Talk:Warhammer 40,000 comics

message: I put up a basis, and will be filling in more information.
Under Plot Synopsis should be another bolded catagory (not a sub catagory) that discusses critical review of the works. If someone could find/provide such, it would be appreciated. SanchiTachi 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Start

message: I have a concern about the name. There is often a confusion between trade paperbacks and graphic novels whihc seems to be cropping up here too. If, as the opening sentence says, "Many of these Graphic Novels have their origins in the Warhammer Monthly before being published as stand alone works or larger, bound collections of these works." then wouldn't it be better to deal with the lot under the more general heading Warhammer 40,000 (comics)? This includes comic books, graphic novels, comics from anthologies, the trades of previously published material, etc. and is more consistent with the naming guidelines of the comics project. (Emperor 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Graphic novels are not comics. 2. Graphic novels are what they are called on the Black Library website. This page only includes those works. 3. This is not about the running comics, and only about the Black Library works, as the opening says. This is not part of the comics project, but part of the Warhammer project. SanchiTachi 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll keep the discussion here so other people can join in. To answer: 1. Graphic novels are comics. From Comics: "The most common forms of printed comics are comic strips (most commonly four panels long) in newspapers and magazines, and longer comic stories in comic books, graphic novels and comic albums." 2. If the page includes volumes that "have their origins in the Warhammer Monthly before being published as stand alone works or larger, bound collections of these works." then they are trade paperbacks not graphic novels - publishers are welcome to call them what they like but that doesn't make them that. see his example 3. This does fall within the remit of the comics project as they are graphic novels. You don't have to take my word for it - you can ask on the talk page for the project that is linked from the header. It can be part of two projects. (Emperor 04:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Warhammer project, not a Comics group project. The naming conventions of our group follow the publishers naming conventions. Please respect that or I will remove the top catagory from being listed her and ask that the comics group, if they want to discuss this in their own manner, to do such on their own, different page. The "origins" is a nod to the fact that many of them had a few of their pages published in Warhammer Monthly before being funded for their own works. However, this page is not about the comics in Warhammer Monthly, nor about anything besides those works published by Black Library that fall under their catagory of "graphic novels." SanchiTachi 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Graphic novel, I would point out that the definition produced by your own group follows what these works are: "A graphic novel is a type of comic book, usually with a lengthy and complex storyline similar to those of novels, and often aimed at mature audiences. The term also encompasses comic short story anthologies, and in some cases bound collections of previously published comic-book series." These are all individually bound books spanning 200 - 400 pages (except for Lone Wolf, which is only 90 pages). SanchiTachi 05:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't threaten to remove project tags because someone disagrees with you Sanchi. Not only is it childish, but shows fundamental disregard for Wikipedia process. For someone so adamant about quoting it left and right, I wouldn't be so quick to ignore it when it suits you. Graphic novels are comics, as they come from comics. It falls under their banner whether you like it or not. That said, I've renamed it to a list, as Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000) violates at least three different points of Wikipedia naming conventions; specifically, it's disambiguated incorrectly (it'd be Warhammer 40,000 (graphic novels) if anything), capitalized incorrectly, and Warhammer 40,000 is not the title of the novels. So long as you focus on just the graphic novels, neither of you have a reason to complain. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my prefered solution. As I have said on the Warhammer spin-offs page I think there is plnty of material to create Warhammer 40,000 (comics). From the looks of this entry there looks to be enough material for one specifically looking at graphic novels. However, the trade paperback information should be on any comics page. As you say the current name violates Wikipedia naming protocol and I would support a move to Warhammer 40,000 (graphic novels). (Emperor 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I see you've undone Some guy's move to List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels. I'm afraid that the move was perfectly reasonable and in accordance with naming conventions, which the current name isn't. (Emperor 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list title is a temp thing, as it was the best title I could think of that fit naming conventions. I wouldn't be opposed to one of those titles. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine for now. We need to clarfy the source of these. If it is that "The graphic novels are for the most part compilations of stories published in Warhammer Monthly, though some have added material or unique storylines not found in the original." The these are simply trade paperback collections of published comics and these should be Warhammer 40,000 (comics) looking at the various comic output and note these collections. There shouldn't be a problem with that being more a holding page using  to link to further discussion of the stories (as you'd have a page for a novel) and we already have Damnation Crusade which seems fine as a standalone (although it needs expanding) - it also shows up the problem with things as they are. Would it count as a comic until the point that Boom Studios release a trade paperback at which point it would need to be moved over to "graphic novels"? It is worth noting also that what they describe as "graphic novels" are really little more than prestige format comics - for example Titan () is 64 pages long, making The Titan: God Machine volume () a trade paperback too. So even when they aren't specifically trades collecting stories from Warhammer Monthly they are mainly prestige format comics collected in trades (with some actual graphic novels in). So from what is given there (and the fcat that there is genuine cause for concern) I'd have to vote for this to be over at Warhammer 40,000 (comics) as it is broader and more inclusive. (Emperor 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now if Sanchi would just be willing to discuss instead of trying to get me blocked, we'd have something. If the page were generalized to include the actual source comics, I'd say Warhammer 40,000 (comics) would be a fine title. As it stands, though, it seems to be too specific for that title. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, I merely put it at a title that fit with naming conventions. Emperor has some good suggestions for a better title. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: 1. This is a Warhammer project, not any other group. If any other project would like to join, please constant the Warhammer project and request that.
2. The naming convention is based on Warhammer. The "Graphic Novel" title is a title derived from the Warhammer catagory.
3. The "Graphic Novels" is completely capitalized because it falls under a proper noun (as the title used by them is as a proper noun). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanchiTachi (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 May 2007
:Let's get this straight from the start - Wikiprojects are co-ordination tools - NO wikiproject OWNS a single page. NO special authority is given to a wikiproject to decide that they own a page. NO wikiproject can decide that another project has to ask permission to edit or do something with page. Wikiprojects need to communicate to each other and come to consensus about how to proceed - because no project has any special authority. That's the start and the end of it.  --Fredrick day 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also any moves/renaming are reached at by discussion amongst the editors who try to reach a consensus based on Wikipedia guidelines. I am putting the Comics Project header back and I'd request that you not remove it without consultation. (Emperor 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't the correct title for this "list of..."?" --Fredrick day 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. Sanchi just has WP:OWN issues with everything he does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do Not Move or Change the Name

message: Ok - this page has now been protected against further moving. There's nothing more pointless and more time-wasting than move-warring, so now's the time to start discussing the matter. I see that talks have already started but the moving is still going on - Alison ☺ 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Things need to settle down so we can have a reasoned debate and actually resolve the issues. (Emperor 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Wikiproject who created the page has the right to have it as it is. This page is not a comics page, and is dealing with a proper title, not generic graphic novels. Not only is the current title wrong, its also far from what the topic is. The users Emperor et al do not want to contribute to this page, but hijack it and vandalize it. SanchiTachi 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong - the wikiproject set-up is a co-ordinating tool, any editor can do what he likes to the page as long as it is in keeping with wikipedia policies and guidelines - it's irrelevant how a wikiproject would like to have a page as it has no rights to a page at all. --Fredrick day 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, Wikiproject guidelines do not supersede Wikipedia guidelines. It's the opposite. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protected 

message: The images produced in this publication deal exclusively with miniatures created as companions to the works discussed. They do not belong on any other page. To put them on the Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) page is to ignore the image policy, which only allows current characters to be used (i.e. those with official canon rules or with models still produced by the mainstream company for that specific army). This does not include side rules which need permission to be used in tournaments. Furthermore, the Leonidas picture must stay, as it was the model created for the book, on the article dealing with models (and more) created for books, whereas the other article is just for the plot of the book and does not include the gaming. SanchiTachi 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they weren't. Don't blame me for your mistakes, fix them. As for the images, they don't belong here. This is about the novels, not the figures. The images belong with their subject, which is either the person in question or the line in which they were created. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have the right to edit my post. Please follow WP:EQ standards. This page is not about the novels. How can you not understand that this is about the project that involves novels, articles, miniatures, etc. Gesh. The novels already have their individual pages devoteed to them. SanchiTachi 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are struggling to see how this entry relates to novels and miniatures as that isn't how you've started it and you have so far failed to provide a reference to support this despite being asked numerous times. We aren't mind readers. If you started an entry about graphic novels with the titles about graphics novels then everyone else here assumes it is about graphic novels. If you claim it is a larger project called "Graphic Novels" you haven't proided any proof this exists. What you think this entry is and what it is seem to be two very different things. (Emperor 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the pictures of the miniatures and the references to the miniatures leads you to believe that there is no connection between the two? Seriously, come back when you know what you are talking about, and instead let the development be done by people familiar with the works. SanchiTachi 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would include you then. Don't be a dick, because it only hurts your case. The miniatures are described in one paragraph, which doesn't even talk about the specific figures. Furthermore, you placed the images in non-relevant sections. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again it seems the reminder to be WP:CIVIL is required. Putting two things in close association doesn't make them connected. Putting them on this page does not make the page proof of a "Graphic Novel" project. You have been asked numerous times for WP:RS to show this connection. Again what you think this page is and what it actually is (according to the introduction you wrote) are very different things. rather than telling myself and other editors to "back off" and making baseless accustions about other people's motives (and the motives of whole Projects here) I'd suggest your time might be better spent providing references for your claims. You also need to look at the scope of this entry as you yourself set it out (and otehrs have gone along with) and compare them to what you consider it to be - there is a significant shortfall and trying to get the square peg through the round hole is te root of an awful lot of the misunderstanding. This could have all been cleared up in minutes and a way forward plotted, but that hasn't happened and at the moment we are going around in circles and I notice the entry has been completely locked down until this can all be resolved. I hope you spend the time constructively. (Emperor 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Recent Edits

message: If possible, can the reference(s) to the nomination(s) for the Eagle Award be linked to the corresponding article Eagle Awards? Thank you! --GentlemanGhost 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editprotected requests are really usually for specific edits. If you want to put the page in your user sandbox or in a temporary talk subpage, you can make the edits there and I'll merge them (with consensus, of course). Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for uncontroversial change during edit protection 

message: I have since used my sand box to create a new page, which takes both novels, graphic novels, and comics of the black library and discusses their link between the books and the Warhammer 40,000 games. The page is here: Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000). My sandbox still has the "critical review" section, which should be incorporated into either the main pages of the works or onto this page, or even both. That page is found here: User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels_Current. The page that I created (at Black Library gaming) is to discuss the works and their connection to the various games.
Such information should not be put on the individual novel pages, as they are not necessarily about the novels, and such information cannot be placed on the individual army pages, as the information is not "Canon" perse (Gaunts Ghost for Warhammer 40,000 and Eisenhorn for Inquisitor are the exceptions).
I am not finished with the page. I am only 60% of the way through, and I have not included the White Dwarf information. This is the last post I will make dealing with this page. Feel free to do whatever you want with it. I have made the page which I originally intended and am working on the information there. SanchiTachi 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page looks solid. It makes no claims to be part of a larger project for which there is no evidence, it has a good introduction which explains its scope and it deals with the range of media that they have based the figures and rules on. No one was denying such a thing happened (or even that it wasn't worth its own page) the problem arose because this page wasn't the one you seemed to think it is while that pag clearly is. As it also should avoid clashes over content it also makes things simpler for this entry. (Emperor 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You still made a content fork that almost exactly mimics this page, under the explict knowledge that you couldn't get your way here. Regardless of what your page does that this doesn't, it's still a fork. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a major issue as long as both entries are allowed to grow - they have very different remits and will eventually not resemble each other. It also not one for thes ection trying to reach a consensus to get this entry unlocked so I have made a new section. It is alos probably better addressed over on the other entry. (Emperor 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that other one is expanded and reworked into what it's title suggests, I'd have no complaint. Different articles wouldn't be an issue. That they're basically the same now, and deliberately so, is the problem. But, if this can be remade, no harm no foul. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have already diverged considerably - the other entry deals with a much broader range of media within a tightly defined remit. Granted some of the content is similar but that is because we haven't yet had a chance to edit this page within the scope of the consensus we have agreed on. I don't see it being a big issue given time (think of it like Arnie and de Vito in the film Twins, perhaps - similar origins different development). The only way it'd be a real cause for concerns is if a passing editor declares it a content fork and slaps an AfD on it before we've even had a chance to work on the entry properly. Given the discussion here I think we should be able to avoid that happening. I look at it like this: a while back I suggested making a page giving an overview of the Warhammer 40k comics - this is it. If a page like the Black Library gaming one had existed I wouldn't have considered them covering the same ground to any major extent (noether does it cover the same ground as the Warhammer 40k novels it discuss) and I would have made an entry that (after we have had a chance to edit it) would look a bit like this one. Granted the birth process has been a little strained and the process has been far from ideal but eventually it will not be seen as being even a minor issue (ultimately I suspect they will compliment and support each other). Just my opinion but I don't think a big issue need be made of it and the important thing now is to get moving on getting this page unlocked and edited. (Emperor 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. To be honest, the only reason I didn't do the AfD in the first place was because I hoped Tachi had something different planned for it. I'm hoping that, despite his continued refusal to cooperate, whatever he does with it is done before someone else comes to my conclusion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll be fine I sure. That is the entry he seemed to think this one was but without the claims to a large project that couldn't be supported. It makes sense and is consistent and should survive an AfD (I'd vote to keep it anyway - as it is. With more work it won't even be an issue). (Emperor 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Library gaming

message: All of the images used in this article currently have no fair use rationale. --GentlemanGhost 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. They are all book covers and so are available for use for promotional purposes (Amazon make them freely available for starters). I haven't had to prepare a fair use rationale before but I'd imagine if we put our heads togther we can come upwith one to cover all the images, using the outlines at WP:FURG. (Emperor 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some guy got them all. :) Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 12:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images - no fair use rationale 

message: It has been confirmed he has been editting this and other pages anonymously Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi - I'll go through and doublecheck the users edits just to make sure they haven't been up to no good. (Emperor 00:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanchi

message: :Image:Titanomnibus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Titanomnibus.jpg

message: :Image:Bloodquest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodquest.jpg

message: :Image:Lone wolves cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lone wolves cover.jpg

message: :Image:Whm1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Whm1.jpg

message: The image :Image:Daemonifuge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Daemonifuge.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Warhammer 40,000 comics. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607221354/http://www.blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60100199032&type=Book to http://www.blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60100199032&type=Book
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408164110/http://blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60710199010&type=Book to http://www.blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60710199010&type=Book
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blacklibrary.com/whm/default.htm
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) 23:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)