Talk:Warhammer Fantasy (setting)

message: I'm confused. What's the difference between this article and Warhammer Fantasy Battle? The beginning of this article says that "warhammer is a setting" and the other article says that "warhammer is a game". If this is true, I'm going to suggest either re-labling the articles as "Warhammer (Setting)" "Warhammer (Game)"
It seems like this would GREATLY add to the cleaning up of the warhammer articles on wikipedia, which in my opinion are disorganized and terrible. I Made a major contribution to the wood elves article, and the article has remained basically the same as i left it (last year). When I have time, I will crusade to clean up the warhammer articles. But until then, this article either needes to be renamed, moved, or merged. I'm going to add the 'merge' tag until i get a response.
EDIT: I've moved the article. WHFB is now the article on the game, and this article is the article on the SETTING. I've modified the template as such.
Now it's just a matter of getting making this article more... good. It needs to talk more about the setting, because right now its basically still the same article as WHFB.
Getting rid of the Merge tag, replacing with a cleanup tag.
If you were to merge this page into the setting page how masive would the resolting page be?
It would be cleaner and easier to delete the merge tag and then just add more relevent information about setting into it, that way you don't have unrelevent info and people can come and look at magic without having to pick their way around other non-magic stuff.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.176.9 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warhammer Fantasy Battle 

message: How about adding Gaming groups to this article? ie: WCP and other groups, also a link to various Independent GrandTournements wouldnt be bad either --Stillborn 21:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a seperate page for tournaments would be better?--Melkior 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaming groups 

message: I think the "collecting" part should be completely redone or eliminated. The current version of this page is showing more of an opiniated answer (stating it is seen as a hobby that costs a lot of money") instead of an informative answer (how it is collectible and why). Bragador 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collecting section 

message: The 40k players used to have model(s) up at the top, but have replaced the main (first) picture with the latest Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. What do you think? Colonel Marksman 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, we would want a map of the Old World, or even better, the map of the entire world, which I have seen on a few occasions.  This runs into copyright problems howver, though.  Perhaps if someone had a digital scan of a promotional map included in White Dwarf at some point?  That would qualify as advertising and I believe that would have it fall under fair use.  -- Gizzakk 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, still not sure about fair use, it isn't exactly advertising... Nikevs 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Picture 

message: I vote we merge this page with the selected merge page, as the two are pratically one in the same. Warhammer is the overall brand, then branching off into Warhammer 40k, Warhammer Fantasy etc. Warhammer Fantasy & WH F Battle are the same! Merge the buggers! Spawn Man 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge: 

message: I had to laugh when I read "Some consider it to be similar to the French armies before the Hundred Years' War, combined with a heavy dose of Arthurian Myth."
and
"Some consider the Empire to be heavily based upon the real-world Holy Roman Empire, especially during the Renaissance."
Those two races/armies, Bretonnia and the Empire ARE based on the French of the Hundred Years War and the Holy Roman Empire, respectively. Anyone who argues this is historically ignorant beyond belief.--Jesse 12:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have verifiable sources supporting your view which you are going to add to the article? Please remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Cheers --Pak21 12:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said I was going to add anything to the article; I know about your little monopoly on Warhammer/40k here and how quick you are with reporting the slightest changes you don't agree with to the moderators/wiki staff. This is a discussion page, so I am discussing. Veryfiable and Truth are all fine and dandy..but what about the blatantly obvious? The 5th edition Bretonnian book had Joan of Arc in it for cryin' out loud.--Jesse 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding that to the article as a citation would be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Personal attacks such as your previous comments are not. --Pak21 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." Nice try. --Jesse 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Some consider...lol"

message: Can somebody help me explain this for me? When and why is this said?
"	Amid the darnkess and horror of a world splintering apart, the armies of the true creators, we who were ancient at the dawn of time, will march forth once more. We shall sweep away all that is chaos and disorder, for ours is the true path, and none shall defy us.	"
"	Venrable Lord Kroak                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    	"
NorwegianMarcus 11:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to just be some flavor text suggesting that someday the Lizardmen will conquer the world.  But this isn't a messageboard to discuss the backstory.  I would suggest googling messageboards devoted to Warhammer and asking them.  Cheers! --DarthBinky 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: The primary theme of Warhammer Fantasy should not be described as Man Versus Himself.  To claim that the demon lords and wicked deities are elements of man's own nature *within* the fiction of the Warhammer setting is not supported by the majority of fiction nor any widely available game rules.  To claim that the entire game is superceded by a single interpretation and game-play style is egotistical in the extreme.  I think it best to eliminate that interpretation of primary conflict and rather to note that the conflict in the Warhammer Fantasy universe is multitudinous as per most dark fantasy and swords and sorcery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.31.139 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man versus Himself? 

message: hey, if anyone has a map of the entire warhammer world as published with WD300 could they post it on the page under the geography section? that would clarifie things greatly. (plus -- its a great map!!) --minamato 21:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great copyrighted map! a link to a picture on the GW website would be reasonable. GraemeLeggett 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is there a picture on the GW site? i was looking and i haven't found it. besides, all you have to do is list the fact that its copyrighted in its page. if you go on Google and image search warhammer map all the pictures you get are copyrighted.minamato 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  hey!! i found one!! ill post the link minamato 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map of world 

message: I brought up something about this over at the Warhammer Fantasy Battle talk page.  Cheers --DarthBinky 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented there too. GraemeLeggett 09:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big list of factions 

message: why, if 'warhammer fantasy' does link here, does Warhammer give Warhammer and not a hyperlink to this article?--Lygophile 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because wikilinks are case sensitive. The article is Warhammer Fantasy. If you make your link Warhammer, it will work. As in Warhammer. - Heavens To Betsy 13:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i know it works with capitals, but other articles i can link to via a wikilink (such as elves giving the page Elf), why not this one?. I have spoken 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it probably links to a redirect page. minamato 06:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>[[warhammer fantasy]]</nowiki> 

message: "Warhammer Fantasy" isn't an official title. This should probably live at Warhammer (fantasy) or the like instead. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 11:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no official title that I am aware of but since its the first element of Warhammer Fantasy battle and roleplay and serves to distinguish between it and WH 40,000. There is no particular issue within wikipedia with the title as the moment. Warhammer (game setting) would probably do. GraemeLeggett 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, it's not a biggie, but I find it a bit odd that the current title of the WFB article is, well, WFB. The official title has been "just Warhammer" since 1993 or so. GW always prefer "the Warhammer world" and the like and always use just-Warhammer. Chris Cunningham 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a case of most common usage over official. GraemeLeggett 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most common usage is "Warhammer". People only every elaborate on that where they need to differentiate between fantasy and 40k. We can't have Warhammer due to the existence of, well, warhammers, but we shouldn't be using a made-up term in its place, should we? Chris Cunningham 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to WFB in my last comment. GraemeLeggett 13:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. I haven't heard anyway call the tabletop game WFB in real life, well, ever :) Chris Cunningham 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps its an age/culture thing. I've been playing GW stuff for some 20 or so years now. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been cold turkey myself for nearly ten years, actually. The last edition actually called WFB was third, wasn't it? Anyway, yeah, we always generally just referred to it as "Fantasy" is "Warhammer" was going to be ambiguous. Chris Cunningham 10:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name again 

message: I, and an IP addressed individual have different ideas about this matter. They seme to adhere to the position that redirecting to WFB is correct. While (having reviewed the links to the page) assert that the majority are directed to the general setting. for th emoment Warhammer Fantasy is now a disambig page. GraemeLeggett 09:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect from Warhammer Fantasy 

message: Warhammer Fantasy is a growing franchise. Now with an MMORPG launching imminently, and with over two dozen books based on the setting, in addition to the tabletop strategy game and the tabletop roleplaying game... Something must be done to keep it organized. I'm personally going to start with the books, and since I'll be playing the MMORPG, I'm sure I'll be contributing in that regard as well.--Ifrit (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a wikiproject 

message: Most entries from places in :Template:Warhammer Fantasy should be merged here. Or perhaps Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. I don't think any have stand-alone notability. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Piotrus: agreed, none of them are notable in their own right, save for the Empire. The Verified Cactus 100% 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge minor entities 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Warhammer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Draft:Skaven (Warhammer)
I believe the Skaven deserve their own standalone page. They are unique IP to Games Workshop. I'm looking for sources and help in creating the page. If you can help please do.
Lankyant (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafting Skaven page