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

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Eternal crusade"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 70: Line 70:
  
 
:I get it, and I'll need to run this by Nathan and see how he wants it handled.  He wanted to set up on a wiki where the contributors could be regulated, the content could be considered trusted/authoritative, and it could be the centralized source for the story and information.  The first/obvious choice was Lexicanum.  --[[User:ViaVirtus|ViaVirtus]] ([[User talk:ViaVirtus|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2018 (MST)
 
:I get it, and I'll need to run this by Nathan and see how he wants it handled.  He wanted to set up on a wiki where the contributors could be regulated, the content could be considered trusted/authoritative, and it could be the centralized source for the story and information.  The first/obvious choice was Lexicanum.  --[[User:ViaVirtus|ViaVirtus]] ([[User talk:ViaVirtus|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2018 (MST)
 +
 +
:Suggestion: If you want to store unconfirmed info in Lexicanum, you can do that on your user-page. User-pages don't count as Lexicanum-articles. --[[User:DetlefK|DetlefK]] ([[User talk:DetlefK|talk]]) 01:56, 1 February 2018 (MST)

Revision as of 08:56, 1 February 2018

The guys over at the PC-game Eternal Crusade want to retcon their background-story and create a go-to encyclopedia for in-game lore. Rather than setting up a new Wiki, they want to use Lexicanum as a vehicle. I suggested to one of the guys responsible for this to simply put everything into the article for Eternal Crusade, but he wants specific articles for places, people, items... http://forum.eternalcrusade.com/threads/lore-team-story-campaign-status-report-1-29-18.70447/

My questions:

  1. Are there precautions we should take?
  2. Do we regard this new lore as canonical while in the writing-stage? Or do we only regard it as canonical once it has been approved by GW and shows up in the game?
  3. Do we regard this lore as canonical with a caveat (similar to DoW-lore and Ragnar Blackmane-lore)?
  4. When adding lore-info into already existing articles, should there be a disclaimer that this is EC-lore?
  5. When creating new articles, do we incorporate them just like any other lore from games or should we create a new name-space for Eternal Crusade-articles to indicate that this is a wiki-within-a-wiki?

My opinion:

  1. No idea.
  2. We should only regard this lore as canonical once it's in the game and can be sourced, because that means it has been approved by GW.
  3. Hard to tell whether we need a caveat: The game-mechanics clearly ignore lore. The old background-story adds a few weird things that might not fit lore. The new background-story could be true to lore.
  4. No idea.
  5. Treat them like any other similar articles.

--DetlefK (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2018 (MST)

I am not really sure I get this right... Somebody else (I never really occupied myself with Eternal Crusade) wants to use the Lexicanum as a platform to publish their content? Who are these guys we are talking about? "Fans", players, official employees of the company making that computer game? I would need to have more info on that. So my answers are for the time being:
  1. I don't know.
  2. No. At least not until it is published within an officially recognized source.
  3. IF it is officially recognized and clearly contradicts previously established lore it should have a warning template, yes.
  4. See one above.
  5. No extra name-space I think, otherwise we could end up with double articles for items existing in Eternal Crusade, but also "outside" of it.

--Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2018 (MST)


Quickly, I'm in charge of "the guys" revising - not retconning - the Eternal Crusade Lore to be compliant to the new timeline. My team and I are community volunteers, but empowered to do this work by the game's Executive Producer. Our process/workflow is such that once we've done a revision on EC's lore, we send it through the official licensing process. Nothing will be added or has been added that is not already approved by GW - Lexicanum is Canon, not Headcanon.

Your questions:

  1. Are there precautions we should take?
  2. Do we regard this new lore as canonical while in the writing-stage? Or do we only regard it as canonical once it has been approved by GW and shows up in the game?
  3. Do we regard this lore as canonical with a caveat (similar to DoW-lore and Ragnar Blackmane-lore)?
  4. When adding lore-info into already existing articles, should there be a disclaimer that this is EC-lore?
  5. When creating new articles, do we incorporate them just like any other lore from games or should we create a new name-space for Eternal Crusade-articles to indicate that this is a wiki-within-a-wiki?

My opinion:

  1. That is for you to decide. Currently I'm honoring a request that all mechanics/tactics/etc be hosted off-site, which we will start that once I've got the story/lore approved.
  2. No "new lore" will be written on Lexicanum until it is vetted and sanctioned by GW. That is my firm commitment.
  3. As a suggestion, the current entry for Ragnar Blackmane includes the section Ragnar_Blackmane#Canon_Conflicts, which are deviations from the accepted Canon but come from Canon sources. Could we not perhaps follow a similar model to save page count?
  4. ^.
  5. I created the Category: Eternal Crusade yesterday as people and wargear from EC have already begun to leak into the Lexicanum such as Abaddon's Grace and Godric Widdowsyn. Those were not mine or anyone I speak for, but they happened and I wanted to start corralling them before they get out of hand. Unless directed otherwise, my guideline is to add new items as new and categorize them clearly and appropriately, and in existing articles to make sure any additions we make are notated, especially in the case of a clear canon conflict.

I hope that helps

--ViaVirtus (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2018 (MST)

Thank you for shedding some light on the issue, ViaVirtus, much appreciated. After all I prefer to make decisions on an informed basis ;)

As for the questions, taking into consideration your remarks:

  1. I do not think we would need special precautions. Lexicanum was designed to be a wiki about what we used to designate as "fluff", so you are right, it is not really the place for "mechanics/tactics/etc".
  2. "New" lore will be accepted once it is published (and therefore considered vetted and sanctioned by GW) on an official site. Meaning e.g. that is is not sufficient to be in a forum, fanpage etc, it should be on a page run by for example the makers of Eternal Crusade (as to what could be considered official otherwise I think that should be discussed and assessed when necessary).
  3. Yes, that could be done and would make sense. A corresponding template should make it clear.
  4. s.a.
  5. A category is fine and makes sense for people wanting to narrow down the list of articles corresponding to their interest. But obviously a new, canon article from Eternal Crusade should also be correctly categorized with regard to the "regular" categories. E.g. if there were an article about a Blood Angel from Eternal Crusade it should also be in the corresponding Blood Angels articles (=crosslinkage) and categories. A separate name space would not give any advantage I could think of right now. Opinions? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2018 (MST)

'::Addendum: While I said above that Lexicanum is not really the place "mechanics/tactics/etc" I would nevertheless like to add that there is the possibility to make use of one's own userpage to "publish" one's thoughts or texts about many things (as long as their content is not objectionable or the Lexianum is abused for things that have really no place here). So a tactics guide could (if wanted) be put there. Just as an example. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2018 (MST)


Quick thoughts, then I gotta do my real job. Lol.
  1. Bueno.
  2. The issue with waiting until its published somewhere official is that Behaviour's IT team moves MUCH more slowly than the Eternal Crusade team needs/wants to move, and in fact as a player it really feels like the developer company is trying to choke the game out as punishment for past failures. Nathan (the EP) is wanting to set up a SINGLE, CONTROLLED PLACE to warehouse the Lore of the game and - given we can't wait on bE's IT and can't trust sites like Wikia and the like - our plan was to base the Canon EC Lore here. Unorthodox, and I can get somebody in touch with Nathan to confirm this, but such is the environment we're in.
  3. I'm learning wiki writing as I go, so be patient, but it'll happen.
  4. ^.
  5. "But obviously a new, canon article from Eternal Crusade should also be correctly categorized with regard to the "regular" categories." Agreed. You'll note with Godric Widdowsyn and Aelfan Slayfell they are also listed as Space Wolf characters and Space Wolves. We'll follow a similar trajectory.

--ViaVirtus (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2018 (MST)

Well, the question of how to deal with the "official" issue is difficult then. I mean how to differenciate between what is vetted and what not if the Lexicanum is basically (IIRC) the first place where the text in question is put down? How would such an article be sourced (as the Lexicanum does not permit articles without sources to ensure canonicity)? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2018 (MST)
I get it, and I'll need to run this by Nathan and see how he wants it handled. He wanted to set up on a wiki where the contributors could be regulated, the content could be considered trusted/authoritative, and it could be the centralized source for the story and information. The first/obvious choice was Lexicanum. --ViaVirtus (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2018 (MST)
Suggestion: If you want to store unconfirmed info in Lexicanum, you can do that on your user-page. User-pages don't count as Lexicanum-articles. --DetlefK (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2018 (MST)