Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/General Page Guidelines

Please add links to other articles where I left out!

I was incredibly bold with these pages I created, but its time to stop being a mouse. Bold is what I have been. You can take these pages and edit them however you see fit, or leave them, just don't call me the next "James Madison" (Father of the Constitution). Colonel Marksman 20:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Army pages[edit]

Per the current write, we'd have to knock out all the First Founding Legions (excluding the Bloods, Darks, and Wolves). -- Saberwyn 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No traditional Warhammer 40,000 dating. This is considered jargon that those unfamiliar with Warhammer 40,000.[edit]

Why not have the dating but make sure you have a page dedicated to explaining the WH40K timeline and the dates? Although there might already be one... :s Should look around and check, in that case just have some links to to it so people can work it out.Mathmo 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's an excellent idea. Colonel Marksman 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC) potatos[reply]

Link all dates given in .MXX format directly to the page that describes the system. Simple solution that doesn't disturb the writing style for users who do know what you're talking about.Sojourner001 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sojourner001 (talk • contribs) .[reply]

Personally, I find that style really annoying. While I accept it has to be done for something like Star Wars where we have no real-world timeline, doing it where it's not necessary does make life a lot harder for the average reader. In my opinion, they're the people we should be concentrating on, not people who are already 40K fans. Cheers --Pak21 08:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Another excellent idea. Hmm. Although, think of a page that was specifically created for the timeline structure. Colonel Marksman 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not judge or rate armies/races/planets/etc in their religion or how "evil" they are as this constitutes to POV'ing.[edit]

Not sure if that is exactly POV if they are actually EVIL, for instance in WFB Dark Elves and Chaos etc... are obviously "evil", while High Elves are "good" etc... Because they are commonly regarded as that and are even called this by GW etc...Mathmo 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They *are* the "bad guys" as the storyline goes, but the thing about the setting (especially 40K) is that no faction is unambiguously good. Look at the elitist Space Marines, or the zealotry of the Daemonhunters or Witch Hunters, or the Deathwatch's racism, or the Tau's suppression of individuality. On the flip side, even Horus had what he (and many other Space Marines) considered legitimate grievances in the beginning. Orzhovcrusader 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)orzhovcrusader[reply]

I have to agree with Orzhovcrusader. Furthermore, by removing the good and evil slant, you are not keeping in line with the core material of Warhammer 40,000, which would be putting in opinion to remove their canonical opinion. Its like removing the Devil as being evil in a page devoted to the Bible. That is definately not encyclopedic nor helpful. SanchiTachi 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No giving out or listing rules for any game. We are here to give people on the Internet general and helpful information, not give them rules to play the game.[edit]

Don't see anything wrong with giving out the vague guidelines of how they work, you can't work out how to play the game from just that. But stating the basic phases of play, plus how the stats and dice rolls function goes a long way to explaing what the game is like and a person's understanding of it. While at the same time being nowhere close to being enough information for how to play it. Hence a win-win situtation.Mathmo 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Do not judge or rate armies/races/planets/etc with "better than", "worse than", "most advanced", etc. as this constitutes to POV'ing.== Again coming from a WFB perspective (because that is my background, although it applies to WH40K too) some races clearly are more advanced than others, and are stated as such by GW. For instance it is clear that High Elves are more advanced than Orcs & Goblins, however I do agree that you should not claim they are better. Because the points values should make all equal. But you can CAN say one is more advanced than the other, that is one reason why some armies will be larger than others... Mathmo 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that even the books describe which armies are better at which, so to ignore what the books say is to be inserting opinion, which is against Wiki rules. So, if you find a quote from a codex or a guide that officially states if an army is strong or not, it must be quoted and that quote must be accepted. To not do so is to be a disservice to Games Workshop and to be against the theory of an encyclopedia. SanchiTachi 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies[edit]

Warhammer 40,000 is far more balanced than it's sister counterpart.

Example: Orks have successful space travel. They take masses of junk, put 'em together, and travel space in them. That's not inferior at all (that's pretty creative if you ask me).

I'm saying these are all on a personal note and level. You can't say one race is better than another. Now I will not argue with "more advanced", or "ancient technological advances", but what I will argue with is "superior technology," or "best technology". People try to put the races into classes of technology. (Eldar are the best in technology next to C'tan and Necrons"? Eldar technology is just different (somewhat bizzare even) than that of other races.

Honestly.... it's just different.

In Warhammer 40,000, if you notice, there is no master race (yet).

"But you can CAN say one is more advanced than the other, that is one reason why some armies will be larger than others..."

-- Not in 40k. Let me tell you something. Mankind stretches from one side of the galaxy all the way to the other with billions upon billions of inhabitants.

-- Tyranids don't even have any technology.

-- Eldar (so called "Space Elves") are dying, and are on the verge of extinction.

-- Space Marines, the best of Mankind and perhaps arguably one of the most powerful, are always severely outnumbered.

-- Kroot have some of the largest space vessels in the game.

-- Tau have the smallest empire, next to sizable Ork and then galaxy-vast Man.

Also, it simply sounds much better to say "Nobody is a goodguy" than "everybody is a badguy in some form or another". Like I said, 40k has its checks and balances. I'd like to make every race appealing to outsiders. (Even Chaos) Colonel Marksman 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even having this discussion sounds like NPOV violation to me. It's our responsibility to describe a race from the perspective of the setting itself. 'Evil' in 40k-verse isn't analogous with 'evil' in the real world; here it's a complex issue, in 40k it's part of the narrative, but that doesn't mean waxing lyrical on how awful they are. Simply state that they are considered callous, brutal and corrupt by the other participants in that setting, but where Chaos devotees bother to be noble, include a counter from their side as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sojourner001 (talk • contribs) .

Why do you think we should ignore WP:WAF, which explicitly states that "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world"? Cheers --Pak21 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Pak would purposely mistate a rule like that. Please cease and desist. You are doing a disservice to this community and Wiki in general. I do not want to have to report your overstating of things against as a violation. Furthermore, we are to describe them as being fictional. However, that does not mean that we do not describe their fictional world PROPERLY. To not state how the Codex describes armies is to violate the terms of wiki. Its like saying that the Bible wiki shouldn't say that the devil is evil. Not only is that non-encyclopedic, that is also point of view violation. The world states that the Tau are "fighting for the greater good." To not point that out is an agregious offense. Pak, please keep your inaccurate opinions to yourself. Thanks. SanchiTachi 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- ??? Ignore it? Where did I do that? That's certainly not what I wanted to imply. Colonel Marksman 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a reply to Sojourner, not to you. Hence the indentation :-). Cheers --Pak21

Influences[edit]

Why has it been deemed necessary to remove these sections, surely as an encyclopedic article it should state such thing? Even if only possible influences may include etc etc Lowris 20:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Because there's nothing to support the influences. Nobody can say for sure where the ideas for Warhammer 40,000 came from. Colonel Marksman 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Marksman is asserting his opinion as rule again. I believe that he is purposely trying to dominate what is not his. Furthermore, there are many things that give reason to claim what the "influences" are. This can be seen in naming and with different appearances. Obviously, Sisters of Battle look like Nuns with Guns. Obviously, Black Templar are supposed to look like the Templar Knights. Making such comments allow those new to the game to have the ability to relate the different styles to cultures that they would know and understand. This is very important and part of the way the game honors the influences. Please, this is not one person's right to dominate anyone, and you and Pak are very disrespectful of the community, of the game, and of wiki itself. If you want to make an opininion about what to do, please hold an open and constant vote. The only time you actually go for a vote you limit in time, and that is very undemocratic and very unfair. If you find my complaint unsatisfactory, then I will go talk to some people who will make sure to protect the people and the pages that you seem wanting to abuse and dominate. Thank you. SanchiTachi 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot "claim" to know what the influences are, at least for Wiki. If (as an example) the Sister codex said "we designed these as nuns with guns" then great, we have a reference. If you can't find anything from GW that says that, then you can't put it in, even if it is obvious. Darkson - BANG! 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can. The fact that they are called "sisters" is obvious enough to imply nuns. The fact that they have guns is obvious enough to say that they have guns. When you see Blood Bowl, it is obviously based on football. Its like saying a bluebird is blue. You don't need a source for it. Its basic generic encyclopedic knowledge which IS fundamental to encyclopedias. Its called a "descriptive." You do not need someone from Games Workshop to say everything that goes in, because most of it falls under common knowledge. If a person's name is the Bloody Handed God, you have the right to say he has a bloody hand. If you want to explain -how- he got it, then you have to source it. See the difference? SanchiTachi 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And i would like to say that we love w40k BECAUSE of the influences and inspirations used in it, sometimes in a very smart way, like for the horus heresy, which could have been a masterpiece if the w40k novels have been written as "great litterature" So when we read thoses books, we say "hey!It comes from ancient greece!", or "hey!Its the crossing of the rubicon here!" every two second And we think "even if its not as good as shakespeare, this guy is not so stupid!" So please explain me why, about an universe that's nearly entirely made of "influences", we should "refrain" from explaining the inspirations, which could be very good for the young audience of wikipedia, a young that reads the w40k books BECAUSE of the "simple"(but visceral) style used. It would teach them some bits of history, i would teach me some bits of history, it would teach you some bits of history I would be a game, an intellectual one, but a funny one too, to find the influences and to write them in the "influences" sections Then, we could send it to the GW writers as a funny gift. Wikipedia is intended precisely to help people using their brains, to learn and to share I would add: to play! Goodbye everyone, and be kind = remove this "please do not talk about influences blablablabla...." horrible line. 86.219.2.34 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions arising from copyediting the Guidelines[edit]

I just copyedited the Guidelines, and I had some questions:

Why is there an option for Galaxy articles? I think it would make more sense if it was Segment articles, because the various Segments get much more mention than any galaxy. Am I mistaken here?

"Unofficial armies" being Harlequins, Kroot, etc. These armies have/had published rules, thus they would have to be official (there is apparently a differentiation being made between "official" and "tournament legal" that is unclear in the guidelines, or a difference between "current" and "classic"). Might I suggest we think up a different term?

I think that's it for now. MSJapan 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- If there is a different term, then let us use it, by all means. I haven't heard of another, which is why it was used. Colonel Marksman 07:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]