Talk:Warhammer 40,000

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (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)