From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
So I "think" I finalized a major clean up of this section over a period of 3 months. I'll write down the philosophy of it and its benefits.
- This type of gallery presentation of all the 40k miniatures doesn't exist anywhere else (to my knowledge) on the web, and should be preserved.
- Prior to working on it  , this section had rather bad press on the web (Reddit, dakka,bolter...), with people criticizing the unreliability of it and otherwise advising people not to trust it, which was counter-intuitive to the lexicanum being the major referencing wiki about 40k in general, but not about the miniatures.
- The tools used were
- white dwarf magazines to source releases and find oldhammer pictures
- catalogues/collector's guides to identify the range of miniatures trough time
- Codexes and rulebooks for some outliers, altho those are rather unreliable to source release dates, and they also contain a healthy dose of misleading conversions
- Design principles I applied
- Separating specialist games and Horus Heresy from the 40k minis, in order to make the editor experience easier, and the user experience better.
- Only leaving officially released kits/blisters. That leaves out conversions, kitbashes, different paintjobs for the same model/unit... Basically anything that is redundant, or tricks the reader into thinking that a "conversion" was released
- Adding a "context" subtitle in the form of
- a Codex release when available
- the year of release when there was no event
- And the month when there might be contentious about it (for example, a unit appears in a codex in year X, but was first seen in a white dwarf during Year X-1)
- Correct or update the source/the description when updating/moving any image
- Correct and update the pages where said images are used for consistant trough the wiki
- Archive the webstore and Warhammer community pages. Every time. To this end downloading the webarchive add-on/pluggin (chromium browsers) helps ALOT.
- Square images are the best solution for consistency trough the wiki, and works better with the "packed" gallery mode
- Cropping is good. Excessive cropping is bad.
- The base should be entirely visible (except for aircrafts)
- A model should be given some room to breath : A few millimeters of nothing between the model and the image borders does alot for a better presentation
- I agree the citation footnote thing is fairly annoying, it should be at the top or bottom of the article if anything. really the only holdout on this is inquisitor-S, you should take it up with him Harriticus (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also the [Needs Citation] tag wouldn't be needed if people, you know, cited the images. :) KazilDarkeye (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- On a serious, not-nitpicking note though, I do appreciate the work you put into this.KazilDarkeye (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Page title formatting
- One brief nitpick I have for now is that the Dark Angels miniatures page has a differently-formatted pagename by default compared to the others. That's slightly irritating. Some of the other miniatures pages also have this problem. KazilDarkeye (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)