Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Help - Lists

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)

Order

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)

Mandatory list inclusion

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)