Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Talk:Xenarite

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Link no longer functioning

The link here to Tezla on the specialist-games site is no longer functional. How do we proceed with the info on the page?TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2018 (MST)

In such a situation we first check the Internet Archive (aka Wayback Machine) if it has a usable archived version of the page in question. Which here does not seem to be the case. Then I (or anybody else) check if one has a personal archive file (which is the case). But since this is a pdf-file and not hosted somewhere on the internet we cannot directly link there. And in any case I doubt it would be legal to host GW material on a private page. So we will treat it as any other document and just describe it as a non-link (until somebody creates an article for it - but for that we would have to actually think about the naming conventions). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2018 (MST)
ADDENDUM: If somebody from the staff needs the file for checking sources etc. it can of course be made available on a personal basis for research purposes (just not in a hurry and not publicly). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2018 (MST)
Also, given that the materials were added a long time ago (but - from the canon source) and we cann't check them, we 'believe' that they were really taken from the mentioned source. In short we can neither confirm nor deny their veracity. PROPOSAL: May be we must create the particular banner for such a materials, which will emphasize that information of the article is 'conditionally' acceptable?--Darkelf77 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2018 (MST)
@Darkelf77: Unless I completely misunderstand you I do not see any need for a particular banner or to treat such sources as any different from other sources. Why should such a source be any different from let's say limited edition publications or for examle 1st edition books? Not that easy to find, sure. But existant and therefore perfectly verifiable. Why should we not be able to check them? As long as they existed at some point there is a chance that somebody of us has a copy. I think we have (or had and it is gone?) a list somewhere who had what (never complete of course). Presumably some kind of central "Source material request page" would be in order. Thoughts? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2018 (MST)
1st Edition existed. For example I have all scans from this time and could check truthfulness of information at any time. Materials, for example, about the Steel Confessors don't existed now (as of GW). They were presented by GW in 2005 year (on the Games Day 2005 but without any book or something), but we CAN'T check it because the WebArchive don't have this page and the man who added information about Steel Confessors is also couldn't be contacted with. Were Steel Confessors presented on GW 2005 site? Yes they were. Could ALL information added in article Steel Confessors real and canon or it is just own fanfic of adeptus who added this page (and the page http://steelconfessors.angelfire.com/) ? We can't say. On the other side somebody who visited Steel Confessors article must be warned about that. That's my opinion.--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2018 (MST)
Tut tut tut, I am sure you wanted to say that you have all 1st edition books in paper, as publicly stating that you possess illegal scans of copyrighted

material would be not wise ;) As to your example of the Steel Confessors: If there was a leaflet published on GW Games Day that is an official source. If the article therefore has been properly sourced by a reliable Lexicanum editor that is fine. If the article has not been sourced properly or there is reasonable reason to doubt the editor in question the info has to be removed. The Angelfire website can be discarded as reliable info, it is not official and therefore to be treated as fanfluff. And is therefore not an accepted source. Very clear case: remove all that is not from an official source and if need be the whole article has to be deleted. In the case of Tezla the case is even clearer: Specialist Games is (was) 100% GW company. Therefore everything published there is an official source. Plus we can check it (as for example I have copies of many/ most all SG files which are also legal and can be shared for research because they were published from the beginning as freely available files). So the two cases are very different. And as I said, one of the point of collaborative work is to be able to pool resources to check content. Therefore my suggestion of using a central page to coordinate such efforts. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2018 (MST)

EDIT: Of course we could and should have a template named something like "Lost sources" for info that we can not verify at all as a note. But we should then actually remove all non verifiable content and send people to that external site to read u as we can not vouch for the info. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2018 (MST)
Of course on paper :D I made a mistake. Well, OK, I agree -_- May be somehow we will get a materials even for Steel Confessors (may be as a re-issue them by GW itself). Then I must again complain about that WebArchive don't have a HUGE info layer from the GW site (near 2007-2012) just because a pop-up language-banner that was presented on their (GW) site and was scrupulously saved by WebArchive - but we cann't proceed further after this banner in archive :( So much lovely information could have been waiting for us if it were not so... *Sigh*--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2018 (MST)
Having this in mind I've saved on WebArchive all pages from FFG site that was connected to Warhammer 40k matter (one-by-one) - they have some good background in 'News' pages. Just in case... Hmmm. I think I must do the same thing with the Warhammer Community pages - they also doesn't saved authomatically. Oh, dear...--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2018 (MST)
Yes, GW pages have always been a pain in the ass for archive sites. Especially because often they also used interactive menus and stuff. Unfortunately. Still angry about all the infos about the Third War for Armageddon and Eye of Terror World Campaigns that was lost that way. But nothing to do, best we can do is to try to piece together a collective archive as best as we can even though it can never be perfect. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2018 (MST)