Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Open Discussion/Archive
This is the archive for Lexicanum:Open Discussion. Most of these articles have been concluded in some way or another so will require no further discussion.
I would like to help run the site, I think it is an intresting project. I would like to help as an admin Hobbes1012 19:14 06/01/06
- Well, for a start tell us something about you, your ideas about the Lexicanum, your knowledge or experiences :) --Inquisitor S., Sysop
I have been involved in the hobby for about 10 years now, mostly on the 40k side of the system. Currently I am studying and working, but have a little spare time that I would be able to use helping run the site. I feel I could help settle arguements if they arose on issues regarding the fluff of the 40k system, and use that time to ensure links worked, or fix ones reported broken. I think the lexicanum is a great resource for gamers as it enables them to firstly be able to quickly find infomation and it is also useful for referencing. I personally write fan-fiction, and that is how I first found the lexicanum, whilst looking for infomation on mordia if I remember correctly. I am knowlageable about most species, races, and organisations in the warhammer 40k universe, and will endevour to correct any mistakes I come across. I also believe I can judge where it is likely that GW will claim breach of copyright on their intelectual property, which, in my view, is to the point where custom is lost, due to the resources needed to play the game being avalible on a site. Also, specifically copywrited work, such as from the novels, or published art work collections. Hobbes1012 08/01/06 01:02
- 1 Standard Template Constructs
- 2 Wikipedia Policy
- 3 Sources
- 4 Gw sacntioned
- 5 Hobby Section?
- 6 Categories
- 7 Novels
- 8 Wikipedia
- 9 The Dread Legions
- 10 Istvaan III or Isstvan III?
- 11 General Guidelines
- 12 Fan Projects
- 13 US vs. UK English
Standard Template Constructs
Not sure if this is the right place to start this discussion, so feel free to move it.
I think we should make Templates for the various types of articles as I believe the German site has. Put simply I think the best solution is to rip off the ones used in White Dwarf. Sadly my Archive is at my parent house and I am at university, but looking in the few I have kicking around I found an "Index Xenos" article (for Dark Eldar, WD 311). The Layout is as follows:
Threat Index and Imperial Policy
(possibly not neseccary?)
I figured it would not be a rigid rule but a guideline upon which to start.
- I also thought a little about weapons and technology, and dependand upon the views of everyone else, I thought it might be a good idea to group things. For example: Bolt weapons. Explain bolt rounds and how they work etc. then cover the various different weapons: Boltgun, Bolt pistols, Combi-bolters, Storm Bolters, Heavy Bolter. The same can be done with Las weapons. Explain las-technology, the cover the Lasrifle, Laspistol, Hellguns and pistols, Multi-laser and Lascannon. I would suggest that putting the basic weapon (boltgun, lasgun etc) first as it is the most common varient (usually) and a pre defined order for the rest (here I have used Basic, Pistol, Basic varients, and Heavy, in order if size/power with the exception of the basic weapon first but it doesnt matter as long as we pick one and use it uniformly). Again, this would not be a strict rule as a guide; for example Missile Launchers do not have basic or pistol varients.
- Further, I would like to express my desire to start a discusnsion, not to barge in and start telling everyone how to do things. This is an idea that needs work, I just want to start the process. If it will help I can do a few example articles, say Boltguns and Tyranids or something, but you'll have to give me time. --Squirrel 02:01, 29 January 2006 (CET)
- Good ideas here, we need to start standardising this site. I have looked over the german wiki a bit and it seems that the general structure is that of:
Units and description
- and then it sort of dissolves and things vary a lot. I'm thinking that Units and descriptions is the same as combat capabilities, and the top two would be history but I think that anything under technology may well be copied across several pages, the technology of the Dark Eldar being quite similar to that of the Eldar for example. The others i'm not sure we will have a lot about.
- As for weapons, well, quite a while ago i put in a lot of effort into splitting up the weapons pages to make it more like the German wiki which has all seperate pages. I think we need to standardise the contents of the articles themselves but not merge the pages. --Jonru 19:36, 29 January 2006 (CET)
- Having thought about it, pages with all of the weapons of one army in one place I think would work. Also, perhaps as a general method for unit pages something of the following:
- General Information/History
- Unit Weapons and Numbers etc.
- Any Forgeworld Images
- Internal Related Links
- External Links/Sources
--Jonru 20:30, 30 January 2006 (CET)
We have had today a rather large number of pages enhanced by simply copying from Wikipedia. I for one am glad we have more information, but simply copying it from Wikipedia doesn't seem right, as we aren't the same as Wikipedia (yes we are a Wiki but we only specialise in warhammer, not everything ever). I know there is a template thing to put at the bottom of the page when anything is based on something from wikipedia, but an outright copy does not seem right. I feel therefore that we need a policy regarding the use of wikipedia as a source of information. I would suggest making it something like:
"Wikipedia is a great source for information, but we request that you do not simply copy directly from the articles but rewrite it in your own words whilst retaining the relevant information to make this site unique and not simply a copy of Wikipedia."
I feel this would help us to expand but not move too close to Wikipedia.--Jonru 11:03, 30 January 2006 (CET)
- I will present this issue to the German staff for discussion. IMO we have to include the Wikipedia disclaimer, if we copy something. --Inquisitor S. 16:05, 30 January 2006 (CET)
- Without delving into the licencing of the two sits, remember that Wikipedia is GFDL. As long as you credit them (and adheer to copyleft), it's legal. (although that doesn't seem to be what you guys are even talking about) Just so you know, the main reason i'm here is so I can see my IP address when I sign this comment, and I don't even like warhammer (much) 18.104.22.168 12:37, 20 July 2006 (CEST)
Recently recieved my copy of Xenology, the latest background book from the black library, and, without spoiling anything, it contains some extremely interesting information that affect the entire 40k background. Of course not all of it is presented simply and it requires quite a braod knowledge of the 40k background to realise the implications. Haveing read all this and taken it in I immediately jumped onto Lex to look some stuff up and was disapointed. Without sources for information there is no way to know what's true.
For example: Outsider
Now where did this come from? I'm pretty sure that the part about battleing the laughing God is actually a totally different C'tan. And if that is all incorect then it throws into doubt the article Void Dragon, primarily written by the same author.
For any serious re-search (read Xenology you'll understand) this site is almost useless as most articles do not have sources, where sources exist they are normally on major pages like Boltgun where most people already know the information as true. --Squirrel 03:55, 1 February 2006 (CET)
- Ok. I have redone Void Dragon using as many official GW sources as I could, namely Codex Necrons and one article on the GW website. That is all official now, and I have put in a structure for sources. Hope that is better and more useful. Will now move on to Outsider. --Jonru 17:11, 1 February 2006 (CET)
- Ok now done Outsider and Deceiver. Hopefully that is better as it makes use of only GW offical material (as well as a few of the possible interpretations). Blimy that was complicated!--Jonru 18:22, 1 February 2006 (CET)
I would like to ask a n00bish question now: is this site GW sacntioned data only, or is this also a forum for payer-made armies and characters?--Commissar-Marshal Nikoli Pikar 22:14, 16 May 2006 (CEST)
- You can include your own stuff under "Fan Projects", in the normal articles it's official stuff only. --Inquisitor S. 23:14, 16 May 2006 (CEST)
What kind of stuff do youn want put in the hobby section? List of products? Definitions of Techniques? I'd love to help fill it out but I don't know where to start. --Matt Windu
- I guess the hobby section is anything to do with actually playing the game, boards, terrain etc. paints maybe. I'm not entirely sure. Good work by the way Matt Windu --Jonru 12:23, 10 July 2006 (CEST)
- Well there are four subcategories which should give you an idea of what to put there. Basically everything that's part of the hobby except fluff and rules. --Inquisitor S. 13:36, 10 July 2006 (CEST)
Jornu has been busy making pages for the different kind of weapons going around in the WH40K universe. I started editing them. As it turned out he had a different idea behind it which I didn't know. We started talking about this and the idea has come up to make subcategories for the different kind of weapons (plasma, las, bolt etc) in the weapons category mixed with general articles on the types of weapons. We both think this will make it easier for users to find info on the different weapons without having to go through the entire (large) list of weapons just to find info on a plasmagun for instance. The different articles on plasma, las etc. weapons, which Jonru already wrote, can still be maintained to explain the workings of the type of weapon. This info can then be left out of the articles on the individual weapons (plus you won't have to add it every time you add an article on a new weapon).
However, Jonru pointed out that the German wiki structure has to be kept in mind. I'm wondering if adding subcategories is a big "no no". IMHO it won't change the basic structure that much and it will make things a bit clearer for user.
This has also been discussed in Jonru's and my User:talk pages, be it a bit more fragmented. I think this sums it up nicely (Hope you agree Jonru :)). -- JoeneB, 16 July 2006, 14:42 (CEST).
- I agree strongly with this (nice work!) and I am also willing to make the subcategories in the categories section and change the various weapon categories. Won't take all that long. I assume therefore that the links in the X Weapons page would be removed and replaced with the subcategories? Cheers :) --Jonru 15:40, 16 July 2006 (CEST)
- The Categories have to be the same ones in every Lexicanum, but that does not mean that changing them is forbidden, it is a matter of changing them everywhere at the same time. So you'll have to wait some days, as I have to discuss the suggested changes with the other team members. I'll be back to you as soon as possible. --Inquisitor S. 00:36, 20 July 2006 (CEST)
- We are working on the categories issue but right at the moment there has to be done some consideration to the nature and meaning of some words and to the question if there are differences between some expressions. E.g. in our opinion the -hunters are exactly the same as the Ordos. As soon as there's something new, I'll tell you. --Inquisitor S. 01:07, 21 July 2006 (CEST)
- Ok, I don't really think that we need subcategories for the weapons. Instead I'd like to see articles with the general working etc which contain a list of the existing weapons belonging to that group, e.g. Bolt Weapons, Plasma Weapons etc. Concerning the Inquisition categories: we know that not every member of the Ordo Xenos is a Alien Hunter, but we don't think it's so much a difference to warrant a new category. And although Grey Knights and Deathwatch are Space Marines (notice that Deathwatch is not a chapter, so can't be placed under "Later foundings", I think it's better they remain under Inquisition, as they effectively are a part of it or at least permanently attached. --Inquisitor S. 16:44, 29 July 2006 (CEST)
- Ok, then it can stay as it is. Jonru was already working on articles on the different kind of weapons with a listing in it to the existing weapons belonging to that group. Concerning the Inquisition categories... don't know who brought it up but to me it sound logical to keep it like it is. -- JoeneB, 29 July 2006, 16:50 (CEST)
- Ok, we just try to keep subcategories to an minimum (yeah I know didn't really work out with the Galaxy cates) to keep the whole thing simple. Normally a user should browse through the articles by following the internal links not by jumping to the category, at least that's what they are supposed to ;) --Inquisitor S. 18:10, 29 July 2006 (CEST)
Concerning the Novels, I plan to add information to pages for Novels that I have in my collection. I won't be revealing everything, but give a broad overview etc. However, I was planning to include very detailed information about the protagonists and antagonists that may give away the whole plot of the novel. Would this plan suffice? Or would I have to cut down the info so as not to ruin the story plots.--Vindicta 00:25, 23 July 2006 (CEST)
- Think it's a good idea. If you are concerned with giving too much away of the plot, you could give a spoiler warning in the beginning of the article like wikipedia does with it's articles on books and movies. -- JoeneB, 23 July 2006, 1:25 (CEST).
- Generally we don't care about spoilers, we want to give the information given in the book, so include as amuch as possible. --Inquisitor S. 23:29, 23 July 2006 (CEST)
- Ok. I decided to give broad overviews of the story in the novel pages and give out the relevant plots to the stories. But on the pages of the antagonists and protagonists, I will give as much info as I can with a spoiler warning at the top.--Vindicta 23:57, 23 July 2006 (CEST)
To fill this Lexicanum with more articles and to compete with the original Wikipedia I suggest that all Warhammer 40K articles from the Wikipedia should be transferred and modified to the Lexicanum. --Inquisitor S. 12:24, 4 August 2006 (CEST)
What about recruiting folks who contribute to the Wiki to the Lexicanum? --Vindicta 17:19, 4 August 2006 (CEST)
- Go ahead if you can recruit someone, the more contributors there are, the better for the Lexicanum :) --Inquisitor S. 09:18, 5 August 2006 (CEST)
The Dread Legions
Istvaan III or Isstvan III?
So I was reading some articles here and there and I noticed this. The article on the planet Istvaan III mentions it being virusbombed during the Horus Heresy, yet the Horus Heresy article states it's Isstvan III. Now I know I've seen the mention of Isstvan III in some preview of a novel at the Black Library website, more precisely the Galaxy in Flames novel (the synopsis on the page talks about Istvaan... the free chapter you can preview talks about Isstvan). My question: which one is it? Because we have now two names for what seems to be one planet... I think this should be changed... What do others think? -- JoeneB, 18 December 2006, 20:38 (CET)
- I was always under the impression that it was Istvaan III and Istvaan V, can't remember ever seeing it as Isstvan.--Jonru 23:55, 18 December 2006 (CET)
In the novel of Horus Heresy translated into Spanish and in the Chaos Codex in the same language is written as Istvaan --User:McLuenda
- Isstvan and Istvaan are the same. Seems, as if the authors changed spelling some time not far ago. In german, for example, it's Istvaan. --Pack_master 23:30, 13 January 2007 (CET)
Alas, wanted to do that a while ago, but never came as far.
Who doesn't know, I'm from the german staff of the Lexicanum, or rather from the general staff. I've made just a small sweep of the english Lex, and noticed many small errors. Just fixed doubled redirects, before I get there again.
What I want to say: I'll do some bigger changes in the near future, I hope the next days, on many pages. Mostly it will be moving the articles to their correct titles, concerning names and plural/singular form. It's a bit chaotic here, but I hope it will help. So don't look puzzled, if great moevements are happening. That should have been done a long time ago. --Pack_master 23:30, 13 January 2007 (CET)
- In addition to that there will be a reinforcement of the guidelines to help run the Lexicanum smoothly. --Inquisitor S. 00:37, 14 January 2007 (CET)
US vs. UK English
I've noticed one or two users consistently editing articles just to 'correct' UK English to US English. Certainly the general Wikipedia policy is that both are 'correct' and neither takes precedence. Do we have a policy for the Lexicanum? --Elethiomel 11:54, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
- I handled this by warning the user involved, and reminding him/her that both ways of writing are correct. If the problem persists, then i suppose they could be banned. ---Psyco 12:28, 27 May 2007 (CEST)