Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 1

message: I've just drafted up a list of inclusion guidelines and orders of canonocity concerning the materials used as sources for the Warhammer 40,000 articles.
Please wander over and comment. Feel free to make changes, just say why... this is just a starting point, and it can be improved upon. -- Saberwyn 12:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion Guidelines 

message: I'm thinking we need to start with a clean slate concerning the main page notable figures list, so I've created it here.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability/Main Character debate space
Come looksee and comment. -- Saberwyn 10:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page notability 

message: I propose creating a "Warhammer 40,000 writers" category and including in it (as a first pass) anyone with a wikilink from the references page. Criteria for inclusion would be being a named author on any GW, Forge World or Black Library publication. Any objections, comments? Cheers --Pak21 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writers category 

message: What would be the best title for an equipment subcategory? I'd use it to file away the various "Weapons, Equipment..." lists, along with articles such as arco-flagellation, combi-weapons, Necrodermis and Standard Template Construct (not a complete list) -- Saberwyn 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Warhammer 40,000 technology". Not very good, but I don't have a better title at the moment... Cheers --Pak21 15:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll do me for the mo! -- Saberwyn 10:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment/Tech subcat 

message: Is there some reason none of the armies have any hints of any tabletop works? All we have is background and storyline... nothing related to the actual game.
Obviously... keep things simple if a decision is ever made to allow, e.g. "Strategies Using ..." part of an article, and discuss simple strengths and weaknesses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Marksman (talk • contribs) 
:I think the problem here is coming up with verifiable sources for this kind of information. --Pak21 11:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gameplay

message: Please see /Medusa V for some thoughts and discussion on how we should handle this summer's worldwide campaign. Cheers --Pak21 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fall of Medusa V 

message: Come on down to "User:Saberwyn/Saberwyn's Tau Article" to have a look at my attempted rewrite of the Tau article! While you're there, stop by "User:Saberwyn/Tau Rewrite Holding Pen" and see if there is any externally verifiable information that can be salvaged and placed into the rewrite. -- Saberwyn 13:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tau rewrite 

message: Image:Imperial eagle.jpg has been given a no source tag. The thing is, I can't remember where I first found it. I don't suppose anyone would be able to make a nice, clean new image of the Eagle so everyone can know where it came from? --Paul Soth 04:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial Eagle issues 

message: I think that, especially since the Warhammer 40,000 RPG has been announced, it would be a good idea to split the Warhammer 40,000 page into one about the setting and one about the game (with the setting page linking to all games set in this universe) - it has been done with Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Ausir 09:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've been posting this opinion elsewhere but i've only just found this note. The talk framework for this project is a little disorganised, don't you think? Sojourner001 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the page 

message: I have:
* An overall page of general guidelines
* A list that defines different types of articles on differt subjects
:* For Armies "Army Page"
:* For Technology "Technology Page" (equivalent to "Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment Page", or, "WVE page")
:* For Notable Planets "Notable Planet Page"
:* (User:Pak21 already made guidelines for notable characters, but a link to that is included)
* A statement of purpose for my guidelines
* Left room for more guidelines to come
--Nothing offical will be done with the guidelines (moved or put to use) until several Wikipedians involved in the Warhammer 40,000 project have verified it.--
Colonel Marksman's Proposed Guidelines
Colonel Marksman 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

message: Since no one is touching any of these, and they do appear quite scorned, I'll do this myself. Colonel Marksman 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Witch Hunters/Battle Sisters

message: There are two articles referencing the "old ones" in the 40k setting.  Which of these articles is correct?  They disagree with each other.  It seems that the Slann article is wrong since it is not consistant with the "Slann are not the old ones" precident set by Warhammer Fantasy.
* I think we can do without the Slann page in 40k. The only thing worth salvaging is the reference to the 4th edition rulebook and the Xenos section, but the image of the lizard creature is clearly labeled "Slanni", and not Loxatl. While the Loxatl might be a hint to the Lizardmen, I think we should leave that trace and let GW make their minds up. I support the petition to merge the pages. --LordXaras 16:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 40k Articles:  Slann(40k) vs Old Ones(40k)

message: Hello, I was following some links to find "Low Gothic" in the context of an architectural term e.g. High Gothic is a late form of the Frech Medieval style of cathedral building... I landed on the Warhammer article, so clearly some disambiguation needs to be done. I was going to move the page and make a disambiguation but it strikes me that it would be useful if the Warhammer project guidelines would try to create obviously unique articles where there is a possibility of ambiguity e.g. High Gothic (Warhammer 40,000). I know that you got there first, lol, but it would be helpful if this became a project policy. Anyway, keep up the good work. --Ekilfeather 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd say that doesn't really need to be in the project guidelines as it's existing Wikipedia policy anyway. I'd certainly agree with it. Ummm... not much more I can say, other than feel free to be bold and create the dab page. I don't think anyone around here will object. Cheers --Pak21 15:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We're discussing it at Talk:Low Gothic. Seems to bee well supported so far, I might do it tonight if there are no objections. --Falcorian (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Gothic, Low Gothic disambiguation 

message: Firstly, hello to all tho involved in the 40k project. I'm a long-time wiki reader, 40k player and I write for a living - hopefully I can be of some use.
I've just been adding detail to the (already excellent) Grey Knights page. I do have a question, however. Is it within our remit to  talk of the moral dimention in the game-universe? I've read the submission above (qf Please keep note that is 1. An opinion, and 2. It would be much better to state that "nobody is a badguy" etc) 
Well, I'm new here , so take this as you will, but I feel that this is a facinating universe and that this wiki would benifit from a short, balanced look at where each faction is coming from morally.
That said, hello again, and please be gentle. Rsquire 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing that has to be remembered with respect to all of this is that contributions to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If there are reliable sources which state the "morality" of each faction, then it's perfectly acceptable to cite those sources in the articles. If it's just an opinion without any references to back it up, then it is known as original research and should not be included on Wikipedia. Cheers --Pak21 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that much is obvious, and I guess we are on shaky ground with such notions. I'll shelve it for now, until I can get an audience with Andy Chambers. Not a good start to a wiki career, eh? Rsquire 13:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked here first rather than just going in and putting lots of stuff into articles which other editors would have to remove. That's much, much better than a lot of editors manage! Cheers --Pak21 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bid you welcome and agree with Pak21, that was a great start! Just spend some time with your average wiki editors, and afterwards when you read these lines again.. You'll understand :) Take care --Xasf 16:54, 07 July 2006 (GMT+3)
The first thing I'm gonna do proper is sort out the Weapons of the Imperium Wiki - it is a mess and could use a re-write - that will kep me busy - ill pop back here for guidance all the time. Rsquire 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Greater Good