was Starcraft, for the reason that it was a copy of 40k. I think it was GameInformer, a year or so after the first Halo was released, perhaps as late as just after Halo 2. I don't know if I can find it, but I'll try. Tealwisp (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The rumour about Starcraft's origins has been around for a long time, but in all honesty I don't think there is enough there to qualify as more than opinion and/or original research. The setting of Starcraft owes as much to Starship Troopers or Aliens as it does to Warhammer 40k. And the setting of Warcraft has far more in common with Lord of the Rings than with Warhammer Fantasy. I don't think the cursory similarities between Starcraft and 40k are worth mentioning here. While there are certainly elements inspired by older material, it does not fall within the bounds of plagiarism, so you can not say that it was "copied". This sort of material would be more appropriate in a dedicated article about "generic" elements common to various science fiction and fantasy settings, as there is a great deal of literature on that subject. It has little to do with Warhammer 40k directly. Khanaris (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tut, tut. Technically everything the Human Race does is a copy of something in the past, just better. I'm not saying SC is better, because I'm a huge 40k fan, and I could care less for SC while acknowledging it's success and popularity. But....allay yourselves with the fact that 40k is getting (hopefully-not like Bloodquest a while back) a CGI film on Ultramarines. Leonnatus (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Everyone here who accuses games workshop of copying previous series is correct GW would make no mone y if the had to come up with an idea on there own but that can't stop us from acknowledging that they make a great game that must of us are addicted to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebuggybearful (talkcontribs) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (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 meFollow 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)
We aren't really a strong third-party source. Not in the way it is defined here, at least. The material on the front-page is peer-reviewed, after a fashion, but it is not published. You would run into WP:NOR with a lot of it.Khanaris (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You run that place? Protonk (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I just help moderate the forum side. That is actually sort of an interesting issue, but not one we can really note on main page without a news story on the nature of the fan pages (which I have never encountered). But it is not exactly correct to call websites like Tau Online, Warseer, or Bolter&Chainsword "blogs-with-message-boards". A good deal of the content is actually generated in the forums first, and then filters on the front page after review. The front page is thus often more of a library than a blog, since there is never any one single author responsible for it. As I said, this does represent a sort of peer-review process, but I think we would still have trouble with the idea of Original Research. As a fictional setting, it is very difficult for third parties to produce "factual" third-party material about the game mechanics or background. Only Games Workshop itself can do that. As the editors here have certainly noticed, most of the credible third-party references deal with the culture rather than the game itself. Thus far that is the only aspect of 40k that has been of any broader academic interest.Khanaris (talk) 02:23, 10 December 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)
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.
  • Should Spin-offs and related fiction come last?
  • 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)
Just insert the informations lost here into the Lexicanum, the best Warhammer wiki. --92.229.83.236 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Warhammer 40,000

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get some strong criticism on the way to FA. The GA review was an excellent step, giving me some feedback from a non-player and I'm looking for more info like that. Does the article flow properly? should it be longer? Should the plot/background section be longer? More images? Fewer? Thanks for the help.

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance by Jappalang

You need a copy editor. A few quick notes on sentences:

  • "Warhammer 40,000 is a tabletop miniature wargame in a science fantasy setting produced by Games Workshop."
Not a good sentence... I am not enamoured with "a game in a xxx setting". Furthermore, the sentence is ambiguous. It can be read as a wargame made by an unknown is set in a science fantasy world produced by Games Workshop.
  • "Warhammer 40,000 [...], sharing many of the same game mechanics with periodic expansion sets."
40K shares many of the game mechanics with these periodic expansions (Note: "Andrew, please share your toys with your brothers.")?
  • "The additional rules and goals are read from the main rulebook."
point of this sentence??? It seems to me the paragraph that details the scenarios is a bit scrambled in its contents...
  • "In the movement phase, a player will determine which direction and how far her units will travel."
"her"? I would not accept that as a gender neutral pronoun. Use "his or her" if you must. Seeing as it appears only twice, "his or her" is acceptable.
  • "if the unit could actually look past an obstruction."
Would "if the unit has an unobstructed sighting of a target." be better?
  • "Victory is determined either simply by mission objectives or victory points, with points awarded for objectives and eliminated or damaged enemy units."
Suggestion: "Victory is determined based on the completion of mission objectives or by the amount of victory points accrued through completion of goals and damage inflicted on the enemy units."

Content-wise,

  • Assembling and painting miniatures is interestingly enough, not a rule of 40K. The rules themselves allow for "stand-ins"; games can be played with G.I. Joe or Star Wars action figures, or even with cardboard cut-outs. Official tournies dictate the use of fully painted figures and "WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get)" and lesser tournies are less strict than the official.
The key point is presented as is, the lead gives the impression that figure collection is the key point of the game. That is not the truth. It is the wargaming (despite the fervour that surrounds attempts to match and field the "Golden Demon" figurines). Figure collection (and painting) is a vanity (that can be incredibly self-rewarding).
  • The background is simply too dry. The 40K universe is indeed driven by the Imperium of Mankind. Plot-wise, it is the Imperium that is the centre of all stories; the other races serve as the villians and busybdies. The seduction of Horus and the schism between the Space Marines (loyalist and Chaos) should be in very brief detail here. As it is, the background is a ho-hum "40,000 years in the future, many races fight for domination in the Milky Way galaxy." It is not undue weight to focus the Background setting to the Horus Heresy as it is the primordial event that launches the whole "In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, There is Only War". Just make sure it is very brief, without going into miniscule details of whos and whats that starts, goes on during, and happens after the Heresy. As a rough guide, the first two paragraphs of the Background can be doubled to handle this.
  • "Unlike some wargames, Warhammer 40,000 is not played on a hex map."
Actually most tabletop wargames are played without a grid- or hex-map. Generally, it is the boardgames that come with those maps.
  • Expand on Benjamin Fox's thoughts. His is a critic's opinion and an evaluation of the game. Explain how the interaction reflect a performance and why each conflict is different. This helps to establish the article as that of a product that is judged (not as one that solely explains how a game is played).
  • I am not that certain the History requires quite that much details of differences between versions...
  • "Warhammer 40,000 has proven very lucrative for Games Workshop."
No longer true... the company's revenues have been falling and in 2007, it was suffering losses.
  • You might want to consider The Video Game Explosion by Mark J. P. Wolf — the author claims "it is widely believed" that WH and WH40K inspired WC and SC, respectively.

Just a few comments. Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all of those except the Ben Fox edit and the video game explosion edit. I don't have the Ben Fox source, and I think the SC/WC belongs in a different article, perhaps its own if we can find more sources. Tealwisp (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gamers?

If this term is used for Warhammer 40k in particular, I have never encountered it. It looks like colloquial usage, and it has nothing to do with the game. The published material makes no consistent mention of the term. Why is this mentioned, and used instead of "players"?Khanaris (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a good question. I used it because the secondary literature (which is written by reporters or researchers, who may know a lot or a little about the game) tended to use "gamers". One book and a few newspaper articles even went so far as to say "they are 'gamers', not players". I'm not opposed to it being changed to "player", because that will make the transition to the gameplay section (where I use the word player) much easier. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The words are essentially synonyms in modern English use anyway, FWIW. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
We don't commonly call people who play Chess or Poker "gamers". It has become more common to see the term applied to people who play video games as a hobby or professionally. If this really was something characteristic of tabletop games or this game in particular it would make sense to use the term, but right now it looks like it was only added in order to link to the citation. I have seen the term applied to people who play wargames, but then it is more of a cultural statement. It is not normally used as a replacement for "players" when you are talking about the mechanics of the game itself. Khanaris (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The word itself doesnt seem to be worth the citation to me, and can be seen as dirogative by some (thats what i thought when i first read it).--GundamMerc (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it's been removed. I'm not going to put it back, but I want to be clear that I didn't place it there due to some private interpretation. I put it there only because multiple sources (correctly or incorrectly) took time to distinguish "player" from "gamer". Maybe some diversion somewhere (a "note" could point this out). Protonk (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is an issue of semantics. To identify as a "gamer" is a cultural statement. It is not a technical term in the same sense as "player", so I don't think it should be used in descriptions of gameplay. Apart from being colloquial English in the first place, the distinction is not particular to 40k. I have actually heard the term "40kers" used more frequently, but just as a casual reference to distinguish them from other groups using the same spaces to play other games (same thing with "DnDers"). There is already a wikipedia entry for the term "gamer". That seems like a better place to explore the term than on pages for games it is not unique to. If you think it is important enough to 40k to warrant inclusion, I see nothing wrong with including it when describing the culture.Khanaris (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos of gameplay

These should be replaced by photos with models that are actually painted rather than that horrible crap that is base coated or not even at all. You can easily get replacements, take a photo yourself if you play, or make a thread at any of the many fan sites and ask for a photo that will replace what is on this page now. Right now, I think it is shameful to have those photos there. It looks boring.

71.250.189.145 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Amish

Oh, and I mean the two actual battle photos, not the Trygon. Though a painted Trygon would be nice ;) 71.250.189.145 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Amish

  • Closeups of models are non-free. They also don't actually show play. So I found some non-closeups with a free license and chose those. If you've got other photos which aren't closeups (close like the Trygon is), then upload them and we can add them or replace the ones currently on the page. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • While it would be easy enough for me to just take pictures of a game and submit them like any other contribution, I think the current pictures do a better job of showing what the game usually looks like. I have played in a lot of different settings, and outside of tournaments where it is required, it is rare to see entire armies painted to the standard of GW's examples. And terrain is rarely up to diorama quality.Khanaris (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Where I play we almost all have painted armies and beautiful terrain. Unless someone strenuously objects, I will upload a picture of play with painted models; this is kind of shameful. Metahacker (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

28 mm scale is not approximately 1:112

The quote "28 mm (1.1 in) scale (approximately 1:112)" is incorrect. The one inch scale for soldiers is circa 1:48/1:52, being larger for vehicles (i.e. lesser than 1:48) and smaller for buildings (i.e. higher than 1:52) in WH40K, the latter being not to exact accurate scale in regard to characters.

Scale should therefore be corrected after moderator revision.

Regards,

Jem Tafam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.169.21 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


on this same note, 28mm is NOT 1:35 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.174.240 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gothic Science Fantasy vs Science Fantasy

The main page references Science Fantasy as being the kind of fictional universe that 40k is. Which is not accurate because it has always been more gothic in nature than science based or even fantastic. I propose creating a Gothic Science Fantasy page to describe Warhammer 40,000 better. Your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainForrix (talkcontribs) 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiamat

Warhammer 40,000 fluff: "According to Investigatorium Imperialis, Nibiru was the hiveworld of a biotechnologically advanced tyranid-offspring and genestealer-offspring extraterrestrial races called the Anunnaki and the Igigi in Sumerian myth, who Investigatorium Imperialis states are descended from both the purestrain tyranids and purestrain genestealers. Investigatorium Imperialis claims these aliens first arrived on Holy Terra probably in -M450, that's is, before M0, looking for minerals, especially gold, to reinforce their foulbrood chitin biomaterials against cosmic rays when living in intergalactic vacuum, which elements they found and mined in Africa. These tyranid-offspringed Anunnaki and genestealer-offspringed Igigi were the rank and file workers of the blasphemous colonial expedition to Holy Terra from hiveworld Nibiru. Investigatorium Imperialis believes the Anunnaki tyranid-offsprings and Igigi genestealer-offsprings genetically engineered Sumerian tyranid-genestealer-ape hybrids as slave creatures to work their gold mines by crossbreeding extraterrestrial tyranid and genestealer genes with those of ape. Investigatorium Imperialis claims ancient inscriptions report that alien-puppeteered Sumerian civilization in Sumer placed in Mesopotamia was set up as the direct puppet of these tyranid-offsprings and genestealer-offsprings, and that this Sumerian tyranid-genestealer-ape puppet hybrid kingkongship was inaugurated to provide intermediary enslavement proxy between would to be enslaved True Humanity and both the Anunnaki tyranid-offsprings and Igigi genestealer-offsprings. Investigatorium Imperialis believes that fallout from nuclear weapons, used during a war between True Humanity and all false alien factions of the hivemind extraterrestrials, is the "good wind" that destroyed Ur around end of M2 in beginning of Age of Progress, which was first called Exterminatus Sumerialis by Empire of Man. Investigatorium Imperialis claims the exact year is 24.M3. This event is described in the hideous Lament for Ur. Investigatorium Imperialis claims that his research coincides with many hybrid texts, and that hybrid texts come originally from Sumerian hybrid writings. Investigatorium Imperialis claims too that Hivefleet Tiamat emerged and destroyed in M35 by Empire of Man was last ever hivemind brood of Anunnaki and Igigi.

Signed, Lord Castellan Ursarkar E. Creed , 999.M41" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.102.121 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I really question why random conspiracy theorist 'ancient astronaut' fiction has been shoehorned into 40k and put on this page, as it has absolutely nothing to do with 40k or anything else. It amounts to putting your fanfiction on a Harry Potter discussion page.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.161.169 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:Double Edit

Sorry for undoing and redoing my post, I had to sign in twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Dorgan (talkcontribs) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Movie Ultramarines

Sorry about this...yes we all know Dan Abnett is writing the script. Hell they interviewed him on it. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBsWc1i4Cr4 problem is I'm not sure where the reflist is...someone want to put it up? Leonnatus (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)