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

Difference between revisions of "Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Accepted sources"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Official images of GW painted miniatures==
+
==Discussions of the ''Help'' article NOT related to the question if a specific source is ''accepted'' or not==
 +
Any discussion of the content of this ''Help'' article not dealing about the status of a specific source goes '''here''':
 +
...
  
May I clarify what the policy on 'Official images of GW painted miniatures' is exactly?  Would a miniature that has been painted/converted by a private individual but the picture has been published in an official GW publication count, eg Golden Daemon winners in WD?  What about those published on the websites' new #PaintingWarhammer and #PaintingForgeWorld sections? [[User:Phunting|Phunting]] ([[User talk:Phunting|talk]]) 16:42, 30 December 2016 (MST)
+
==Sources requiring a discussion/ ruling==
 +
Any discussion about the status of a specific source goes '''here''':<br>
  
== Black Industries/Fantasy Flight Games ==
+
'''Note:''' Each new ruling request has to be submitted under its own heading, in chronological order! And each request has to be [[Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Accepted sources|signed]].
  
Is the material from Dark Heresy (BI/FFG) considered canon? --[[User:Akaoz|Akaoz]] 10:40, 23 December 2008 (CET)
+
===Example===
 +
Question: Is source ABC published by ABC '''here''' and '''here''' considered an Accepted source? --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum]] ([[User talk:Inquisitor S.|talk]]) 08:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  
:Yes. --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum]] 11:25, 23 December 2008 (CET)
+
:Answer: Yes./ No. Because...
 
 
== What is not canon ==
 
 
 
I was just wondering what was once considered "canon" and what is now not. Given the rather
 
confusing nature of Warhammer 40,000 canon, I think a clarification of what older stuff
 
is no longer considered canon would help.
 
 
 
Thank you in advance.[[User:Imperator007|Imperator007]] 03:01, 17 September 2008 (CEST)
 
 
 
== Black Library ==
 
 
 
My understanding as told to me by a close friend and devoted fan of Warhammer is that Black Library is not official, what is published in the novels in not always what happened in the fictional universe.--[[User:LordMilitant|LordMilitant]] 21:03, 26 October 2008 (CET)
 
 
 
:It doesn't really matter what friends tell us. Only stuff from official sources matters. And regarding the "canonicity" of BL these statements are somewhat conflicting as of late. For the time being BL stuff here is regarded as canon unless contradicted or retconned in a newer publication. Which of course happens all the time as GW does not know the meaning of the word "consistency" (not even within one publication). --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (CET)
 
 
 
==Images==
 
 
 
What about non-canonized images, such as fan concept art? Is that reviewed on a case-by-case basis, or is it just generally no? (Inclusion being "Here's a fan's concept of a member of the Lost and the Damned..." for example) --[[User:Rye|Rye]] 04:37, 6 January 2009 (CET)
 
 
 
:As I understand it, any non-canon works of fiction, be it literature AND images, must be restricted to your user-pages.--[[User:Vindicta|Vindicta]] 06:14, 6 January 2009 (CET)
 
 
 
== Lexicanum permitted material ==
 
Firstly, this list is needlessly drawn out. A single sentence like "fiction published by Games Workshop, their subsidiaries and licensees" would cover several points at once. Secondly, with articles about media that provide official background (such as codices, Imperial Armour books etc), such a list doesn't fit that well under 'canon'. The term itself refers to fiction. Permitted material should be covered in a separate article.  --[[User:Digganob|Digganob]] 17:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 
:Has been added to Canon because it's linked from the main page, so everyone is supposed to see it. About the fact is a long list I agree, but it's better to have clarity than endless discussions. --[[User:Talad|Talad]] 02:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 
::The length of the list doesn't make things clearer. Some points are redundant and can easily be summarised while others aren't even covered. At the very least "Battlefleet Gothic" should be changed into "Specialist Games" in order to include Epic, Inquisitor and Necromunda. --[[User:Digganob|Digganob]] 10:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 
 
 
:While I agree that this list is too long and complicated to be the main reference for "canon" I think we could use it as a kind of FAQ. --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum]] 15:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 
 
 
=== What about the 2010 Compendium? ===
 
I have a question. The 2010 Compendium for BFG was written by the High Admiralty, which is a panel of GW-approved fans appointed to continue on the game of BFG since GW washed their hands of the game. The document is also classed by Adepticon as 'current rules'. So even though the compendium wasn't written by GW directly, do these facts not mean it is technically an official source of canon?
 

Revision as of 08:33, 19 April 2020

Discussions of the Help article NOT related to the question if a specific source is accepted or not

Any discussion of the content of this Help article not dealing about the status of a specific source goes here: ...

Sources requiring a discussion/ ruling

Any discussion about the status of a specific source goes here:

Note: Each new ruling request has to be submitted under its own heading, in chronological order! And each request has to be signed.

Example

Question: Is source ABC published by ABC here and here considered an Accepted source? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Yes./ No. Because...