Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Accepted sources
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.
- Answer: Yes./ No. Because...
The First Expedition Forums - Primarch rediscovery order
Question: This source (specifically the posts by Laurie Goulding) has been used on the Primarch page, as a reference for the Primarch rediscovery order. While it's a post on an unofficial forum (with the usual third-party boilerplate about its content not being endorsed by GW, BL, FW, etc.), it was written when he was still the chief editor for Black Library, and is explicitly said to be Games Workshop's official stance on the order in which the Primarchs were found (to the point of him saying it's not really up for debate). It generally seems to be corroborated by published sources too (see the dates, with citations, for the various Primarchs being found here, and the reference to the third Primarch found being one of the missing two in Wolfsbane (Novel)). Should this be considered an accepted source? It certainly falls into the Lexicanum's 'grey area' as far as valid sources go. -- The Warmaster (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will stick with my stance that what BL people do in their private time and webspace does not constitute a valid source for main article content. The header of these forums makes the reliability very clear: "The content of this forum is not officially endorsed by Games Workshop, Black Library or Forge World and no challenge is made to any copyright or intellectual property." Therefore I think it should be relegated to a trivia and notes section. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)