Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Imperial Guard
Hi all. Now that we've got the Space Marine template sorted, perhaps it is time to look at the Imperial Guard articles and decide on the policy we are going to use and standardise it throughout the site. What we have at the moment is a number of different templates, formats and designs which is looking like a real mess. So I propose the following discussion. Please leave your thoughts :)
- Individual armies within articles or page-per-army plus overall regiment (i.e. Cadian Shock Troops with Cadian 8th etc. on it or separate pages for Cadian 8th and Cadian Shock Troops)
- The German site runs a policy of page-per-army but this is very likely to create a large number of stubs. What we have at the moment is good because it avoids the stubs, but a number of issues are raised, such as what to do when we don't know what the 'root' army is called, i.e. 61st/320th Orenian. Do we create a page called Orenian Regiment?--Jonru 12:23, 21 May 2008 (CEST)
Now the fun begins...
- We have 3 templates for larger regiments, such as Cadian Shock Troops, but we also have one for small regiments such as the Cadian 8th. Standardisation of these templates is a priority and the design of the overall strategy will dictate how the templates look and what their content is, but thoughts are still welcome.
- How we should name regiments, ie Cadian 8th Shock Troops/8th Cadian Shock Troops/8th Cadian/8th Shockers... (yer ok last one is insanity induced)
- Almost all regiments we have made have a world-like name with them, Cadian, so I think that should stay in the title, but is Shock Troops really necessary? Should we just stick with Cadian 8th? Perhaps when we hit issues with regiments with the same number we should leave the infantry as Cadian 8th and have another, Cadian 8th Armoured, or whatever it need-be.
I think that will do for now. Is this a good time to start this or are we still going with other projects? Please post your thoughts on lexicanum projects below. Thanks all and keep it up!--Jonru 12:23, 21 May 2008 (CEST)
My 2 eurocents
About the 61st/320th Orenian, I think that renaming the current article to be the Orenian regiment TYPE(or kind, there is no set word for this), with a specific/expanded note on the actual regiment. Of course a redirect is to be used as well.
Templates, one per regiment type, one per regiment and one per specialized formation, that's all we need.
The latest IG codex used wordings such as "Cadian 8th" when listing large amounts of regiments, I'd stick with that, all the fluffy names (lord castellan's own, first and only) should be listed in the dedicated page (if there is one, and there should be for armies with an extended history) or in the dedicated paragraph, with a redirect, of course. Two regiments with the same number shouldn't occur, if they do, we do a disambiguation note and put the less known one with a specification inside parenthesis.
This is NOT a good time to start this, we should first decide the common page format on the space marines (since we're allright with the summary table), moving all the stubs in etc. IF we had bots support, we could easily be ready, but we're not. Also the daemon codex is out and people who have it should start importing info, quotes, characters, etc.
Again, we need bots. --Madness 13:21, 21 May 2008 (CEST)