User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi, you may be wondering why I removed your edits to the Slann page. I did this due to the fact that it was all conjecture about a similar species that hasn't been confirmed in any cannon texts. Please only add information that has. Guidelines for the inclusion of information can be found on the Project pages. -Localzuk (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

is this how i reply here? i admit i'm unfamiliar with the conventions for editing and was somewhat dabling
would it be more appropriate to create a seperate Loxatl page?
when you say 'confirmed in any cannon texts' does not the reference i made to P139 of 4th edition core count? -cruentus
I would suggest making a seperate Loxatl page. You cannot make statements saying things such as 'suggesting that they are xyz' unless it is actually written rather than your opinion. Does the reference in that book state information about the Slann or does it state information about the Loxatl? -Localzuk (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The reference from the core book is to both - that's the thing. If you look at page 139 you'll see a picture labeled 'Slanni' and the text box to it's left talks about the Loxatl. This is less my opinion but rather several strong indications. The name itself 'Loxatl' also suggests they are 40K Lizardmen like the Slann, as it sounds like an Aztec/Inca word which the Lizardmen are styled upon.
Have to say i'm learning alot here ... had no idea Wikipedia was used for messages like this. cruentus
The problem is that we cannot mention indications unless a reputable source (cannon text) has published the actual text pointing out the indications. Or a news site or similar. There is a lot of discussion that goes on behind the scenes of every article :) -Localzuk (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The picture/text in the core book doesn't count then? Or do you not have 4th Edition to look at? - cruentus
I don't have that particular book no. What exactly does it say? Does it say that the Slann and Loxatl are linked or is it conjecture on your part as they are on the same page? -Localzuk (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I see your point now. It doesn't actualy say Slann are related to Loxatl, the Loxatl description is simply accompanying the picture of a Slann. Flicking back through the book it's true that these Side boxes don't necessarily accompany the picture they're next to.
It's also true that GW often change things when they're brought into full developement, one example being that Kroot weren't initialy intended as part of the Tau. Proper confirmation will have to wait for some sort of Slann/Lizardman Codex. -cruentus
Although! I've also just had a look at Codex: Necrons and i don't think the Slann are ever mentioned as being the Old Ones. The Slann are related to the Old Ones in fantasy battles but there is no such link in 40K - only strong indications ... unless you can cite otherwise? It could be said any 40K article about Slann is conjecture. The Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000) page makes at least one 'are rumoured' reference. -cruentus