77,281
edits
Changes
m
change of expression
{{WIPHelp}}
The term '''"accepted sources"''' as used in the ''Lexicanum'' describes the body of source material that an [[Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Editors|Editor]] is permitted to use when creating or editing articles in the ''Lexicanum'' wiki. These sources are sometimes also referred to as ''official'', ''legitimate'' or ''canon'' sources but the term that should be used with reference to any work within the Lexicanum is nevertheless ''accepted sources'' (see also further down). Only ''accepted sources'' can be used in the compulsory [[Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Citation|citation process]] as a legitimate source.
Do also note that it is explicitly forbidden to simply copy and paste sources from existing ''Lexicanum'' articles - every editor has to personally check and verify that sources cited in other articles are correct and that the content in question corresponds 100 % to what is said in the original source. Also obviously ''Lexicanum'' articles can never be considered an ''accepted source'' themselves. We are aware that even accepted sources might contradict each other, but within the ''Lexicanum'' there is no "hierarchy of sources" - i.e. no accepted source is considered more valid than another official source. More recent sources do however take precedence over older sources. This does however '''not''' mean that the old information is considered "wrong" and non-acceptable and has to be deleted altogether - this is definitely not the case! It is an explicit goal of the ''Lexicanum'' to also reflect potentially outdated information - with appropriate disclaimers and explanations(see [[Warhammer_40k_-_Lexicanum:Trivia#Special_case:_Conflicting_sources_.28aka_.22Canon_conflicts.22.29|here]]). For the general problem of the concept of "canon" see further on where this is discussed.
For practical purposes this discussion is of minor relevance (although it is interesting to keep its main points in mind). Simply because - and let us be quite clear about this - it is '''not''' the mission of the ''Lexicanum'' (or any other encylopaedia) to make sense of and try to align conflicting data. The ''Lexicanum'' explicitly limits itself to ''documenting'' (sometimes with appropriate explanations on the context of certain problems) the available lore. No more, no less.
Therefore as a rule of thumb all material ever published in whatever form by [[Games Workshop]], its subsidiaries and license holders is considered an acceptable source. The only requirement being that any [[Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Editors|Editor]] must be able to prove the existence and content of any cited source he/ she uses. Obviously the following lists are non-exhaustive and there might sometimes be grey areas that can and should be discussed with [[Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Administrators|Administrators]] and/or [[Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]] with a view on their status.
==Examples of accepted sources==
# [[:Category:Background Books|Background Books]]
# [[:Category:Comics and Graphic Novels|GW licensed Comics and Graphic Novels]]
# [[:Category:Computer Games|Games Workshop licensed computer games based in the Warhammer 40,000 universe]](for example via screenshots)
# Collectable Card games licensed by [[Games Workshop]]
# Games and background material published by [[Black Industries]] and [[Fantasy Flight Games]] (under license)
# etc. etc. If an [[Warhammer_40k_-_Lexicanum:Editor|Editor]] is not sure if he/she is allowed to use a specific source, please submit your request [[Warhammer_40k_-_Lexicanum_talk:Accepted_sources#Sources%20requiring%20a%20discussion/%20ruling|here]], thank you. Any resolved status question will be subsequently included in the list above (if it is not already there).
==Examples of unacceptable sources==
The following list is non-exhaustive:
*leaked, pirated, stolen or otherwise illegally obtained copies of official publications (including legally obtained publications before the official release date as publishing these early constitutes a violation of [[Wikipedia:Non-disclosure agreement|non-disclosure agreements]])
*other ''Lexicanum'' articles (yes, you read that right, only first-hand material can be used as an accepted source)
*other wikis
==Examples of grey areas requiring evaluation on a case by case basis or specific disclaimers==
The following list is non-exhaustive:
*private homepages, blogs, forum posts , [[Wikipedia:Patreon|Patreons]] etc. by authors, artists or other individuals working for [[Games Workshop]], its subsidiaries or license holders Such cases have to be submitted and discussed [[Warhammer_40k_-_Lexicanum_talk:Accepted_sources#Sources%20requiring%20a%20discussion/%20ruling|here]]. ==What to do in case of conflicting Accepted sources==Due to the reasons given above and below this paragraph it is clear why sometimes one ''Accepted source'' might partially or completely contradict another. Some people call this "Canon conflict", but as the term "Canon" itself is problematic (see below) in the ''Lexicanum'' such occurrences should rather be called '''Conflicting sources'''. When ''Accepted sources'' contradict each other this should be discussed in the [[Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Trivia|Trivia]] section of the corresponding article as described in the ''Trivia'' ''Help'' article.
==Why the term "Canon" or "Canonicity" is problematic==
''Wikipedia'' defines the concept of "Canon" in fiction as follows: ''"In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in the fictional universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. [...] Other times, the word can mean 'to be acknowledged by the creator(s)'."'' For more information on this topic, see [[Wikipedia:Canon (fiction)|"Canon" as a concept in fiction]].
The passi passages ''"officially part of the story"'' and ''"acknowledged by the creator(s)"'' in a nutshell already highlights why using the term ''"Canon"'' in conjunction with [[Games Workshop]] is somewhat difficult. Some reasons for this are:
*the immense wealth of available publications stretching back to the 1980s across several editions of the [[Warhammer 40,000]] (and related) games
*[[Games Workshop]] almost never officially disowning any of the previously published material
*continuity errors
*the same names being used for different persons, places or events
*the creation and disappearance of multiple [[Games Workshop]] subsidiaries that sometimes seemingly operated quite independently or at least not with a very strict supervision
*multiple license holders (former and present) ignoring or being ignorant of previously published material on the subject of their licensed product
*some [[Games Workshop]] publications publishing fan-submitted material that sometimes found their way later on into other publications
*national [[Games Workshop]] branches publishing their own material (e.g. for campaigns) or foreign language editorial teams of [[White Dwarf]] writing or publishing domestic material*rearrangement of the spatial or temporaral temporal fictional reference systems to allow the insertion of new races, events or products
*so-called "alternative" timelines
*fictional events as described by different protagonists from their "own" points of view
*often non-distinction between (fictional) "facts" and "legends/ mythology/ rumours" etc.
*[[Games Workshop]] authors (past and present) sometimes making statements in a private capacity that are then picked up by some readers as "official"
*and many other potential sources for confusion and contradictions
This (non-exhaustive) list of potential sources of problems should make it quite clear why it is impossible to reconcile all material ever published by [[Games Workshop]] (and subsidiaries and license holders, further on simply and collectively referred to as "Games Workshop") into one stringent and logical continuity. Add to that the inevitable tendency of readers/ "fans" to consciously or unconsciously add their own spin, interpretation, extrapolation or sometimes plain made-up elements and the problem that most users of the internet do not bother to actually check if something is a verifiable fact or simply a rumour or even lie sold as fact and the mess is complete.
[[Games Workshop]] itself has not been very forthcoming with any helpful statements on this conundrum. But then again why would they? As a company they certainly have no interest to limit themselves by a too strict corset of which parts of their own intellectual property they will use at any given moment - or not. And even if they do not use certain elements at a given time, who is to say said elements might not come in handy at some point in the future? So from a commercial point of view this is a very logical approach even if it is one that can vex readers.
