User talk:Inquisitor S./Archive

B

Black Library links

Would we be able to work on fixing the links that let us purchase books at the Black Library? The Lexicanum pages for books show links that let us purchase the books. A few of the links do not work. Waiting123456

1.) Please insert subheadings when starting a new topic, thx.

2.) I do not understand. If there are non-working links and there are links in existence with the same content (=because theyare used as sources) just replace them. But keep also in mind that the purpose of the Lexicanum is not exactly to drum up business for the Black Library or anybody else. So keeping track or not if all purchase links work or not is not our task. Keeping track of links used as sources on the other hand is. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

D

To users whose user (talk) pages have recently been deleted

I am in the process of cleaning up the user database and am deleting the content from thousands of unused or inactive (for years) accounts (note: Lexicanum webspace is reserved for active contributors). The cut-off date is the 31 December 2017, if you have been active after this date and your page was emptied this was probably by mistake. You can contact me here or on Discord to resolve the issue, thanks and sorry for any incoveniences caused. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Doahht's location: Eastern Fringe vs Ghoul Stars & citing Reddit

Hi Inquisitor S. - I think at this point I have reached out to both Darkelf77, Harriticus and now yourself. I'll try to keep it short:

• The tomb world where most of the action in Severed (Novella) happens is cited as being: on the far eastern fringe which the humans called the Ghoul Stars.
• Eastern Fringe and Ghoul Stars seem to be different regions in space, within (or bordering) the Ultima Segmentum, as shown here and here
• After sending a message to Severed (Novella) author Nate Crowley, he clarified he meant the Ghoul Stars
• I added the archived screenshot of Nate's message as a source to clarify this in Doahht, but was wondering if a reddit message from the Novella author is ok to be used as a source here. Given the confusion I felt when investigating the planet's location, the author's PoV seemed appropriate.

Looking for guidance, Thanks! Makvel (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Longer answer: 1.) reddit is not an official source and there is no way you can conclusively prove somebody is who they claim to be. 2.) Even if we assume that is a legit account it would be a statement made in a private capacity and therefore not be usable within the main body text. 3.) GW and names is just... see here. PLus GW is realllllly shit with maps. Always has been, always will be. 4.) A Trivia note can be added if it is really clear Eastern fringe and Ghoul Stars are mutually exclusive. From a cursory glance I would say it is not. The Eastern fringe could well reach up there I guess. And even if not it could still be a more generic Eastern fringe than just THE Eastern Fringe. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are some really good insights, in particular, in the Novella's original text "eastern fringe" is not capitalized, so it has to be talking about "the fringe of the segmentum" rather than THE Eastern Fringe. This is enough to support the author's PoV. Will remove his message. Thanks! Makvel (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I try to be even-handed. But I also have to keep an eye on a more or less logical handling. That is why "Out-of-official-publications" are always a priori considered a grey area that has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. And event then they normally end up in trivia and notes. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

dubious info

A lot of the information you’re deleting is properly cited and I can confirm in the cases of Marneus Calgar, Arven Rauth, and Ulrach Brathan it was also accurate Harriticus (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2019 (MDT)

As far as I am concerned and already having been occupied weeks with just cleaning up (and still probably weeks ahead of me) behind that illiterate, banned idiot everything he ever wrote is dubious. In some cases he plainly made up info that was nowhere to be found in the cited sources, in other cases he left out the most elementary info but did include long paragraphs about completely irrelevant details. Add to that an atrocious writing style. I am not longer going to waste any of my time trying to salvage stuff there (apart from very basic operations in isolated cases). Frankly it would take me less time to just create an article from scratch than repairing the "work" of our special friend who likes to phone in with threats (see BoLS).

If you feel like signing off for specific pieces of info he included (and fixing potential problems) you can feel absolutely free to copy/paste that info from history section (where everything remains available) and re-insert them under your name. And your responsability, obviously ;) No problem or objection with that from my side. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (MDT)

I'll revert the Calgar, Rauth, and Brathan as I've already reviewed those and they're accurate. I've reviewed the sources and they're accurate as far as I can see. I'll check other works of his over time and see if they're accurate as well. I agree with Axelhansons ban especially in light of the phone threats but if the material is accurate and cited I don't think it matters who makes it. Harriticus (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2019 (MDT)

As I said: no problem. There are some articles which I also checked in depth with the original source and massively modified. Those I will leave, because I did verify/ modify the content. if you proceed accordingly I do not see a problem. But unverified that stuff cannot stay. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)

I

Iron Warriors Citation's

I noticed you put in a lot of citation notices on the Iron Warriors article for things such as lists of battles and characters. I'm not sure how necessary they are, given the linked articles themselves are cited. I can understand citing something listed if it doesn't have its own article but otherwise I think this just produces visual distractions for readers without providing much necessary information. I think the policy of needing to provide additional citations for linked articles on lists needs to be reexamined. Harriticus (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

See here. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

Okay, thanks. Though I'm not sure how practical a policy it is for the Iron Warriors article as it'd require about 150 or so new citations. Harriticus (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

Well, I doubt it will be that many. And as I wrote on the Help talk page: there are serious problems with not requiring one reference source. I noticed that again in the Known members list of the Iron Hands... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

P.S.: Don't forget that the list of allegedly "notable" Iron Warriors should be reduced to a handful! That should likewise dramatically reduce the need for new sources. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

N

Necron page citations

Hi Inquisitor! Was busy with IRL for a bit but I have made some small Necron lore contributions. As I was giving the main Necron page a revision, I couldn't help but notice the "This article needs work on its citations." message at the sources section of the page. I'm thinking of adding more inline citations when time allows, but is there anything else that needs to be addressed? Reading Lexicanum:Citation, it appears to say nothing about how the sources are ordered. What would I need to do to help fix it? Thanks! Makvel (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed reply. And with the multitude of missing/problematic sources in so many articles I am also not aware of each specific case. That being said I had a short look at the Necron article case and I don't know who or when placed the general "cite" template there. But I assume there was a reason for this. And I equally assume that since then you and others have done extensive work on the sources. I have marked some further instances in the article where sources are still missing now. So those still would have to be resolved. But I removed the general and not very helpful general template in the Sources section. Please also note some formatting changes.

Regarding the ordering of sources there is no rule. This has practical reasons: Unfortunately it is just not feasible to rearrange all sources every time a new source is added. So the numbering is more or less the chronology in which the sources were used to edit the article. Plus we do not really use a "hierarchy" of sources. That being said it is strongly recommended and wished-for that within the same source the individual source parts should be logically arranged, i.e. do not put 17a: pg. 105, 17b: pg. 2, 17c: pg. 300, 17d: pg. 59 etc. but sort them in ascending order.

Was that helpful as an answer? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The Source #1 (without 'a' or 'b') of the Necron article still not cited...--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't allow a #1 by its own anyway if we have 1a and 1b... If there is more than one cited part we always start at 1a therefore "1" on its own cannot be a source... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood! The clarifying points were also helpful. Thanks for giving Necron a review, I'll be working on it on-and-off.--Makvel (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Whenever you have more questions you can contact me here or on our Discord. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

P

Greetings!

Thanks for approving my account! I've made a few edits so far, but mostly I ended up building the Kabal of the Onyx Scar page from a one liner into an actual article. Let me know how I did, and if there's anything I could be doing better. I enjoyed reading over the sourcebook, and I think I'd like to fill in the redlinks for Beylix Ireshor and Sacgrave next. :) --Prospero whispers (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Prospero whispers (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Plagiarism on the wiki

I've been expanding articles and finding sources for article subjects. During this, I've noticed large portions of many articles are copied directly from primary sources, which would not be justifiable as fair use. I've been rewriting articles where I've found this to be the case, so as to avoid infringement.

I was adding pages for the newly mentioned World Eaters warbands earlier today. Whilst doing so another user, Dram, jumped in to add the fourth of these. Besides obvious edit conflict this created, the text of this article was also substantially taken from the Warhammer Community article. I contacted Dram about this, but Dram does not seem to understand why this would be a problem, and admits regularly copying text from Warhammer Community in this way. Dram suggested I contact you regarding this, so I am doing so now. --Prospero whispers (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• To be fair, what I actually wrote is that no one has had an issue with how I summarized the information from Warhammer Community before. I've never copied an article and then entered it into the Lexicanum as is. If you look at the first entry of the Bloodstalkers page, before it was edited, you can see that what I wrote is not a copy of the original article. From reading Prospero whispers' entry here and the first entry they made on my talk page, it just seems that they are upset that I wrote the Bloodstalkers article before they did. Dram (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I did consider your pre-emptive page creation rude. It was obvious it would create an edit conflict as I had just made the previous three pages, and I was in the process of writing that one. Your version lifted the wording of the article directly, which is plagiarism. You're wrong to think that I am just "upset" about this, however. I have stated my objection plainly, which is that you are a serial plagiarist. I have been reworking articles to avoid the rampant plagiarism on this wiki, so I am taking action to prevent its continuation. Your version of the Bloodstalkers article is a thinly-veiled copy of the text regarding the warband from the WarCom article - it copies passages directly, with minimal effort to reword. You further plagiarised that article when adding to the pages of the other new warbands. --Prospero whispers (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Besides Dram above, I've started cataloguing pages which just lift wording directly from GW sources. Many of these appear to be written by Harriticus, so perhaps words should be had there. It seems pretty clear the wiki needs to establish templates on sourcing GW official descriptions; italicising and block quoting product descriptions with direct reference would suffice, but at current much of this forms part of the main article text without making clear that it's been copied. Besides the issue of plagiarism and the associated copyright infringement, copying what is essentially advertising copy directly without distinguishing it is lazy and reduces the quality of the wiki. As a reader, I'm interested in lore and the particulars of various texts, I'm not here to be sold a product. --Prospero whispers (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously source texts should be rewritten to an at least acceptable degree in one's own words. Which admittedly can be tricky, especially with short texts. And if you copy sth as a quote italicize it and put quote marks around it. So please to all concerned try to make an effort, be nice and keep the peace. And if somebody is planning on (re)writing an article in the (very) foreseeable future, just slap the {{WIP}} tag on it to prevent editing conflicts. But be aware that this tag can be ignored if this doesn't happen within a reasonable delay. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Checking the list of supposedly "plagiarized" materials, they're essentially all cover descriptions from rulebooks, codices, etc.. Yes, I copy and paste those into the product description pages and it's routine to do so on a lot of fan wikis. He's free to somehow indicate they're official GW product descriptions, put them in quotes or italics, rewrite them, etc.. But I don't consider it a very big issue. 18:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The ones listed are primarily rulebooks because I went through the publications infobox checking whether they were blanket copies of those, which was easy to confirm.

Others only become apparent when looking at the articles with the source material to hand. In Black Descent and Khaine's Gate, large passages have been copied in their entirety from the source material, without clearly indicating that. Even if they were indicated as such, that volume of reproduction is copyright infringement by any measure. In pages like Dharrovar and Custodian Venatari, the source material has been chopped up, largely retaining its original form but scattered about the article. That's outright plagiarism. You need only look at the page on Dharrovar from Rift War to see that the Lexicanum page has been blatantly ripped from it. I have no doubt that I will continue to find many more examples of this as I continue editing.

You suggest that I should amend these pages by placing them in italics or rewriting them, as if it is my responsibility to make sure that other editors aren't plagiarising material. It doesn't matter whether it is common on other fan wikis, it's plagiarism and copyright infringement regardless. That you "don't consider it a very big issue" makes me think that you will carry on doing so.

I would like to help make this wiki better, but I have no illusions that I will do so by myself. I am certain that I can contribute a lot to the wiki: I have the knowledge, time, ability, and motivation to research topics and synthesise information. I have already been very active in rewriting and expanding pages, and I have committed a lot of time already to delving through sources to add missing information. Regardless of how much effort I am willing to put in however, I am only one person.

I am not trying to make enemies. Rather, I am trying to come to an understanding with you folks. I want the wiki to be the foremost publicly available resource on 40K. I want it to be well-written, accessible to read, and contain comprehensive information on the weird and wonderful world of 40K. I believe we share these goals.

To that end, I want to push for better standards. Copying marketing material and plagiarising official publications only makes the wiki a worse resource overall. Besides the legal and moral issues, having pages haphazardly cut from snippets of published material makes the tone of the wiki inconsistent. And, as I said before, as a reader I don't want to read an advert when I'm trying to read lore.

You guys have done a great job rounding up information from far-flung publications, and I've gotten a lot of enjoyment and insight from reading the wiki over the years. I'm here because I think it could be even better still, and I'd like to help you achieve that. --Prospero whispers (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Looking at the Dharrovar Page right here, it doesn't bare any real resemblance.

https://i.imgur.com/Vg8Yfac.png

The Lexicanum version is basically cliffnotes of this, which is what a wiki should be doing. The information is "scattered about" as you put it because people took the information and transmitted it onto the page in a different fashion. Again, what a wiki does.

I'm sure you can find many more examples over the 17 years this site has existed, a sentence here or there is enough for you to make a whole new list of complaints. But outside of the official product pages and one very old Grey Knights battle article from a decade ago I've been meaning to rewrite (but don't have the name of on hand right now) there's no consistent problem of copy and pasting word for word verbatim like the wikia 40k wiki does.

And it more or less your responsibility to revert the product pages to your liking, because this practice is common on a lot of fan wikis like Marvel, Halo, Game of Thrones, etc.. Dram and I have made thousands of articles over the years and I don't see an issue with it. 02:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is the Dharrovar article as it appears currently on Lexicanum, with sections that are taken directly from published articles bolded:

Dharrovar is a Fallen Knight World, that is home to the Traitorous Knight House Mandrakor

Dharrovar is barren, cold, and mountainous. Much of its land mass is covered in lines of jagged ridges made of razor-shop rocks. Deep ravines run between these natural walls, with fast-flowing icy streams at their bottom that commonly feature treacherous rapids and currents. Close to the edge of the Great Rift, Dharrovar is heavily touched by the powers of the Warp and local wildlife is heavily mutated. The hardy people of the world are fanatically loyal to their Knightly masters, even as they fell into treachery.

Its Knights are among the forces that are resisting the Imperium's efforts to claim the Nachmund Gauntlet, which is the only stable and safe route to the worlds of the Imperium Nihilus.

Omega-Threx is a nearby Forge Moon allied with Dharrovar and run by the Dark Mechanicum. It supplies the Knights of Dharrovar with all of their munitions, expertise, and maintenance as well as soldiers and engines. It is currently ruled over by Fabricator-General Astamorkhus Grine-Theta.

Dharrovar was ruled over by an ancient dynasty of Knights under King Kaligius. Since the formation of the Great Rift the king grew paranoid and treated many seeking refuge or parlay with suspicion. He became so fiercely independent that he was been declared Excommunicate Traitoris by the Adeptus Terra.

Not all of the House's Knights followed Kaligius into treachery, however, and a civil war broke out within the House. Some loyalist Knights also escaped Dharrovar and acted as Freeblades, battling with the Imperium on Vigilus.

During the Nachmund Rift War, Imperial forces launched a major offensive aimed at recapturing Dharrovar. However with the arrival of Haarken Worldclaimer's armies the Imperials were forced to abandon the siege.

The opening sections, which are very obviously plagiarised, are in the image you linked. They're at the start and in the section "Of Rock and Steel". The section on Omega-Threx is ripped from page 12. Astamorkhus Grine-Theta is unsourced in that article, but he's mentioned on page 33. The other parts that are bolded are from Vigilus Defiant and the 8E Chaos Knights dex.

Copying a passage and then changing a few words is still plagiarism, and that article is profoundly plagiarised. --Prospero whispers (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking through more pages and comparing them to the sources they reference. Many of the Necromunda articles I've checked have been blatantly plagiarised, with only minimal rewording if that. I've been listing these on my user page with the specific sources they copy from. Notably, the wiki contains text directly copied from several recent Games Workshop publications, such as Necromunda: The Book of Judgement.

The users responsible for these keep coming up as Dram and Harriticus. Given Harriticus's comment above about he and Dram having made thousands of articles, I think you folks are going to need to accept the reality that huge portions of this wiki have been plagiarised. I'll continue to document these instances as I find them, but this really doesn't look good for Lexicanum as a project. --Prospero whispers (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Move requests

I've got a few page moves I'd like to request, and I'll add them here to avoid continuously making new sections.

For a start, Warhammer Conquest should probably be moved to Warhammer 40,000: Conquest Magazine in line with Warhammer 40,000: Imperium Magazine. Notably, Warhammer 40,000: Conquest was also the name of a card game produced by Fantasy Flight, so aligning it with the Imperium convention would aid with disambiguation. That card game is also a fantastic source of art and lore, so it would be helpful to establish pages for it. --Prospero whispers (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Webway Portal to Webway portal. Neither of these words are capitalised in recent source texts, so an uncapitalised form (within the constraints of the wiki software) is preferred. --Prospero whispers (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Horus Heresy: Age Of Darkness Rulebook to Horus Heresy: Age of Darkness Rulebook.

Horus Heresy: Age Of Darkness Rulebook (2022) to Horus Heresy: Age of Darkness Rulebook (2022).

Warhammer 40,000: Tooth and Claw to Tooth and Claw, or a disambiguated version.

Warhammer 40,000: Tooth and Claw Sourcebook to Tooth and Claw Sourcebook, or a disambiguated version.

Dark Imperium (Game), Know No Fear (Starter Set), and First Strike use inconsistent naming conventions.

Shadowspear should have a disambiguation tag due to the existence of Shadowspear (Campaign Book).

Many battle boxes/starter sets have lore booklets sharing the same name. It should probably be standard practice to mark box sets with a consistent disambiguation tag to allow their associated sourcebooks to also be written about. --Prospero whispers (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-canon material

I've noticed that Dram's been adding any old thing that's mentioned on Warhammer Community, regardless of whether it's presented as being official lore. The stuff about Imperial Guard Iconarchs is literally taken from a kitbashing article, and the Devotees of the Primordial Truth are homebrew. Neither of these things have any place on Lexicanum per its stated mission. Given that Dram also rampantly plagiarises material and has continued to do so without letting up since my above comments, you should probably just ban the guy.

At any rate, I'm not going to edit for a wiki that puts on airs of authority while plagiarising official sources and publishing homebrew as canon. This wiki is rotten to the core. --Prospero whispers (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Dram contributes enormously to the Lexicanum and actually makes new content instead of making endless demands of others. GW-endorsed Kitbash and white dwarf fan army articles have been added here since the beginning. It's a lower level of canon, but it's still from an official GW publication. Contributors have added battle reports and tournament results in the past since before I even signed up here over a decade ago. Need to stop trying to cause trouble Harriticus (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Harriticus. It really seems like Prospero whispers is more interested in causing drama than actually adding anything to the Lexicanum. Dram (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, guess that was another one of those "good riddance" cases then *yawn*. Or one of the old troublemakers under a new guise. On the issue: Officially published by GW is officially published by GW in whatever form (with an appropriate explanatory note on its genesis). I'll consider this matter closed then. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I had a legitimate desire to help make this wiki better, and I was not seeking to "make trouble". My previous comments in response to this thread were deleted from the edit history, presumably by Harriticus. These included a request to delete my contributions to the wiki.

Dram and Harriticus are both disparaging above about me adding to the wiki, claiming that I was only looking to create trouble and not improve the wiki. I actually *did* a large amount of sustained research on article subjects and added a lot during the period I was editing - I was the most active editor during this time. I had looked through a large number of sources to obtain appropriate references, and I was actively reading primary texts. I was chiefly working on Drukhari articles, and made clear my intent to modernise and expand those articles.

However, it became clear to me quickly there are many problems with Lexicanum which will not be addressed. When I expressed criticism of certain practices and intense disagreement with things I find unethical, this was met very unfavourably. I don't get the impression that Lexicanum is welcoming of new editors, and this is likely why the active editorship is so low. --Prospero whispers (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

S

Steel Confessors

I agree with your overall move of the claims-to-be-the-pamphlet info to the talk page, but why remove the information cited from the pamphlet which was already on the page? PDV (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

I do not understand what you mean, please reformulate. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Before you touched the Steel Confessors page, a number of pieces of information were already on it and cited to the pamphlet. You removed all of them. Why? PDV (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2019 (MDT)

I thought I had made that clear, but now I see that maybe I will have to formulate it more explicitly. Effectively the situation is as follows: We have nothing but the word of a rather obscure, completely unofficial webpage that the content they have is a copy of a pamphlet that nobody of us has actually ever seen or can check. So it is hearsay and we can not accept hearsay as a source. Even displaying that info on the talk page and making the reader aware he can find it there is already stretching our rules to the limit. When (if!) somebody turns up an actual copy of said pamphlet or an official source with the same content, then (and only then!) can we include that info in the article. Clearer now? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (MDT)

I don't agree. The information that was already there was cited; not being able to check the cited source ourselves does not violate policy. Your assumption that the information already there was hearsay is assumption, not fact; for all you know the person who put it there had a physical copy of the pamphlet in their hand while editing the page. PDV (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2019 (MDT)

So if I say that in 2010 I was in England and there was an official Games-Workshop game, where was Chapter named the Humpy-Dumpy Marines who fought with the Burp Marines of Nurgle (I swear you! though I have no booklet of this battle) we must add this information to Lexicanum? Wrong. No approving of information - no article adding in Lexicanum.--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2019 (MDT)

If you can find widespread information verifying that the specific GW game occurred and archived records for it which match a number of details with your description, and a number of people say "Yeah, that sounds like what I remember" and none say "Nah I was there at the time, and you're full of crap", and you have some of the text available and it matches the house style of the writers from that period? Then sure, I guess. PDV (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2019 (MDT)

The removed information violated policy because a) it did not in fact cite the pamphlet as the source but the Angelfire website. So the Angelfire page is definitely not a valid source because it is not an official webpage. And b): The pamphlet itself is a valid source but since we are aware of the apparent crazy rarity of it and because a simple google search will reveal to you that people over the years fruitlessly tried to to get scans or photos of it we have decided that anybody claiming to actually possess it will have to prove it. That is the long explanation. Wether you do agree or not with this reasoning is of course up to you. From a practical point of view however it is me who has to decide how to handle things (i.e. I decided, it is settled until further developments). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2019 (MDT)

No it didn't. It cited the pamphlet. I know because I was the one who added any reference to the Angelfire page to the wiki at all, here. Your premises are incorrect. Furthermore, requiring a higher standard than frigging Wikipedian Deletionists do is... unreal. Even those delete-happy sticklers for policy don't require that every source be trackable. No one disputes that the pamphlet existed and had some elements in common with the Angelfire page. PDV (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2019 (MDT)

So just to make the decision absolutely fire and waterproof I discussed the policy with BigRed. I quote him: "[...]challenge the researcher to spend the time, and do the digging to find the sources and link to them, or scan the cover of a physical copy for evidence[...]". I also quote: "[...]there must be a source somewhere that can be either physically located, or linked to. If no one can find any source for the material - then it is by definition - hearsay.[...]". So until somebody brings us a copy of said flyer the questionable info stays out. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2019 (MDT)

T

TV Series

Thanks for the help lately. By the way, I've added information on two new official (i.e. non-fanmade) TV series being made on Warhammer 40,000 here and here. Given that there's never been this stuff on Lexicanum before due to lack of TV series in the past though thought I'd run it by you. Thanks Harriticus (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2019 (MDT)

Just remarking ans sometimes fixing what I see ;) Re: TV series. Apart from the fact that I am sceptical that they will actually ever see the light of day I agree that the format should be considered. For Angels of Death from quickly looking at it I must say that the three character images basically look the same somehow, I don't know if for an overview article this is really... constructive? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2019 (MDT)

I feel it's the duty of the lexicanum to document 40k material be it lore or the media (ie. books, video games, also tv/movies). In the past we've added stuff like the Ultramarines Movie and short films so thought it was appropriate this time around. There isn't much info to go on at this moment though, but I do think these will actually be made unlike the skew of youtube projects. Harriticus (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2019 (MDT)

No objection that we do include it. Just how it looks best is something to look at. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2019 (MDT)

W

Wolfspear

Here is the Tweet Guy Haley saying he'd use that color scheme in the official canon for the Wolfspear

https://twitter.com/guyhaley/status/1057267183712124929?lang=en

It's semi-canon as far imo Harriticus (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2019 (MDT)

The Colour scheme. That does not mean that the self-fabricated images of the heraldry are now official. That is - if at all - considerably more disputable than "semi-official". Plus Guy Haley is also subject to GW approval, he cannot decide things on his own. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2019 (MDT)

In addition, almost a year has passed, and this information still has not become an official background yet.--Darkelf77 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2019 (MDT)

Fair point. Plus one should not forget that the changes to the article were made by what seems to be a member of that group and (maybe) co-creator of the artwork, so I could at least see a potential conflict of interest. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2019 (MDT)

Alright, I agree. Just thought I'd bring it up for review. Harriticus (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2019 (MDT)

Absolutely justified, these things should be talked about. It also underlines the need for a policy on how to handle private homepages and social media feeds of GW employees and contributors *thumbsup* I will make a note in the Help discussion about it. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2019 (MDT)