Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 4

message: Please note that the listing of "Variant armies" is not a place to list allied units within that army.
Blood Angels or Death Guard are variants of the Space Marines and Chaos Marines, respectively, so they belong in that list.  Same for Cadians and Imperial Guard as another example. 
But Vespids and Tau human auxiliaries are not "variants" of the Tau army; they are a part of the Tau army.  They are no more "variant armies" for Tau than a Space Marine Tactical squad is for Space Marines.  If/when Vespids get their own army list (as Kroot have gotten), then they belong there.  Until that day, they do not.
I realize that the people who keep adding them to the list probably don't read the talk... but I thought I'd bring it up anyway, because I keep seeing them getting re-added to the list.--DarthBinky 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose Farsight would work, since it's actually a variant army- it uses a slightly different list, has special rules, etc.  The other septs don't; they're not really anything more than different paint styles. --DarthBinky 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: They already have their own section on this page: History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000).  I don't think there's really enough info to make a whole article dedicated to just them.  Cheers --DarthBinky 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little unsure that the Mordians, Valhallan and Pretorians should be classed as "variant" lists.  I agree with Catachans and Cadians, I just don't feel the Mordians etc are different enough, as if I recall correctly, the only change they have over the standard list is the doctrines they use, which are available to anyone.  Wouldn't the Elysians (spelling!) Drop troops and Armoured Company be better examples? Darkson - BANG! 09:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vespids/Auxiliaries and "variant armies" 

message: First of all, I modified the ling about gothic science fiction. It was leading to Gothic architecture, I modified to Gothic Fiction which is more appriopriate.
Then, is ther already a page with a list of planets and notable places in WH40K? If yes, it should be accessible directly as is the page to armies of 40K.
Ossoduro 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting-list 

message: I have no idea about copyright but since there are so many articles about 40k I asume that kind of stuff is ok. Is there anything to do with warhammer that is violating copyright? --Diadora 10:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that the Wikipedia articles are violating copywrite? The short answer is no, as any GW copyrights are being used in a completely descriptive manner. --121.44.75.32 08:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly applaud this change. --Pak21 09:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not anymore. MSJapan 13:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, I'm relatively new to the project, so I took your statement to be in favor of deletion from external links (which I did)...and then I found what it was that you were really on about, which was the article.  So, in actuality, it's your fault for bringing it up, because otherwise I never would have found it.  Moreover, "we lot" have read the WP policies, and that so-called "article" violates most of them.  Anyways, here's the AFD link for any who are interested: [Dysartes AfD] MSJapan 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should bring that up in the talk for the article in question, or be bold and do it yourself.  Cheers --DarthBinky 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup.  Good catch.  Thanks! MSJapan 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but people have a lot to do on this site. I have around 900 articles in my Watchlist. Sometimes these things do slip through. If I see it again, I will remove it. If you see it again, please remove it. Do not re-add the Dy.com link as this will probably end up with you being blocked for WP:POINT violations. Also, please be civil and not say things like 'oi, prats'. Finally, assume good faith. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 13:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: well sorry, but seeing as it was edited 3 times and remained for 7 days, its clear that favouritism is going on! i know that people have other things to do, but thats not even funny!!! Shas'o sodit 14:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is basically down to an editing process misunderstanding. If someone edits an article (in state 0, let's say) in one section (call it A), and then someone else (or the same person) edits in another section (B), the later edit is the only one that will show up on the watchlist, and the changes from edit A to B will be the only things in the latest diff, not the differences between 0 and A.  This is why multiple editors need to be active on articles, and this is why you need to familiarize yourself with how WP works before you throw a tantrum. MSJapan 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Like you, we are all volunteers.  The "modding system" (as you put it) doesn't run on its own.  The whole point of Wikipedia is that any user can edit in accordance with guidelines.  There's no committee or bureau that's going to come down here and do something about your issues just because you complain repeatedly.  You have been told on numerous occasions how to fix things.  If it's not supposed to be there, take it out.  It's as much your fault for seeing it and not doing something about it for a week as it is anyone else's for not seeing it.  However, you seem to enjoy playing the "maligned party" more than you do the "responsible editor".  you've really no grounds on which to complain, you haven't been warned about the same incident more than once, and it's getting to the point where you are making excuses by blaming others for your behavior.  The real problem is that you do not know how Wikipedia works, and you really need to do that if you want to stay around. MSJapan 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a business. There are no customers or superiors. We are all the same - editors. How can customer service suck for a free site that anyone can edit, that doesn't have a customer service dept? We have simply stated that your link is not appropriate. We have agreed that the tauonline one is also not appropriate but it missed being removed because we are all busy people. What do you expect from us? Please spend some time finding out how this site is run and you will be in a much better position to argue your points. So, the upshot of all this is, if you see the taunonline link in there, remove it. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 21:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope.  Also, discussion forums as external links should be avoided, per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided (see #10).  I've already removed the link.  Cheers --DarthBinky 06:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I actually liked the Influences section as a concept, though the statements were unsourced, criticisms of the company don't belong there, and nor should statements be qualified with opinion words like "jealously."  More importantly, the game is not "set in the year 40,000."  All the books (novels and otherwise) say "41st millenium." MSJapan 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the "influences" is completely unsourced.  It's been there long enough that they should have been cited by now.  Since they haven't been, they should be deleted.  This is an encyclopedia article- if fans want to do further reading, they'll have to get the books just like we did. Also note that the current (unofficial) consensus is that "Influences" sections should not be included. See here for the discussion. --DarthBinky 16:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of Kidkyoto's edits... 

message: I came here trying to learn what this was and I could not figure it out until half-way through, I am still confused. This is just feedback for people who regularly edit this article!! - Abscissa 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... The very first words in the article are "This article is about the tabletop miniature wargame and the fictional universe in which it is set" and the first sentence proper is "Warhammer 40,000 [...] is a science fantasy tabletop miniature wargame." I'm not quite sure what more we can do than that... Cheers --Pak21 08:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not fermiliar with "science fantasy tabletop miniature wargames". I have played board games and I know about magic cards. So I wanted to learn about this game, and it was very difficult to follow and not immediately apparant what this was. I know that the people who play it may not appriciate it but "a tabletop game played with minature plastic figurines" is infinitely more clear... - Abscissa 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tabletop miniature wargame" is wikilinked- there is a link for an explanation on that term.  That's how Wikipedia works- if there's an article explaining something, we link to that instead of explaining it again in this article.  Cheers --DarthBinky 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that comment somewhat patronising as I was only trying to point out that I, a terribly ignorant person who was only trying to learn something, had a great deal of difficulty understanding this article. I came here wondering what warhammer was. "Science fantasy tabletop miniature wargames" is  circular. A general audience unfamiliar with this topic would probably best understand it as, for e.g. "a game played with minature plastic figurines and dice, notable for players' ability to customise their pieces etc. etc." or whatever you think it is most notable for that distingusishes it from Stratego. Then the article can go into much detail about specifics of the game. Of course the game involves tactics!! And if the game invovles dice, it invovles luck. Is it worth saying that in the intro? And who cares how many millimiters the minature figurines are? Reading it briefly I see that "produced by _____" appears twice when it should appear once at most; is this a contradiction or not? Since I know neither of these companies it is again even more confusing!! And I presume you want me to go read about Warhammer fantasy because I have no idea what it means that "It allows for less regimental, formation-based movement, and deals with more advanced weaponry." So basically I am supposed to read everything except this article?! Let's admit that the intro needs some serious work to welcome a general audience to the subject, and surely those of you who have such a depth of knowledge should be able to explain it in simple terms concisely to people like me who cursed with ignorance. - Abscissa 05:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to be patronizing.  I just don't understand what exactly you're looking for.  I agree that the mention of needing "tactics and luck" is a bit out of place- that in particular struck me as sounding kind of silly not long ago.  But it sounded like you wanted a definition of "science fiction tabletop wargame" right here in this article, when an article explaining that already exists. Please give an example, because you're still not clear.  --DarthBinky 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at other games like Stratego, Risk (game) and Monopoly (game), and have made an attempt to address your concerns regarding the opening section.  --DarthBinky 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's much, much better now! I no longer have to wade through the article full of useless (to me) information just to find out what I am supposed to be reading about. - Abscissa 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this?? 

message: I collapsed the intro a bit, and rm'ed some wikilinks that I thought were too far afield to be useful.  I also changed "companion" to "version", as there's nothing in the article to cause the reader to draw a connection between WHFB and 40K save the title.  It may need to be elaborated upon, but  as it stands, I'm not so sure the WH games were meant to be related at the outset. MSJapan 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro rewrite 

message: WH40k RPG seems to be in works: .-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article at Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay. the wub "?!" 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RPG in works

message: Is there are particular reason why all the notable characters are either Human, Ork, or Eldar? And why the humans have three, greater than all (both) other categories? Admittedly, it is not the article for WH40k character listing, but should there not be one for each army? The Tau have Aun'va, Aun'shi, O'Shovah, O'Shaserra; Dark Eldar will have characters, Space Marine heads-of-chapters deserve a mention; Even Tyranids have notable characters (Red Terror of Hive fleet Kraken). The only exception appears the be the Necrons, and even they have HQ choices... Tar7arus 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the source says: . Cheers --Pak21 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh! Thanks. Talk diverted there >.> Tar7arus 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Characters

message: Does "Warhammer 40,000" really have to be in italics? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) says that italics should be used for computer and video games, and for books, but not for "traditional" games. It just looks a bit silly being in italics every time it occurs in the article. Also some of the later occurrences could possibly be replaced with "40K", since that is explained at the start of the article and is common usage. the wub "?!" 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Warhammer 40,000 is much closer to a computer game like Half-Life than a "traditional" game like Hopscotch. Note how the featured article History of the board game Monopoly uses italics for the names of games other than Monopoly itself, as does (say) Settlers of Catan. As for italics looking "silly", that's just your opinion: it looks absolutely fine to me. While "40K" is common usage among players, I'm also not sure what using the abbreviation would add to the article – it's not like Warhammer 40,000 is that long. Cheers --Pak21 08:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The preferred abbreviation to my mind is WH40K. But I wouldn't instinctively italicize it.GraemeLeggett 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it to be spelt out completely, italics or no italics.  It's fine to have it mentioned somewhere that 40k, or WH40k, is a normal appreviation, but for the rest of the text, it needs to be assumed the reader has no knowledge, and should be written in full. Darkson - BANG! 12:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics