Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 2

message: I've suggested renaming and rescoping the 40K stub type to "all things Warhammer", as they're related in a number of respects, and there's not enough for two stub types, here.  Separate templates would be kept, for clarity, and to facilitate re-splitting if both (currently meaning the WHFs) grow to threshold.  Alternatively, you might consider helping and encouraging your co-'hammerists to start their own wikiproject...  Alai 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed stub rescope 

message: (comment moved from project page)
I think it's important to distinguish Game content and Background at the highest level, in effect having two quasi-seperate wiki projects, one from a game perspective and one from a fiction perspective. The two really do deserve to be distinct - you can play the game without knowing anything about the background and you can enjoy the background without ever touching the game. Sojourner001 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's really necessary.  What you say is true, that one can be familiar with one and not the other- but they are strongly linked, and even GW writes them together in the Codexes (ie they frequently neglect to separate "fluff text" from actual rules, unlike in Warhammer Fantasy).  Not only that, but we are already going overboard with background info, bearing in mind WP:WAF- we should be cutting back on overly long and in-depth background info, not adding more. --DarthBinky 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with DarthBinky, the splitting of the warhammer 40k pages could only lead to more confusion, and it has to be said a person who has interest in one aspect of the game normally has a similar interest in the other Lowris 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK, perhaps that's a little extreme. Still, having been rather thoroughly schooled in the ways of wiki, i really do think that the main article structure has to be reoriented, with the major titles talking about the game and the products, with background' topics as subsections within them to explain the context of the game mechanics. These sections can quite happily be linked to a more major section in a few monolithic 'background' articles if needs be. It's extremely tempting to write in-universe in the structure we have, and don't I know it! I personally like that style, but them's the rules.</br>Also, I'm as guilty of this as anyone but we really do need to work on references. I may have missed this but is there a definite referencing style we're supposed to use here? Harvard seems more logical. Do dig out your books and corroborate any oddities you find, even in the old established articles.Sojourner001 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know I'm coming in late, but was there any further development on this front? I think Sojourner's amended suggestion is worhtwhile, as I find the unnoted transition of certain articles between fiction and gaming information to be jarring. Primarch 01:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started fixing this with some of the pages I've encountered. I've managed to clean up the Space Marine vehicles section of the Vehicles of the Imperium list (and have split them into a separate article due to size constraints). Shrumster 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject split 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe is up for deletion on AfD - thought you guys, as the interested party, should be informed. LinaMishima 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:40K#Votes for deletion would appear to have it covered already :-) Cheers --Pak21 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Because GW are not going to give a licence allowing for commercial use of their IP? --Pak21 08:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on history of universe 

message: I'm not a member of this project, but I thought you might want to expand the Games Workshop Online Community section on 40K.
--Grimhelm 11:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I agree with MSJapan's comments on the article's talk page that they are non-notable fansites which should be deleted per WP:WEB. --Pak21 08:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, I've been updating the Warhammer 40,000 part of the page. If you guys could check out the edits and maybe add some more stuff, that'd would be pretty neat. Maybe some stuff on how the fanbase has affected actual GW stuff like the worldwide campaign results and stuff like that. Shrumster 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Games Workshop Online Community]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: I must admit that at this stage I find myself slightly confused as to the point of this WikiProject: what have we actually accomplished? We've created one guideline as to notable characters, and... ummm... realistically, that's it. I don't think we can say we've really created one good article (Warhammer 40,000 is probably the closest, but I wouldn't say it meets the criteria). If Wikipedia 1.0 were released today, there's a chance there wouldn't be a single mention of Warhammer 40,000 in it. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, but I seriously think we need to refocus our efforts on making some high-quality articles, rather than just getting more and more low quality ones, and watching the quality of some of our other ones slide downhill.
Views, comments, suggestions, (polite) flames welcome. --Pak21 10:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've become very busy with school recently, so the things I've meant to improve have not. However, I think we might want to start a weekly/montly good article drive, to try to focus some people into improving articles. Any thoughts? --Falcorian (talk) 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Count me in, I did the GK and Custodian entries and they have been refined but if you need more just say Rsquire 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also willing and able. Is this the best place to come to find out what needs doing? Are there set tasks or pages for us to focus on?Primarch 01:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet, which is what I think we need to implement. --Falcorian (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool. I'm happy to start straight away. Maybe we could focus on getting one group or category uniformly up to standard and then move to another category after that? The majority of my knowledge rests with Space Marines (chapters, legions, primarchs, etc), so I'm up for that to be the first. One legion/chapter article is often quite different to the next. Otherwise though, I have a general 40k knowledge and am alwways happy to work with structure, grammar and references on whatever category the group wants to focus on. Just a thought. Would this be the right place to set down guidelines for structure of each article? Primarch 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article structure might be a very good place to start, then we can see what needs to be worked on. --Falcorian (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See what you think of a proposed structure just below. When we all reach consensus, I'm happy to begin rewriting. Primarch 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality or quantity? 

message: Here's what I see as the key elements of these articles. Main titles in caps with subtitles below them:
:INTRO
:HISTORY
:-Primarch (and The Emperor?)
:-The Emperor (move to above?)
:-Great Crusade
:-Horus Heresy
:-Post Heresy
:CHARACTER
:-Beliefs
:-Appearance
:-Notable characters
:ORGANISATION
:-Hq/Homeworld
:-Recruitment
:COMBAT DOCTRINE
:-Background
:-Game
:-Battlecry
:SUCCESSOR CHAPTERS
Primarch could be merged with The Emperor, so that the Primarch's story is told from birth to reunion with his father.
Post Heresy would detail all events, including notable battles, but without the need to give them their own sub headings.
"Background" in COMBAT DOCTRINE is just to seperate fluff/fiction from the Game aspect.
Subjects that I think we could lose:
:CONSPIRACY THEORIES/CONTRADICTIONS
:INFLUENCES/INSPIRATIONS
:QUOTES
I think that wherever contradictions occur, they can be addressed in the body of the text.
With influences (such as Night Haunter being inspired by Batman) are more or less fan conjecture.
Comments, additions and input appreciated!Primarch 10:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The major problem with all the army articles is WP:WAF. I don't see how this proposal will improve that. Cheers --Pak21 10:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're making the assumption that this proposal was aimed at addressing the WP:WAF, rather than the actual intent to create a cohesiveness across the articles so that they look and act like a uniform resource. In any case, I believe that once there is a strict structure to work within, each article can be rewritten to an out-of-universe perspective. First though, I believe that we need to agree on what content should be included. A simple rewrite of the in-universe/purple prose of these articles now will still result in messy contradictive articles if the structures aren't addressed, IMO. Primarch 10:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the subjects of Primarch and The Emperor are so intertwined for the 1st Founding Legions that they can safely be combined. Any objections? Schoon 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please give it a try. The proposal looks good, and I agree about the stuff we can cut out. I look forward to seeing what you can turn out. (And sorry for seeming to disappear just as you put it up, I get lost in school the as week progresses. ;)) --Falcorian (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more content that you can put in that actually relates to gameplay particularly rules, tactics, major differences from other units, changes that have happened across the various editions of WH40K and Epic the less the fluff matters. GraemeLeggett 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I'd like to clear up what the split should be in terms of fluff vs game in these articles. We need to make these divisions clear, otherwsie they'll simply be confusing to anyone who doesn't know 40k, IMO.  Primarch 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:WAF, we shouldn't delineate between fluff and game. IMHO, game+models should be a priority with fluff integrated into them and whatever short summaries can be added in a "Background" section (with appropriate subsections). We have to keep in mind that WP is primarily for people who are outside the community, which is the reason for WP:WAF. We could then add a link to...say...the 40k Lexicanum where the fluff really belongs (since that wiki is in-universe). Until we do that, we're going to be stuck with the in-universe tags and will be threatened with AfD's for a long time. Shrumster 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed structure for first founding Space Marine legions