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
(Sources?!?!?!)
Line 67: Line 67:
  
 
:I will present this issue to the German staff for discussion. IMO we '''have to''' include the Wikipedia disclaimer, if we copy something. --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S.]] 16:05, 30 January 2006 (CET)
 
:I will present this issue to the German staff for discussion. IMO we '''have to''' include the Wikipedia disclaimer, if we copy something. --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S.]] 16:05, 30 January 2006 (CET)
 +
 +
 +
==Sources==
 +
Recently recieved my copy of Xenology, the latest background book from the black library, and, without spoiling anything, it contains some extremely interesting information that affect the entire 40k background.  Of course not all of it is presented simply and it requires quite a braod knowledge of the 40k background to realise the implications.  Haveing read all this and taken it in I immediately jumped onto Lex to look some stuff up and was disapointed.  Without sources for information there is no way to know what's true. 
 +
 +
For example:  [[Outsider]]
 +
 +
Now where did this come from?  I'm pretty sure that the part about battleing the laughing God is actually a totally different C'tan.  And if that is all incorect then it throws into doubt the article [[Void Dragon]], primarily written by the same author.
 +
 +
For any serious re-search (read Xenology you'll understand) this site is almost useless as most articles do not have sources, where sources exist they are normally on major pages like [[Boltgun]] where most people already know the information as true.  --[[User:Squirrel|Squirrel]] 03:55, 1 February 2006 (CET)

Revision as of 02:55, 1 February 2006

I would like to help run the site, I think it is an intresting project. I would like to help as an admin Hobbes1012 19:14 06/01/06

Well, for a start tell us something about you, your ideas about the Lexicanum, your knowledge or experiences :) --Inquisitor S., Sysop

I have been involved in the hobby for about 10 years now, mostly on the 40k side of the system. Currently I am studying and working, but have a little spare time that I would be able to use helping run the site. I feel I could help settle arguements if they arose on issues regarding the fluff of the 40k system, and use that time to ensure links worked, or fix ones reported broken. I think the lexicanum is a great resource for gamers as it enables them to firstly be able to quickly find infomation and it is also useful for referencing. I personally write fan-fiction, and that is how I first found the lexicanum, whilst looking for infomation on mordia if I remember correctly. I am knowlageable about most species, races, and organisations in the warhammer 40k universe, and will endevour to correct any mistakes I come across. I also believe I can judge where it is likely that GW will claim breach of copyright on their intelectual property, which, in my view, is to the point where custom is lost, due to the resources needed to play the game being avalible on a site. Also, specifically copywrited work, such as from the novels, or published art work collections. Hobbes1012 08/01/06 01:02

Standard Template Constructs

Not sure if this is the right place to start this discussion, so feel free to move it.

I think we should make Templates for the various types of articles as I believe the German site has. Put simply I think the best solution is to rip off the ones used in White Dwarf. Sadly my Archive is at my parent house and I am at university, but looking in the few I have kicking around I found an "Index Xenos" article (for Dark Eldar, WD 311). The Layout is as follows:

Title

Introductory Paragraph

Physical Charecteristics

Homeworld

Combat Capabilities

Technology

Social Structure

Threat Index and Imperial Policy

(possibly not neseccary?)

I figured it would not be a rigid rule but a guideline upon which to start.

  • I also thought a little about weapons and technology, and dependand upon the views of everyone else, I thought it might be a good idea to group things. For example: Bolt weapons. Explain bolt rounds and how they work etc. then cover the various different weapons: Boltgun, Bolt pistols, Combi-bolters, Storm Bolters, Heavy Bolter. The same can be done with Las weapons. Explain las-technology, the cover the Lasrifle, Laspistol, Hellguns and pistols, Multi-laser and Lascannon. I would suggest that putting the basic weapon (boltgun, lasgun etc) first as it is the most common varient (usually) and a pre defined order for the rest (here I have used Basic, Pistol, Basic varients, and Heavy, in order if size/power with the exception of the basic weapon first but it doesnt matter as long as we pick one and use it uniformly). Again, this would not be a strict rule as a guide; for example Missile Launchers do not have basic or pistol varients.
  • Further, I would like to express my desire to start a discusnsion, not to barge in and start telling everyone how to do things. This is an idea that needs work, I just want to start the process. If it will help I can do a few example articles, say Boltguns and Tyranids or something, but you'll have to give me time. --Squirrel 02:01, 29 January 2006 (CET)



Good ideas here, we need to start standardising this site. I have looked over the german wiki a bit and it seems that the general structure is that of:

History

Units and description

Space Fleets

and then it sort of dissolves and things vary a lot. I'm thinking that Units and descriptions is the same as combat capabilities, and the top two would be history but I think that anything under technology may well be copied across several pages, the technology of the Dark Eldar being quite similar to that of the Eldar for example. The others i'm not sure we will have a lot about.
As for weapons, well, quite a while ago i put in a lot of effort into splitting up the weapons pages to make it more like the German wiki which has all seperate pages. I think we need to standardise the contents of the articles themselves but not merge the pages. --Jonru 19:36, 29 January 2006 (CET)
Having thought about it, pages with all of the weapons of one army in one place I think would work. Also, perhaps as a general method for unit pages something of the following:
  • General Information/History
  • Unit Weapons and Numbers etc.
  • Images
    • GW/Photographs
    • Any Forgeworld Images
  • Internal Related Links
  • External Links/Sources

--Jonru 20:30, 30 January 2006 (CET)

Wikipedia Policy

We have had today a rather large number of pages enhanced by simply copying from Wikipedia. I for one am glad we have more information, but simply copying it from Wikipedia doesn't seem right, as we aren't the same as Wikipedia (yes we are a Wiki but we only specialise in warhammer, not everything ever). I know there is a template thing to put at the bottom of the page when anything is based on something from wikipedia, but an outright copy does not seem right. I feel therefore that we need a policy regarding the use of wikipedia as a source of information. I would suggest making it something like:

"Wikipedia is a great source for information, but we request that you do not simply copy directly from the articles but rewrite it in your own words whilst retaining the relevant information to make this site unique and not simply a copy of Wikipedia."

I feel this would help us to expand but not move too close to Wikipedia.--Jonru 11:03, 30 January 2006 (CET)

I will present this issue to the German staff for discussion. IMO we have to include the Wikipedia disclaimer, if we copy something. --Inquisitor S. 16:05, 30 January 2006 (CET)


Sources

Recently recieved my copy of Xenology, the latest background book from the black library, and, without spoiling anything, it contains some extremely interesting information that affect the entire 40k background. Of course not all of it is presented simply and it requires quite a braod knowledge of the 40k background to realise the implications. Haveing read all this and taken it in I immediately jumped onto Lex to look some stuff up and was disapointed. Without sources for information there is no way to know what's true.

For example: Outsider

Now where did this come from? I'm pretty sure that the part about battleing the laughing God is actually a totally different C'tan. And if that is all incorect then it throws into doubt the article Void Dragon, primarily written by the same author.

For any serious re-search (read Xenology you'll understand) this site is almost useless as most articles do not have sources, where sources exist they are normally on major pages like Boltgun where most people already know the information as true. --Squirrel 03:55, 1 February 2006 (CET)