Jump to content

Talk:Warhammer Fantasy (setting)

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


Warhammer Fantasy Battle

[edit]

I'm confused. What's the difference between this article and Warhammer Fantasy Battle? The beginning of this article says that "warhammer is a setting" and the other article says that "warhammer is a game". If this is true, I'm going to suggest either re-labling the articles as "Warhammer (Setting)" "Warhammer (Game)"

It seems like this would GREATLY add to the cleaning up of the warhammer articles on wikipedia, which in my opinion are disorganized and terrible. I Made a major contribution to the wood elves article, and the article has remained basically the same as i left it (last year). When I have time, I will crusade to clean up the warhammer articles. But until then, this article either needes to be renamed, moved, or merged. I'm going to add the 'merge' tag until i get a response.

EDIT: I've moved the article. WHFB is now the article on the game, and this article is the article on the SETTING. I've modified the template as such.

Now it's just a matter of getting making this article more... good. It needs to talk more about the setting, because right now its basically still the same article as WHFB.

Getting rid of the Merge tag, replacing with a cleanup tag.

If you were to merge this page into the setting page how masive would the resolting page be? It would be cleaner and easier to delete the merge tag and then just add more relevent information about setting into it, that way you don't have unrelevent info and people can come and look at magic without having to pick their way around other non-magic stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.176.9 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Clean Up This Article By Making It More to Do With The Actual Setting, And Not the WHFB Game

[edit]

Gaming groups

[edit]

How about adding Gaming groups to this article? ie: WCP and other groups, also a link to various Independent GrandTournements wouldnt be bad either --Stillborn 21:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a seperate page for tournaments would be better?--Melkior 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but where is the line drawn should every tournament have a page or just the large ones such as the nemesis crown and the storm of chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.96.86 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting section

[edit]

I think the "collecting" part should be completely redone or eliminated. The current version of this page is showing more of an opiniated answer (stating it is seen as a hobby that costs a lot of money") instead of an informative answer (how it is collectible and why). Bragador 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major overhaul

[edit]

I'd like to do a major overhaul to this page, and mimic the layout of the 40k entry. Any objections or suggestions? I plan on using the following format:

  1. introduction
  2. history
  3. game
  4. overview and current play
  5. collecting
  6. modelling
  7. background
  8. setting
  9. geography
  10. timeline
  11. armies
  12. notable characters
  13. spin-offs
  14. other miniature games
  15. computer games
  16. other products

--Morskittar 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edited and updated. Please give it a good look and refine where needed. I think the WFB page itself could use updated army descriptions as well (perhaps from a more specific game-related perspective). --Morskittar 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the stuff you added does not belong here, but rather to the Warhammer Fantasy Battle article. This article is about the setting itself, not about any of the specific games set in it. Ausir 21:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
you are all wrong warhammer is an expensive hobby an d should be portrayed as so —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaffers (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 December 2005
Warhammer Fantasy Battle is, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay isn't very expensive :). Ausir 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, as it is the setting article rather than a specific game one, the nations section should be edited into more of a list of Warhammer races than a list of Warhammer Battle armies. Ausir 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wiki project?

[edit]

40,000 players have a project going to help organize their stuff... are you guys doing it too, or not? I think it's a good idea. (PS: don't ask me about anything. All I know about Warhammer is in Skaven) Colonel Marksman 18:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good idea. i was actually working on that a bit a while back; just going through and cleaning up pages and linking everything together; we really should actually get a project or something started though,WP:WARHAMMER or something, there is an awful lot of stuff about the warhammer universe that isnt even mentioned at all, we need some vets as well, just for the farther back stuff etc. And even if all you know is Skavem, then you can do the skaven stuff; im way into orcs + gobbos, and i dont know much else, so its the same kinda thing. -- Gizzakk 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right then. This is what I did: I made guidelines for Warhammer 40,000 for articles on:
* Armies
* Planets
* Technology (for Armies)
I can do some revising to my guidelines and rewrite them to help fit guidelines for the Fantasy. (And to avoid confusion and controversy, WP:WARHAMMER FANTASY would be better I think. Colonel Marksman 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any support for an overall Warhammer Fantasy project? GraemeLeggett 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support it. However, there is a vast amount of work to be done. Much of the Warhammer material has been written from an in-universe perspective, which goes against WP:WAF, and there are very few secondary sources which could be cited for verifiability purposes. --Davémon 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title Picture

[edit]

The 40k players used to have model(s) up at the top, but have replaced the main (first) picture with the latest Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. What do you think? Colonel Marksman 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we would want a map of the Old World, or even better, the map of the entire world, which I have seen on a few occasions. This runs into copyright problems howver, though. Perhaps if someone had a digital scan of a promotional map included in White Dwarf at some point? That would qualify as advertising and I believe that would have it fall under fair use. -- Gizzakk 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, still not sure about fair use, it isn't exactly advertising... Nikevs 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:

[edit]

I vote we merge this page with the selected merge page, as the two are pratically one in the same. Warhammer is the overall brand, then branching off into Warhammer 40k, Warhammer Fantasy etc. Warhammer Fantasy & WH F Battle are the same! Merge the buggers! Spawn Man 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Ogre Kingdoms

[edit]

Ogre Kingdoms - Massive Eastern barbarians who will do any work for gold and eat anything (and anyone!) to fill their bellies. Some consider the ogres to be based largely on the Siberian tribes including Mongolians, Turks, Tungusic, Merkits and Tatars. As ogres are guided solely by their stomachs they spread devastation and destruction wherever they go, they are often considered to be an "evil" army. Ogres can end up fighting for any side in a battle as their lust for food and fighting often causes them to be hired as mercenaries by other races.

This paragraph detailing the Ogre Kingdoms is under "The Realms of Men and their Allies", i'll not even go into how wrong that heading is (actually I will, the nations of men are only nominally allied, otherwise Empire players and Bretonnian players could never play a game). The Ogres are no one's "allies". All the Ogre are subservient to Greasus Goldtooth, the Overtyrant, and his tribe, and Greasus has no formal alliances with other nations or races beyond the quasi-alliance with the Chaos Dwarves (which is itself undefined).

As well, the Eurasian tribe above refered to as the "Mongolians" are called the Mongols. A Mongolian is someone from the nation of Mongolia, not a member of the ethnic/tribal group (though such a person may in fact be Mongolian, the fact remains that the tribe was called the Mongols). I'm also failr certain (though not 100%), that the Turks were a Eurasian tribal group but a Middle Eastern one (perhaps they are somewhere in between?).

Why do the Lizardmen and the Orcs qualify for their own subheading ("Servants of the Old Ones" and "Greenskins" repectively), while the Dwarfs are under "The Realms of Men and their Allies"? The High Elves are also allies of Men, but they are under "The Elven Nations".

On the topic of the Elves, the article refers to "Dark Elves", "High Elves", and "Wood Elves" are nations. These are not nations but rather ethnicities or cultural groups of Elves. The High Elf nation is Ulthuan, and the Dark Elf nation is Naggaroth, while the Wood Elves have no formal nation, but rather a loose alliance of feudal territories united by ethno-cultural bonds and semi-subservience to Ariel and Orion (rather in the ilk of the Empire).

"Some consider...lol"

[edit]

I had to laugh when I read "Some consider it to be similar to the French armies before the Hundred Years' War, combined with a heavy dose of Arthurian Myth."

and

"Some consider the Empire to be heavily based upon the real-world Holy Roman Empire, especially during the Renaissance."

Those two races/armies, Bretonnia and the Empire ARE based on the French of the Hundred Years War and the Holy Roman Empire, respectively. Anyone who argues this is historically ignorant beyond belief.--Jesse 12:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have verifiable sources supporting your view which you are going to add to the article? Please remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Cheers --Pak21 12:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I was going to add anything to the article; I know about your little monopoly on Warhammer/40k here and how quick you are with reporting the slightest changes you don't agree with to the moderators/wiki staff. This is a discussion page, so I am discussing. Veryfiable and Truth are all fine and dandy..but what about the blatantly obvious? The 5th edition Bretonnian book had Joan of Arc in it for cryin' out loud.--Jesse 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that to the article as a citation would be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Personal attacks such as your previous comments are not. --Pak21 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." Nice try. --Jesse 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Can somebody help me explain this for me? When and why is this said?

" Amid the darnkess and horror of a world splintering apart, the armies of the true creators, we who were ancient at the dawn of time, will march forth once more. We shall sweep away all that is chaos and disorder, for ours is the true path, and none shall defy us. "
Venrable Lord Kroak


NorwegianMarcus 11:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to just be some flavor text suggesting that someday the Lizardmen will conquer the world. But this isn't a messageboard to discuss the backstory. I would suggest googling messageboards devoted to Warhammer and asking them. Cheers! --DarthBinky 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer

[edit]

i started linking all the links to the Warhammer article that meant for this one here, but i gave up, as there are millions of them. please if you link a page here, add it as [[Warhammer Fantasy|Warhammer]] to link here directly, or, when talking specifically about Warhammer fantasy battle, Warhammer fantasy rpg, or the warhammer computer games, link directly there io to 'warhammer'.

there is a direct link on top of the war hammer article though. but shouldnt this page say 'Warhammer (Fantasy)', or is 'Warhammer Fantasy' the official name?--Lygophile 16:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer Fantasy (as in Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) is used to distinguish it from Warhammer 40k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.151.23.177 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 November 2006
If we're getting picky, the official Games Workshop page uses "Warhammer" for this and "Warhammer 40,000" for W4k. It seems to me that they should know more about it than we do.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man versus Himself?

[edit]

The primary theme of Warhammer Fantasy should not be described as Man Versus Himself. To claim that the demon lords and wicked deities are elements of man's own nature *within* the fiction of the Warhammer setting is not supported by the majority of fiction nor any widely available game rules. To claim that the entire game is superceded by a single interpretation and game-play style is egotistical in the extreme. I think it best to eliminate that interpretation of primary conflict and rather to note that the conflict in the Warhammer Fantasy universe is multitudinous as per most dark fantasy and swords and sorcery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.31.139 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

map of world

[edit]

hey, if anyone has a map of the entire warhammer world as published with WD300 could they post it on the page under the geography section? that would clarifie things greatly. (plus -- its a great map!!) --minamato 21:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great copyrighted map! a link to a picture on the GW website would be reasonable. GraemeLeggett 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is there a picture on the GW site? i was looking and i haven't found it. besides, all you have to do is list the fact that its copyrighted in its page. if you go on Google and image search warhammer map all the pictures you get are copyrighted.minamato 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hey!! i found one!! ill post the link minamato 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The big list of factions

[edit]

I brought up something about this over at the Warhammer Fantasy Battle talk page. Cheers --DarthBinky 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there too. GraemeLeggett 09:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[warhammer fantasy]]

[edit]

why, if 'warhammer fantasy' does link here, does [[warhammer fantasy|Warhammer]] give Warhammer and not a hyperlink to this article?--Lygophile 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because wikilinks are case sensitive. The article is Warhammer Fantasy. If you make your link [[Warhammer Fantasy|Warhammer]], it will work. As in Warhammer. - Heavens To Betsy 13:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i know it works with capitals, but other articles i can link to via a wikilink (such as elves giving the page Elf), why not this one?. I have spoken 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it probably links to a redirect page. minamato 06:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page name again

[edit]

"Warhammer Fantasy" isn't an official title. This should probably live at Warhammer (fantasy) or the like instead. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 11:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official title that I am aware of but since its the first element of Warhammer Fantasy battle and roleplay and serves to distinguish between it and WH 40,000. There is no particular issue within wikipedia with the title as the moment. Warhammer (game setting) would probably do. GraemeLeggett 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not a biggie, but I find it a bit odd that the current title of the WFB article is, well, WFB. The official title has been "just Warhammer" since 1993 or so. GW always prefer "the Warhammer world" and the like and always use just-Warhammer. Chris Cunningham 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a case of most common usage over official. GraemeLeggett 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most common usage is "Warhammer". People only every elaborate on that where they need to differentiate between fantasy and 40k. We can't have Warhammer due to the existence of, well, warhammers, but we shouldn't be using a made-up term in its place, should we? Chris Cunningham 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to WFB in my last comment. GraemeLeggett 13:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I haven't heard anyway call the tabletop game WFB in real life, well, ever :) Chris Cunningham 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps its an age/culture thing. I've been playing GW stuff for some 20 or so years now. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cold turkey myself for nearly ten years, actually. The last edition actually called WFB was third, wasn't it? Anyway, yeah, we always generally just referred to it as "Fantasy" is "Warhammer" was going to be ambiguous. Chris Cunningham 10:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect from Warhammer Fantasy

[edit]

I, and an IP addressed individual have different ideas about this matter. They seme to adhere to the position that redirecting to WFB is correct. While (having reviewed the links to the page) assert that the majority are directed to the general setting. for th emoment Warhammer Fantasy is now a disambig page. GraemeLeggett 09:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a wikiproject

[edit]

Warhammer Fantasy is a growing franchise. Now with an MMORPG launching imminently, and with over two dozen books based on the setting, in addition to the tabletop strategy game and the tabletop roleplaying game... Something must be done to keep it organized. I'm personally going to start with the books, and since I'll be playing the MMORPG, I'm sure I'll be contributing in that regard as well.--Ifrit (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge minor entities

[edit]

Most entries from places in Template:Warhammer Fantasy should be merged here. Or perhaps Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. I don't think any have stand-alone notability. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus: agreed, none of them are notable in their own right, save for the Empire. The Verified Cactus 100% 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Warhammer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– Move due to the move of Warhammer Fantasy to Warhammer (game). Per WP:CONSISTENT the "Fantasy" should be removed. "Factions of Warhammer" was inspired by Factions of Halo as a more concise way to describe the subject. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Warhammer Fantasy Battle was moved 07:48, 24 October 2018 by User:Kurzon with the edit summary "This is the last name it had". While the move wasn't preceded by a discussion, that isn't mandatory. And since the move appears to have been uncontested at the time, User:the wub, consensus is implied. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's complicated: Is "Warhammer World" really the common name for the (now defunct) Fantasy Battle game? Unless and until this can be demonstrated, I'm opposing the move. Besides, the rationale given, that we "should" do a move based on a previous move, is less convincing. Please argue for this move on its own merits. Thank you. As for the Races and Nations page, I suggest we hold off any change, unbundling the current two-page move. Let's first resolve the move of this page. Then we can discuss the other page. Why? Because to me there are two parts: the nom wants to replace "of Warhammer Fantasy" with "of Warhammer" which I can understand, given the name of the game. But the switch from "Races and nations" to "Factions" is not supported by any arguments. A proper discussion on its talk page - unconnected to this requested move - would be best.
CapnZapp (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the common name for the game. It's the common name for the setting in which both the war game and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay are set. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but please demonstrate this so we don't have to take your word for it. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that it meets WP:NATURAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear, and, if so, I apologize. I contest the claim "Warhammer World is the common/natural name for the setting", and thus this article. Please provide references supporting your claim, User:Necrothesp. Also again: Please argue for this move on its own merits. So far, the main argument for this move is due to the move of another article. This link is tenous at best, and have already been questioned in this requested move discussion. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Drafting Skaven page

[edit]

Draft:Skaven (Warhammer)

I believe the Skaven deserve their own standalone page. They are unique IP to Games Workshop. I'm looking for sources and help in creating the page. If you can help please do. Lankyant (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent some sources and pictures to your talk page. Cheers Skullovitch (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warhammer_Fantasy_(setting)&oldid=1222899893"