Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Archive 3

message: I have proposed a guideline for character notablity within Warhammer 40,000 articles which I believe may effect the listings on this page. Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability and comment. Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed notable characters guideline 

message: Anyone know whether it's true that Blizzard originally meant to create Starcraft as a Warhammer 40,000 RTS?  The similarities both in theme/plot AND race characteristics are staggering:
*Protoss/Eldar, Zerg/Tyranids all created by an ancient race that appears to have either died out or left,
*Space Marines/Redneck Colonial Marines originally oppose Protoss/Eldar but end up teaming up to counter the greater threat of the Zerg/Tyranids.
*Zerg/Tyranids are both highly mutable superorganism races resembling insects in their hive mentality and capable of consuming raw biological material from other races to improve their own genetic strains, becoming deadlier as they go.
*Protoss/Eldar are both older than their corresponding human races, have psychic powers and extremely advanced technology, but are dwindling in terms of population.
*Infested Terrans/Chaos Marines are both Marines that have "turned" to another side, albeit in this case they're to different corresponding sides (i.e. Chaos Marines aren't Tyranid Marines).
To name but a few, anyhow.  I think if Blizzard truely had no dealings in Warhammer 40K before creating Starcraft, it's one hell of a coincidence.  Anyway, if anyone has any info on this, please do tell.  And if it's substantiated, for god's sake, add it to the article :)  teh TK 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starcraft origins 

message: For any editors who don't follow WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, I've just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Medusa V. Please contribute your thoughts as to how we should handle this summer's upcoming global campaign. Cheers --Pak21 11:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fall of Medusa V 

message: Ok, I listed at least the United States Warhammer 40,000 page as a reference (perhaps the best one of any in the future). But I must ask... why the hell didn't anyone put one there yet? That's like the first one! Colonel Marksman 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, that's a very good external link (although I have a tendency to link to the UK site as that's GW's "home"), but it's not actually a good reference as it isn't (directly) the source for any of the information found in the article. People can find some of the information by digging around from that page, but in and of itself, it's not really a source for the article. Cheers --Pak21 18:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this note, I have removed it and replaced it with the 4 rule books. Much of the information on this page can be found in those books (background, state of play etc...). It could do with being 'inlined' though... -Localzuk (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: The photo example of a converted model is rather ugly and not very representational of the potential for modelling that conversion offers. Simply put: Someone could have picked a better picture. It looks like something I made with spare bits after hobbying only half a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs) .
:In that case, please upload some photos of your conversions. We can only use what we've got. Please also be aware of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and policy on civility. Cheers --Pak21 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I kinda like it. A "down and dirty" conversion (to me anyway) shows the concept better than something of Golden Daemon standard. -- Saberwyn 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of a "Converted Model" 

message: I think that, especially since the Warhammer 40,000 RPG has been announced, it would be a good idea to split this 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)
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 guidelones 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 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested 40k Article Guidelines

message: Interesting. I just looked way back on the first archive, and and ol' user said he looked up and down the copyright policy, and it looks OK to put their pics into the articles. Anyone want to verify this? (PLEASE! The pictures in every 40k article is SERIOUSLY lacking!) Colonel Marksman 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: 4th edition has only recently been referred to as 4th edition. When it was first released (and all during the buildup) GW/WD made a big point of calling it a new version of 3rd edition, not a 4th edition (and they hated the 3.5 edition label, hence the eventual u-turn in policy).--63.165.234.2 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th edition? 

message: I've just reverted (for the second time) a change adding Games Workshop to the "See also" section of this article, as I don't see that it really adds anything, given that GW is already linked in the very first sentence of the article. Does anyone else have views on this subject? Cheers --Pak21 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but forgeworld is also mentioned in the article - shouldn't see also provide links with extended information - therefore Games Workshop would be quite a main 'see also' as it links to all other games and relevant items. Lee 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I've changed the following:
Common game sizes are usually between 500 and 2500 points, but can be much larger. The games generally run from half an hour to several hours depending on the size of the armies. 
very slightly to read instead: 
Common game sizes are usually between 400 and 2,000 points, but can be much larger. In addition, there are rules for much smaller games.
In Europe, the generally accepted tournament points level is 1,500. In North America it is 1,850.
Games generally run from half an hour to several hours depending on the size of the armies. 
This seems straightforward enough to me. The rulebook contains rules for Combat Patrol, which is 400 points. The Kill-Team rules are also worth a throwaway mention, as are the tournament standard levels. Also, 2,000 tends to be the recognised limit set by GW, although players often go higher. I've no idea where the arbitary 2,500 came from.--Stu-Rat 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted to original entry due to unneccessary changes. 
--63.165.234.2 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points limits 

message: To me, one of the attractions of the game is the fluff- the storyline- and I have many models that are no longer used because they were killed during a campaign. I suggest that the "Background" section include a reference to the fact that the storyline has developed over time, and that many players like to create 'fluff' based rather than 'competition' based armies. --Grant McKenna 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluff

message: I have removed the "info"box that was added to this page, for multiple reasons, but basically because I don't see what it adds to the article. Also, please use the preview button: the players link was broken and "arithmatic" is not English. Also, what basis do you have for claiming that random chance in Warhammer 40,000 is "medium-high" and that "dice rolling" is a skill (if nothing else, these two seem to be contradictory!). Cheers --Pak21 08:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This has recently been added to the external links section, which I removed as linkspam as it doesn't really seem to be 40k related or notable to me. The adding editor, who I note here has their only edits to Wikipedia to Dysartes and adding the link to this article, has e-mailed me and confirmed that the site is run by a friend of theirs, and using the justification for adding it that "the link is already in the similar Games Workshop product entry". None of this convinces me that the link should be there, given WP:EL and WP:NOT a directory, but I'll float it here for other opinions. Cheers --Pak21 08:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, WP:EL#Occasionally acceptable links, point 3: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such" (my emphasis). I know we have more than one fansite already listed, but let's not make things worse by adding more of dubious value. In my opinion, an argument which says "it's better than <other site>" is specious at best: maybe that link shouldn't be here either (and personally, I'd have no objection if it did go away). Cheers --Pak21 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dysartes