Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 2

message: I would like, if I may, to suggest we open this article with a picture not of three Grey Knights but of the cover of the core rulebook. A shot similar to the one we have of Rogue Trader would be ideal.
*Sound of that I like. Now where to get one? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Is there a reason we can't use the one which is currently half way down the page? --Pak21 09:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Image

message: the one with the three figurines?
Pece Kocovski 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what was wrong with the original image 

message: Natalinasmpf, I understand the point you're trying to make with your edits (and I know what the Manual of Style says), but I honestly don't think your edits improve the article: the timeline and galaxy map links are not "side-by-side" with internal links, and having two separate sections for computer game modifications is just messy. How about something where we make it clear in each of the sections which are internal and which are external links, rather than a robotic move of every external link to the end? Cheers --Pak21 16:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Which came first, the current concept of the Warp in the 40k universe or the movie Event Horizon? 70.36.255.222 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Warp 

message: The section as titled contains a repeat of information (stating the game is in its 4th edition - this is in the History section). Should the History section not contain the heading 'current state of play'? That way the repetition can be removed. -localzuk 11:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state of play 

message: I have been trying to focus some of my attention on this page and have created User:Localzuk/Warhammer 40,000 Temp as a place where I am doing some major reworking. I have not yet finished it but would like some input.
Do we need so much information duplicated across articles. For example, the information about the Imperium can be found on its own page (specifically the part under Armies/Races/Species). This goes for the other species. As the section stands, it lacks information on 4 of the major armies. If this information was put in, I think the article would be too long.
My opinion is that the information should be listed more generalised eg: 'The Warhammer 40,000 game, and consequentially the fictional universe, is made up of many races and species. The major ones are:' followed by the list.
This would removed the unneeded duplication of information.
Could anyone interested put any comments on the talk page.-localzuk 10:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armies/Races/Species 

message: That section could do with a bit of a cull, methinks. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that - I think we need to thin it out to only provide a select few sites of extreme importance/relevance to the game.-Localzuk (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: By -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cull of Links

message: I have noticed that the list of notable characters is growing (4 new redlinks added today). Can we make some decisions about who should be included? We don't want the list spiralling out of control at the whim of every person who thinks every character is important (which in a way they are but we need to keep to the top few). If we end up with an article full of lists, I think it will detract from it. We already have a Characters Category, do we need to list so many here? -Localzuk (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I will go further and say that we should not have lists of minor species or 'notable ' characters on the page at all. They are both listed in categories seperate to the page and these are linked to. How about removing them and only include them as inline links within blocks of text (eg. the history/storyline).-Localzuk (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't actually think the category listings are a substitute for an article (or a section thereof). In an article, we can add brief explanations and group things appropriately, which just aren't possible in a category page. Perhaps we should break out a "Warhammer 40,000 species" page? Cheers --Pak21 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this may be best. We need to reduce the amount of lists as it looks unprofessional at the moment having then all in here with no information with them. If there was information, the article would become way too long. -Localzuk (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a Warhammer 40,000 Species page, moved the list there and tidied up the paragraph about it on this article. -Localzuk (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * I've just moved the page to Warhammer 40,000 species on the basis that "species" is not a proper noun, so should not be capitalised in an article name. Cheers --Pak21 21:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The way I personally see notability criteria, if they rate a special character miniature in their Codex, and already have an article, they can have a mention in the next 'tier' up of articles (usually the one concerning their race/organisation). Listing on the main 40K article should be restricted to the seriously big honchoes of the universe. Of the ones that are here, you can probably wipe Marenus Calgar, Ahriman, Khârn the Betrayer, and Commissar Yarrick. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, please take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability. Cheers --Pak21 20:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Characters 

message: Well, the article is almost professional looking now. The only bit that remains that looks, IMO, quite bad is the spin off's section. There are a lot of spin off's. Would this be better on its own page with a brief paragraph on this one about how the game is copied, emulated etc...?
What do people think?
* Sounds good to me. Create a new article (Warhammer 40,000 spinoffs?) with just links to the better known ones (BFG, Epic, Necromunda, Dawn of War, Fire Warrior?) on this page. Cheers --Pak21 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have a go (again, as I just had it created and closed the wrong window) sometime soon... Watch Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs this space. (I chose spin-offs as it is more linguistically correct, however is there a better word?).-Localzuk (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * "spin-offs" seems fine to me. I wouldn't worry too much about the title, as we can always move the page later. Cheers --Pak21 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists almost there 

message: I've just reverted to the last version by me (Pak21), removing the newly added section on the Inquisition. The Inquisition, while important to the Imperium (where it does get its own section), isn't that important to either the 40k universe or game: it's not available as a playable army in its own right. My reversion also takes out the characters re-added to the Notable Characters section; see the discussion above for the reasoning behind that. Cheers --Pak21 13:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherwise fine, but you took out Yarrick, one of the oldest named character in 40k. --Agamemnon2 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For factual clarity, removing Yarrick was suggested by Saberwyn above, and done then, not in this edit (which really was just a reversion). I see that Yarrick is important to the development of the game, but I'm not sure he's that important to the Universe as a whole. On the other hand, I wouldn't object to him reappearing, but I am inclined to be fairly brutal with anything else appearing in the list! Cheers --Pak21 10:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list is long enough as it is. If Yarrick is re-added I think it opens a flood gate to allow other characters to be added. As Pak21 says above, Yarrick is not that important to the Universe as a whole. I think it should be left out. -Localzuk (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I'm going to propose the removal of Gaunt, he's only the commanding officer of a single Imperial Guard regiment among hundreds of thousands. He is not important to the game as a whole, only to Dan Abnett's novels of it. --Agamemnon2 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, but then I'm not one of the people who keeps adding characters to the list :-) Cheers --Pak21 11:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Am removing it. -Localzuk (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: I have created a template and placed it on this page to guage peoples opinions. I think a template placed on all Warhammer 40,000 articles will aid a 'grouped' feeling. However, it might not be in its best condition at the moment.-Localzuk (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks pretty good so far; I'm wondering about putting Dark Eldar under Eldar (they'd hate that, wouldn't they!), and maybe changing the "Other" section to "Other Aliens" or "Xenos" or something. -- Metahacker 18:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I have created a proposal for a Warhammer 40,000 wikiproject. If anyone is interested in it, details are available here and here. If you would like to join the project, simply add your name to the bottom of the list on the first linked page. -Localzuk (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: Warhammer editors might be intestested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills. Kappa 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck gives you that impression? Warhammer and Runescape have nearly nothing in common. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, both could be described as "cruft" if we go into too much detail.  The crucial point here, I think, it to keep it encyclopaedic.  There's clear precedent for keeping stuff on WH40K special characters, the races, etc. (I mean, we keep all Pokemon stuff), and if we want to be able to write about this sort of thing we might well take an interest in attempts to reduce the "cruft" levels in articles describing other games.  The problem with RuneScape, as I understand it — a problem our articles on Warhammer games don't, fortunately, share — is that many of the articles are not encyclopaedia articles at all, but game guide entries, self-promotional material, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game related deletions 

message: Someone proposed that the mentioned article should be merged into this article. Personally, I think it should not be merged into this article. If it must be merged it should be merged into Dark Eldar else it should remain as it is but be expanded. -Localzuk (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it should be merged into Dark Eldar as it isn't really about the named character. If it was just about them it would be just 3 lines long. -Localzuk (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes i agree that this should be merged with Darlk Eldar NOT Warhammer 40,000.--Lord Wolfwood 00:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely do not merge it here. Given that the Vect article had already been changed to suggest merging with Dark Eldar, I've put the tag on Dark Eldar instead. Cheers --Pak21 08:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Asdrubael Vect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Warhammer 40,000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp?articleID=42
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712014221/http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Titans to http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Titans
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please create a Reception section and add this:
Warhammer 40,000 was inducted into the Origins Hall of Fame in 2003. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:781F:617F:60AD:6562 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2018 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: "and the assault phase where the outcome of any physical or hand to hand attacks are determined by dicertain rolls."
In the intro, the word "dicertian" is used. It's not an English word, is it a WH40k game term or is it a typo/edito/vandalism? -- PaulxSA (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicertian 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: WH40K was NOT based on Warhammer Fantasy.  Rick Priestley was working on WH40K before he even joined Games Workshop. They just called it Warhammer as a marketing ploy. Kurzon (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite clearly based on Warhammer Fantasy, the rules were originally fairly identical in their core functionality. Both setting and rules were based on WFB, GW has stated this many times. Considering Priestly had been at GW for many many year before 40K was released, he originally wrote WFB, and GW stated at the start it's a sister game to WFB. And GW themselves very clearly stated that, direct quote "Warhammer 40,000 takes the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay background into the galaxy itself." And "The Warhammer 40,000 background is an extension of the Warhammer game series, linking the Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay games into a complete background." Early 40K was 100% compatible with WFB, units could be transferred both ways, and the Warhammer world existed as a world in the 40K universe. They shared a lot of background as well. At the beginning they were clearly the same thing. You'll need a lot of references to refute the cites and references that support it being based on WFB and WFRP. Canterbury Tail talk 20:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede notes

message: The absolute insistence of editors to prevent any Real information about the popular setting or lore from this series has produced a rather mess of an article. Things such as Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Sisters of Battle all redirect here despite not being mentioned in the article itself, thus Serving no purpose.
I understand this can’t be a full 40k wiki but there needs to be a bare minimum of setting information to allow for any kind of ability to inform. As it stands now all people can discern from this article is 40k is a British miniature game that might involve space and then you have to try and find information elsewhere. This is undoubtedly one of the most bare and confused science fiction setting articles I’ve ever seen, and would gladly change it if it wouldn’t be reverted
At the very least, there should be a setting or Imperium article similar to this 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizations_of_the_Dune_universe
Wordbearer88 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sneed --Bloodloss  01:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Aimless redirects and lack of information

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a sentence:  "In the original rulebook of 1987, the Emperor was bed-ridden due to extreme old age but could still communicate and therefore rule his empire. But with the revisions introduced in The Lost and the Damned, the Emperor became comatose, the consequence of critical injuries sustained in battle. " 
However, the 1987 Rulebook "Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader" introduces the Emperor as a corpse rotting on his throne, essentially verbatim as he was introduced in the 2008 starter pack "Assault on Black Reach." The article as written implies Rogue Trader had a live Emperor and a later supplement turned him into a corpse, when this story point was pretty explicit in the original rulebook. Is this considered "original research"?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5210:A900:F464:1A72:C921:BE1D (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corpose Emperor: Rogue Trader, 1987 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: I reverted your good faith attempt to expand the description of the Imperium of Man. I think these descriptions should be brief. Just give the basic essence of each faction. Other editors are welcome to chime in if they disagree with me. Kurzon (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mind their edit as it did cover all the other sub-factions that aren't mentioned elsewhere and without going into to too much detail. At the end of the day while Space Marines are the largest single faction in player terms, the other sub-factions still have a considerable (and growing) following. I'm okay to leave it in but open to dsicussion. I don't think it necessarily falls afoul of being too much fictional stuff, when it's really just 1 line descriptions of the armies that a player can actively play.  One irony though, it would mean that the Space Marines are the only sub-faction where it's not actually described what they are :) Canterbury Tail talk 19:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Doh!, so they do. Let's wait for others to put their viewpoints in. If we keep it to what the players can actively play I think we're good. If we really want to cut something from the article, may I suggest the Supplements and Expansions section (separate conversation there really.) Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My input on this older discussion: I personally think for explanation the length of these section is fine as they currently are. However there are secondary source which can be used to reference (and therefore put on a better basis) what we have and expand it, especially with some analysis. I have put a few on the top of this talk page. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep fictional stuff brief