Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Inclusion Guidelines

message: As I stated here I thought GW had made a statement about their own canon hierarchy, but I couldn't find what I remembered. The closest I have is this, taken from the GW message boards:
"I'll just chip in here with what Marc tends to say, paraphrasing from memory ...
The games of Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer are abstract versions of the 'real' world created in order to allow people to play balanced games with toy soldiers for fun or competition. The fiction in our novels and magazines, colourful text added to rulebooks and codexes, are as close to the 'real' worlds as possible with the obvious taint of the narrator's viewpoint.
Tech Priest Ragnar"
Anyway, I still think there might have been a statement, and I'm still looking, but I thought I'd post what I'd come upon so far.
Best of luck! --Falcorian (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon Policy

message: Per Charax's find above, would anyone object to moving the "Visions Of..." books to point 5, as they are Black Library reference books, and include Horus Heresy CCG in this group by association with the background books? -- Saberwyn 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. That also seems to answer our Forge World questions. --Falcorian (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving up in the world

message: What do we think of the canonicity of the Space Marine Chapter Gallery, or in more general things posted on the GW website but not under 'Chapter Approved' or the like? Cheers --Pak21 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Marine Chapter Gallery 

message: When a conflict does appear, is the policy now to simply gloss the conflict over, assuming that the lower-order canon item simply doesn't exist, or should the conflict (if of interest) be mentioned in the article?  --Pariahpress 05:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judgement call. Don't bother mentioning every single little discrepancy you find, but "big" things should be mentioned (see eg Imperial Fists#Soul Drinkers contradiction). Cheers --Pak21 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect.  Love it.  --Pariahpress 04:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: canonicity 

message: There needs to be significant community consensus for this to be a guideline. I'd guess that most of the community isn't interested in Warhammer 40'000, and therefore never saw a reason to read it - much less object to it on its talk page. Guidelines should be more general than this. Fresheneesz 01:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? What harm was it doing to anyone being tagged as a guideline? Cheers --Pak21 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having guidelines *this* specific bloats the area of guidelines. See WP:CREEP for details. Fresheneesz 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain the presence of (eg) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene), and many of the other very specific naming convention guidelines. I assume you will be removing the guideline tag from all those articles as well? --Pak21 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Btw, Pak21, I like your change of the guideline tag. Fresheneesz 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Pak21 is correct, guidelines can be as specific as we choose. If there's interest, we might be able to generalize this to WH:Fantasy and/or miniature games in general (that's akin to how WP:FICT got started). You have misunderstood both WP:CREEP and the merit of having similar tags on all guidelines. >Radiant< 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually think i understand it quite well. And I think Pak21's change worked nicely. I won't change it back, but I encourage someone else to. What do you think Pak? Fresheneesz 03:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is true that this might not scale in the long run - but I suspect that if we get many more of these guidelines, we can merge the lot of them. I'm not overly familiar with wargaming, but wouldn't you say the principle of this rule would apply equally to Warhammer Fantasy? What about Bloodbowl? WP:FICT started out as a guideline on Tolkien characters, until we figured out that the same idea applies to other books. >Radiant< 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since when did WP:FICT start out as a guideline on Tolkien characters? Did that page get deleted - cause theres no history on that. I suspect it did get deleted because it was too specific - putting undue weight on tolkien over the millions of other authors. Fresheneesz 02:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. No, it didn't get deleted. We just figured out the same applies to other books, and made WP:FICT the result. >Radiant< 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  guideline?  

message: Who made this decision? The article implies that this was reached by consensus, yet I see no discussion here. Personally, I don't think having this section in the article is appropriate at all. Saying "notable xxx" is basically just wp-speak for "please don't delete me". If these characters are notable, their articles will reflect that. If they are exceptionally notable that they deserve to be mentioned in discussing the overall universe, then that discussion will contain links to those articles. Saying something is notable doesn't make it so (see WP:PEACOCK), and things that are notable don't need to be called as such. This section should be deleted if nobody finds these characters notable enough to do anything other than print their names on a list. Ham Pastrami 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable characters