78,406
edits
Changes
From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
no edit summary
::@[[User talk:Darkelf77|Darkelf77]]: Unless I completely misunderstand you I do not see any need for a particular banner or to treat such sources as any different from other sources. Why should such a source be any different from let's say limited edition publications or for examle 1st edition books? Not that easy to find, sure. But existant and therefore perfectly verifiable. Why should we not be able to check them? As long as they existed at some point there is a chance that somebody of us has a copy. I think we have (or had and it is gone?) a list somewhere who had what (never complete of course). Presumably some kind of central "Source material request page" would be in order. Thoughts? --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum]] ([[User talk:Inquisitor S.|talk]]) 08:23, 21 November 2018 (MST)
:::1st Edition existed. For example I have all scans from this time and could check truthfulness of information at any time. Materials, for example, about the [[Steel Confessors]] don't existed now (as of GW). They were presented by GW in 2005 year (on the Games Day 2005 but without any book or something), but we CAN'T check it because the WebArchive don't have this page and the man who added information about Steel Confessors is also couldn't be contacted with. Were Steel Confessors presented on GW 2005 site? Yes they were. Could ALL information added in article Steel Confessors real and canon or it is just own fanfic of adeptus who added this page (and the page http://steelconfessors.angelfire.com/) ? We can't say. On the other side somebody who visited Steel Confessors article must be warned about that. That's my opinion.--[[User:Darkelf77|Darkelf77]] ([[User talk:Darkelf77|talk]]) 11:51, 21 November 2018 (MST)
::::Tut tut tut, I am sure you wanted to say that you have all 1st edition books in paper, as publicly stating that you possess illegal scans of copyrighted
material would be ... not wise ;) As to your example of the ''Steel Confessors'': If there was a leaflet published on GW Games Day that is an official source. If the article therefore has been properly sourced by a reliable Lexicanum editor that is fine. If the article has ''not'' been sourced properly or there is reasonable reason to doubt the editor in question the info has to be removed. The Angelfire website can be discarded as reliable info, it is not official and therefore to be treated as fanfluff. And is therefore not an accepted source. Very clear case: remove all that is not from an official source and if need be the whole article has to be deleted. In the case of Tezla the case is even clearer: Specialist Games is (was) 100% GW company. Therefore everything published there is an official source. Plus we can check it (as for example I have copies of many/ most all SG files which are also legal and can be shared for research because they were published from the beginning as freely available files). So the two cases are very different. And as I said, one of the point of collaborative work is to be able to pool resources to check content. Therefore my suggestion of using a central page to coordinate such efforts. --[[User:Inquisitor S.|Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum]] ([[User talk:Inquisitor S.|talk]]) 12:07, 21 November 2018 (MST)
