Talk:T'au Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This is Saberwyn's master rewrite of the crap that is the Tau (Warhammer 40,000) article. See the mainpage to review the rewrite, and a couple of experiments in 40k article layout I'm running.

Also, have a look at "User:Saberwyn/Tau Rewrite Holding Pen"^{now deleted}, a little holding area for all the crap I've cut out of the article. Anything that can be sourced can be moved back in, and there's some interesting things that I think will enhance the article in there... if they can be sourced.

Comments

Below this heading, please. -- Saberwyn 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your User Page

You sacrificed your user page for the proposed revised article? Whatever works I suppose. Wait, I am confused... Colonel Marksman 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I sacrificed a subpage of my user page... for the Greater Good :P -- Saberwyn 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Physiology

The physiology looks good, but we could also use a picture too ;D Colonel Marksman 14:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC) We need a few more pics.

• The problem is finding free-use images, or finiding an appropriate justification for fair use, as anything Warhammer-related is copyright GW -- Saberwyn 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Weapons, Equipment, Vehicles

I took a look at the history of that and I just now figured out... you're trying to bloody write this thing all by yourself! It's not a bad thing... just a load of effort. You did everything I was planning on doing. Colonel Marksman 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Somebody's gotta frakking do it! -- Saberwyn 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Changes

I made a few minor changes in there and the rest looks very good! I want to specially congradulate you on the indication that Tau warfare revolves around the "hunt", NOT long-range warfare.

I want to personally say this, to anyone who plays against or with Tau and I will tell this to you. When I used Tau against Dark Eldar, after easily killing off the lords and close combat specialist speed-freak units, I slaughtered the Dark Eldar in close combat! I was appauled and I discovered why: 1. Gun/Shield Drones. 2. Armor saves. People also tend to overlook the Tau's regular ballistic skill of 3. If the Tau were all about ranged-warfare, it should be hirer.

In my experience as a Tau commander, if my opponent focuses solely on my long range, he's dead meat in my cadre's hunt. Colonel Marksman 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well i think Tau are are all about ranged-warfare or they would have developed a good close combat weapon (im sure they could make very funky plasma swords/knives/spears etc). Only commander Farsight's enclave trains in close combat and some ethereals. (im not too sure but it says something that they dislike melee combat (in the book firewarrior kais is always paranoid about dirting his armour with "guela" blood or is he always paranoid?) and they prefer to take enemies out from a distance, if im wrong...im sorry) Oh and also, make a heroes section, it would be intresting to read more about the others, i only know one character in depth and thats Shas'La Tau Kais who, i think, is one of the most skilled fictional characters in the warhammer 40k world (fact....not opinion:P) LaKais 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't know how to respond to the first comment, what is in the article is what Codex: Tau and Codex: Tau Empire say. As for reading about the characters, that is what the "Notable Characters" section is for. A short description of each character's claim to fame and/or a wikilink to an article on that character are all we need here. -- Saberwyn 10:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gun Drones

We didn't include anything about Gun Drones. Colonel Marksman 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Because Drones are in the "Weapons... of the Tau Empire article" -- Saberwyn 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

An important question?

Is setting these articles out in the divisions of "fiction" and "reality" the way of the future? -- Saberwyn 10:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good question. I think it's mightily important. Most of the articles we have are about the fluff. I'm reorganizing (almost a complete rewrite) of the Tyranid page patterned after something like that. I'm going to suggest to the Project Page an organized sense of writing articles.

E.g. First: Introduction (before actual contents, a brief overview of everything, real and fiction), Fluff, then reality outlooks (including player's perspective, what they're like on the board, real-time history, etc).

• That's what I want most for all these articles. We're running a Confederation here: instead of each state, it's each article doing it's own thing weakly under something higher.
• But the first "Union" for example, I hope, is the Tau and Tyranid pages. So, if we can, lemme see about presenting this idea and then we can work on a little reorganization and then show the two pages together. This way, we can represent unison, organization, and proper guidlines for all pages to easily follow for their revision. Sound good to you? Colonel Marksman 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is we have to start somewhere. Once we sort out how the articles should be laid out, we can go and work on improving the articles to match that standard. Before we can do that, we need that standard, and this layout is one possibility I'm putting forward. However, if you like this layout so much you want to go and whack the Nids article until it matches, I'd actually consider it a compliment. -- Saberwyn 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, think it works, and think it produces a good encyclopedic article. Apologies for the belated reply. Cheers --Pak21 10:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra comment

• Good job on refraining from jargon! Colonel Marksman 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

User:Saberwyn/Saberwyn's Tau Article → Tau (Warhammer 40,000) … Rationale: Significant rewrite of the 40K Tau article. Rewrite has support of several members of the Warhammer 40,000 wikiproject. I'd do a cut-n-paste move and leave the rewrite page as a redirect, but others have contributed to the rewrite.… -- Saberwyn 11:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support: much better than the current article --Pak21 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Less POV crap for the Greater Good. --Paul Soth 08:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2