Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Accepted sources
The term "accepted sources" as used in the Lexicanum describes the body of source material that an 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 citation process as a legitimate source.
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 It is an explicit goal of the Lexicanum to also reflect potentially outdated information - with appropriate disclaimers and explanations (see here).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 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 Administrators and/or Bureaucrats with a view on their status.
Examples of accepted sources
The following list is non-exhaustive:
- White Dwarf Magazines
- Black Library Novels, short stories, audiobooks...
- Games Workshop, subsidiaries and license holders websites
- Background Books
- GW licensed Comics and Graphic Novels
- Games Workshop licensed computer games based in the Warhammer 40,000 universe
- 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 Editor is not sure if he/she is allowed to use a specific source, please submit your request 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:
- other Lexicanum articles (yes, you read that right, only first-hand material can be used as an accepted source)
- other wikis
- forums, blogs, message boards, mailing lists etc. (with the possible exception of individuals posting in an official capacity, see "grey areas" below)
- fan-made content or fanzines
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, 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 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 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 "Canon" as a concept in fiction.
The passi "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
- elements that by some are considered retcons or reboots, although these terms strictly speaking do not apply to Games Workshop's modus operandi
- rewriting parts of older background
- dropping parts of older background (explicitly or implicitly)
- reintroducing parts of previously dropped background
- authors ignoring or being ignorant of previously published material on the subject they write about
- 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 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.
There are nevertheless some insightful statements by Games Workshop on the subject matter. In an older version of their FAQ section Black Library included the following answer to the question if their material was "canonical":
Marc Gascoigne, Publisher and General Manager of Black Library from 1997 till 2008, was even more explicit on the vagueness of the material published. And although he marked it as his personal take on things there is not much doubt that his view would have carried some considerable weight for the authors under his supervision: