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

User talk:KazilDarkeye

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

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! Bigred (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2017 (MST)

Maintenance and overhaul of articles

Good (especially because necessary but unthankful) work! --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2019 (MDT)

Acknowledged and gratefully accepted. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2019 (MDT)


I think it is redundant to delete the authors of novels/novellas/shorts in sources.--Darkelf77 (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2019 (MDT)

I do that, too... After all that is what the novel pages are there for... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2019 (MDT)
Respectfully I must disagree with you, Darkelf77 - I think that adding the author in a source is unnecessary and just clutters up said source. If it matters then I will stop? KazilDarkeye (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2019 (MDT)
No, it's ok. You all persuaded me.--Darkelf77 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2019 (MDT)

About Mythos Angelica Mortis

I've found this talk page: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Talk:Mythos_Angelica_Mortis and also this deleting log - https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Mythos_Angelica_Mortis&action=edit&redlink=1 It seems that information about Mythos Angelica Mortis is really unsourced and even article about it was deleted in 2010. So you may feel free to delete information about it as unsourced in any Chapter where it mentioned (as you have done with Subjugators).--Darkelf77 (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2019 (MDT)

Thanks. To be honest, though, I only removed it in that article because it made the opening paragraph flow better and I figured it wasn't necessary when other articles were linking to it. KazilDarkeye (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2019 (MDT)
No, wait. It seems I found the source... It is very bad picture of the page 16 of Codex 3 ed I found. It seems there is really Mythos Angelica Mortis mentioned.--Darkelf77 (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2019 (MDT)
Here it is. *picture deleted - don't needed anymore*
Considering this source I've retrieved information about Mythos in Subjugators article. You agree?--Darkelf77 (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (MDT)
I do. KazilDarkeye (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2019 (MDT)

Known members of the Flesh Tearers list

Since I kind of assume that you are currently still working on this list I would like to make you aware/ remind you of the useful "{{WIP}}" tag. This just to stop other people editting while you are at it, thus potentially creating edit conflicts.
Another issue is the sources column. Some entries (predominantly those with their own articles) lack a source in the list. Which of course comes down to a principal decision on lists and in-list sources again. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2019 (MDT)
I completely forgot about that tag, so thanks for that. As for the lack of sourcing, I thought it was more important to start getting all of the characters from Flesh Tearers (Anthology) onto the page first, and then come back and add the sources for those characters that already had their own articles later. Apologies, I'll get back to work on that list now. KazilDarkeye (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2019 (MDT)
No need to apologize. I mentally assumed a "WIP" tag to be there and in that case until the removal of said tag an article is not considered "done" (for the time being). I also do use "WIP" to that effect and often leave formalities for later (before eventually removing the tag of course). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2019 (MDT)
Just don't forget to remove the tag after work. :) Because there are a bunch of articles that keep this tag, though were edited last time a long-long ago...--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2019 (MDT)
I did notice that, yes. KazilDarkeye (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2019 (MDT)
If such a tag is still in place after 48 hours without an edit by the user who put the tag there I consider it not "WIP" and feel free to place a question on th user's talk page and to edit myself in between. A WIP is mainly there to prevent edit and therefore version conflicts. Obviously if I plan to make more than some cosmetic edits, let's say I want to add a whole bunch of new content, then I will try to contact the WIP-tagger before. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2019 (MDT)
I found articles-artifacts in which this WIP has been added since 2012 (and it was a last edit). Such cases introduced me to a state of midway between horror and admiration... Like somebody started to edit the article and was lost in warp... or in work.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2019 (MDT)
I am finished setting up the article, so I have removed the WIP tag for now. KazilDarkeye (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2019 (MDT)

About moving the first sentence of articles

Is it really necessary to move the first sentence of the articles below, after the templates? I am sure that they look better, being at the very beginning of the article, offering the reader a brief introductory information about the subject.--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2019 (MDT)

  • It isn't necessary, true, but I was always changing that in addition to other minor changes (not just to do that). I argue (respectfully) that having all of the text together looks nicer than having a couple of lines, then the template, then the rest. In addition, some of those articles basically had all of their text above the template and nothing beneath it except for sources, which I would say looks quite bad. I will stop if asked, but I just think it looks nicer to have the Portals/Templates on their own at the start. KazilDarkeye (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2019 (MDT)
I understand. I think I will move this discussion to the Talk page. We just need to establish an overall rule about this subject to do articles in one 'style'.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2019 (MDT)
As I see, nobody really care about this detail. So you can do as you want. :)--Darkelf77 (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2019 (MDT)
Thank you, sir. KazilDarkeye (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2019 (MDT)

Changing in ]]'s

You, of course, can change [[Games Workshop]]'s for [[Games Workshop|Games Workshop's]] and other such things - but does it make sense? In fact, both variants fulfill the same role and look the same in the text of article.--Darkelf77 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2019 (MDT)

What can I say? Not being able to click on part of a word annoys me. KazilDarkeye (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2019 (MDT)
Well, if this is the case - OK.--Darkelf77 (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2019 (MDT)


About your edit of reclaimers. We still need the Chapter of the Novel for every paragraph. And to this one: 'This same company then assisted in clearing away a genestealer infestation on Viridia, and then pursuing the space hulk Spawn of Damnation through the warp.' also. Source to the Novel as a whole is not befit.--Darkelf77 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (MDT)

I'm working on it - it's a placeholder for now. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2019 (MDT)
Actually, a question about the sourcing - the picture is from the cover art of The Emperor's Finest, but the information I'm adding is from the Omnibus print of the novel - does that technically require a separate source? KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2019 (MDT)
If this information presented only in 'Omnibus' - yes. GW sometimes add addition info in Omnibuses and this info is not presented in separate Novels. So, well, if you cann't check the separate Novel to find if this info presented there, the answer is "yes".--Darkelf77 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2019 (MDT)

Disambiguations/ Other uses

I take the opportunity to point out the existence of the not very well-known Template:Otheruses that should be used (at least if there is only one other use as with Isiah in the affected articles. Unfortunately as of now there is no template yet for multiple other uses, maybe we should pool efforts to try and create one. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative spelling variants

If there are sources for alternative spelling variants (e.g. "daemon-world" vs "daemon world") it does not hurt to include a corresponding remark in the article *thumbsup* --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Noted. KazilDarkeye (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Lists (Related Articles)

Please, if you add a link to a related list in the article (for example, as for Ezekial Yesod), this Dreadnought should also be included in a related list (in this case - List of Named Dreadnoughts). Otherwise adding this 'Related Articles' in the article of Ezekial Yesod is pointless.--Darkelf77 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Although, looking at the article compared with the category of Dreadnought characters, it's clear that the list has been neglected for some time. Time to get to work. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. The matter is that: the inclusion of objects of articles in the lists is a 'desirable' point, although not 'mandatory' (not mandatory because it takes some additional time, therefore, far from all adepts filled with desire to add the relevant lists after the creating of a new article itself, considering it redundant). But desirable, yes, because such lists are also needed. The best option would be if the Lexicanum system automatically added new object to the corresponding list, but this, as I understand it, is impossible even in the distant future. Therefore, I believe that two options are possible here: 1) When creating a new article about the Dreadnought, the adept adds it to the list of Named Dreadnoughts, and put the appropriate link in the article of 'his' Dreadnought; 2) When creating a new article about the Dreadnought the adept DOES NOT add a new Dreadnought to the list, but then he does not put the 'See Related List' paragraph. This will help future adepts when they open this article and will know - There is a link to the List here, so this Dreadnought is included in the List. And here the Related List is NOT added - and it means that this Dreadnought will need to be added to List in time. And this applies to all such cases - Captains of Chapters, Daemon Princes, Planets, etc... I see it that way.--Darkelf77 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Another point to consider is this - some of these lists have Categories that they can easily be compared against and checked off (for example, List of Commissars has the Category: Characters (Imperial Guard Commissars)). Some lists, however, are not verified to be complete as easily (e.g. List of Planetary Governors has no corresponding Category). It doesn't help that many of these lists have been neglected for so long that they are effectively cesspits that need to have a lot of work put into them to being them up to par. KazilDarkeye (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. So in my opinion we should not increase entropy, so it’s better to immediately add everything you need to the lists too. I see that you add the necessary information to the lists of characters (for example, Black Templars), so my comment is just a small reminder, not some objurgation.--Darkelf77 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Making it mandatory to add each newly created article to its corresponding article is indeed necessary, I agree. As is a thorough overhauling of the existing list structure etc. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WIP articles

Please check and if not really still being created, remove WIP template, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

On it, boss. KazilDarkeye (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Spacing after full stops

Hello, while going over different Scythes of the Emperor articles I noticed that sometimes you have a tendency to leave multiple spaces after a full stop (before the next sentence starts), maybe a relic of copy/pasting. Please have an eye on that, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That is actually how I was taught to type - one space between words, after a comma, e.t.c. but two spaces after a full stop. I’m aware that it doesn’t make a difference on software like this (at least I don’t think it does?) but it’s a hard habit to break. KazilDarkeye (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Known Members lists

Noting that you've put a lot of work in to overhauling the 'known members of xxx' pages. But really, is this the agreed format? 26 mini tables for each letter of the alphabet, each non sortable and without easy viewing of pertinent information? All of differing widths, and quadrupling the length of each article with a load of redundant space. I think they look absolutely terrible. I'm all for standardization, but surely it'd be better to standardize it into a single sortable table instead? Also worth noting that some of us put a fair amount of work into filling out the rank, formation, etc information, all of which has now been deleted. I would strongly advocate reverting back to the IMHO significantly better format they were previously in, and converting the others into this format in time. Phunting (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide me with an example of the format you are talking about? As far as I can remember, most of the lists that I’ve overhauled didn’t have tables at all, but were just bullet points. As for separating them by letter, that was an aid for verifying that the list was in alphabetical order (I noticed that previously, the order was all over the place) and so the CompactTOC could be used. I agree that making them searchable would be good but I was just using the type of table that most of them were already using (the ones that had any tables at all, anyway). KazilDarkeye (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure. So the main one I'd worked on was the Emperor's Children, which if you go back one revision you'll see how it previously was. The World Eaters also used to be similar. I get changing them to the most commonly used form, I just feel that when the most commonly used form is (IMHO) a lot worse, it's a real shame to regress the articles that are in a better state just because the majority aren't. I think having the table easily sortable by rank, formation, and era is useful. It's a function I've used on the EC list quite a bit, and it seems a shame to lose this.Phunting (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes I do remember that one. Give me some time to test something (I'll use White Scars for the test, as I'm currently working on Hunt for Voldorius). KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I personally prefer the newer format, it's much less of a chore to add information. The rank/formation stuff was often redundant and in the article itself anyway Harriticus (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The searchability is a bit of an issue. I will say that I didn't like the table being used for Emperor's Children because it could be a bit difficult to distinguish rows sometimes. I am working on a test for White Scars which should be ready in a few minutes. KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I've provided a comparison in the list now (I suppose I could make the background colour white instead. If it meets approval I can ditch the letter-based sections in favour of one table as well. KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Cool. I take your point over distinguishing individual rows. I do think that a single table is important however, to allow ordering across the entire group. I just feel if we have separate tables per letter it limits functionality and makes everything longer than it needs to be. I'd vote for a single table, formatting as per your White Scars example, ideally with rank/position and formation as distinct columns, but I'm not going to die in a ditch over those (noting Harriticus' point over benefits of simplicity).Phunting (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. I’ll make a start as soon as I am able (as long as nobody else objects). KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, so I've switched White Scars over to the new format completely. I need to fiddle with the table settings to try to space the rows out a bit more evenly but are there any other thoughts? KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: Known Members of the Crimson Fists - I think I'm on to something with the format here. KazilDarkeye (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ultramarines List

Since <ou were the last editor to lay hands on the Ultramarines known members list: Can you explain what the other guy was doing before? Did data get lost? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I can only speculate - I suspect that they did not like the current system and sought to arrange things by era without discussing things first. Admittedly, the list does need to be improved in that regard (I'm considering changing Pre-Heresy era to just Heresy, to simplify things), but I think that trying to split up the list like that is massively counterproductive (especially when so many were left off the new list). I don't think it's anything that sorting the table won't accomplish, once it has all been filled out and properly sourced. KazilDarkeye (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
That would have been my superficial guess. Changing things so massively without so much as asking beforehand or at the very least explain during or afterwards is not really acceptable. Plus splitting the list makes any attempt of using it in an alphabetical order well... doomed to fail. I don#t want to be able to sort only the members of one company alphabetically. So everybody who was in before is now back in? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I reverted to my last edit, so yes (about 450 vs. the 150 on the new list). Ordering was indeed problematic - especially when you have characters split across two eras and such. Come to think, I probably should have asked first, but it was really bothering me. KazilDarkeye (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
And me, too. I had written it on my to-do list to revert unless I got a really convincing reason not to. And that did not happen. So you just already did what I would probably have done soon. *thumbsup* --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Cool. KazilDarkeye (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lists format update

If you have found a "winning formula" for lists it would probably be good if you could secure the base code somewhere in the Help section for future use and reference, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a winning formula, exactly, but a nice bit of code that spaces the rows of the table out and generally makes it look nicer. I will add it, though. KazilDarkeye (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Death leaper

Thx for fixing it, too much copy/paste screws the eyes ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I've been there. KazilDarkeye (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Necron Tomb Worlds no longer linking to the Tomb World list

Hello! I noticed you removed List of Known Tomb Worlds from the See Also / Related Articles section in Drazak. Can you please explain the reason behind the deletion? I recognize that Category:Necron Tomb Worlds groups planets considered Tomb Worlds, but I am partial to the tabular format of List of Known Tomb Worlds, with the category of the world (crown, core, fringe) and notes of its importance. Granted, it needs some work on the citations... --Makvel (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed the link from the See also section because the page already links to the same article in the Class section of the top info box. It was just a bit redundant to have another link, especially since none of the other articles for individual Tomb Worlds have that in their See also sections (as far as I’m aware). KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. The class section links to the article generally and the See also section links specifically to the list of tomb worlds. It does not feel redundant to me. If other individual Tomb Worlds do not have a link to the list, I would actually support adding it to them, rather than trimming it off the ones that do have it. --Makvel (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s necessary to link twice to two different parts of the same article unless said article has a lot of different and/or lengthy text sections. In this case, if you go to the Tomb World article, the “List of Tomb Worlds” section is directly visible from the top of the page. I simply do not see the point in adding a second link that takes you to a few lines down on the same page, especially when barely any Planet articles do something similar. If you think it will help and want to go and add that to all of the various articles for each Tomb World then I’m certainly not going to stop you, but I think that doing so isn’t worth the time. Especially since, after the List of Tomb Worlds gets long enough, it may be more helpful to have that as a separate article and then you’d need to go back and change all of those links anyway. KazilDarkeye (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Loyalist Template

I'm really curious about the actual point of restoring this template in articles with no pictures, and essentially no data (particularly the "featured in an obscure white dwarf 20 years ago" chapters). It adds nothing to the articles, it occupies screen real estate with basically nothingness, and it's ultimately a loss of your editing time. --Siegfriedfr (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to try and add something that would instantly identify the article as a Space Marine Chapter article. I would prefer to have something there for the sake of consistency rather than nothing. Don't you worry about my time. KazilDarkeye (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)