User talk:Rlyehable/archive var addthis_config = {"data_track_addressbar":true};

Rules Includsion

Please never include any rules in the articles, this includes chapter traits/ doctrines etc. --Inquisitor S. 14:13, 22 January 2007 (CET)

Unofficial websites

I think I didn't express myself clear enough when this topic was discussed (sometimes it's hard to switch languages and find the proper words;)). Unofficial Websites can never be accepted as a source. They generally should not be mentioned in an article (especially not that page with the coloured pointyear in its name which is highly illegal). Exceptions should only be made (if ever) in cases like with the Flesh Eaters where somebody created their own stuff in a real big project and then not as a source but only as "Furher reading/ unofficial inspirations/ fan-stuff" or something along those lines. So no links to pages with copied GW content, never (this of course only applies to unofficial pages and not to GW's own pages). This would only spell trouble for our project. SO if you come across such things just remove them, thx. --Inquisitor S. 15:11, 23 February 2007 (CET)

Thanks for the clarification. --Rlyehable 15:21, 23 February 2007 (CET)

Template:EldarUnits

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on Template:EldarUnits. Is it too rules oriented? It has been discussed on the forum however I was looking for another view. If perhaps it was changed to Eldar infantry, Eldar vehicles, Eldar characters and things like that, would it be better? Thanks --Jonru 12:32, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

Sorry, I don't really like the box. It seems to detract/conflict from/with the style of the Lexicanum. It will mean that the information will have to updated in two places if it changed (Eldar Structure and the template). And the information is only 2 clicks away by using the Eldar Portal box. IMHO, better served by a link in Related Articles to Eldar Structure.

Thanks

Thanks for going up behind me and cleaning up some of the messiest of things. :) SanchiTachi 17:17, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

I saw and replied. :) SanchiTachi 18:52, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Adeptus Custodes, thats what I was thinking of when I altered the second template. It makes it a little cleaner and more organized. :) SanchiTachi 22:13, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Very nice article. Thank you for the clairification. --Rlyehable 02:36, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

PDFs

Sorry for the slow reply - I see what you mean about the PDFs and yes I believe we aren't meant to like directly to them. I'll see what I can do about fixing them. Thanks for the heads up!--Jonru 00:22, 13 June 2007 (CEST)

Portal Boxes

I cleared this out, so I hope you dont mind. I think I found a way to make both of us happy: Template:LReg2

It combines everything into one so there isn't any formating errors. SanchiTachi 05:30, 18 June 2007 (CEST)

The organization of images

Hy, currently I have been busy sorting images; and creating proper categories for these images. IMHO creating too many layers of subcategories is not-efficient as it complicates things needlessly. One should always strive to keep it as simple as possible.

To cut it short: I think we don't really need the two subs "First founding" and "Later founding". Anyone is capable to find the (e.g.) Blood Angels quickly enough amongs all the other chapters. Irulan 22:37, 23 June 2007 (CEST)

Earlier there was Category:Later Foundings Images, but first founding images were just under Category:Space Marines Images. However, some later founding images were also just under Category:Space Marines Images. To avoid this I moved created Category:First Founding Images and moved all subcategories into the appropriate folder.

At the same time, I notices that the 200+ images under Category:Later Foundings Images was difficult to find images from a chapter (due to a lack of guidelines for naming). So, I started to move images into subcategories for the individual chapters (using the rule of thumb that a chapter would need a minimum of 4 images to be put in a subcategory.

If you wish to put all foundings images under Category:Space Marine Images that is fine. But we should keep the chapter subcategories to ease finding of images for a chapter. All, IMHO, of course. --Rlyehable 15:27, 24 June 2007 (CEST)

Hmm...ok let's compromise with the following: The famous 8 'original' directly under category:Space Marines Images (i.e.:no need for a special subcategory First Founding) but lets keep all the others under subcategory:Later foundings. Fair enough? Irulan 22:35, 26 June 2007 (CEST)

Disambig

With books, there shouldn't be a disambig between the names, as they already have links at the top of the page between them. Thus, if there were two books such as Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition Rulebook and Warhammer 40,000 4th Edition, etc, then no Disambig is necessary.

Disambigs are only necessary on encyclopedias like Wikipedia that have different subjects. Its used for two terms that use the same single word and can't be connected via subject matter. I.e. a song and a book with the same title but completely unrelated. Imperial Armour typed in goes to the main listing, not to the softbound. Thus, someone can find the pages from there. SanchiTachi 16:17, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Imperial Armor II and Imperial Armor Volume II are close enough that it is quite possible for a person to access the article for the incorrect one. The ambiguous tag provides a quick, easy method of finding the other article. --Rlyehable 17:17, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Um, no, because Imperial Armour volume II should not exist. Its Volume 2 (Arabic Number). II (Roman Number) are reserved for the original soft cover. If thats the wrong one, they click on the Imperial Armour and search for the right one. There is no reason to have a diambig, because you have a standard Imperial Armour page. SanchiTachi 17:38, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

That's assuming that they went to the Imperial Armour page first. If they just did a search for "imperial armour ii", they will find "Imperial Armour Volume Two - Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition" on the list. This is not the item they are looking for. Thus, the disambiguation page. --Rlyehable 17:47, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

So you honestly think someone will type in "Imperial Armour II" at the top page and then be sent to the wrong one? You don't think they would use standard English numbering and type in 2 and go to the correct one? Or that at the top of the section it says that they were "redone in hard cover and renumbered" wouldn't tell the person they might not have the correct one? SanchiTachi 17:52, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

And if they typed in a book title properly, by using capitals where they belong, they get directed to Imperial Armour II when they search for it. Gesh. SanchiTachi 17:53, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Yes, I do believe that people will type "imperial armor II", "imperial armour II", "imperial armor ii", "imperial armour ii", etc. It is an oddity of this site that capitalization matters in the search. And yes, I find it easy to believe that, once a person realizes that the article is for the wrong book to not read the article. That is why the ambiguous tag is there to draw their attention; to ease their search. --Rlyehable 18:13, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

The topic summary and the individual summary clearly makes it known that there are other versions of the book. This isn't about easing searches. Its about you putting forth what is not needed in even the most extreme sense. And if they search for Imperial Armour and get all those terms, guess what? They can look through each one and see if they find it. Its a series of books. Not even a mentally retarded person would think "oh, this doesn't look like the cover of the book Im looking for, but it has to be the right place even though there is a constant message about there being renumberings". Stop being silly about things that just aren't needed. SanchiTachi 18:54, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

I tend to agree with Rlyehable, in my experience people are lazy when it comes to typing and not every visitor of this site is aware of the English spelling regarding book titles (I for one am Dutch and the Dutch only capitalise the first letter of a title, unlike the English or Americans). Also the difference between the UK and US spelling for armour or armor is some thing to consider. Same goes for the the numerals... I don't think it is uncommon for people to have seen the title somewhere, forgot the exact spelling of it and use the 2 or II. An alternative for the disambiguation page would be to make redirects for the different spelling variants, being UK or US, capitalised letters, Roman or Arabic numerals... but then again, these would have to be made. If I'm not mistaken, this is what the "normal" wikipedia also does (try world war 2, world war ii, World war 2, World war ii etc. on the normal English Wikipedia). But that's just my two cents, you can call it silly but then there also isn't one clear cut rule on US of UK spelling here either, if you get my drift. -- JoeneB, 3 July 2007, 18:51 (CEST)

Oh instead of a redirect or disambiguation page, there could also be a link added to the Imperial Armour article in the articles so people can find the full list of the different Imperial Armour books, being hard- or softcover. That is, if ease of search is what you guys want. Sorry by the way if it was inappropriate for me to get in to this discussion ;) -- JoeneB, 3 July 2007, 19:08 (CEST)

Um, JoeneB, there already is a link with the full list of which books are which.

"Softbound" is the title. Is there any way to be more obvious? Gesh. If you think that the "ii" might cause problems, then why would someone search for roman numerals without capitalizing them? SanchiTachi 22:23, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Image sizes

That looks like a good way of doing it, flexible as well as easy to do! Nice work, i'll try implementing it on the planets page. Thanks --Jonru 14:38, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

But flexibility isn't always good. If someone feels like putting in 200 instead of 150, then the piece would be bigger. We should try to standardize instead of just whatever (and all the individual pictures have to be changed to accomodate the new addition). SanchiTachi 17:46, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Standardization is also not always good. If you need to post a landscape picture instead of a portrate, it would be very small with a standard width. If someone puts 200 in and it makes it too wide, it is easy to change the value. --Rlyehable 18:06, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

If we have standard charts, they might as well have standard pictures. If the picture is too small, then they need to find a new picture. The added values would require you to add them to over 100 different pages. Whereas, the standardizing doesn't require any additional work. Furthermore, landscape pictures shouldn't be added to those charts. It would just cause too many formating problems. SanchiTachi 18:11, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

It takes less work to adjust a value in 20 forms than to edit 20 pictures to make it fit a standard. --Rlyehable 18:46, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Actually, the px forces the pictures to adjust to that size automatically. If you look at many of the covers, their sizes are well over 150. SanchiTachi 18:52, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Legion of the Damned That is proof that the idea doesn't work. See that tiny little icon? It looks absolutely retarded. Return them all to the way it was. Your way means that the pictures must all be fixed to the proper size in order to have unity, or they ALL look stupid. SanchiTachi 21:34, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Which tiny little icon would that be? They all appear to be pretty much the same size as the uploaded version to me.--Jonru 21:48, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

The badge. Badges without 125 size look like they are floating in nowhere. By having it set at 125, the smaller images are enlarged and the larger images are shrunk to the appropriate size. This adds unnecessary confusion and makes the pages seem completely disorganized. SanchiTachi 23:09, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

On the other hand, blowing small images up to 125px makes them look chunky and blurry. It is better, IMO, to have the flexibiilty for the contributor be able to find a resolution that provides a crisp image, fills the space, or a good compromise of the two. --Rlyehable 11:16, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

A small image looks retarded and does not belong. Thats a fact. Therefore, small images must be discarded. Thus, there is no legitimate reason to have the flexibility. SanchiTachi 16:58, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

A small image is better than no image (or placeholder), so unless you, personally, are willing and able to replace all the small images with larger ones, flexibility of image size remains a needed function. --Rlyehable 17:19, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

If you undo the pointless adding of variables that don't matter, then I will put in larger pictures in place of pictures that people foolishly put that were far too small. SanchiTachi 18:47, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

CSM codex

Just like to say thanks for sorting out all of the Codex Chaos issues, sorry I didn't do anything to them to help like I said I would. Hopefully I can put in some work on other editions and issues when they arise, as I'm sure they will (a new IG Codex or something like that). Cheers :) --Jonru 13:31, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

You are quite welcome. I think that I have finished all the resourcing now. --Rlyehable 13:47, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

IMPORTANT

Link. Please do also forward this to other active contributors, thx. --Inquisitor S. 13:06, 24 April 2008 (CEST)

Portal images

Why are you reverting all the images I swapped?--Madness 03:22, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

When I created the original portal box for the inquisition pages, I purposefully made the inquisitional "I" small, so that the portal box would remain small. I did not look at the history, to see who had modified them. I did not mean to step on your toes. I have undone the one for OHPortal. Compare the portal boxes below and see if a smaller size is more consistent or not. If not, revert the OMPortal and InqPortal boxes. --Rlyehable 03:34, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

Dark Eldar Portal

Eldar Portal

Imperial Guard Portal

Inquisition Portal

Tyranids Portal

Orks Portal

Inquisition Portal Ordo Malleus

Inquisition Portal Ordo Hereticus

Space Marines Portal Dark Angels

Space Marines Portal

Tau Portal

I don't know much about that, but I recall suggesting to swap the ork glyph as it was pretty ugly, when that was done whomever did it also increased the size of the box, so I was going through and resize all the square-image templates as well. And even if we end up setting them as small ones, that tiny pic isn't still the best quality, I'd rather downsample from the big one. --Madness 03:40, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

I'm the guilty one (the Ork image is truly better but the size is also larger). Perhaps we should gather all the portals in a single place and compare them with each other. Sorry Irulan 03:44, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

Agreed, the larger Ork picture looks better larger. However, The first portal boxes were designed to try to stay approx. the same size as the Intwik box. I would suggest keeping the veritcle size of the portal box images between 40-55 pixles. --Rlyehable 03:53, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

A single size for all the boxes makes a lot of sense to me. I agree. Irulan 03:58, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

Reduced the larger one to 50px. Better now? Irulan 04:04, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

I think that 50px works. --Rlyehable 04:06, 2 May 2008 (CEST)

Please vote

Hy Rlyehable. We have to decide which template we are going to use for the loyalist chapters (go to Template talk:LFSM for all the details and story). Then please go to the Lexicanum:Immaterium and choose the template you like the best. If you have any further improvements requests, now would be the best time to place them. Thanks Irulan 16:08, 3 May 2008 (CEST)