Talk:Undead (Warhammer)

message: Please discuss before arbitrarily moving articles. I'm sure it was obvious that I was in the middle of adding links to the Liber Necris article from several others. It certainly was very poorly written, but it's the major piece of source material for both forms of undead (when only Chaos, the Empire and Skaven also have background books) as well as being part of the background itself as a fictional book. I think it still deserves it's own article. - Heavens To Betsy 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's not a lot more that you can add in my mind that isn't either going to end up as rephrase of the books content (derivative work) or bulding it up above its level of notability. There also aren't many more places you can link to it from within the Warhammer setting articles once you've done Undead, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Nagash and Von Carstein. If anything it has more use being used as a reference to the existing articles. GraemeLeggett 11:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. It would have been courtesy, though, to discuss it, especially since it seems obvious you redirected it today only because you saw someone working on it. My apologies for the rancour, it's not personal. Just feeling a bit raw after having referenced an article, un-orphaned it, added publishing date and author to it and clarified its dual real-world / fictional existence to have someone re-direct it within the space of a few seconds. Assuming it's going to stay on here as a section until we get consensus, I'll at least alter it so that it reads better. - Yours in frustration, Heavens To Betsy 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for not taking time to think through the possible result of my action. I can understand your thinking for the article and should the section get substantial enough I will support it being put into its own article space. I see too many stubs hanging around in the Warhammer Fantasy areas and I acted too hastily in trying to remove what I perceived as yet another case of article-for-the-hell-of-it. Apologies again. GraemeLeggett 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just going to revert some of the edits you made. 'The' is not part of the title. I know you haven't italicised it, but that's like saying ‘the Nightbringer’ or ‘the Trollslayer’ when referring to those books. Also, when I describe it as a 'fictional book', this is NOT the same as a 'book of fiction'. A book of fiction is one whose subject is fiction, a fictional book is a book that doesn't exist. Liber Necris is both. Please see :Category:Fictional books for other examples and an explanation of the difference. It is also certainly not a novel. - Heavens To Betsy 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think I have it now - though does it also have elements of a False document about it - your description is entirely in setting style which implies cover to cover similar to HP Lovecraft's The Statement of Randolph Carter. GraemeLeggett 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liber Necris

message: This is a really small point, but the backstory part on Isabella doesn't really match the latest Vampire Counts rulebook story. In that she threw herself from the tower onto stakes immediatly after seeing Vlad die. 8.10.11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.13 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Isabella

message: Do we want to start including information from The End Times and Age of Sigmar? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update