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)

Authors

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)

Reclaimers

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)