Talk:White Dwarf (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Editorial list[edit]

Editorial list - This is currently incorrect Guy Haley is still the editor of White Dwarf (as he has been since issue 302). Owen Rees simply edits the last 28 or so pages (average total page count is 130 pages) for the UK only section, which consists of mail order pages, store listings and events diaries. The first 100 pages is the 'central' content that appears in all the international editions and this is edited by Guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

There is also a slight error with what happened after Jake Thornton. After Jake left there was a brief period from 215 to 217 when there was no editor. Editorial responsibilities were split between Production Editor Adrian Wood and Managing Editor Chris Colston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Waste Drain?"[edit]

"Waste Drain?" White Dwarf is excellent now! How dare you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:45, 27 March 2005 (UTC).

You've gotta admit, a large part of it is advertising miniatures now... ··gracefool | 08:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well someone removed it, so i'm happy now. The magazine is Brilliant.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC).

Methinks the POV article was made during a new codex (last issue had 138 pages and 4 miniature ads) Johhny-turbo 00:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry, but White Dwarf since issue 316 is utter CRAP :( And looking through various forums like warseer, it shows that its customers arent happy recently either.
Perhaps a Controvecy area is needed to add to the WD wiki?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

original WD[edit]

The introduction incorrectly asserts that the original White Dwarf focussed on wargaming and RPGs. This is incorrect. The original focussed on RPGS almost exclusively. The article implies that it was also exclusively linked to D&D and AD&D. In fact, the first 20 issues had a great deal on Traveller as well. The magazine also focussed on Cthulhu, Superheroes (was it really called that?) and I'm sure some Bishido and Aftermath articles as well.

Somehow, you need to get a writer that has the copies rather than work backwards from the current magazine which is vastly different to the original (Issues 1 - 100) Candy 09:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden Heroes. That was the name of GW's superhero RPG. One of the best RPGs ever made, in fact. Oh, for the glory days of yesteryear... :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Section 3 Criticisms[edit]

There are a number of problems with "Section 3: Criticisms"

The first is in line one: "White Dwarf magazine has, like the hobby itself, attracted a share of criticism." The clause that reads "like the hobby itself" is irrelevant.

The second is in line two: " close their own internet forum, issuing a slightly contradictory statement that ..." This is unnecessary and unencylopedic writing. Both of these statements read like a case of "weasel wording."

Finally, this section does not cite its sources for its criticism. Can these points be verified? If not, they don't belong here.

I believe the first two problems can be solved by deletion. Citations need to be found for the rest of the section, otherwise the whole section could be considered questionable.

What are other people's opinions on it? Cailil 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

About the criticisms: the advertisements-to-content ratio one can't be verified with online resources (there's no online edition of White Dwarf AFAIK, just a summary of the articles), but I have some issues from the mid and late 90s and, in comparison, there are many more ads in the latest issues.
Also, the price may be on par with other magazines in the UK, but it isn't in Spain (and maybe in other countries), where it costs 6€ and the average would be way lower (e.g., a computer gaming magazine with a full game costs around 4€).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC). I made the above comments when I was new to Wikipedia, I should have just deleted the content as it is unverified, unsourced and unsourcable - which is what I've done now. The price difference you are pointing out is original research and will not be included on Wikipedia unless you can reference that criticism from a reliable source. Unless criticisms of white dwarf are published in a reliable source they can't be added to wikipedia. Please review policy on verifiability and reliable sources for more info.--Cailil talk 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A further note, The section itself is a violation of WP:SYNT, in that it is written like an essay. It was not neutral and as aboe is totally unverifiable. a number of similar sections have been added and now deleted from other Games Workshop articles this could be a povpush and may be considered vandalism--Cailil talk 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have the Crtiticism section re-installed, as this is a quite important point for the reception of a magazine, which is in itself an important part of any wikipedia-entry to publications. Sources for criticisms should be easy to find (one does not have to rely on GW, who in the past deleted or closed critical threads from their own forum); It will be more difficult to have them to your own standard of "reliable", as these are recipients/consumers opinions, which per definitionem can be contested every time. I will keep up to the general standards that are used on wiki on media, as for instance in the case of movies. I will have a look into this in the next couple of days. (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC) treslibras

There's not going to be a "criticism section" in this article. If by any chance reliable sources can be found for specific points of criticism then these can be added to the appropriate parts of the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul Mason?[edit]

Having acquired most WD issues between 70 and 100 I have none of which Paul Mason was the editor. Neither is he mentioned in the retrospective article in issue 200 which lists the previous editors. I have the first and last issues for every editor between Ian Marsh and Robin Dews (and the last few for Ian Livingstone), but no Paul Mason anywhere. What is the original source for Paul Mason? Perhaps if he was a stand-in he should be relegated to a mention on on of the other editors' lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the above comment and forgot to log in. Anyway, I have searched through the archives for the edit that put Paul Mason in the list, and it was done by a logged-out user who has not made any other contributions from that IP address. I have taken it out until I (or anyone) can verify it e.g. by getting a copy of WD that lists Paul Mason as the editor. pglh (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An idle thought[edit]

Is the name an homage to 19th century radical journal The Black Dwarf? Or even to the short-lived 1960s radical magazine of the same name? Do we know if Messrs Jackson and Livingstone have such exciting political tendencies?

-- Tom Anderson 2008-05-29 1221 +0100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they were looking for a name which implied both 'fantasy' and 'science fiction'. They hit on White Dwarf as the dwarf is a popular fantasy figure, and a white dwarf is a type of star, covering both bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Images up for deletion[edit]

Because three of the non-free images on this page have been moved to a gallery, they are now being considered for deletion. See:

Potentially they could be merged into a collage.—RJH (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The result was a deletion of all three images.—RJH (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for referenced content[edit]

Hi. I have been working almost single-handedly on a page on illustrator John Blanche, notable for his formative work for Games Workshop games and later as art director of the latter company. One good source of information might be articles and columns appearing in early and later copies of White Dwarf, but I'm at a loss to provide such data without access to a copious collection. So, if any of you have that access as implied by the use of the magazine for this article, I was wondering if you might have a leaf through copies and see what you can find. Currently lacking and sought data include date and place of birth (which would allow for an info box), scholastic details, awards won over the years, and the dates of inception of various regular columns in the magazine for which Blanche was responsible, all cited obviously, using a magazine cite template. Thanks for any help you may be able to provide. Feel free to contect me on the article's talk page or my own. LSmok3 (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi LSmok3, have you looked on "", it has pretty much all the back issues of WD - just start at issue 1 and scroll through.
In fact, I did a Google "advance search" for "John Blanche", in the domain name "" and it gave me a list of articles that he is mentioned in e.g. try this link (hope it works for you): [1]. - Quantockgoblin (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your response. I've replied on my talk page, rather than taking up room here, as it might be a bit off-topic for the article. . . LSmok3 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)