Talk:Games Workshop/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism of business practises

I thought I'd add this in here, and hope someone else could maybe add it in a wiki type fashion. One of my friends runs a local gaming shop here in the UK. They used to be on very good terms with GW, and had semi-regular tournaments, etc etc. Games Workshop explicitly told them (several times) that GW would NOT be opening up a store here. After a few years, they did. (Verbal contracts, etc etc) Which might not seem like much offhand, but GW were essentially using the games store to "test the water" and suchforth, make sure there was enough of an audience, etc etc before opening a store. When the GW shop opened, my friends store business (unsuprisingly) hit rock bottom. This in itself may just seem like pointless bitching, except I've heard of them doing the exact same tactic (and in some cases, destroying smaller stores entire revenue) in several places. While its not illegal, its not exactly nice. Also, the white dwarf magazine has changed substantially over the years. Back in ye olde days, (like, issue 50) it was essentially a gamers magazine. Cartoons, games reviews (of things other than GW as well), etc etc. Today its more like a thinly disguised XX page advert. The aim of the magazine has obviously been reduced from adult to young teenage male (which is what the product seems to be aimed at anyway.) Incidentally, and Im not sure how 100% true this is but someone with better knowledge of GW product can probably verify this or not- I was told that GW releases a new version of a game (Warhammer / 40k, etc) every 4 years, as this is the expected "cycle" of their audience. (ie, their target is 10-14 year olds) And lastly (apologies for the extended bitch) I've noticed that GW are extremely happy to fold a product if it isnt meeting targets. Remember man'o war? How many articles do you see on that in white dwarf? --80.41.201.188 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

None of this is suitable for adding to the article unless you can cite reliable sources to support this in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Cheers --Pak21 14:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, nvm then. Feel free to delete it, I just thought I'd throw my personal experiences in. --80.41.201.188 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All the experiences are commonly cited concerns, however they don't conform to wikipedia's scrutiny which can't include 'just ask someone' as sources, dispite however many people you'll find agreeing. Unfortunate in some cases, but I don't think it will be long before someone publishes an exposé of GW's buisiness practices and thus provides a reliable source. The gazumping of local game shops isn't something I've experienced myself though, as most of these I find tend to drop their prices of GW products by the 20% that GW allow them to (they are not allowed to drop their prices lower than this so they don't compete too much with Games Workshop's prices - ironic eh?) White Dwarf is most definately rather useless as a magazine now, with massive converage of new releases, coming soon's, etc. rather than actual hobby articles. It's all most unfortunate as I believe that on the lower tiers, GW is still a company run by passionate fans and the problem lies with those at the very top who are exploiting them. Xzamuel 22:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The major issue with the criticisms is that these are mostly legitimate business practices as opposed to illegal ones (false accounting, corruption of government personnel). And are they actually notable as such - GW has for a long while now been focussed on producing money from its products but that is not unusual for businesses with stockholders.GraemeLeggett 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't say they were particularly notable, but in the case of Games Workshop it's these practices that have caused a major rift within the fanbase and also contrasts greatly with the ethos that the company projected and put into practice less than a decade ago, it has been a very rapid change of tac that seems contrary to what many old school fans 'signed on for', whether it's notable though remains open to debate. Xzamuel 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm. An encyclopidia isent realy the place to put you gripes on how a company changed in a way you don't like. Facts please. Wikipidia is not here for people to give ther two penth' worth on how things change. Write that they have changes, but only if you can give quantifiable data and sorces, not "they made it for kids to make more money". Thats calld running a buisness. If they haddednt changed theyd have gon under.

The shift in White Dwarf from a multi-system RPG magazine to a Games-Workshop product only magazine - which occured between issues 60-100 is well documented in the letters pages and editorials of the magazine itself, so that at least is verifiable. --Davémon 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Miniatures

"Games Workshop originally produced miniature figures via an associated, originally independent, company called Citadel Miniatures (of which Maurauder Miniatures was an imprint)" - Marauder Miniatures were not an imprint of Citadel, they were a range of figures sculpted by (or for) two Citadel sculptor (Ally and Trish morrison iirc), and Marauder was a completely seperate company. At some point, the range was brought into the main Citadel fold (brought out? folded?). More info, and a link, can be found in the Archived discussion page. 86.133.30.68 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

More info on Marauder: http://www.solegends.com/marauder/index.htm 86.133.5.201 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

Why did someone put the incorrect statement back into the Minatures section? Marauder (which is also being incorrectly spelt each time) was NOT originally an imprint of Citadel.86.132.144.114 11:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

Magazines

"Games Workshop also published Fanatic Magazine in support of their Specialist Games range, but it was discontinued after issue 10, though it lives on in electronic form however this also appears to have been discontinued since it has not been updated since late october 2006." - Incorrect. Since Oct 2006, the online version of Fanatic Magazine has moved from a weekly to monthly schudule of publishing. Last released 14th December 2006.86.133.30.68 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Darkson

is black gobbo still on their site? isnt that the sister project, ie: webzine, to white dwarf? --71.205.253.125 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Specialist games

I have removed the entry on Aeronautica Imperialis, it is not a games workshop game, it was developed and is sold purely by forge world. Whilst Forge world is a subsidiary of Games workshiop, stores do not allow it to be played on gaming nights within the store due to this and does not therefore conform with the paragraph about specialist games - Miagel

• I'm not sure if stores allowing a game is a good yardstick to separate them, as the policy isn't ironclad. My local GW doesn't allow Epic, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Warmaster, Mordheim, or, indeed, any GW game that's not one of the big three. --Agamemnon2 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a GW game, as shown by the fact it is allowed to be discussed on the Specialist Games forum. However, I agree it's not part of the Specialist Games stable (as the SG moderators were told by Andy Hall), so I've moved it to it's own section. Darkson - BANG! 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

"*Heresy Online Large Warhammer 40k Forum covering all aspects of the hobby."

With 113 members, does this really count as a "large" 40k forum? Darkson 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say Warseer.com is the best external link in this case. Warseer can honestly claim to have actual GW devs post there from time to time, albeit under pseudos. While not owned by GW, they have pages upon pages of info, and a vibrant forum with rumors, info, rules faqs, etc. --71.205.253.125 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

removal of Comments and Criticism section

I've removed the comments and criticism section. This is an encyclopedia not a blog and not a forum. The material in this section is original research and in no way verifiable and in places it violated WP:NPOV. The only reference is to rpg.net which is not a reliable source. On top of this the info from that site is being used to make a point - which violates WP:SYNT and WP:NOR. Unless notable criticisms have been published in verifiable and reliable sources they cannot be added to this article--Cailil ^talk 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed

However, they were somehow permitted to use Eorl the Young and Khamûl the Easterling (from Unfinished Tales) in their recently-released The Two Towers and A Shadow in the East Supplements. [1]

from the licencing section. This is unverifiable and definietly WP:NOR. The site linked to is a forum and the material on it is pure speculation.--Cailil ^talk 18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

-- In that case, someone should go through the article and remove all the material that's in support of GW which isn't at least as well supported. Which would be most of it. You have a week to make up your mind; otherwise, most of the section is going back in, as there's nothing wrong with it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.179.208 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2007.

82.152.179.208 if you can't source it with verifiable and reliable sources it stays out. The reinsertion of original research and POV material by users after they have had this encyclopedia's policies explained to them could be seen as vandalism. Please review the policies I've linked to further a fuller explanation of why this material was removed. I will be "going through" this article and will be removing all original research and unverifiable comments.--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's have a mudslinging match, then. The deletion of an entire section of copy, at least some of which (generally that which I wrote) was perfectly acceptable, is most certainly vandalism, and I have very little confidence in the contrary opinion of an adult man who plays Warhammer 40,000 for fun.

Furthermore, you should be aware that the reliability of a source is not directly proportional to its fame - just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it unreliable. If RPG.net are the only people writing about something, they're the best source available and that's what gets used.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.178.70 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 July 2007.

No lets not have a mudslinging match. Please review policy on how to use talk pages and refrain from personal attacks such as "I have very little confidence in the contrary opinion of an adult man who plays Warhammer 40,000 for fun".

The reliability of a source is not a personal opinion it is a defined parameter in wikipedia's policies (see WP:RS) - forums and self-published online pieces are not reliable sources. Until policy changes they remain unreliable. For the most part the section was unsourced - if you can point to an "acceptable" part of it that is reliably sourced and not original research or synthesis, I'm happy to discuss it - otherwise it stays out.

I'm sure you were trying to improve wikipedia by adding this info but I'm afraid it doesn't meet with the standards for inclusion (i.e. verifiablity & relibale sources). Also please sign your comments with ~~~~.--Cailil ^talk 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your bruised ego ranks far behind the integrity of the information on this website; it's relevant information, and only your reaction makes it anything more. Fine; have it your way - you've employed force majeure in any case. Know only this: good, well-supported information is now gone from Wikipedia because you want to play the fanboy. The world is a poorer place for your actions. I'm pleased you're pleased.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.177.104 (talk • contribs)

It appears that Cailil is the only person taking issue with a comments and criticisms section. It is pretty much default procedure for editors to place a comments and criticisms section in articles, particularly regardind articles about corporations. I think Cailil's abuse of admin power is apparent in this case. The fact that he threatens to tag anyone who replaces the comments and criticisms section as a vandal is obvious, and can be seen as an abuse of admin power, voting is the generally accepted way of resolving these disputes yet he has completely ignored this and used his admin power to forward his personal agenda surrouding this article. This here is exactly what is wrong with wikipedia. Admin abuse is about the only flaw in the open source concept and project that is wikipedia. More often admins are seen as using their powers to strike back for bruised egos, or protection of their NON-neutral point of view. Wikipedia is flat out an open source project, and while the Policies are generally adhered to, even Jimmy Wales has left stuff alone when the community demanded it, no matter if it adhered to the policies. The comments and criticisms section needs to be put back into this article, I would do it myself but I cannot find it in the history section. If someone finds it but is afraid to replace it due to Cailil's threats link it to me in my user talk page. If he wants to fight with someone I will fight him, and will gladly strike back by reporting him as abusing his admin powers. ~RichSatan ^talk

Yawn. I take issue with the section. Wikipedia isn't a playground for people to whinge in. There's a {{criticism-section}} tag for a reason. Chris Cunningham 09:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Here you go - start from this diff [2] Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 11:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RichSatan, please read WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL - your above comment is incivil and fails to assume good faith. You have already been blocked for incivility and making personal attacks - please re-acquaint yourself with polcies on wikipedia etiquette. I am not fighting with you RichSatan - wikipedia is not battleground.
I am not an admin - I have no powers to abuse, nor do I have a pov to push. Sections loaded with unsourced claims (as this one was) will be removed from every article. WP:NOR is not negotiable and neither is WP:RS. I am not the only person to take issue with that section. User:Localzuk and User:SirFozzie backed-up my position, as does Chris Cunningham here. I will also point out that there is a problem with your signiture it needs a "</sup>" added to its end - please rectify this.
Please also bear in mind that the talk-space is not a soapbox and not a forum for your complaints about wikipedia. If you can source criticism of Games workshop or its games from a reliable source go ahead - but unsourced "comments and criticism" will be removed.
To clarify my exact words about vandalism are :"The reinsertion of original research and POV material by users after they have had this encyclopedia's policies explained to them could be seen as vandalism." This is above and I stand over these remarks - RichSatan is attempting to create a straw man argument by saying that I threatened users who added criticism to this article - I did not. I will repeat this one final time, if you want to add anything to WP make sure it comes form a reliable source, otherwise it will be deleted. If you push original research or POV claims it is seen as disruptive and/or pointy behaviour - in short "vandalism"--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt to manipulate the argument by questioning my civility in this case and basing it upon previous dealings of mine is a mistake. That was between me and an abusive admin whom I had no recourse against. Regardless, that is neither here nor there and frankly has nothing to do with this discussion, so you can just leave it alone.

What I am doing is not a straw man argument (a straw man argument is where a person makes an effigy of their opponent and beats it senseless because a straw man cannot defend itself) I am taking a position which is based in wikipedia culture and policy. This is an open source community, meaning every person from admin, to owner, to editor, to reader has an equal say. When I suggested a poll it is because there has not been a consensus here, and the fact that you continue to hide behind the sections of wikipedia policy that support your position but ignore all the others, means that other editors are unwilling to take you on and/or can't be bothered. Your virtual jumping up and down when anyone even attempts to approach the topic is harming the article. --RichSatan 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And your constant stream of personal attacks on editors (seemingly the sole purpose of this account) is harming Wikipedia as a whole. Address the issues (the lack of credible sources and the tone) and there are grounds for including the material in question. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then there's no need for the community as a whole to bat an eyelid to this alleged issue. Chris Cunningham 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone in this discussion.I incorrectly assumed he was an admin, but the fact that he has broke wikipedia policy and community tradition by deleting a section without editor consensus and then used threats against editors to cement his position is WRONG. The fact that I called him out on it is not a personal attack, it is the truth.
Regardless, the point remains, and I will be returning the section. I think that we as editors should work on cleaning the section up and providing proper cites. Beyond this, I will admit the section is very jumbled and has some topics that could be left out as they do not pertain to GW but rather criticisms against the games.--RichSatan 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

RichSatan, removal of unsourced and unverified content is "wikipedia policy and community tradition" (see WP:PROVEIT). You are declaring "no consensus" here. Whereas if you look at the conversation below you'll see that 2 other editors agreed with my position. You can see here that Chris agrees with it and if you read your own talk page you'll see that Darkson agrees with the sections removal. RichSatan you are refusing to assume good faith and are treating wikipedia like a battleground - this is disruption of wikipedia to make a point. If you can write a section with reliable sources go ahead, but unsourced and unsourcable 'comments and criticisms' stay out (see WP:V). FYI a straw man argument is "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position" see straw man--Cailil ^talk 13:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've commented the section back out again, as it seesm to have been put back in almost exactly the same as it was originally, without enough refs/cites. I actually agree with much of whats there, and many of the gamers I've spoken to do as well, but without proper references/citations, I can't see how it can stay. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position Darkson, and I know that there are some truths in what is being added in that section, I agree with some of the points being made too. However, it's verification not "truth" that is at the core of this encyclopedia. I know RichSatan is trying to improve things but I concur with the section's commenting out for the moment. I've opened an RFC below for wider attention too--Cailil ^talk 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Commenting out is a fair compromise for the moment. I did not write the section so I cannot begin to find citations without help. Many here concur as well, regardless of what Cailil and Chris say, that the section has merit and deserves attention instead of outright deletion. Good call Darkson in this regard, I think we can go from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichSatan (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information

The following statements are neither sourced nor cited, and should therefore be removed:

"Games Workshop is one of the largest wargames companies in the world"

The entirety of "Overview", except the second paragraph.

All of "Licensing"

Everything under "Games Workshop Group PLC", down to but not including "The group reported sales...."

Much of the list of currently produced games is OK, as it's sufficiently supported by the linked media, but the following should go:

- Anything with a broken or nonexistent link, as there is no support whatsoever without the linked media.

- "...and widely available" (Unsourced)

- "These games are aimed at the "veteran" gamers. These are gamers..." (Opinion and unsourced)

- Remove "its first in-house game" under "Forge World" (unsourced)

- "...effectively an updated version of Advanced HeroQuest"

Need I continue?

Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that we rip the article to shreds in this way; what I'm trying to do is present an object lesson in application of the rules which apply to this website, which should be - or at least clearly are - guided by an unavoidable quotient of reasonableness. All of the material I've listed here is much less well supported than much of the recently-removed Comments and Criticism section, and there's no need to remove any of it.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the Comments and Criticisms section was removed by someone with loyalty to the company, either by a GW employee, or by someone with another reason to feel responsible to do so. In either case, this is clearly in violent contravention of WP:NPOV.

You cannot have it both ways.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.177.104 (talk • contribs)

That's not the only reasonable conclusion. For reasons unknown to me, GW has an extremely high brand loyalty and devoted fanboys ready to spring into action whenever they feel their beloved hobby's name is being dragged through the mud. It is only fair to assume these fanboys are responsible for the removal. --Agamemnon2 05:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well quite, that's why I mean by "someone with another reason to feel responsible to do so." Personally this is one of the things I find most repugnant about GW and the way they do business, but the point is that I don't bring this attitude to wikipedia articles!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.177.104 (talk • contribs)

Where to start. The criticism section suffered from the problem that much of it was unsourced, but not only that but it was unsourcable to reliable sources. Much of the stuff you cover above is sourceable if someone takes the time to look.

However, some of the information is simply 'general knowledge' and doesn't need inline sourcing as far as I'm concerned. Also, much of it can be sourced to this page [3] which covers a lot of information about GW.

The licensing section is a bit of a quandary. For example, I can't find anything about them securing the rights to Dr Who, but can find Dr Who figurines for sale by them... So it is true that they had those rights, but to what extent needs sourcing.

Anything with a broken or non-existent link needs the link repairing or a different source - not deleting. The fact that the source no longer works doesn't remove the fact that it can be verified.

So, whilst some of your sourcing points are valid, it seems that you are a little keen to remove things.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

Ok. As an uninvolved Admin, I have been asked by one of the editors in this edit conflict to look at the information being removed/re-added to the article. Before I start, let me get any accusations of bias out: I am a former GW player (Warhammer 40K and Blood Bowl, the former I played about 10-15 games of, before giving my army away to one of my boss's kids to get him started, the latter, I have played on and off (mostly online) for about.. oh ever since 2nd edition, actually)

This will be rather lengthy.

Company policy on the purpose of its games seems confused. In 2003, Michael Sherwin, the company's finance director, stated that "A hobby game takes a whole day to play... is less about instant gratification" Quoted from The Guardian (January 29 2003). Current third and fourth edition rules allow you to play a tournament sized 1500 point game (an average size) in under 2 hours.

Considering the quote is now four and a half years old, marrying it to a quote about CURRENT edition rules, I do not feel the quote supports the paragraph, and that this paragrpah is WP:OR.

As early as 2001, the Qualiport educational share portfolio (a notional portfolio run in public between 1997 and 2005) felt that Games Workshop, as one of its long term attractions for investors, had “A distinct lack of worthwhile industry competitors.” Given the requirement to find not only products but also opponents, anyone interested in wargaming as a hobby has a limited practical choice but to buy Games Workshop products

The first part is fine.. we're reporting what a quite reputable source has said about Games Workshop. The last sentence is Original Research, pure and simple, and should not be in the article.

Games Workshop prices have increased considerably ahead of inflation. The 'Space Marine Tactical Squad' boxed set, a staple of the game system, was released in 1998 at £10 but in early 2006 sold for £18, an increase of over 10%PA during a period when the Office of National Statistics' Consumer Price Index was typically around a quarter of that value (see: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=19 and associated pages).

I'd feel a LOT better about this if we had links to the prices from 1998 (if someone has a 1998 GW catalog out there, perhaps that can be used as a source.

An RPG.net Review of the third edition in 1998 thought movement rules, in which all units of a given type move at exactly the same speed, were a tad boring and the close combat rules were confusing and unrealistic, if a lot faster. The same review called the army selection lists (at that time prior to the release of new Codexes) severely incomplete and simplified, and referred to "a lot of confusion and silliness" with what it felt were unnecessarily simplified lumping-together of weapon types.[4]

An RPG net review is in no way, shape or form a RS and this whole paragraph needs to go, period (and don't think I'm bashing RPG.net, considering I post there!)

When Lord of the Rings became a core game there were complaints about alleged neglect of Games Workshop's other systems; in 2002, White Dwarf magazine itself reported the Games Workshop's surprise at gamers' lukewarm reaction to the Lord of the Rings game system, in particular the amount of column space the LoTR game was starting to take up - detracting from the amount of coverage received by the more popular 40K and Warhammer. In the same article, editor Guy Haley stated that despite the views and requirements of White Dwarf readers, the magazine would continue to feature the LoTR game system and in fact would probably increase the amount of coverage. Around that time the magazine was printed as if it were two different publications joined together, one for LoTR and another for 40K and WH. They were joined in such a way as to require the reader to turn the magazine upside-down to read the different sections. This format was dropped after about 6 to 8 issues.

Ok.. up to "..increase the amount of coverage", I have well.. not NO problems, but it's a small problem (In a Good Article or Featured Article candidate, I'd like to see the editor's statement sourced, but that's just me. After that, I think I have a problem with it.. what does the 2nd part have to do with the first?

In 2005 Games Workshop massively cut down support for the entire 'Specialist Games' ranges to concentrate on the core games for 40k, Fantasy and Lord of the Rings. The dedicated specialist games magazine called Fanatic was cancelled after only 10 issues and now updates to these systems are managed by the specialist games website. However, the rules to most of these games are available for free as living rulebooks on the site and Fanatic magazine has continued, first as a weekly online magazine, then from November 2006, as a monthly online magazine.

Also, the Games Workshop's own publishing house, the Black Library, no longer produces its bi-monthly Inferno! magazine, which was a short story anthology set in the 40K and Warhammer universes. Inferno! offered new writers a chance to have their work published and often led to more work for the published writer including more stories and even novels. The Black Library continues to run twice-yearly short story competitions through its website, offering half a dozen winners a place in a published anthology alongside established writers.

This needs to be in the articles about the games in the Specialist Games range and an article about the Black Library, not in a comment and controversy section about GW. This smacks of axe-grinding and folks must remember that things that the editors do not like must not be given WP:Undue Weight.

Discussion of Games Workshop's business practises and prices is banned from their forums (the forums are intended purely for the discussion of the game and hobby, rather than the economic aspect), as is linking to any other commercial websites. In June 2006, the company also closed down the forum dedicated to discussion of White Dwarf magazine, unsatisfied with the overall tone. On November 15 2006, all of Games Workshop's core game forums were closed down.

Again, this seems to be axe grinding. This is not sourced, and without a Reliable Source, it needs to go. Period.

Ok.. That's my two cents on it. In short, those who want to add well-sourced information. whether positive or negative, I have no problem with it. We are an encyclopedia. We pass no judgements, good or bad. We are not the place for folks to write nothing but gushing text about a company, Just as we are not the place for editors who dislike a company to air out their grievances. We do our damnedest to write in a Neutral manner. SirFozzie 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SirFozzie, that should be most helpful. Can I also add that we should try not to lump it all into one section but instead place the criticisms where they are relevant throughout the article?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a third opinion SirFozzie, I would like to repeat my earlier statement that if ayone can source criticism (without making a synthesis) I'd be happy to see it included. Also what Localzuk is saying is 100% right, criticism sections are generally a bad idea but if critical sources exist they should be worked into the article where appropriate. There is an essay on this at Wikipedia:Criticism--Cailil ^talk 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"An RPG net review is in no way, shape or form a RS". Then what is? If we take this attitude, we will never be able to document what the world thinks about their output. I doubt there's many more prominent sources. The Sherwin quote can stay in somewhere; it's a relevant representation of company poilcy, whether or not it's framed as a criticism of the current system. And the sentence suffixing the "lack of competition" quote is worth keeping if you are comfortable with the idea that it is not outside the remit of an encyclopedia to explain why the information it presents is relevant.

Otherwise fine; I have no wish to see legitimate criticism diluted by axe-grinding.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.177.104 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

Games Workshop prices have increased considerably ahead of inflation. The 'Space Marine Tactical Squad' boxed set, a staple of the game system, was released in 1998 at £10 but in early 2006 sold for £18, an increase of over 10%PA during a period when the Office of National Statistics' Consumer Price Index was typically around a quarter of that value (see: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=19 and associated pages).

I'd feel a LOT better about this if we had links to the prices from 1998 (if someone has a 1998 GW catalog out there, perhaps that can be used as a source.

A White Dwarf from that period would be better than a catalogue, as the catalogues tended not to include the prices, so that could be continually used. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying that prices have increased is fine - its also easily sourced from recent white Dwarfs or from Games Workshop's own website (ie [5]) but saying that the increase is over infaltion values strikes me as synthesis and pointy. I realize there is a large reactoin against prices increases on the web and amongst gamers but unless there is a reliable source - a printed newspaper article etc - that sets outs these criticisms then they can't be added to WP. What we can do is record facts like GraemeLeggett has done with the proffit warnings.

82.152.177.104 if you asking if we can keep "Given the requirement to find not only products but also opponents, anyone interested in wargaming as a hobby has a limited practical choice but to buy Games Workshop products" then the answer is no, because its original research. The sentence where Qualiport says there is "a distinct lack of competition" is fine as long as it can be sourced.--Cailil ^talk 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a printed newspaper article is a fair suggestion for a source; wargames don't really get the attention of the news. Something like it would be desirable though. What we're dealing with here is a divided community of gamers, there's clear and discernable positions coming out of the arguement, but nothing sourceable. Until someone publishes something on a more official platform, the only place to view this dispute in on forums and the like. The arguement is spilling over into Wikipedia, but there's just not enough sources for it to belong here just yet. Macklehatton 07:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that many gaming related articles fall short of Wikipedias requirements for sources, which makes it difficult to write good articles on them. However Games Workshop is a public limited company, and as such does get a reasonable amount of press:

• The Guardian
• The Times
• The Financial Times

The problem isn't so much that newspapers aren't reporting on GW - they are , it's that nobody is reporting about consumers complaining about price increases on the internet. The "fact" is that their core UK sales marginally increased this year, despite whatever people on the forums might be saying. --Davémon 12:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input SirFozzie. I have taken into account your opinions, cleaned up the section which was deleted, and have returned it to the article with your suggestions. I have not placed any cites as I did not write the section originally. What I think we can do is, go from here, place in the relevent cite requests, and attempt to clean up this section. NOTES- (1)I left in the last sentence of the first paragraph. While it might be seen as "original research" it is a fact, I'd prefer to let it go with a cite request to at least give someone else a chance to make it better. (2)I left in the last three paragraphs which you think don't deserve attention, however it is true, and this behavior definitely deserves attention in a "comments and criticisms" section. I think the problem here is that it is not a clean section. The current wording certainly is of an axe grinding nature, but can be cleaned up and sourced to become good information. Here is the original section I've pulled from-[6]
Personally, I prefer this info to be integrated into the article more seamlessly, but I have accepted "comments/criticism" sections as a necessary part of these types of articles as there tends to be no other way to share this information without damaging the integrity of the article. Insertion of information regarding Hitler's abuse of drugs after his assasination attempt, or Exxon's treatment of the Valdez incident, and subsequent hand wringing over the suit, to all be examples of pertinent info regarding individuals and companies that can easily be perverted to a non-objective position, but are still highly valuable when done correctly.
So this done, let's all take it easy. Those who think it is a poor section please leave it and place in your cite requests. Those who think it deserves to stay can work to find those cites and clean it up. This can and will become a good section if we let it be and allow for the open source machine to work it's magic.--RichSatan 06:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding example to cite some of this stuff outside of forums. I've just spent several hours trying to find stuff to support these facts, but as many people have said, this company is in such a niche market very little is ever reported, so we have no cites. The sad thing is that THIS IS REAL, but some people are more interested in using Wikipedia policy to have this information removed. Can anyone interested in this material help provide some Citations and maybe help with some cleanup? I can agree the last 3 paragraphs require some serious attention, I'm just stumped on how to integrate them, tho I think mergins them into a single paragraph is fair.--RichSatan 09:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New master template

Introducing Template:Games Workshop. This should be used in place of the game templates on articles which partain to the company or otherwise aren't appropriate for the Fantasy/40K templates (such as Heroquest).

This is brand-new and there are loads of things which could be improved in it. Feel free to dive right in. Chris Cunningham 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In July 2007 I removed this section. A few days ago, and 4 months after the deletion, User:RichSatan said I "broke policy and community tradition" by removing it[7]. At 06:20 (UTC) on November 4th 2007 RichSatan reinserted the majority of the removed text. In my view at least 4 of the 6 paragraphs violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. I've opened this request for comment to ask the wider community to discuss whether this material should be kept or removed? Please note that this is not a vote--Cailil ^talk 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the specific RFC. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's working now!--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who want to see the history of consensus about the disputed section see

• Talk:Games_Workshop/Archive_1#Comments_and_Criticisms_Section_Sources
• Talk:Games_Workshop/Archive_1#Comments_and_critisism
• Talk:Games_Workshop/Archive_1#.22Comments_and_criticism.22_and_LoTR
• Talk:Games_Workshop#Criticism_of_business_practises
• Talk:Games_Workshop#removal_of_Comments_and_Criticism_section
• Talk:Games_Workshop#Review

--Cailil ^talk 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But where's the specific RfC? Links seem to send me in circles that end up back here. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Ok, ignore that - I thought it was a seperate page. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in my opinion, regardless of wheter the disputed paragraphs are "true" or not, without having verifible citations, I can't see any way in which they can be added that fits in with Wikipedia policies. To be honest, I'd be suprised if there are any cites that can be used, due to the niche market that GW works in. So, with references, I'd be happy for the section to stay (indeed, I agree with much/most of it), but without, it has to go. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The "policy" is damaging in this case. It is being manipulated to try and force editors to omit what is known FACT. Additionally, I accept this as a fair compromise for the moment. I reverted an edit and requested further discussion on it, and took into account people's opinions when I made the revert. To be honest editors, we all should take a moment to look for sources, ESPECIALLY, if you know the info is true but is under threat of removal because editors are having difficulty finding cites due to the nature of the subject.RichSatan Talk —Preceding comment was added at 08:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What you believe to be true is not verifiable material and all unsourced text can be removed. --Neon white 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a rant against the company got cleaned up where it should have been removed, and the end result of the section is a mixed bag, tending towards the bad. Things like the "An RPG.net Review of the third edition" sentence are criticisms of the product, not the company, and therefore belong on the product's page. In all it looks bad enough that it can be scrapped and started over. Nifboy 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated numerous times on this page this section violates site-policy. This is an encyclopedia where the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth (see WP:V). Everything mentioned, stated and claimed on pages must be backed-up by what this community defines as reliable source. The burden of proof is on editors wishing to include material in the encyclopedia (see WP:PROVEIT). When a user adds material we assume that they can source it, when they can't, or when the information is unsourcable, policy demands that it be removed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a blog, not a forum and not an opinion piece. This material has had almost a week since reinsertion. It had months before I deleted it in July. It has not been sourced, mainly because its content is unverifiable. It has to go if it can't be sourced using what wikipedia defines as reliable sources - this is the minimum criteria for inclusion--Cailil ^talk 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This RFC has been open for almost 20 days. No improvement to the section has been made. No verification has been found. Unless this section can be verified, sourced and attributed to wikipedia's standards for inclusion, I move to close to this RFC--Cailil ^talk 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:Tower despair.JPG

Image:Tower despair.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

removing comments and criticism again

After waiting for anyone to improve the section Comments and Criticism since the beginning of November - no improvement has come. We have also had an RFC on the section which did not support keeping the section - in fact the RFC has support its removal because it violates WP's basic requirements for inclusion - verifiability. I will remind users once more that if you can't source material (using what WP defines as reliable) then don't add it, or re-add it. I'm removing the section again--Cailil ^talk 23:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)