Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Sub articles must assert their own real world notability

Now that this is policy... I think most of the scope of our project should (by a WP definition) be deleted...

How do we prevent this? The first article seems to be Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but if someone were to nominate Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) tomorrow on the grounds that there are no 3rd party sources, what then? To me, it seems that very few, if any, of the articles covered by this project could meet such a criteria. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline rather than policy as far as I'm aware, but that doesn't really affect the problem :-( --Pak21 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Really tired from dealing with these wikipedians. AGF and CIVIL aside, they can go screw themselves for all I care. Shrumster 10:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They have a fair point IMO. Most of this stuff is completely irrlevant to a person who is not a fan of the game. Personally I think the project scope might be better suited to a dedicated wiki. XJDenton 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are going to hit things like WP:FICT and the thing I try and aim for is real world impact which can include interviews and reviews. I've been working on articles like Damnation Crusade and while it needs expanding I have assembled enough material to cover the real world aspect. So anything that helps avoid making the article a rehash of the WP:PLOT which can raise all sorts of concerns. Also try and find some independent database - I had a look at this (which has been handy for other things) but coverage is thin - still keep an eye out for things like that. There are also various magazines out there which much have features, reviews, etc. and also try and track down mainstream media mentions. It isn't an impossible task and will help produce more solid and well rounded articles that are deletion-proof so everyone wins in the end. The first step is to identify the good and useful general sources of information and then mine them heavily. (Emperor 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Comic books, novels, computer games, the actual games themselves and things like that should have problems with third party sources, because someone, somewhere has reviewed them or written an article on them. The problem comes when you look at the characters, organizations, and events that we have articles on. With rare exception, I doubt a single one has third party sources that pass WP:S. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are specialist gaming magazines and sites and it should be possible to find something. That said it may be that some merges (into lists of characters, races, locations, etc.) and/or transwiking might have to be done. I think the important thing (which you are doing) is to pre-empt any attempts to remove these articles (rather than just admit defeat) so that we can make sure we have sources in place which means the bulk of problems can be avoided. (Emperor 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

For what it's worth, I'm all for a purge of this project's in-universe stuff. It belongs on a dedicated 40k wiki (of which there are good half-dozen now), and we shouldn't be trying to come up with excuses to keep articles on subjects which have essentially zero relevance outside of the game background. Would that all WikiProjects dealing primarily with fictional content had this ethic. Chris Cunningham 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Going off what Denton said, I could care less about half the stuff on this site, including most of the featured articles. This stuff matters to someone, otherwise they would take the time and effort to make it...Sirkad 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the most important articles *might* be saved by linking them with real-world things like Dawn of War, which has game reviews and things from THQ, and so on. Alternatively, we could just try to consolidate them into their parent articles, and see what comes up. Going to another wiki, though, seems like a bad idea to me. For every stable wiki there is out there, several dozen crash and burn. Agharo 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I no longer have the willpower to bother fighting it. There seem to be more Wikilawyers running around making AFD because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than bothering to improve articles. It's not just 40K though. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. There's a reason why I've slowed down/stopped contributing to wikipedia over the past couple of months. And I'm a guy who works on biological articles.(Let's see them argue the real-world merit of those!) Shrumster 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been a huge crackdown lately. As much as I like Wikipedia, I feel like an exodus is in order for the various hobbys and interests that I have. It is the only way to keep the information and hard work perserved, and I would be devistated to see it all destroyed. However, I miss Wikipedia's ability to centralize all this information. I would rather use it like a portal. - Fearless Son 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I like 40K. I really do. But Chris Cunniham is right, this project's articles are in disgraceful shape, and likely cannot be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. Articles need to be focused on the role fictional things have in the real world, not just their own fictional world, and there's a great many 40K articles that don't even establish the importance of the subject in the fictional world, let alone the real one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I Personally think that we should be moved to a smaller wiki. If every single article in the simpsons wiki was kept on wikipedia, every 3rd click on Random article would be a link there. We could keep most of the major articles, but I honestly don't think the entire world with internet access needs to know about Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) or stuff like that. Besides, on a smaller wiki we would have far more controll over what gets deleted and what doesn't, and we wouldn't have to put (Warhammer 40,000) after every page title.-- Aun'va 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I favor transwikifying, though I want to know, is it possible to have a redirect page redirect to an external wiki? That would satisfy me a bit more, knowing that the information is still accessable from Wikipedia. - Fearless Son 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. Wikipedia doesn't exist to put traffic to fancruft repositories. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty much a fancruft repository in itself (every single episode of certain shows have their entry at wikipedia). I support transfering articles to a seperate wikia or so. There are a lot of good entries here on Wikipedia about in-universe W40K-stuff and it'll be a shame losing it. Syrion 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you ever want any of this stuff, even from deleted articles, just ask. As an admin, I'll provide it. --Haemo 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Episodes at least have the advantage of a relative abundance of critical commentary and real world influences and such like. Something which the vast majority of 40k cruft articles don't have unfortunately. XJDenton 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we need to start our own Wiki. We'd be able to make our own rules, go into as much depth as we want, and not be subject to the whims of others. I vote we use transformers.wikia.com as a guide on what we should be looking for. --Ancalagon06 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. We will have much more freedom and power over what goes in and what deosn't. A few questions though. How long would it take? Who would be administrators? Any ideas for a name? It whould probable be better if there was a neutral one, not favouring one race. I don't know if i am getting ahead of myself but it seems as though it has a bit of support. And what has happened to my Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) comment ages ago, it has taken a life of its own!Pterodactal (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be articles on every single episode of an obscure television series, nor should there be articles on every aspect of 40k fancruft. If you can't describe the subject of an article as an object after some fashion, it shouldn't be an article. There are numerous wikia devoted to 40k fancruft, and it should reside there, not on wikipedia. This is the kind of topic that tends to attract rabid crufting, so I propose that a very strict team of peers should police the project rigorously - even though it's obvious how difficult this is with the volume of edits that crop up. If most of wikipedia's 40k articles have to go, then they have to go, and I don't object to this happening. Sojourner001 (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

whoa, sad to read this little discussion. I suspect the concept of transwikifying has done more harm than it has done good. For instance, somebody earlier on mentioned a simpsons wiki. I had no idea a major one existed (though if I'd thought about it... yeah, it seems natural one or more would exist). If I want to look up something about the simpsons I go to wikipedia, not anywhere else. Same as with (IF) I was to look up anything about 40K, I'd go to Wikipedia as my first port of call (or maybe directly to GW). Mathmo ^Talk 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you're misusing Wikipedia. Really, it'd be nice if it could act as the sum of all data on Earth, but that's not its purpose. Readers who simply want to know how GW's treatment of the Orc archetype differs from that of D&D should not have to sit through pages and pages of in-universe fancruft. Dedicated wikis with different policies on objectivity can give these topics much better treatment. Look at how much better-placed Memory Alpha is to handle complicated Trek intrigue than us, for instance. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

preserving content

I'd suggest we make a dedicated effort to take the good stuff on here, and make sure it is on another good 40k wiki. We probably should pick one in particular... Personally, I'm an inclusionist, so I don't mind trying to help make sure the content is kept. I wouldn't count on it though. Mathiastck 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000 Collectible Card Game

I created a stub on this older WWH40K variant, perhaps somebody who played both it and DM could add a note on the compatibility and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What to include

Should we be including everything that has something to do with WH40K? for example the video games like dawn of war, fire warrior, the new warhammer fantasy rts game? Halo legend 00 10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Falcorian's First Five-Year Plan

To prevent a wave of deletion of this project's content, I propose the following (possibly drastic) measures:

• Transwiki all articles that are likely to violate current policy
• Merge in appropriate material to parent articles
• Redirect the articles to parent articles that can be defended from deletion under current policy

Drastic, yes. A lot of work, yes. But I think it's the best solution. Merging/transwiking allows the information to be preserved, while redirecting before deletion leaves the history intact (which is required under the GDFL as I understand it...). Our only other options seem to be trying to change policy, or watch our articles evaporate as people who WP:IDONTLIKEIT discover them...

'Parent Article' Discussion

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Mergers And Organization

This of course brings up the question of what is a parent article. Eldar is obvious one as they are an army, Warhammer 40,000 is even more obvious as it is the overarching game. Cherubael obviously is not. But what about Imperial Navy (Warhammer 40,000)? Probably, as a Gothic list... But Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)? Probably... Not? Any thoughts? --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a thought as such, but I have been bold and merged all of Abaddon the Despoiler, Fabius Bile, Cypher (Warhammer 40,000), Khârn the Betrayer and Lucius the Eternal into List of Chaos Space Marines. The target article needs a lot of tidying, but it might have a hope of surviving an AfD (although I don't actually think it would yet...) --Pak21 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, we're getting there. The only thing I would recommend is that you add a link in like this to aid everyone in keeping track of what's been done. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki Technical Discussion

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Trans-wikied

I've only seen a few WH40k wikis:

• Lexicanum - Looks like the best... But not GDFL it looks like and so we can't use it.
• Warhammer 40,000 at Wikia - Maybe our best bet?
• Warhammer Wiki - Covers both 40k and WHFB.

Those seem to be our only option. Of course, there is nothing preventing us from copying to both the Wikia one, and the Warhammerwiki, just a bit more extra work in the long run and probably worth it to spread the content. Is anyone familiar with what exactly must be done to satisfy the GDFL for transwiking? --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have started a page to keep track of progress and discuss it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Trans-wikied. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have been inactive lately as I have been busy IRL, however, I support transwikiing instead of just giving up. I can host the wiki if anyone wants me to - all that would be needed is a domain name to be registered and pointed at one of my servers. That way, it could be completely how we want it.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I too have been inactive due to real life recently, but I'd love the help. I'm not sure how feasible setting up our own wiki is as two acceptable ones already exist, but it is something that should be discussed. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So my suggestion would be to use the 40k Wikia... That way it's a little more permanent, although we lose total control (although it doesn't look like we'd have any problems moving in and setting up a system there...). --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bit worried about these transwikis at the moment; what needs to be done when an article is transwikied is to somehow maintain a list of "five of the principal authors of the Document" as required by the GFDL section 4B, and this doesn't seem to have been done. We can't rely on the edit history being available on Wikipedia to do this - it needs to be on the target wiki itself. Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Crediting the authors would be easy enough through a template if a way can be found to determine them systematically. Looks like http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ can do this, so I'll go and modify the templates and update them. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we should be good to go! I've modified the templates I'm using on the transwiki target wikis, and the result can be seen here. I'll fix the others soon and update the template to allow if statements... Then we'll be ready to rock. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Crusade

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Black Crusade, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Pastordavid 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the prod and proposed merging or transwiking the article instead. Please see its talk page. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding 40k articles

A notice was left over at the Board and table games wikiproject, but I thought it would be more appropriate here. There's a discussion regarding cutting down 40k articles here: WT:VG#Excessive Warhammer articles. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone working on getting these merged? Pagrashtak 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a topic above on it, but so far have recieved little imput. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping this project could take care of most of the articles itself, whether through merges or transwikis, but I suppose I might PROD some of the more detailed topics soon. Pagrashtak 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a subpage to discuss what should be merged in where. If you'd add articles to the 'list' there as you see fit, that would help me. I seem to be mostly alone in this so any help you can offer would be great. See it here. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me, though, as I don't know too much about the series, and the amount of articles is overwhelming to me. Perhaps the best start would be to identify the most specific articles that are unlikely to have anything general enough to merge up and transwiki them. For example, it looks like Vehicles of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000) should be merged into Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000), which would then be merged into Tau (Warhammer 40,000), which might end up merged into Warhammer 40,000 species. After all that, how much from the Vehicles article is going to end up staying? It would be better to just transwiki/delete that article and be done with it rather than spending too much time merging. Pagrashtak 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing and able to do all the merging/transwikiing, but I just need help finding the articles in the first place. All I really need is people (like yourself) to throw articles you think need looking at here and I'll sort them out with transwikiing and redirecting. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Real-world Policy

I haven't been in here in a long time, but where is this "new" "real-world policy" everyone keeps discussing? The articles look... rather cheesy... since I last read any of them, if not hard to read. Constant references to "milky way galaxy" and other such seems to choke up the articles, bog them down, and shift the reading in a jerking back-and-forth motion in trying to describe a fiction. In all I've ever read anywhere in any research, these articles are the first I've seen it (this extensive anyway). Wouldn't the beginning statement, presenting the fact that the information below is fiction, be enough? Why is it so necessary to keep repeating the point? Colonel Marksman (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:WAF. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT is perhaps more relevant as its the one which has changed significantly. --Pak21 (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that I've been categorizing WH40K articles that are tagged with {{in-universe}} into their own category using {{In-universe/Warhammer 40,000}}, which places them into Category:Warhammer 40,000 articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Warhammer 40,000 Chapters}}

Is it worth my time trying to add a mockup of the chapter colours shown on a paper doll Marine (as with {{infobox football club}}) to this template? Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be a nice addition, but not sure how difficult that would be for you. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It looks pretty Herculean, actually. I'm massively impressed by whomever did the work on {{football kit}}, there are dozens of layers of complexity there. That said, I dare say that a start could be made if there were an appropriately-licensed "blank marine" image somewhere... Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it would be nice... however, I'm not honestly sure that any of the Chapter articles would survive an AfD, due to the complete lack of any secondary sources, so if this is a lot of work, it could all go away if/when the articles are deleted. --Pak21 (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it certainly seems that way, having spent much of last night tagging basically the entire projectspace with {{In-universe/Warhammer 40,000}}... Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these chapters would be a good place to start merging (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Mergers And Organization), as Category:Space Marine Chapters is the lowest-level category. Pagrashtak 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, but one thing at a time :) tagging them means they can be grabbed in one fell swoop from the wh-in-universe cat. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Courage and honour

I'll help where I can. I've been playing since about mid 2nd edition. I admit I don't know all the fluff, but I have almost all of the new codexes and I can keep many of the facts straight. Earlier I leave note in the Ultramarines article to correct a rather glaring entry that basically reduced Tigurius to a one lined comment, instead of being the Ultramarines early warning for the Tyranids. Anyways, I've been periodically contributing, so I figured I'd do like the Emperor's followers and make my presence known. I assassinate with facts. Facts and a baseball bat made of pure logic and mostly pure metal. - NemFX (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'm going to be scarce around here until next Tuesday or so. Any help people can offer with creating the giant merger list and transwiking and whatnot would be appreciated. See you all later. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Space Marines Characters and Chapters

We have to decide what to do with the chapters and characters. Please share your thoughts here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Point The First: Are fictional characters notable?

My answer: Only if they crop up in numerous publications and transcend the material written about them. Thus, Commander Dante might be notable, but Captain Idaeus is not.

Point The Second: If they are notable, where should their information reside?

My answer: Wikipedia disapproves of lists. Therefore, they shouldn't go there, and there isn't sufficient justification for this subject OK-ing list articles where many others do not. Having an article devoted to notable characters for which there are models is a possibility and definitely notable since they are real-world products available to buy and themselves have published articles written about the product itself. However, I'm not sure I approve of this one either. This leads me onto...

Point The Third: Product-Centric or Universe-Centric?

Is a Space Marine character a manufactured product that is available for purchase that has accompanying literature which may be notable, or is a Space Marine character a literary concept that is itself notable, that has an accompanying product?

I would definitely go for the former. As an example, the entirety of the material available on Commander Dante should be:

- Within an article "Space Marines" in a subsection "Notable Space Marines" - Focused on the fact that a Commander Dante with Honour Guard boxed set is available for purchase, show it, and perhaps reference a few White Dwarf snippets - Reference Dante's appearances in published literature, for example the Second War for Armageddon, where the other Space Marine commanders unanimously supported placing him in overall command thanks to his reputation

And that should be it.Sojourner001 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)