Talk:Devotees of the Primordial Truth

Non-canon

This isn't canon content, it's literally homebrew. Prospero whispers (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's from an official GW publication. Read the rules Harriticus (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an official GW publication, but the article is about the community team doing some kitbashing and showing off the versatility of the new Cadian command squad kit. I feel like it's pretty clear from the writing that the backgrounds they've included are not really written in the employee's capacity as official representatives of Games Workshop and the 40k universe; it's just back story for the cool conversions they wanted to showcase. Sure, strictly by the wiki rules, the fact that it's mentioned in an official publication is all it needs, and defining canon for a universe as large as 40k's is always going to be impossible in edge cases, but this does feel like a bit of a stretch.

I was going to say that you wouldn't make an article for the Court of the Fisher King that was made by a player and shown on Warhammer Community as a showcase of some excellent hobby work, but I guess we would. --Mikaka (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With an appropriate disclaimer we would indeed. Officially published is officially published, see also here. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That Accepted Sources article and the quotes it includes from authors is really helpful for understanding the problem of defining canon for 40k, thanks for pointing me to it. I suppose what I'm having more of an issue with here is what Wikipedia would call Notability, basically is a subject notable enough to deserve an article. I don't believe there is a similar standard for articles here, with the only guideline being "is it mentioned in an accepted source". Which is fine! Not every wiki needs to conform to the Wikipedia standard. But I think that it causes issues like articles for things that have barely more than a sentence or two for a source, like this one. That's a much larger topic than can be hashed out in a talk page, though. --Mikaka (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the "Accepted sources" help article with the "canonicity" subsection exactly for that reason: to be able to reference it when a "canon" discussion comes up (again). And indeed the Lexicanum explicitly and deliberately does not have a "notability" criterium. I am sure I also put that down *somewhere*. Anyways... so you are theoretically free to list all 2,567 subspecies of the Catachan Minor Juice Leech with individual articles - as long as the appropriate sources are provided of course. No scrap of info too small, so to speak. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)