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

Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Help

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

Since it was suggested that officially encouraging to overhaul/ actually create a Help section that is helpful I hereby do officially encourage any and all interested user to share their (constructive) thoughts and suggestions on the matter. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (MDT)

Most pressing issues

So, according to people's impressions, what are the most frequent problems new (or old) users have and which accordingly should be addressed first? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (MDT)

Diverse notes


*file format normally should be .jp(e)g **PNG should be avoided for photographs and detailed art due to large file size **GIF only where absolutely necessary; convert to PNG if possible *file size should not exceed 100-200kb (depending on the actual object and purpose of the image) *crop images when necessary. There is little point in having a picture where only one small corner is relevant for the article it is used in *target image resolution should be 500-800 pixels in the largest of either vertical or horizontal dimensions. Not too big, not too small. *where possible and reasonable the original resolution of the image can be kept if the file is not excessively big *file names should reflect the content of the image *copyright is always {{GWCopyright}} *image sources have to be as precise as possible (pagenumbers!) and are to be included both in the file description and in the articles where the file is used *all images have to be categorized upon upload; it is immaterial if the category is under the file description (i.e. included during the upload) or at the bottom (i.e. post-upload). Even if you're not sure which category is best, try to put it in one that's close! *Potentially useful software (preferably freeware): **Cross-platform: ***GIMP: freeware alternative for more complex operations, often touted as the free alternative to Photoshop ***jpegtran: Crop, rotate, compress JPEG files without incurring generation loss. ***jpegrescan: "losslessly shrink any JPEG file" using jpegtran **Windows: ***Google Picasa: discontinued but can still be found; rotating, cropping, contrast, white balance and many other simple operations ***MWSnap: small but powerful software for making screenshots

Can we get the upload template to autofill this? Bobmath (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2019 (MDT)

  • do not flood articles with images. Always ask yourself: What is actually the added value of this image?

Images and text conclusions

Problem: a picture does not have a clear caption or an accompanying text that clearly says the picture shows that and that. Difference unit cards (like CCGs) vs. normal texts. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


Category Inclusions in Anthologies, Magazines etc.

I'm curious as to what should be best practice when it comes to anthology-like articles such as novel anthologies, magazines etc. Should the page for the anthology/magazine include the category for sources e.g. [Category:Sources (Iron Snakes)], or should that category only apply to the main article for the content it relates to?
To illustrate: Take an issue of Inferno! magazine, we'll say it contains a short story about the Iron Snakes Chapter and I link to that short story in the article. Should the Inferno! article include the category [Category:Sources (Iron Snakes)], should only the short story article include that category, or should both articles include that category? I've been doing the latter thus far, but I think maybe the second (main article only) makes the most sense from an organisational point of view. Any thoughts on this? --GrumpyDilettante (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

I tend to agree. Adding categories to everything in an anthology results in a long, unwieldy list of categories for that page. I usually don't apply the specific categories on an anthology-type page, unless they apply to everything in the anthology (like Category:Thousand Sons on Ahriman: Exodus (Anthology)). The trouble is, we don't always have separate pages for all the anthology contents. Bobmath (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

Alternative storylines

Something should be written about how to handle potentially conflicting/ mutually exclusive storyline events that depend on player choices in computer games and also roleplaying games. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2019 (MDT)

I think that if the matter is conflicting or it seems doubtful even to the author of the edit, he can add information in a separate paragraph called "In Computer Games". Because in such a products GW pays even less attention to details and accuracy of background.--Darkelf77 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2019 (MDT)

Article naming

Handling of disambig pages

Hive Fleets

Something that's been bothering me for a while - half of the pages on individual Tyranid Hive Fleets have page titles of the form Hive Fleet X and the other half have the form X (Hive Fleet) (or just X). I think we should standardise these pages to the Hive Fleet X form. Thoughts? KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this should clearly be "Name (Hive Fleet)". As for all other such cases like (I didn't check this) "Leman Russ (Tank)" vs "Leman Russ (Primarch)". I mean hopefully nobody would name the corresponding article "Tank Leman Russ" or "Primarch Leman Russ"... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Companies, regiments, (Grand) Bataillons...

Is there a reason why for example basically nobody linkifys the actual unit but normally links to the organizational article? Example: Why the [[Ultramarines]]' [[Space Marine Company|Fourth Company]] and not the [[Ultramarines]]' [[4th Company (Ultramarines)|Fourth Company]]? For reasons of order I would however suggest to stringently use the same format. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2019 (MDT)

I think the reason is simply because most of these companies/battalions/e.t.c. don't have their own articles (off the top of my head the only one I can think of is First Claw for the Night Lords 10th Company. I was considering at least setting up some for at least the Space Wolves Grand Companies (because they all have individual names) and maybe the Iron Warriors Third Grand Company (featured in The Siege of Castellax (Novel) and Cult of the Warmason (Novel). I would agree that they should ideally have their own articles where possible.
Certianly individual Imperial Guard Regiments should have their own pages to prevent all the REDIRECTs (the main issue there is that regiments are often given inconsistent names that make it a bit hard to tell if they're referring to the same thing e.g. are Cadian III, Cadian 3., Cadian 3rd Shock Troops and Cadian 3rd Regiment all the same body or are they slightly different?) KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
We really have to get people away from this totally misguided idea that they can or should only link to already existing articles. And as you said, some, maybe even many units have such a rich history that it is total madness to try to include it in their "parent" organizational article. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
The other main companies I wanted to give individual articles were the Brotherhoods of the White Scars (I just remembered that at least one, the Brotherhood of the Blue Hawk, has its own article). The main question I want to ask with these company articles for consistency's sake - do we title the main articles with numbers (e.g. 4th Company (Ultramarines)) or words (e.g. Fourth Company (Ultramarines))? Obviously we could set up a redirect for the other. I personally prefer using words, but that's just my opinion. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
I started to introduce this kind of links with numbers. Simply because like that we don't have the hassle with the alphabetical order. I would however always create a redirect with the spelt-out writing, just in case. And I think that at least for all the Legions and also the big Chapters this totally makes sense. I just hope GW has applied some consistency to the numbering... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
"I just hope GW has applied some consistency to the numbering..." - Hah!
In any case, your wish is my command. I'll start amending links and maybe get around to creating some of the actual pages if I can. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
Oh, actually one other point - do we need to distinguish Great Crusade/Horus Heresy-era companies from Chapter companies in this regard? Just because a company in those days tended to mean something slightly different (and varied from Legion to Legion with regards to size, nomenclature, e.t.c.). KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
Yes, this is a question that crossed my mind. I think we will have to as I am doubtful about continuity here. But then I hope we are only talking about a limited amount of cases. As to the nomenclature maybe adding a "legion" would make sense? So for example 1st Company (Blood Angels Legion) as opposed to 1st Company (Blood Angels)? Otherwise we would have to add "Chapter" to all of the Chapter companies, even when they never were a Legion... But I am open for discussion. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
I took a stab at creating an article for this purpose (4th Company (Relictors)). Let me know your thoughts (there are a couple of tweaks that could be made). KazilDarkeye (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2019 (MDT)

T'au Names

(Brace yourselves for a long one)

I think one significant part of the naming conventions that is lacking is when it comes to T'au characters. For example, I'm trying to add articles from the old Tau codices at the moment and have come across a character called Fio'ui Bork'an Ulyr'ra (by the naming conventions later in the codex, this establishes them as a low-ranking member of the Earth Caste from the sept of Bork'an whose individual name is "Ulyr'ra"). Would the main article (redirects notwithstanding) for the character be:

  • Fio'ui Bork'an Ulyr'ra - Full name.
  • Fio'Ulyr'ra - Shortened form of full name, including caste.
  • Ui'Ulyr'ra - Shortened form of full name, including rank.
  • Ulyr'ra - Individual name only.

I ask because there appears to be little consistency in those articles:

Obviously we are limited by the available, sometimes contradictory, information with these characters (e.g. Aun'Va doesn't really fit the conventions established in the codex but is consistently given as such, so it makes sense that the article just defaults that way), but it would be nice to establish some kind of baseline.

Since we don't generally use ranks in page titles, using the "full" name seems weird. Also, I'm assuming we go for the original T'au rather than the translation where possible (e.g. Shadowsun vs. Shaserra). I'm quite lost here, though and would ask my superiors a judgment call here. KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking it is not surprising that this is missing from the naming conventions. Simply because I know shit all about the Tau. Obviously you are right with your remarks. In my opinion the article should be named purely with the individual name. If the individual name is actually mentioned? Because I have my doubts GW's authors will have been very diligent with that...? With redirects from the other sourcewise existing options. If you do a (sourced) article with what is known about Tau naming conventions I will happily integrate or link to it from the main naming article. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The T'au Lexicon section on names seems accurate - I'll just go and source it now. KazilDarkeye (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, just tell me when it's done and usable. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It is done. Now I just need to overhaul the sourcing on the rest of that page... KazilDarkeye (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I included a link to the name section of the T'au Lexicon Name section in the naming section. Will that suffice? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It will have to, for now. Unless GW magically pulls instant clarification from thin air. I suppose as long as we have redirects it won't matter too much. KazilDarkeye (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, it does matter with regard to as much uniformization as possible. I mean that is one of the main goals of investing all the time in overhauling and recreating the Help section... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In any case, Ulyr'ra has now been created as an example. KazilDarkeye (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Style, language, grammar etc.

Language level

We do not expect unreasonably high language skills since the texts should be written in a way that as many people as possible will understand them. A basic level and grasp of grammar is however required.

Frequent grammar mistakes

"When people's names end in 's', you can either add ' or 's (Charles' or Charles's) and choose pronunciation accordingly, either /iz/ or /isiz/. You might sometimes need to choose the latter to make the meaning clear. Source. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (MDT)


A decision on capitalization in article names. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2019 (MDT)


Ship, tank etc. names should always be written in italics. Makes for much easier reading. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2019 (MDT)

Verbatim copies

  • Verbatim copies are generally not allowed with the exception of quotes.


This is an encyclopaedia, correspondingly the language should be concise and matter-of-fact. No novel writing here!

Speculation and extrapolation

... is not allowed. Stick to what the text says. Period.

Article content

Inclusion of Dramatis Personae on literature pages?

I'm curious to know the thoughts of other adepts on the inclusion of a character list on pages about a novel, short story, audio drama etc. I've seen a list of characters on a handful of pages that I've earmarked to edit and wondered if this ought to become standard practice or not. What are your thoughts? GrumpyDilettante (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

Well, I can't see harm done by including it. Does somebody see a problem? Well, there is just the problem that at least before the Horus Heresy novels GW/BL (I think) did not really include a Dramatis personae... So compulsory or standard practice might be a bit difficult to realize, no? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2019 (MDT)
I agree. I am not against it.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

Extrapolation and speculation by Lexicanum authors

I would like to explicitly point out that extrapolation and speculation should not be allowed when writing articles. Recent example: Talk:Dernhelm_9th. Neither does the source explicitly state the name of the homeworld (it could be called whatever or even be a space station or "Dernhelm" could be something completely else, if it exists), nor that the Dernhelm 9th is a Regiment or even part of the Imperial Guard (yeah, I still call it that, sue me ;)) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

I created a template to include in articles that a) have in the past included extrapolation/ speculation or b) are prone to fall victim to this.
Thoughts? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2019 (MDT)
I concur with you, strict adherence to the sources should be the standard practice as this is what the Lexicanum is known to be. I like the idea of the template one question though, could you elaborate on prone to fall victim to this do you have an example or something of that sort? --Michel.eissa (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2019 (MDT)
Well, there are a number of the 40K equivalent of urban legends I guess. Really from the top of my head I remember how "the internet" claimed that the Blood Ravens are descendants of loyalist Thousand Sons. As far as I am aware this has not been explicitly stated. So that is a typical "prone" case. Also areas like the "Lost Legions", "Who would famous Daemons be in real history", that Sigmar was a lost primarch (that would actually be a case in the WFB Lex), such stuff... I really only included that sentence for potential future cases I guess ;). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2019 (MDT)
Sigmar - Primarch? I've read somewhere that he is real Emperor!--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2019 (MDT)
BURN HERETIC, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE TWIN-TAILED COMET WAS A PRIMARCH INCUBATOR CAPSULE CRASHING FROM THE SKIES!!! Ehem, thank you for illustrating what I meant ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

Article structure

  • Some thought should be put into how an article should be structured so that the information is presented in a logical way.

The Beginning of Articles with Templates

In conversation with a respected adept KazilDarkeye, I had feeling that I need to ask the opinion of other adepts. At the moment, articles with Templates look something like this - Storm Ravens, so the first introductory sentence/paragraphs stands before the main Templates. Personally I like when there was an introdactory sentence before Templates, but... May be it is really 'having all of the text together looks nicer than having a couple of lines, then the template, then the rest'? See also for example this article Landunder where the introductory sentence moved to the main text of article ('Landunder is an Imperial Hive World.'). In any case, I am confident that we must develop a unified system regarding this issue and continue to adhere to it. So, the question: is moving the first (introduction) paragraph below the Templates: 1) Better; 2) Worse or 3)Doesn't matter at all/Depends on situation?--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2019 (MDT)

Note: And, of course, I agree with the point that if 'articles basically had all of their text above the template and nothing beneath it except for sources, which (...) looks quite bad'. In these cases the text better looking below the main Templates.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2019 (MDT)
I will restate my opinion here (so my fellow adepts don't have to look for our conversation) - I personally don't think it matters a lot, but I prefer to have all of the text in an article together, after all of the Portals, Templates, e.t.c. (with the exception of particularly notable quotes, which I think look nice in a QuoteBox at the top, e.g. Silver Skulls). KazilDarkeye (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2019 (MDT)

Template positions

Regulate where in the text the template code should be inserted. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


About "scanned images" in Citations part of rules.--Darkelf77 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


Make it mandatory to include any pertinent newly-created article in its corresponding list article. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Aphabetical Complication

I have a question. When we arrange lists in the articles, how should we count names and surnames? Do we must arrange like that:

  • Lord Commissar Barthold Dorst
  • Lord Commissar Gaken
  • Lord Commissar Feodor Lasko

Or like that:

  • Lord Commissar Barthold Dorst
  • Lord Commissar Feodor Lasko
  • Lord Commissar Gaken

I understand that logically there must me the first variant. But still second one seems more usable to me. Comissar still Lasko. On the other hand Primarch - still more Guilliman (on G), not on R (Roboute). And techically I would rather look for him in the letter G, not R (that would seem confuse to me). So though I prefer a second variant I really don't know what will be better. Anyhow, we must work out a single option for such cases, and not do this lists in different ways.--Darkelf77 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2019 (MDT)

The second variant I think is better and more consistent.--Ashendant (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2019 (MDT)
As your example shows, we don't always have a given name, so you're sorting by given name for some entries, and surname for others. Option two is inconsistent and wrong. Bobmath (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2019 (MDT)
The first variant is much hard for people who add new names to follow. They barely follow main alphabetical rule. Now they will have to take into account their last name. By the way - as I see in ordinary wikipedia, lists created due to second variant. See this list - Wikipedia - for example. Persons here clearly go by first name not surname.--Darkelf77 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (MDT)
Those are stage names, not actual surnames. The real name is in the second column, unsorted. Bobmath (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2019 (MDT)
Then I must agree after all. Still, there is a third variant, but I really don't like it:
  • Lord Commissar Dorst, Barthold
  • Lord Commissar Gaken
  • Lord Commissar Lasko, Feodor

It seems too awkward to me. Second variant better.--Darkelf77 (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2019 (MDT)

  • Dorst, Lord Commissar Barthold
  • Gaken, Lord Commissar
  • Lasko, Lord Commissar Feodor
Bobmath (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2019 (MDT)
  • Dorst, Barthold, Lord Commissar
  • Gaken, Lord Commissar
  • Lasko, Feodor, Lord Commissar
Seems most logical to me. But that might also have to do with one's native language way of doing things... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2019 (MDT)

Question about Notable/ known characters lists

I noticed there are many lists of inquisitors like list of Inquisitor, each Ordo Majoris has a section for notable members of the order then categories have their own list of inquisitors as well. So my question is what makes an inquisitor a notable member of his order, for example I created a page for Ordo Malleus Inquisitor:Felroth Gelt should I put him in the list of notable members or no? and of course an entry is needed for the list of inquisitors. What is the standard in such situation? I find it difficult to maintain more than one list and make all the lists of inquisitors up to date. What do you guys think? --Michel.eissa (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2019 (MDT)

This is a very specific question, please note that this talk page (at least currently) serves the main purpose to discuss broad guidelines and rules. However it happens your question touches a general issue that needs to be cleared up. Therefore I will leave it here and change the heading.
  • First: the way the "notable members" section in articles has (often) been used so far has simply been prohibitive. See for example what I am in the process of doing for the Iron Hands, you will notice when you compare revisions that I cleared that out drastically. So even if this a WIP you can see what I am aiming at.
  • Generally everybody goes into the "known members" list articles. If there is a separate Known members article for Ordo Malleus /if not, one can be created), then in there, too, not only into the known inquisitors list (there is no reason not to have people in multiple lists). So these "known" lists are the complete and reference lists.
  • As to the question of who is notable. Well, obviously this can be a bit hairy. But it should really be persons who feature prominently in the background. Say Eisenhorn, Kryptman, Ravenor... And/ or persons of really high rank, but even then they should not really only be mentioned in a throwaway line in an obscure short story.
Do these considerations help you?
--Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (MDT)
Thanks for the fast response, and yes they do help.
  • I agree with you about the notable members list.
  • I will put the new guy in the list of lists of Inquisitors
  • I think the list of notable members of Ordo Malleus should be cleaned up and most of them put into Known Members list only but I don't know much about the whole Inquisition.
--Michel.eissa (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (MDT)


I would suggest that short lists inside articles should be in chronological order (if possible) and alphabetical in dedicated list articles (a chronological order there should be possible, too). Objections? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2019 (MDT)

I agree and want to add, - that we must take one article with such a list and make an example of it, discussing details here, in process of this.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2019 (MDT)
I meant like here for example. For dedicated list articles shouldn't sortable table be used anyway? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2019 (MDT)
Other examples for chronological order include Great Wolf, Master of the Hunt and High Marshal. KazilDarkeye (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2019 (MDT)
Hey i like it! However, we still need to solve another question - how to arrange famous characters of insignificant Chapters. I mean - should we arrange them in the form of their rank, and inside it - in alphabetical:
  • Abraham - Chapter Master M23
  • Zemitox - Chapter Master M41
  • Andrian - Captain
  • Wyystyy - Captain
  • Drenod - Sergeant
  • Andigin - brother

And so on... I think this order is better then just alphabetical or chronological. And this moment must also be mirrored in Help article.--Darkelf77 (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2019 (MDT)

Sounds sensible. In any case we should limit the list items inside article to, let's say, five or so. Everything above means a dedicated list article? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2019 (MDT)

Semi-related question - does that mean that for list articles like these ones, I'll have to undo the separation into different tables for each letter? The main reason I did that was to get the articles into some kind of order (they were a bit lacking before) and I left them like that to break up the page a bit, but I can reintegrate the tables. KazilDarkeye (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2019 (MDT)

As long as there are not sortable tables I do not see a valid reason to to undo the separation. But yes, the question of which tables should be used and how should be adressed. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2019 (MDT)

Maintenance, tutorials etc.

Suggested beginner's tasks

So this is clearly suggested tasks, not compulsory that a newbie must first "earn his trust" with them. Simply a suggestion with rather "simple" tasks to have the chance to learn the ropes and at the same time do crucial work. For example check and specify sources that are not up to the standard, correct spelling and grammar, create internal links, add categories etc. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2019 (MDT)


As I see, the majority of Adepts believes that the spoiler alert in articles about the books themselves is meaningless. Basically, I can agree with that. However, in that case, I would like to see in the articles about books a mandatory separate paragraph with a "teaser" (like "cover description" from the BL site). The idea is that the user can clearly distinguish: 1) brief information in order to interest him/her (and provoke him/her to read a book) but do not get spoilers and 2) get a full information that reveals the full plot of the book (if he/she agrees to get spoilers). This is something that is not exist in good measure in Wikipedia (they just have complete plot with all spoilers in them), and that (in my opinion) should be in Lexicanum. So, if we do not use Spoiler Template in the book's articles, we need uniformity in distinguishing paragraphs with and without spoilers.--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2019 (MDT)

I don't know that we need to use an explicit spoiler box on every book page, as long as any spoilers are contained to a section with an obvious name (like "Plot", maybe). But if you like the spoiler box, using {{Spoiler}} with no parameters will default to the name of the current page. Bobmath (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
Nevertheless we should indeed make it compulsory to add the "official blurp" (be it from the website or the back of the actual novel) at the top of the article, i.e. before any potential spoilers. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
Well, I like 'Black Library Description' paragraph of GrumpyDilettante. May be it's a way.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
Yes, or as I said what is printed on the back of a book which is probably mostly the same. Of course it is easier to copy/paste directly from a website (if available). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2019 (MDT)

Just to add my two cents, while I'm a wet-behind-the-ears adept here, I very much agree with your findings in regards to the use of the spoiler tag. I've only done a few edits to date, all on fluff literature articles, so I humbly propose the following, based on my experience thus far:

  • Firstly, that in articles about sources, the spoiler tag should only be used when this source has spoilers for another one which takes place chronologically before it. To illustrate, the short story Blood Calm has a spoiler for the novel Death of Integrity (the former being an epilogue of sorts for the latter), so I added a spoiler for that, but not the summary I have on the Blood Calm article.
  • Secondly, following from this, I agree that the cover or official blurb given by BL, what I've thus far re-labelled as Black Library Description (since the blurb on the BL site usually differs from the one on the back of a hardcopy), should be at the start of an article. I've been putting it at the end, in favour of an overview section prior to a summary.
  • Thirdly, I've been doing this on the articles I've edited, but perhaps prior to a comprehensive summary, maybe a slightly more vague overview section could serve to inform the prospective reader about the source's content? Essentially a TL;DR 'snapshot' of the plot, maybe even open ended if that's desirable by fellow adepts.

Just a long-winded suggestion ;)
GrumpyDilettante (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2019 (MDT)

Offtopic remark: It doesn't matter if you consider yourself "wet behind the ears", everybody with sensible and reasonable suggestions is welcome to add their thoughts. Likewise (although some people sometimes mistakenly thought otherwise) "old hands" are not treated with a higher regard if they seriously fuck up or misbehave ;)
on topic: on your fist point: agree. on the second: yes, it should indeed be at the top to avoid problems. Third point: Is the official blurb not already sufficient? On the other hand if the article has really a comprehensive content recap, yes, a tl;dr summary in a couple of sentence can make sense, as an overwview.
--Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

Templates and wikicode


Internal workings
  • Display code as text:
  • Signature with date:
    • Signature without date:
  • Internal link:
    or with a different title displayed instead of the actual article name:
    [[article|New title]]
  • External link:
    [http://www.example.com Name of website]
  • Redirects:
  • Insert empty lines:
  • Underline text:
  • Text to be displayed only in used templates:
    <includeonly> text </includeonly>
  • Text not to be included in used templates but necessary to describe a template on its own page:
    <noinclude> text </noinclude>
  • Prevent table of contents from being shown on page (possibly to approve the appearance of shorter articles):

  • Interlexicanum links:
    • To the English 40K Lexicanum:
      [[lex_en_wh40k:Ezekyle Abaddon|Ezekyle Abaddon]]
    • To the German 40K Lexicanum:
      [[lex_de_wh40k:Ezekyle Abaddon|Ezekyle Abaddon]]
    • To the French 40K Lexicanum:
      [[lex_fr_wh40k:Ezekyle Abaddon|Ezekyle Abaddon]]

    • To the English WFB Lexicanum:
      [[lex_de_whfb:Sigmar Heldenhammer|Sigmar Heldenhammer]]
    • To the German WFB Lexicanum:
      [[lex_en_whfb:Sigmar Heldenhammer|Sigmar Heldenhammer]]
    • To the French WFB Lexicanum:
      [[lex_fr_whfb:Sigmar Heldenhammer|Sigmar Heldenhammer]]


Introduce a new rule that no new templates can be introduced without prior and explicit Bureaucrat approval. Principle discussion "Ease of use" Vs "Sleek design". --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2019 (MDT)

Targetdrone.gif This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title.
If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.
  • Template:Otheruses: template for articles that are subject to being confused:
    {{otheruses|USE=Use 1|OTHERUSE=Use 2|OTHERPAGE=Use 2 article}}
Targetdrone.gif This article is about the Primarch; for the battle tank, see Leman Russ Battle Tank.
  • Template:Redirect: template inside articles that are subject to a redirect due to a disambiguation:
    {{redirect|Name of disambiguation page|other uses|other article from disambiguation}}
Targetdrone.gif Wolf King redirects here. For the novella, see Wolf King (Novella).
  • Template:Main: template to point the reader to the main article about an event etc.:
    {{main|exact wiki link name without any brackets}}
Citations, summaries, etc.
  • Missing summary template:
ServiceImage.jpg Attention adept of the Lexicanum!
This Image needs a summary or it needs to be improved!
Please add one for clarity on the image.
  • Template:Cite: this article needs comprehensive work on its sources:
  • Template:Cite This: This is for noting within the text where additional citation is needed:

[Needs Citation]

  • Template:Add'l cite: incomplete citation: information in the article needs to be linked to a source:
    {{Add'l cite}}

  • Template:Spoiler: this article contains spoilers for a specific novel:
    {{Spoiler|source=Example novel}}
This page contains spoilers for: Example novel

  • Trivia:

Sortable tables with padding to space out lines
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Words More Words Lots of Words - perhaps because this is the most general part of the table and therefore entries here require a more detailed explanation. The padding is possibly not necessary here. Words. This column is centred as well. Words (perhaps sources). This column is centred and padded.

No idea

A potential PSA for Web-archived images

Fellow adepts, I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this (I just stumbled upon it, I'll remove this post if this was something everyone was already aware of), but on archive.org, there's a way to get urls for the images on an indexed webpage. If you click on the dropdown menu on the top right called 'about this capture', it'll provide a list of links; when hovered over, a link will highlight a specific page element. Click the desired image link and it'll open a new tab with the image. For example: here's one for a 'definitive edition' of the comic Deff Skwadron --GrumpyDilettante (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2019 (MDT)

I re-read this and I still do not understand the use of this. I am not saying it is not useful, I just don't get what you want to tell us . --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2019 (MDT)

Trivia Tag

I was wondering if it was possible to reduce the vertical size of the Trivia tag ({{Trivia}})? As is it looks a bit off. Perhaps reduce the size of the font in the tag? KazilDarkeye (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Like this? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Thank you. KazilDarkeye (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I just converted the text into <sup>...</sup> as there was no font function. Maybe will have to be revisited at some point in the future. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Related Publications

I would like to highlight here a moment about Related Publications section. They can be included in the article in the See Also section in cases where these sources have information about the subject of the article, but this sources is not (yet) included in Sourses. So, adept can use this Related Publication as a source for editing the article. An example is here: Sslyth. The short story contains the information about breeding process of Sslyth. Some adept can use it as a inspiration for future work with this article.--Darkelf77 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Gender-specific language

Discussion about this goes below here: --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)