Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/General Page Guidelines

message: Please add links to other articles where I left out!
I was incredibly bold with these pages I created, but its time to stop being a mouse. Bold is what I have been. You can take these pages and edit them however you see fit, or leave them, just don't call me the next "James Madison" (Father of the Constitution).
Colonel Marksman 20:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Per the current write, we'd have to knock out all the First Founding Legions (excluding the Bloods, Darks, and Wolves). -- Saberwyn 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplemental Army pages

message: Why not have the dating but make sure you have a page dedicated to explaining the WH40K timeline and the dates? Although there might already be one... :s Should look around and check, in that case just have some links to to it so people can work it out.Mathmo 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link all dates given in .MXX format directly to the page that describes the system. Simple solution that doesn't disturb the writing style for users who do know what you're talking about.Sojourner001 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find that style really annoying. While I accept it has to be done for something like Star Wars where we have no real-world timeline, doing it where it's not necessary does make life a lot harder for the average reader. In my opinion, they're the people we should be concentrating on, not people who are already 40K fans. Cheers --Pak21 08:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No traditional Warhammer 40,000 dating. This is considered jargon that those unfamiliar with Warhammer 40,000.

message: Not sure if that is exactly POV if they are actually EVIL, for instance in WFB Dark Elves and Chaos etc... are obviously "evil", while High Elves are "good" etc... Because they are commonly regarded as that and are even called this by GW etc...Mathmo 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Orzhovcrusader. Furthermore, by removing the good and evil slant, you are not keeping in line with the core material of Warhammer 40,000, which would be putting in opinion to remove their canonical opinion. Its like removing the Devil as being evil in a page devoted to the Bible. That is definately not encyclopedic nor helpful. SanchiTachi 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not judge or rate armies/races/planets/etc in their religion or how "evil" they are as this constitutes to POV'ing.

message: Don't see anything wrong with giving out the vague guidelines of how they work, you can't work out how to play the game from just that. But stating the basic phases of play, plus how the stats and dice rolls function goes a long way to explaing what the game is like and a person's understanding of it. While at the same time being nowhere close to being enough information for how to play it. Hence a win-win situtation.Mathmo 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that even the books describe which armies are better at which, so to ignore what the books say is to be inserting opinion, which is against Wiki rules. So, if you find a quote from a codex or a guide that officially states if an army is strong or not, it must be quoted and that quote must be accepted. To not do so is to be a disservice to Games Workshop and to be against the theory of an encyclopedia. SanchiTachi 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No giving out or listing rules for any game. We are here to give people on the Internet general and helpful information, not give them rules to play the game.

message: Why has it been deemed necessary to remove these sections, surely as an encyclopedic article it should state such thing? Even if only possible influences may include etc etc Lowris 20:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colonel Marksman is asserting his opinion as rule again. I believe that he is purposely trying to dominate what is not his. Furthermore, there are many things that give reason to claim what the "influences" are. This can be seen in naming and with different appearances. Obviously, Sisters of Battle look like Nuns with Guns. Obviously, Black Templar are supposed to look like the Templar Knights. Making such comments allow those new to the game to have the ability to relate the different styles to cultures that they would know and understand. This is very important and part of the way the game honors the influences. Please, this is not one person's right to dominate anyone, and you and Pak are very disrespectful of the community, of the game, and of wiki itself. If you want to make an opininion about what to do, please hold an open and constant vote. The only time you actually go for a vote you limit in time, and that is very undemocratic and very unfair. If you find my complaint unsatisfactory, then I will go talk to some people who will make sure to protect the people and the pages that you seem wanting to abuse and dominate. Thank you. SanchiTachi 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot "claim" to know what the influences are, at least for Wiki.  If (as an example) the Sister codex said "we designed these as nuns with guns" then great, we have a reference.  If you can't find anything from GW that says that, then you can't put it in, even if it is obvious. Darkson - BANG! 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you can. The fact that they are called "sisters" is obvious enough to imply nuns. The fact that they have guns is obvious enough to say that they have guns. When you see Blood Bowl, it is obviously based on football. Its like saying a bluebird is blue. You don't need a source for it. Its basic generic encyclopedic knowledge which IS fundamental to encyclopedias. Its called a "descriptive." You do not need someone from Games Workshop to say everything that goes in, because most of it falls under common knowledge. If a person's name is the Bloody Handed God, you have the right to say he has a bloody hand. If you want to explain -how- he got it, then you have to source it. See the difference? SanchiTachi 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: I just copyedited the Guidelines, and I had some questions:
Why is there an option for Galaxy articles?  I think it would make more sense if it was Segment articles, because the various Segments get much more mention than any galaxy.  Am I mistaken here?
"Unofficial armies" being Harlequins, Kroot, etc.  These armies have/had published rules, thus they would have to be official (there is apparently a differentiation being made between "official" and "tournament legal" that is unclear in the guidelines, or a difference between "current" and "classic").  Might I suggest we think up a different term?
I think that's it for now. MSJapan 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions arising from copyediting the Guidelines