User talk:Hoyinny

Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the [Lexicanum:Help help pages]. Again, welcome and have fun! Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Kuvelo

(Principally) nice work. Please have a look at my modifications (always mention the name in the first sentence, Fn/Endn coupling, not mentioning the author's name in the source) in the article as they are important, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Bucher

Footnotes missing in body text. See Citation rules if further info is required. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Last edits and new articles

Please note that all of your last edits that are not supplied with the appropriate sources (Chapters of novels) may be deleted, because it's against the rules - see on the this page about citations--Darkelf77 (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Cyber-Altered Task unit.JPG

You cannot use unofficial/fan-made images, sorry. Also do note (as mentioned before here) that ALL changes must be sourced, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any recommendations for accessing a picture then? Games Workshop did have a model, but since they've pulled the product there's no real offical representations left that I can find, even using internet archive. Also could you specify further what you mean by "ALL changes must be sourced"?. Are you referring to summarising each change i make when I edit a page (I often save changes then realise I forgot something, sorry), or are you referring to placing a citation at the end of each new bit of information? Because I'm pretty sure i did the latter. -- User:Hoyinny (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (EST)

Obviously I cannot draw a picture out of my hat immediately. But I will have a look around when time permits. Nevertheless the general rule is: No picture is preferable to a fanmade one.

Concerning the sourcing I mean that each text change or addition within the article must have a footnote. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We have a rule that may seem strange at first glance, but over time you realize that it is necessary. It consists in the fact that a clear link to an existing and official source (!) is needed. Sometimes, it’s obvious to everyone that the photo of the miniature (or the art) is completely official, most fans saw it one way or another (mainly for very old, classic miniatures known to old fans, but which existed at the no-internet time and old Codex or Sourcebook may be not even scanned since from that time), but if there is no clear link, we cannot use it in the Lexicanum. It may seem that this rule is not very perfect, but it does not allow somebody to add photographs or miniatures to the site, with the explanation "I swear to God, I saw this figure on the 2001 event in Notterdam and it's official!" This is not a very convenient rule, but from the point of view of our line of order, it is very important, in the form of a principle... With regards.--Darkelf77 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but in this particular case if was absolutely and definitely a photo taken by somebody of his or her self-painted mini. And I am rather confident that somewhere an official picture will exist, after all we are talking about the 3rd edition boxed set of Space Hulk. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As a very painful example of my own, I can mention the "Warpflame Pistol", photos of which are found in many White Dwarf magazines, but which are NOT clearly signed anywhere as a 'Sorcerer with warpflame pistol' and there is no art with the sign of this. So as it is now, I can’t insert its photo on the site of the Lexicanum. And I hope that someday GW will make a clear art or photo of a miniature with a signature about this pistol.--Darkelf77 (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and will endeavour to be more diligent with my footnotes. While it is of course annoying, to post up a picture and try to source it, only for it to be rejected, I completely understand why you have to draw a firm line on these things. This sites thoroughness and commitment to lore is what draws a lot of people, myself included, to it and there's also of course issues with copyright that you definitely don't want to deal with. I will also attempt to find an official copy of the image on my end. Cheers. Hoyinny (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (EST)

Yes, we know that it can be annoying on a personal level. Although the intention certainly is not to piss off people who want to help. But especially any kind of content that even has whiff of unofficialness most often leads to the automatic reaction of shooting first and not asking questions later. Although I feel that for the sake of clarity I should point out that sometimes, in veeeeeeeeeery rare cases, we have no other choice than to use for example mini pics sourced from unofficial sources such as ebay. But even then this is not done lightly and all other avenues must have been explored. And even then we try to use pictures that are as neutral as possible. I.e. for example unpainted minis instead of painted ones. Because if we don't there is a danger readers might mistake them as official paint schemes or such. I hope this is understandable. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely acceptable to me. I now regret mentioning the annoyance factor because the last thing I wanted to do was leave people thinking that i was criticising or angry with the decision made. That's why I devoted the next three lines to pointing out why i agreed with your choice :). Heck, to a degree i even appreciate it. You've got to make tough calls to do your job properly and there's no reason for you to justify yourself to me. --Hoyinny (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2020 (EST)

There is not, indeed. Sometimes I nevertheless seem to do ;) Although more as an explanation for future actions and less of a justification. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dark Hands

Question: Why did you add the new source at the top of the sources list and then had to renumber all others? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It was the first citation used in the article. Next time should i just cite it under all others? --Hoyinny (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2020 (EST)

Well, I am not going to stop you from doing that, just nobody else bothers. I originally had wanted to put such a practice in writing but was convinced that in an article with dozens of sources, with more subsources this was a) madness and b) the risk of people making mistakes when updating all other footnotes was too big. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Сomplementing what the Inquisitor said, usually Adepts here simply add a new source at the bottom of Source List with the corresponding next number. As Inquisitor said to do as you do it's just 1) more difficult and 2) may lead to unintentional errors in changes in source numbers (which will then be difficult to correct)--Darkelf77 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep that in mind, to stop myself from getting too creative with changes to source lists. Hoyinny (talk) 8:47, 5 June 2020 (EST)

No problems, mate ;) --Darkelf77 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Imperial Castilians

Please note that footnotes are also compulsory in tables, thank you. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, i see now why you offered to coach me through the process. Thanks for the addendum -- Hoyinny (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2020 (EST)

Not all steps are self-evident ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Warmaster/ Terfuek

Please note that any and all additions to articles require citations. This also applies to lists (see here. Please add a corresponding footnote to you entry in "Warmaster", thank you. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

My bad, made the changes, let me know if you need anything else -- User:Hoyinny (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2020 (EST)

Questor disambiguation

Feel free to have a look at the modifications I did around the Questor issue. Turned out there seems to be a third possibility. Any questions, you know where to find me. Cheers. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

• Hello. Please add Category to your uploaded pictures as stated here.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Got it sorted out, apologies for the mishap, let me know if you need anything else --Hoyinny (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2021 (EST)

Great. Thank you.--Darkelf77 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your citation formating still has to be improved, see here, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Books/ author mention

Hello, please note that we do not name the authors of books in sources, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, my bad User:Hoyinny (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2021 (EST)

Battlecrusiers

You’re gonna need a source for the Jovian Class Battlecruiser. Thanks. Harriticus (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it User:Hoyinny (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2021 (EST)

Spelling check

See here. Also check if it actually says "razerwire" or "razorwire", thx. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. -- User:Hoyinny (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2023 (EST)

Thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in discussion about fundamental issues: Table standardization

Hello, as an active contributor you are hereby invited to give your view(s) on the issue of standardizing the Lexicanum tables. Link to the discussion: Warhammer_40k_-_Lexicanum_talk:Help_-_Table_overhaul#Table_Standardization. Thank you. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

sources - catgorizing

Hello,

• Fauxhammer is not affiliated with Games workshop, therefore not an official source and thus shouldn't be used as a source. Even if the information is undoubtedly valid
• all the Images you uploaded need to be categorized

Cheers --Siegfriedfr (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I took that into consideration, it was my understanding that Fauxhammer was provided with exclusive access to early images of the Combat Patrol Magazine by Hacchette, Games Workshop or one of the other groups affiliated with the magazine. All other articles on the subject drew from the original Fauxhammer release. Given it appears to be an offical press release of a Games Workshop product, through a nominated 3rd party site would that cicrumvent the current rule? . -- User:Hoyinny (talk) 12:07, 27 Janaury 2024 (EST)

You can find the accepted (and unnaccepted) sources lists here : 40k - Lexicanum:Accepted sources. I would say there isn't much ambiguity, but it is also not my role to enforce the rules, merely point them out to you :). Respecting those rules is what gives the lexicanum its charm, beyond the frustration of sometimes not being able to source miniatures' pictures. Regarding Hachette' exclusive, it would be best for Hachette to publish something themselves, or hopefully GW on Warhammer Community.--Siegfriedfr (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"it was my understanding that" --> Either something is clearly stated or not. We do not interprete, that applies everywhere. If you can demonstrate that Hachette officially collaborates with Fauxhammer those sources where this applies can be used. But only if it is first hand material and where there is an added value. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The article specifically mentions that it is an exclusive and that they were sent a photo pack including the photo used. All other articles on the matter reference the Fauxhammer post and no articles exist on either Warhammer community or Hachette (at least in my region). As for first hand and added value, its a picture from a promotion pack of an exclusive miniature that appears nowhere else in the Warhammer catalogue and all other uses of the picture appear to have been lifted the article. Ultimately though the final decision is yours.

As stated earlier, Lexicanum does have an important commitment to accuracy and if the picture's source fails to meet standards I will not argue further if it is removed or remove it myself if asked. Apologies for pushing back on this, to me it like a case where the circumstances differed from usual sources.-- User:Hoyinny (talk) 13:33, 04 February 2024 (EST)

I did not object to accepting this specific case as a source. I only outlined the conditions that have to be met to consider a 3rd party source as acceptable. And nevertheless I agree that it is totally dumb by Hachette not to (later) publish such stuff themselves on an official channel. But so be it. ---Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2024 (ETC)

the exclusive captain of the previous hachette collection was advertised on warcom at some point. imo it's just a question of waiting for an official info to appear, whether from Hachette or GW. Keyword here is patience, no need to rush and publish info that cannot be sourced properly,yet. --Siegfriedfr (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Rogue trader retinue sources

Each point of any list requires a source directing to a page where those are mentioned. --Brownpandanotgrizzly (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)