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

Difference between revisions of "Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Open Discussion"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Cooperation with www.warhammerwiki.org)
Line 62: Line 62:
 
== Cooperation with www.warhammerwiki.org ==
 
== Cooperation with www.warhammerwiki.org ==
 
Did you ever try to persuade the people from [http://www.warhammerwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page warhammerwiki] to join this? Really not much sense in having 3 Warhammerwikis. --[[User:Dark Scipio|Dark Scipio]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (CEST)
 
Did you ever try to persuade the people from [http://www.warhammerwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page warhammerwiki] to join this? Really not much sense in having 3 Warhammerwikis. --[[User:Dark Scipio|Dark Scipio]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (CEST)
 +
 +
:Never heard of that wiki. I like somewhat their colours (but the best colours in my opinion has the Star Trek wiki). I took a quick glance at their recent changes and it seems to be rather quiet and static (they are suffering from plenty of spam). The wiki combines the Warhammer Fantasy with the 40K universe and this can create some problems (e.g.: Imperium and The Empire, Emperor Karl-Franz and the Emperor). Another thing I noticed is that there one cannot upload images (at least there is not "upload" button on the left). I hope they consider joining the Lexicanum, but in the end it is their choice (a merge makes a lot of sense in my opinion). [[User:Irulan|Irulan]] 23:56, 7 May 2008 (CEST)

Revision as of 21:56, 7 May 2008

Lexicanum Forum

There is a new Lexicanum Forum to discuss issues. Please make sure to read the Forum Guidelines first. --Inquisitor S. 21:58, 27 September 2006 (CEST)

Main Page Note

I wanted to make a note about the Main Page. It says that this is for "official canon" only. However, there is two problems with that wording. Canon, by GW standards, is anything talked about in the rulebooks published by Games Workshop (not Black Library, or anything besides White Dwarf) and for that edition only. However, "official" is anything published in any of the old editions.

The Black Library works and other similar publications are part of the universe, however, they are not part of the canon. Those like Gaunts Ghost have become official canon. Most, however, have not. What does this mean? That books like the Horus Heresy, while fun and cool, are not correct. The information, in my opinion, should be included, but in a section called "variants" or in something similar, or with a note to say what source it came from. There are many conflicting things in the Black Library amongst the books and with the official canon produced by Games Workshop. This happens by lack of strict standards and allowance of writers to have liberties with different things.

For example, Realms of Chaos was official back in 2nd edition (?) and is refered to and backed up in part, but the new works, Liber Chaotica, are not "official" for any edition. There should be three distinctions. Current Canon, Old Canon, and Variant. This would keep people from thinking Jokaero are a canon race. They were, but they aren't anymore. I hope this all makes sense. SanchiTachi 22:29, 12 June 2007 (CEST)

That is an interesting point, esp as the Black Library seem to stress that their output is just as canon as anything else GW produces. The FAQ on their discussion boards addresses it as follows:
"Q. That Sabretooth stuff is rubbish? Surely you don't expect me to take it seriously?
A. Sadly it's just as canon as the rest of the GW/BL offerings.
Q. Is (insert book here) canon?
A. If it's an official GW or BL publication, then yes.
Q. But it contradicts another source! What's up with that?
A. (evil laugh) (or Sephi's sig) (-- an unfortunately flip answer, the quote one is directed to is "It's all official, even when it's self-contradictory. Complying with continuity isn't a requirement for canonicity.")
Q. Even if one source is GW and the other is BL?
A. There's no difference. BL are the official publishing wing of GW, and every word they write is as valid as what comes out of the design studio.
Q. Does new background overwrite old background?
A. Where there's a clear contradiction between old and new, the new is usually the official stance on the issue. Most of the time though, the new background is written in such a way that there's a way to incorporate the old background."
http://forum.blacklibrary.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9494
I paste that over merely for discussion on the validity of their contribution to the canon, I'm happy to follow lexicanum preference. If BL material is to be subliminated across the board, there probably should be a Main Page note. Using the newest source as a primary source in an article, then making note of older/contradictory versions where applicable afterwards seems sensible and is already done in some articles, the change in spelling of Isstvan being a simple example (although I'm not certain if the change in spelling came from anywhere other than a BL source...). Mandatory removal of BL material to a 'variant' status will make some articles interestingly lop-sided; the Horus Heresy artbooks and novels are revising large sections of the canon, as the discussion at M31 shows. --Mob 10:15, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
Nothing is canon or official until it enters into a game. But look at Dawn of War, for example. There are things going on there that could never happen in the real game. How did the Blood Ravens become canon then? Because they created an Index Astartes for it. Oh, and that FAQ is utter rubbish (and isn't official either, some even demanded that proof be put behind the claims, and the Black Library isn't "official" in any way. Its just a side publishing company). Notice how none of it is on the official Games Workshop website, but in the recesses of the Black Library forum that most Games Workshop developers wouldn't be caught dead in. They still consider the "star child" as a legitimate theory, even though there were 2 editions between it and Inquisitor's Thorian group that seems to bring up the possibility of it but takes it in a very different way. But yeah, Squats are screwed, Jokaero are gone, Slaan no longer are Slaan (and if they are the Old Ones and haven't been rewritten to separate from the Fantasy conspiracy theories developed in a few Black Library books, then who knows), no one cares about "mark whatever" armour, Eldar never used lasguns (even though 1st edition had it), and the Dark Eldar may or may not have their own separate army. SanchiTachi 17:11, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
Oh my god (I'm atheist :) the discussion of 'official' and 'what is canon' has begun (the great reason why have stopped to like the Star Wars universe - death to Lucas and his stupid Good Versus Bad attitude + let's let anybody write a novel no matter how bad and stupid it is). Let's cool down and be a bit pragmatic. First we have the armybooks published by Games Workshop who describe an fictional universe. Then we have the novels from Black Library (AFAIK a subsidary of GW) who are supposed to be in that universe. The problem is that sometimes the novels describe things that conflict with the fluff and rules of the armybooks. Not helping is the fact that the armybooks are re-edited from time to time. Now we can be puritans and focus solely on the armybooks. Thereby we will lose a lot of interesting information (from the novels). Or we can be radicals and use both sources (the armybooks and the novels) but writting a proper warning when there is a conflict. I did exactly that in the articles Sister of Battle and Caste System. I personally think that this is a good compromise. Irulan 18:13, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
By the way: The Star Child has also been dropped by the novels. AFAIK only the Darco trilogy used it and then it was official having been published in Realms of Chaos 2. Squats have also been dropped to the extent that some short-stories who previously had a squat amongst the characters replaced him with a adept of the Adeptus Mechanicus in any later re-publication. Jokaero are still oficial, they are clearly mentioned in Codex Necrons. Irulan 18:13, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
I personally think that all three (new, old and bl) should be included, as they are all Warhammer 40,000, but that the novels and old stuff should be marked, so people don't get confused (a page with the Emperor could have things from four different editions and the novels, and every one probably conflicts, which sucks). Oh, and what I said above about squats, jokaero, etc, I was making fun of their dropping of the miniature lines or other changes that they pretended did not exist in the past. :) SanchiTachi 18:39, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
OK no problem. What truly bugs me many times is that Games Workshop simply doesn't care to go straight with the fans ("you are here to buy our stuff, nothing else"). I hate the official excuse for the Squats: "they were wiped off by the Tyranids". They could simply be honest: "We at GW were sick of Squats and decided to erase them (they weren't selling well). We may replace them with the Demiurg in the future, or we may not. The official stance is: the squats never existed". I wouldn't complain (noone would, I think. and those who would oh well...). Irulan 18:50, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
The real reason why the squats were dropped was the move away from Fantasy. Also, the squats had crappy models (the squat bikes sucked). They also dropped the "knights" and "robots" line. The squats weren't completely wiped out, but yeah, a lot of the stuff is long gone. Some good, some bad. 4th edition seems to be the standard now, and more perfect than what came before (i.e. its every 3rd edition plot, with better rules). I doubt that the plot lines happening at the end of 3rd and in 4th will be changed in the future. SanchiTachi 19:00, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
A friend of mine has shares of GW (and gets a yearly report of the company). He told me that there will not be a 4th edition armybook of the Dark Eldar because the miniatures weren't selling well (the army as a whole sucked, AFAIK). He told me that GW looks carefully upon the diffrent armies/races to see which are selling well and which don't. Irulan 19:28, 13 June 2007 (CEST)
Then your friend doesn't understand GW, because all they had to do was offer a transition FAQ for the armies (like they did with Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters). The Dark Eldar are a conversion split from the Eldar, and they will continue to exist, even if they don't get their own future Codex. They will always have Battlefleet Gothic pieces also as they are big there. SanchiTachi 19:35, 13 June 2007 (CEST)

Portal Boxes

Greetings all. As you may know, recently there has been a number of discussions with regard to both the portal boxes and interwiki boxes. It boils down to this:

  • They are annoying
    • They get in the way at the top
    • They screw up the formatting of the entire page creating large gaps above the text
    • They are different sizes (aka Portal Box) and there is little standardisation

So, can we have a discussion of what to do about them? I would like to see them both stay as they are useful in their own ways, however the location of them needs to be discussed. I believe there are several options:

  • Portal box at the top and interwiki at the bottom
  • Portal box at the bottom and interwiki at the top
  • Both at the bottom
  • Try and get the portal at the top/bottom and the interwiki underneath the special pages like at wikipedia (don't know about the likelyhood of this)
  • Do away with them altogether

Could we have a vote and some views please, put your name under/next to the one you would like to see happen? This way we can have a proper vote and sort it out once and for all. Also a little explanation as to why would be good, thanks :) --Jonru 11:17, 19 June 2007 (CEST)


My first choice is to remove the little Portalboxes from the articles altogether (because they get in the way). Notice that they seem to group several articles. However this is done already by the Categories! Keeping the Portals/articles themselves (the different portals like Portal:Tau) is fine by me. I honestly think that it is quite a overkill - we have few contributors in the Lexicanum and don't need portals to coordinate. But in the future who knows?
The Interlexicanum links (links between the German and the English versions) are useful no doubts about it. However we life in a left-to-right-reading civilization. This means that "we" like to have images at the right side. The interlex links simply get in the way. How about changing their code so that they appear at the upper left side? That way we can place an image on the upper right corner (where the vast majority likes them). Just an idea. Irulan 21:18, 27 March 2008 (CET)

Cooperation with www.warhammerwiki.org

Did you ever try to persuade the people from warhammerwiki to join this? Really not much sense in having 3 Warhammerwikis. --Dark Scipio 20:00, 7 May 2008 (CEST)

Never heard of that wiki. I like somewhat their colours (but the best colours in my opinion has the Star Trek wiki). I took a quick glance at their recent changes and it seems to be rather quiet and static (they are suffering from plenty of spam). The wiki combines the Warhammer Fantasy with the 40K universe and this can create some problems (e.g.: Imperium and The Empire, Emperor Karl-Franz and the Emperor). Another thing I noticed is that there one cannot upload images (at least there is not "upload" button on the left). I hope they consider joining the Lexicanum, but in the end it is their choice (a merge makes a lot of sense in my opinion). Irulan 23:56, 7 May 2008 (CEST)