Jump to content

Talk:Black Library

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

This page is about the actual Games Workshop Publishing company. Links about the fictional Eldar Black Library lead here as well. Should we fix that? It seems there should be two articles. One about the Eldar Library and one about the publishing company that is named after it.

If you ask me, you should fix it, by splitting the side in two, and making a linkside in front of them.

--Projekt2501 (en) 11:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Eldar Black Library

[edit]

A bit of a stub, isn't it? This should be expanded on, and preferably by someone who's a long-term Eldar player. I know quite a lot, but not enough. Sanctusmortis 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ISBN-Numbers

What do you think, should i add up the ISBN-Numbers to the novals in the table?

--Projekt2501 (en) 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book table

[edit]

Would like to suggest that the exhaustive book list be removed, as it serves little purpose other than to duplicate the product list found on the Black Library website. -- saberwyn 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd be interested in doing is perhaps breaking things down a bit. The table is unweildy and probably unecessary. my suggestion is this: Create the following entries Warhammer 40,000 novels and Warhammer Fantasy novels. Then use those entries as overviews of the general area - a lot of those novel series have their own entries so create sections for each series and use {{Main}} (alongside a paragraph about the series) to link through to those that do have entries. Then the other sections can be worked on and expanded until they reach a size they can be split off to their own entries (The Inquisition War being the most obvious). It'd allow more a more prose approach (which is usually prefered over tables) and break down the data into more usable chunks (it'd also make lead entries for the categories like Category:Warhammer 40,000 novels. Although not finished yet Warhammer 40,000 comics is shaping up as a good overview on the various comics. If that sounds like the right way to go I can help sketch things and see how it goes. (Emperor 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
There is a side issue as well. Some of those novels are listed as being published in 1993. As the company was formed in 1997 this is a tad odd. I assume those early novels were published by Games Workshop. This like Darco (listed as 1993) were reprinted later (in 2002 [1]). I don't know if this is considered a big deal but worth beairng in mind. (Emperor 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I see nothing wrong with having a comprehensive list in the article, and it is a service to interested WP users. On the other hand, the titles all should be Italic! Finell (Talk) 03:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, that the booklist should have an own site, as well as a comic list. But I would't break the list down to the 5 categories (WHF, WH40K; Necromunda; Bloodbowl; Horus Heresy) because than you don't have the overlook in one table. It would be great if you make a side to the booklist, and than link all sides of the books to this list!

--Projekt2501 (en) 10:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I'm suggesting a merge between Black Library and Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000), because on the face of things, both articles appear to be about the same subject. Looking in a little more detail, one article is about a book-publishing company related to the various Games Workshop fictional universes, while the other appears to be about works of fiction that are influenced by the games and in turn influence the games (which is a little too original-researchy/essay-ish for my personal taste), and I'm sure that the WP:verifiable and WP:reliably, independantly sourced aspect of both articles could happily coexist on one page. -- saberwyn 12:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merge (which isn't perfect, but will do for now). I removed the huge set of hidden tables detailing every work released by BL, which isn't appropriate. Lots of work is needed to de-cruft the remaining plot sections and turn this into a decent article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

too 40k oriented!

[edit]

in describing the universe, type of novels, etc, it is most of the times oriented toward the wh40k universe. thats forgetting the warhammer fantasy world altogether, which is older, and not a good account of the black library activity. most of their novels, almost half, are about the classical warhammer. we better settle this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.27.47 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, I agree. Perhaps people like yourself, who appear interested in the subject, could make some input rather than expect someone else to do it for them? The reason this is more 40k biased is because the people who are into the 40k setting have actually made some input. If5tatement (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhorn Items

[edit]

The article states: "Eisenhorn was made as an official model for the Inquisitor spin-off game. Unlike Inquisitors for the main Warhammer 40,000 game, the Inquisitor version of Eisenhorn is equipped with many beyond the normal standard items:" This doesn't mean anything when you appreciate Inquisitor and 40k are two different games. In the context of Inquisitor Eisenhorn really doesn't have that many items compared to everyone else and compared to the two rule book inquisitors he has less. If5tatement (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Simon & Schuster in the US?

[edit]

Is it worth adding that Simon & Schuster is the distributor for Black Library in the US book marketplace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.252.49 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Black Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Black Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Black Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Library&oldid=1200110267"