Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Review articles for organization and editorial quality

I spent considerable time today on articles within this project, that should be within this project, or that deal with related subjects. If you look at my contributions list for 30–31 May 2007, you will see what I have done, and you may need to correct some of it.

In my opinion, there is need for greater organization within and among the articles, partly to avoid duplication of material, and, worse, inconsistent material. I came across, and attempted to fix, a couple instances where articles said that future events were expected to occur in times now in the past. Also, terms like recently do not belong in an encyclopedia.

Copy editing (more than I have time for) is necessary to bring many of the articles to the standards that WP aspires to. Many of the articles largely ignore WP:MOS on such matters as capitalization of section headings (including this Talk page and the Project page), use of italics, and internal and external links. In general, links should be to the narrowest appropriate target (for example, comic books should be linked to comic books, not to comics; I unwittingly made precisely this mistake and will try to find and fix it). Likewise, a link to trade paperback (comics) is more precise that a link to trade paperback. There are too many links to redirect pages, which also means that less accurate and inconsistent terminology is being used. Likewise, more specific words should be used in preference to broader terms. For example, if all of Black Library's novels are graphic novels, then the latter term should be used.

Adherence to WP:CITE is mostly lacking, and some material appears to be WP:OR. Citing reliable sources will solve both problems.

Most of the articles are mostly written in British English. For the sake of consistency, this should be made universal (I'm American, so please excuse and correct my attempts at that dialect).

Some of the very short articles, unless they are to be substantially expanded, should probably be merged into other articles. (I initially proposed via templates that the INFERNO! and Warhammer Monthly articles be merged into Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs. I now realize that is not the correct place and will revert myself. Perhaps they should instead be merged into Black Library, and the discussion of print media in Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs should be consolidated, minimized, and referred to the appropriate main articles. I'll leave this up to the rest of you.)

I do not have sufficient time to devote to this, but hope that you will consider these suggestions as your project goes forward. Finell (Talk) 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw your post in another talk page and I think that the British English is already covered and already made a universal, since the books are written in British English. The Black Library page is a company page. Putting a magazine wouldn't be right. The magazines should have Black Library (magazines)? I think there is a Black Library page for comics and novels, if I read correctly. There needs to be a community portal, because so much gets lost and I can't find pages except through search. I only care about Battlefleet Gothic, though. 75.104.133.79 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer Monthly and INFERNO! seem reasonable as entries that have started off. However, they do need expanding and more sources adding. A "Black Library magazines" seems an interesting compromise, although ideally I'd like to see the two as standalone entries. However, if there is no chance of any more information being added then merging them to make a new entry could be the solution. The problem is you'd class WM as a comic I think we could live with that - how about "Black Library periodicals"? If one section grew to a size that required its own entry we could split one or both off. If someone proposed a merge to "Black Library periodicals" or "Warhammer periodicals" then I'd vote for it unless someone came up with some cunning reason not to. Thing is they'd still need work and references.

I do think the Black Library entry needs work. Again Finell has done good work there. The most obvious being that massive table and there is some discussion on that here. I favour splitting it up into different overview pages and making it prose as it isn't that accessible (and reads more like a product catalogue than a more general source of information).

So yes there still needs to be some heavy tidying and sorting but it all looks doable and Finell has laid soem good ground work. (Emperor 13:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

I have no problem keeping Warhammer Monthly and INFERNO! as articles, especially if they are expanded, and possibly even if they are not. They need source citations in any event. I don't think it would be an improvement to have separate articles named Black Library periodicals and Black Library other publications, or the like.

I see I overlooked Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000). I do not see where it fits into an organizational scheme. The title appears to be incorrect in three respects:

• As I understand it, Black Library does publishing, not gaming.
• Black Library is not limited to Warhammer 40,000 publications.
• The parentheses imply disambiguation, a way to distinguish Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) from, hypothetically, Black Library gaming (film), Black Library gaming (something else), and Black Library gaming (something else again). I do not see any other article to disambiguate this one from.

Is Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) a content fork from Black Library? Should those two articles be merged? Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) is somewhat stronger on citing sources than most of the related articles, but somewhat weaker on other Wikification (e.g., following typeface conventions and wikilinking). This article has sections headed Novels and short fiction line and Comics and graphic novels line; the line distinguishing the two is not clear, particularly if the novels in the first section are indeed graphic novels. Could someone please clarify one of the questions I raised above: are all the novels involved graphic novels? If so, could the articles all make that clear?

By the way, I had nothing to do with categorizing Warhammer Monthly as a comic book. That is how it is described in the articles. Finell (Talk) 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - they need expanding and sourcing and a merge won't fix it. I've had a crack at Warhammer Monthly and it is clear there is plenty of room for expansion and more information could be dug up I'm sure about creation, the editors, reasons for cancellation, etc. I have rectageorised it to the right place.

My understanding of Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) is:

* It is the gaming spun off from from the Black Library fiction - the games inspired the fiction and then then games Workshop released figures and rules to make the stories [ubliched by Black Library playable.

* There were plans for Black Library gaming (Warhammer Fantasy)

* The split is between straightforward prose (novels and short stories) and sequential (comics and trade paperbacks). It is a reasonable distinction to make to break the entry up and make it clear what is what.

* It isn't technically a content fork from Black Library as technically it deals with Games Workshop material (rules published in White Dwarf and firgures they have released).

Hope that explains that one. The name and the general scope of the entry seem OK to me, I have just been trying to get the lead paragraphs to make this as clear as possible. It might possibly be worth adding a section on the end of the Black Library entry "Games Workshop has released rules and figures based on Warhammer 40,000 and Warhamer Fantasy which make the stories and characters that have appeared in the books and comics playable." (Emperor 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Discussion of interest: Tyranid Hive Fleets

There is currently a dicussion of the notability of Tyranid Hive Fleets. --GentlemanGhost 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer Portal

I have created a Warhammer Portal, any help or expertise you can offer would be of great help. If you are unfamiliar with the portal format, Just tell me and I'll make the edits. Regards, Dfrg.msc 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal is finished. Dfrg.msc 06:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In-universe and plagiarism

I was browsing various articles about 40k and noticed a large number of in-universe tags. I could not understand why, then I reached The Lost and the Damned. Note, please:

Chaos Space Marines lead them into battle, and accompanied by the monstrous Defiler, the Lost and the Damned are a deadly foe to face, particularly when the Aspiring Champions may also call upon Daemons from the warp to do their bidding.

Now come on guys, that syntax and verbosity has got to be copied from Codex:LATD, White Dwarf or similar. Given that the background material is written in-universe, this is probably a BAD place to copy from, even if it was referenced to comply with US and UK copyright law, which is ISN'T. Jeez. Editus Reloaded 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Many images possibly liable for deletion

From a couple of discussions I've been having, it appears to be the case that the consensus on Wikipedia is that commercial photographs of miniatures are considered to be "replaceable" by free photographs of miniatures, even though the image itself is still subject to copyright due to be a derivative work of the miniature. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it does appear to be the consensus. This could obviously have some fairly serious consequences for the images we're using on 40K pages if it were enforced. Just a heads up. Cheers --Pak21 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

'Breaks out the camera' --Falcorian ^(talk) 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the problem? The Games-Workshop has no problem whit pics of mins any wher on the web. see www.games-workshop.com for details ~LG~

Pointing people to a whole website is not helpful. If there is a particular page you feel is relevant, link to that. You're also missing the core point: this isn't about a problem with photographs of miniatures (which GW has no realistic right to complain about), this is about using GW's (or others) photographs. Wikipedia needs to as cautious as possible about copyright. Some editors may go a little too far in their caution, but this is a situation where the images are trivial to reproduce; as Falcorian notes get out your figs and start taking photos! — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thats quite wrong. Taking pictures puts it under 2d picture of a 3d picture, which you need permission from the artistic owner, because you do not actually own the rights to the image. However, the photos from the GW online store are publicity, which are freely distributed and fall under fair use without any problem at all (we would actually contribute to GW gaining money, as oppose to them losing money). So it doesn't take much sense to realize that the Admin going around claiming that "free use" pictures should be put in place has no clue about the law or background of fair use.

(Someone pointed me to this case on IRC - I thought I'd leave some notes)

I'm afraid that there basically can't be "free photographs" of the miniatures; you can license away your portion of the rights (the artistic creativity in the photography, or the painting and assembly were appropriate), but there's an underlying copyright in the miniature itself which you can't put under a free license. This sucks, I know, but it's life. There's a good discussion of the whole "derivative works" issue at commons:Derivative works, and I commend it to you:

Both are copyrighted, in both cases, the copyright of the photograph does not void the original copyright, and in both cases you will need the permission of the original creator. You cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can't upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures.

So what can a project like this do? That's a problem. Under a "free content only" rule, these topics simply can't be illustrated - at least, not without roundabout methods like "and here's a photo of the guy who designed them". This is the sort of reason we allow some unfree content.

I mentioned above the multiple "layers" of copyright - the rights in the miniature, the rights in its manifestation (painting etc), the rights in the photograph. The reason that we prefer "self-taken" photos to "officially sourced" ones, even of unfree material, is simply that whilst we can claim fair use regarding the underlying artistic work (the miniature) it's a lot less reasonable to claim fair use regarding the image - there's no particular reason to ignore the photographer's copyrights when we can replace it with one where we know as many of the "layers" as possible are clean. Does that make sense? Shimgray | talk | 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Image:Kal Jericho.jpg and Image:Tanith-ghosts-blist.gif were kept, while Image:Leonatos.jpg and (earlier) Image:Necronimmortals.jpg were deleted. I love consistency. --Pak21 18:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, what's the deal with WP? Just logged on after a long wikibreak and I find that all the Warhammer 40,000 images I uploaded myself (taken by myself and in many cases, painted by myself or my friends) were deleted. What in the world is happening with WP? User:Shrumster/Gallery_of_Contributions I mean, since the rights to the minis are owned by GW, it is theoretically impossible to have "non-free" pics of *any* GW mini. Even representations and drawings of them are technically copyright GW. So how the hell are we to deal with this? Shrumster 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, the pics are still there. It was just the links from my gallery that were taken down. WP is funny. Shrumster 10:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As you may have discovered by now, non-free images may not be used outside articles as they then don't meet the non-free content criteria. Cheers --Pak21 11:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, yeah. I just changed the thumbs in my gallery to links. :P Shrumster 11:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Joining up?

I'm not sure how necessary it is to ask to join the project, but I'd like to if no one minds. I've only been playing 40k for a couple years (played WFB for a while before switching) but I know a fair bit about the game and the 'fluff' behind it. I joined in the debate about the RfD for the Chaos marines (albiet a bit late, I think), and would like to get involved in cleaning it up. Agharo 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a very strict policy about joining the project, and it can't be deviated from. Here it is:

• Put your name on the list
• Edit some articles if you kind of sort of maybe feel like it

If you think you can follow those steps (to the letter!) then you can join. ;-) --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that sounds like a lot of responsibility... heh. Will do. Agharo 01:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the list mentioned above to add my name. I'm new to wiki-contribution, but I have 15 years of WH40K experience and would love to contribute. Jabbakahut (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Warhammer_40%2C000#Participants Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

24.118.153.134, New Editor or Vandal?

An IP user has been going around making edits to 40k articles. I can't tell if he's adding somewhat random nonsense, or is geniunly trying to give a hand. If someone else could look over his Contributions, it'd be great! --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a handful of this user's edits. The user possibly means well (i.e., the user may not be an intentional vandal), but has very little command of the English language. What results from the edits I saw reads worse than the articles read before the edits. Where this user changes facts, the user does not cite sources (although the original content is usually unsourced as well), so one cannot say whether this user's edits are factually correct. I am not going to spend more time looking at this user's edits, but they all should be carefully examined by those who know the subject matter and corrected or reverted. Finell (Talk) 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I *think* he's just trying to change the wording to explain things, but as Finell pointed out he seems to have a limited grasp on the English language. It doesn't look like he's trying to vandalize the pages, though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agharo (talk • contribs)

Although one or two don't look like he has access to the rulebooks either (check the scout edit that I've reverted) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Check his talk page - I'd say vandal, and any contributions should be watched. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 09:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Crusade

Would somebody take a look at this article and make whatever changes are needed? In particular are the in-universe tone an the lack of sources. 24.4.253.249 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

The Horus Heresy Books need covers adding, and I don't know how to do it. Thank You. 84.66.115.236 18:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Leman Russ Plagiarism

From Talk:Leman Russ

Much of the content here has been plagiarised from Imperial Armour, most notably the description of the Tank Destroyer. RfD in-deed. 219.90.242.95 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have my book with me, but I'll put a post on the project page and someone will check it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the entries for the Destroyer Tank Hunter and the Thunderer were copied word-for-word from the 1st Imperial Armour book. Properly fixed and rewritten. Shrumster 01:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar WikiProjects

I'd argue against some of these recently added projects being "similar". Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If any, WikiProject Warmachine or WikiProject Clix would make more sense as "simialr" projects. Shrumster 12:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency issues

I've been looking through some Horus Heresy-related articles (and Chaos Legions) curious about the source of the corruption and noticed they seem to be inconsistent on the start of the corruption. There's only one article linking to Kor Phaeron, who seems to be the initiator of the whole corruption (but the article itself doesn't describe where and when he was corrupted himself). The Horus Heresy article itself is a mess. I suggest some people who're lore-buffs should track all articles and improve articles. Syrion 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article help

I've just joined up, and have begun writing an article to expand Tau (Warhammer 40,000). It is called Vehicles of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000). Unfortunately I do not own a copy of IA3 (Taros Campaign), and so can't find much info on Tetras, the Manta etc. Anyone who does, could you have a look at the article and add something, thanks. Puretide 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the category attribute

The category attribute was recently removed from Template:Warhammer 40,000 with the justification that, per WP:SUBCAT, we shouldn't be including every page with the 40k template in the main 40k category because they belong in subcategories.

This seems extremely silly to me. If too many articles are in the main 40k category, then too many articles are using the 40k template. The example given was Night Lords, who are in Category:Chaos Space Marine Legions. But why are they using the 40k template in the first place? They're not mentioned on it, nor are they even on the same order of magnitude of importance to the project as a whole as the things that are.

To me, the solution is to create templates to occupy lesser articles, which themselves will include the appropriate categories in attributes. For instance, the Night Lords could use a theoretical Template: Chaos Space Marine Legions, which would include all the appropriate higher categories.

Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling variants; and the discussion thereof.

After reverting more than a few well-meaning attempts by (unfortunately anonymous) users, can I please suggest we all agree on a spelling variant - and that spelling variant is English. The *English* English, or British English if you want to get all proper about it. So colour instead of color, etc.

The reason for this? Look at what the Warhammer 40,000 products themselves use. They use British spelling variants, because they're all written and printed in Britain. So can we please put an end to useless minor edits to "correct" spelling. More revisions means more database space, means more servers required, means more load, means more bandwidth costs, etc etc.

Please use British spelling variants. Thankyou very much. Discussion welcomed.The Great Unwashed 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any serious disagreement amongst the project members about the use of British English. However, they're not the people making these changes, so discussing it here isn't really much use... (You may also like to look at eg the Armored Company Army List to note that GW do localise (or should that be "localize"? :-) ) their materials when they can). Cheers --Pak21 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm prone to believing that GW would only bother localising names if they thought they'd have a better chance of trademarking the alternative spelling, such is their record. But yeah, BrE unless there's a specific reason not to is the way to go, not least because things like "power armour" are actually trademarks so should be spelled as given. Chris Cunningham 10:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not exactly saying it's high-priority or anything, and I noted above that it's mostly anonymous users doing these changes. Just annoyed me a whole lot, y'see. Carry on, I guess. The Great Unwashed 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism by IP 68.3.248.160

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.3.248.160

If you look at the contributions, they are all pimping a particular online store. Can we do something to get this person blocked? I just reverted another one on the Space Marines article. Cheers. The Great Unwashed 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

They certainly won't be blocked until they've been warned that their actions are inappropriate. I've put a first level warning on; if they continue, feel free to step up through the {{uw-spam1}} series. Cheers --Pak21 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he just continued then - onto the Warhammer 40,000 article and then to the Tyranids article. What more do we need? I've never asked that anyone be banned before, so I'm not sure of the process, but I'd think a history of linkspam is pretty solid evidence. The Great Unwashed 09:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, no-one will be blocked unless they've had a 4th level warning. Yeah, it means reverting a few bits of vandalism, but remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. As a vague aside, the same user seems to be back as Count4071... Cheers --Pak21 10:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whole lotta Codex images up for deletion

Hi all - my watchlist is screeching at me that Witch Hunters, Daemonhunters, Tau, Orks and Eldar Codex images are up for deletion under WP:NONFREE. As far as I can tell they meet all the nonfree criteria. What do we need to do to stop them being removed? They are an important part of any article on these races.The Great Unwashed 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At a guess, the rationale doesn't specify which article it applies to. --Pak21 07:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Games Workshop

Hi I've opened an RFC at Talk:Games Workshop#Request for Comment. In July 2007 I removed this section from Games Workshop. A few days ago, and 4 months after the deletion, User:RichSatan said I "broke policy and community tradition" by removing it[1]. At 06:20 (UTC) on November 4th 2007 RichSatan reinserted the majority of the removed text. In my view it violates WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I've opened the request for comment has been opened to ask the wider community for input on whether this material should be abides by site-policy and if it should be kept or removed?--Cailil ^talk 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)