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

Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Black Library Events Anthology (2018/19)"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
:In my opinion the picture of the back cover seems reliable.--[[User:Ashendant|Ashendant]] ([[User talk:Ashendant|talk]]) 15:38, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
 
:In my opinion the picture of the back cover seems reliable.--[[User:Ashendant|Ashendant]] ([[User talk:Ashendant|talk]]) 15:38, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
  
:covers of the actual book for summary descriptions are reliable, back in the day they were the only source available for a plot overview. Nobody is going to fabricate an artificial book and cover with it just to insert said information. This isn’t the NSA it’s a 40k wiki. Tweets and such have been sued as sources in the past and anything published by GW is an appropriate source [[User:Harriticus|Harriticus]] ([[User talk:Harriticus|talk]]) 15:45, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
+
:covers of the actual book for summary descriptions are reliable, back in the day they were the only source available for a plot overview. Nobody is going to fabricate an artificial book and cover with it just to insert false information. This isn’t the NSA it’s a 40k wiki. Tweets and such have been sued as sources in the past and anything published by GW is an appropriate source. Limited edition event only stuff often is hard to get so the bare minimum sources are to be expected. The only issue with this is improper citations. [[User:Harriticus|Harriticus]] ([[User talk:Harriticus|talk]]) 15:45, 25 June 2019 (MDT)

Revision as of 21:47, 25 June 2019

Source

The source is not reliable and does not give the information shown on the page. Bobmath (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2019 (MDT)

It's true. But I when I created this article I was sure that in a few months at least some other official source would appear on BL site or Warhammer-Community, so I can add the more reliable source. At the moment - I do not know how to improve this article better. Perhaps there will never be another source, although this Anthology exists and should somehow be reflected in Lexicanum. For the most part, this is one of the problems of BL, which sometimes do not show their products anywhere though they (the products) still exist.--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
So, what's the policy on sourcing these days? Is it ok to post unsourced content if you think it might be confirmed at some unspecified point in the future? Bobmath (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
After Inquisitor decides (I asked him about it, but he is still offline) the fate of this article will be finally decided. It is mostly possible that it will be deleted.--Darkelf77 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
Does this site have any rules at all, or is it all run at the whim of one bureaucrat? Bobmath (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
There are rules, but some of them may be changed especially if other participants have their own opinion and want to change certain features. On the other hand, other adepts who did not participate in this project from the very beginning of its appearance may be mistaken in certain main points, so the 'oldest' of adepts may be asked about the decision.--Darkelf77 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
This is the best I could find, https://twitter.com/blacklibrarium/status/1058433724071755776
In my opinion the picture of the back cover seems reliable.--Ashendant (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2019 (MDT)
covers of the actual book for summary descriptions are reliable, back in the day they were the only source available for a plot overview. Nobody is going to fabricate an artificial book and cover with it just to insert false information. This isn’t the NSA it’s a 40k wiki. Tweets and such have been sued as sources in the past and anything published by GW is an appropriate source. Limited edition event only stuff often is hard to get so the bare minimum sources are to be expected. The only issue with this is improper citations. Harriticus (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2019 (MDT)