Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The Warhammer 40,000 Wikia

There was talk about starting our own wiki to move the articles from this project to, but I think a better solution has come up. I've volunteered to take over the 40k Wikia (as the founder and admins hadn't been around for years) and so I'm now a sysop/Bureaucrat at The Warhammer 40,000 Wikia which has just short of 500 articles. I've been transwikiing articles over there, and I plan to clean up the 40k articles here and move them over. If anyone from the project wants to give a hand, you're more than welcome! --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if it's kosher to set up transwiki templates which would point to Wikia? Or even if we can integrate with WP's usual transwiki system? Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine WP:EL would give us an answer. I haven't read it in detail, but I'd guess "Putting links is not kosher". ;-) As for Wikipedia's transwiki system... You mean like Main Page? I'd guess no there as well. Or do you mean the process of moving articles? I've looked into this and it's confusing, and the project seems to have shut down? That why I came up with my own methods. However, Admins (at the Wikia) can directly upload articles from Wikipedia (see Cherubael, notive how the edit history moved with it!) and anyone from the Wikipedia Project that wants to give me a hand can have admin rights and well get stuff moved. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Infact, here we go: Links normally to be avoided: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we CAN get interwiki links... But I don't know if we:

1. Qualify for them (size/users/etc)
2. If it's koser to put them in Wikipedia

Here's an example: Main Page --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since it's part of Wikia, there is an interwiki link. [[Wikia:Warhammer40k|Main Page]] will link like this: Main Page Pagrashtak 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to know! --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what I meant; I mean, is it okay to set up things like {{copy to wikibooks}} for this work?

By the way, the {{wikia}} template is the best way of adding extlinks:

• Warhammer 40,000 Wiki, an external wiki

Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that in Category:Transwiki templates. In the VG project we use {{Move to gaming wiki}}, which doesn't suggest one particular wiki. I realize that won't work for your needs, though. I think centralizing the transwiki effort at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Mergers And Organization would probably be more effective than tagging the articles in any event. Pagrashtak 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the advantage of the page over the tags is it allows us to set up a clear structure for merges/redirects after we transwiki. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, it's just that my own editing style is heavily based on tagging things and cleaning them up on a later pass. So if anything develops, please post and update. Thanks guys. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can whip up a template for ya then. I need all the help I can get and if I template is going to do it, then a template you shall have! --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Made {{WH-transwiki-from}} and {{WH-transwiki-to}} which are just like the merge templates. I'm not really up-to-date on template syntax and whatnot, so someone else should take a look at them. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

Some of the chapters have been merged, but the section they were moved into needs a good rewrite and clean up. Mainly the work will be shortening these multi-page articles to a few paragraphs. Work can be found here for those interested. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Horus and the Emperor's Children

Horus is listed as being a notable character on the inclusion list, and the Emperor's Children are one of the four main Chaos legions, but every time I try to add them to the Warhammer 40k article Darkson removes them with the message "list is not exhaustive", which is clearly not an issue for these two things.

Note: I'm not a member of this project, by the way. --Muna (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[Copied from my reply to the Warhammer 40,000 talk page.

personally don't have a problem with either being added to the respective list, but the last time this was discussed consensus was against adding anything else to the list. To be honest, I think it's daft that neither ARE listed, but personal opinion isn't what Wikipedia is about. If an unofficial vote is being taken, add my vote for both being added. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Horus is already on the list for inclusion [1], which I stated again and again. --Muna (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it was never added because consensus was that the list was big enough. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Not only is Horus listed there, he was also in the Notable Characters section of the actual page for months - I didn't come along and just add him to it, I just added a link to his name, and you responded by removing his name completely. That's why I'm contesting your edits. --Muna (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd delete the list of variant armies completely. The list is not exhaustive because the number of possible variant armies is far too large to add. Also all of the variant for the Eldar lists like to Eldar Craftworlds four links to the same article is unnecessary. There is also no sourcing for the list. On the matter of Horus I'd put him on the notable characters list but after him no more names need to be added--Cailil ^talk 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Only just seen this (didn't realise my watchlist wasn't displaying "minor" edits).

Yep, I'm going to hold my hand up on Horus - he was there, then someone screwed up the link, then he was deleted, then you put him back, and I reverted it - my bad, and I offer my sincere apologies. I'll put him back (if someone hasn't beaten me to it).Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah!

Good lord, what happened to this place? Are you guys still having trouble with Sanchi or whatever his name was? It's disappointing to see that quite a few articles that used to be o a reasonable standard are now a total mess - particularly Tyranids. Not to be self-righteous, but I'd be happy to start helping out again if there was any assurance that good work won't just be undone by someone else's verbal diarrhoea. My personal opinion - cultivated in part by Pak21's firm hand in telling me where I was going wrong back in the day - is that a large proportion of the content in this wikiproject is either rubbish or undeserving of its own article. I've swung far the other way from where I used to be and would quite happily prune most topics down until they were exceedingly spartan if I had my way - am I alone here or do the experienced contributors share this feeling? Sojourner001 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a bunch of us have given up based on the fact that Wikipedia doesn't seem to want our content. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what sort of content you're referring to. My understanding is that Wikipedia tends to increase in disapproval proportionate to the amount of detail one tries to include - and rightly so, in my opinion. To be truly encyclopedic involves pruning out almost everything that a fan of the subject would like to see and leaving only the pertinent facts. Essentially, an article is detailed enough when a person with no particular interest in the subject can read the article and understand the pertinent facts without getting bored or confused. I'd like to work towards this end, but I have no doubt that I'll meet with hostility on one side and ambivalence on the other. Sojourner001 (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is of course WP:N, almost none of our articles can pass the third party source requirements. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad at least one person other than myself recognises that. My standpoint is therefore:

• The notability guidelines are correct and therefore a lot of our 'material' should probably go, or be heavily condensed;
• Just because other projects on subjects similar to this one (comics, etc) ignore WP:N, doesn't mean we should.

Sojourner001 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. We had a discussion about the best course of action... But not much has been done (mainly because I got tired of being the only one giving it a go and real life and all that). Maybe you could scroll up a little, read the discussion, and see what you think? --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Templars deserve their own page.

I do not agree with those who think that all Second Founding chapters should be merged into the Second Founding page. The Black Templars are a major army with as much fluff as a first founding chapter. And, of course, they have their own codex.

As such, I propose that they be split from the Second Found page and given their own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FerociousBeast (talk • contribs)

They had their own page, and were uploaded to the Second Founding page because they fell foul of WP:N, especially lack of third-party references. If you can find some, then you're in with a chance. If not, then this is probably the best you can hope for (and don't be surprised if the article doesn't get listed for deletion at some point). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability related to fiction: "Articles on a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewings or sales figures, development and other information from reliable sources." The Black Templars have been written about by GW, have a novel out from the Black Library, there are Black Templar miniatures designed and sold to thousands of people around the world, and on the internet, tactics articles are written for their use on the tabletop practically daily.

I would say, in fact, that any army that has an official codex can be considered notable, as an integral component of a notable game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28toys_and_games%29). -FerociousBeast (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My response is 'so?' They have their own codex and are significant within the context of the game; how does this make them an encyclopaedic topic? Ask yourself: is a person who knows nothing about 40k likely to come across the Black Templars independently of Games Workshop marketing material in general? What is unique and special in a literary sense about them? If you're honest with yourself, you probably know the answer to these questions. I do not dispute the validity of such topics in the context of what a curious person may be interested in reading about; but that doesn't make them suitable for their own entry in an encyclopaedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sojourner001 (talk • contribs)

And articles by GW/novels by BL (part of GW) are not 3rd party. Nor are random tactics articles on the 'net by random people. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you apply this criticism consistently, then there will be only one entry for Warhammer 40,000 on wikipedia. The Warhammer 40,000 page. If that's what you want, fine, but there are plenty of people who will be searching for more info on the rich W40k backstory, and if Wikipedia does not supply it, some other site somewhere will. -FerociousBeast (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why Falconian set up The Warhammer 40,000 Wikia as mentioned a couple of sections above this one. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn't set it up, I just took it over... If you have an article you want copied it's really easy for me to do it. Just leave me a note on my talk page or add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Trans-wikied#Articles for Transwiki. I've fallen way behind recently due to real life, but I'm always free to move stuff. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)

Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) has been tagged for notability. I have, of course, downloaded and am transwikiing it as we speak. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

VFDs

Blackstone Fortress and Age of Apostasy. Both have been transwiki'd. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG

A project to help out the 40k articals? Im in. For the Greater Good! Im a Tau player so assign me to anything that has to do with the Tau. --Jpchewy01 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

you guys have got a job on your hands

Taking a random look at the articles within this project, if I currently edited them to letter of policy and guidelines, then most would be blank or would be a paragraph at most. can I suggest you all concentrate your efforts on a single area - such as legions, once they have been scrubbed, you move onto the next area. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, this was my fault - I went to WP:AN/I to ask for advise on what to do about an editior that refuses to discuss edits, and although no-one could be bothered to answer my question, it just brought the "in-universe" "problem" to Allemandtando's attenetion.

Moral of the story? Don't ask for advise. >:( Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 12:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And I suugest that those that understand the trans-wiking process, and are registered on the 40K wikia get on with coping/moving the articles, while they're still there - at least you can get the complete versions from the history, but the way Allemandtando is going, they might not be for long. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think there is really anyone still here - I get the impression that while the work was proposed almost six months, that everyone jumped ship to the warhammer wiki. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, having slept on it, and seeing the mini-edit wars that have sprung up overnight, I no longer care - hopefully someone will have, or will, get round to trans-wiking all the articles, s o at least they'll be in a "fun" state somewhere.

I'm off to remove all 40K pages from my watch list. Allemandtando - good luck with your cruft-killing. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 08:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't have the energy to continue the transwiki'ing. At one point I was going to write a bot to do it... (Since I've already automated the whole process here.) But I'm busy with real life. However, as long as the articles aren't deleted, they're still exportable, so I suppose I can always catch up later... --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am about scrub an entire article for GFDL breach - Second Founding

People here are breaching the GFDL with Second Founding - when we want to merge information from articles into another, we have to take the steps outlined at WP:MM, this step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL and ensure that proper attribution is given. Copying and paste whole articles is against the GFDL because it breaks the chain of attribution and in effect, the person doing the cut and paste is claiming the work as their own - that's why we have merges --Allemandtando (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Content moved from Allemantando talkpage

moved here because it's sensible for this stuff to be captured by the project.

Warhammer ding-dong

I haven't seen your edits to Warhammer articles but as long as you're getting rid of anything without a blue superscripted number after it, I'm with you. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you support this guy, even though you haven't even bothered to look at the articles, nor take into account what the people who use these articles think. Your fanaticism for Allemandtando is appalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.191.254 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, right? My fanaticism for maintaining wikipedia as a source of verifiable information coming from reliable sources on notable subjects is all that is operative here. I haven't seen this user before today (Aside from a few AfD's). Protonk (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a matter of removing uncited information, it's a matter of removing it because it was 'in-universe perspective.' This is not a matter of fixing an article that had lots of uncited information. This is a matter of slashing and burning 90% of articles because the guy is too lazy to fix it properly, with an army of people who have no idea what they're doing reverting it back to the ridiculously undersized article. And to the two of you beneath this: Stop that.--Project Kurtz (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but 90% of the time stuff doesn't get "fixed" or "improved". Cite tags sit forever. Inline tags sit longer. Unless an article sees LOTS of broad interest or a deep look from narrowly interested wikipedians, it will languish. And intertia is a powerful force. If an article starts out long and full of cruft, then it is hard to make marginal improvements to it and get something decent. It is much easier if the article is shorter. the information is still here (histories). Other projects (a warhammer-pedia) could copy/paste it. But most of it doesn't fit into wikipedia's umbra. Protonk (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a vast difference between shortening an article by shaving down on useless details, excessive information, and such, and cutting out gigantic amounts of pertinent information just because it's "in-universe perspective." That's all I'm saying.--Project Kurtz (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I respect that. But I think that shaving is unhelpful at times. In this case (the diffs I see), blocks of unsourced, in universe text were removed. How would you have proposed (presuming that sourcing didn't exist) to 'shave' them appropriately? I don't mean that to try and get your goat. I just mean that to ask how you would have modified the article incrementally to achieve the goals of the project WRT to the article. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You both, are the cancer that is destroying wikipedia.

Well said, Kurtz. That's the issue I have taken with these edits. Rather than rewriting these articles in an acceptable form, this user has taken it upon his or her self to remove masses of information, that while not formatted properly, was still informative enough to warrant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.206.78 (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:NOT. It is a bedrock policy on the project.Protonk (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet nothing I have seen on what used to be the butchered articles is against anything on that page. Articles that you profess to have never looked at. What exactly are you doing here, arguing blindly as you are?--Project Kurtz (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get all worked up. you don't think that I looked at the diffs in the last hour? How about WP:IINFO? Or WP:NOTGUIDE. Let's leave aside the fact that a good portion of the material was either unsourced or sourced from game manuals. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40k, unless you have forgotten, is primarily a game. There should be no reason that information on the subject can not be cited as from game manuals.--Project Kurtz (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But game material has to be notable in order to get an article in the first place. Furthermore, the two subsections of WP:NOT I linked to you direct us to limit the amount of information we include about the games themselves. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you've ever read any of the game manuals, they have a lot of background and "fluff" information about the setting. It's not about the game itself, it's about the setting. Which is what the articles are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Kurtz (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, but what the game manuals are about isn't important, is it? We are not required, nor should we, to include all material from all game manuals. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And any of the articles do? If they did, the articles would be even larger and untidy than they already were.--Project Kurtz (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You both, are the cancer that is destroying wikipedia.

Arbitrary Break 1

I second that notion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.233.223 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh NOES. I'm glad a wikipedia expert let me know I was wrecking the place. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

whoever said I was an expert? I just think you are being an elitist prick who supports something without actually knowing what you are supporting. check the Horus Heresy article comparisons, the old one was 95% longer and had actual information other that that half a sheet of paper there now. when I look up an EVENT, fictional or not, I want some kind of information on what went on at said event, not just a paragraph summary. thats like shortening the history of the American Revolution to say "America won, we are now independent, the end". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.233.223 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Watch it, cowboy. I played warhammer 40k. I even played Epic for the 10 minutes it was officially supported (FWIW I liked it better). I like the warhammer universe. But wikipedia is not a reference volume for stuff I like. What belongs in there is Notable subjects with verifiable information gleaned from reliable sources. Once that is satisfied, anything goes. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So what counts as notable, and reliable, and verifiable? I mean, I doubt hamlet is notable to some people. And what says it isnt verifaiable or reliable sources? Read the horus herasy books and you see all of it is legit, as written by authors who published books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The blue links there go to Wikipedia core policies. They define notable specifically. They also define reliable and verifiable. Whether or not you or I find Hamlet to be notable is unimportant to the wikipedia guidelines. Please take a look at them. They form the basis on which all editors work. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I read all the "blue links" you cited, and I do not see any part of these guidelines endorsing outright deletion as the preferred manner of addressing notability, style, and length issues. In fact, most cite them as a final option, after "letting the article evolve on its own." Slashing and burning such articles is arbitrary and counterproductive to the development of Wikipedia as a legitimate reference volume. Tell me, after reading the "Horus Heresy" article in its current state, what can you tell me about the fictional event? I guarantee it's not any more than a regular person off the street could gather with context clues. Editing should be much more thoughtful than this, which comes off more as "thoughtless." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.145.104 (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They don't endorse outright deletion. Very few policies in wikipedia do that. But these articles aren't old and it is PERFECTLY open to discussion whether to delete them or substantially shorten them to keep them in line with the project goals. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then I call bullocks on that. The horus herasy has been sold to fans, a company makes it, people have bought the games, and the company that makes it is stable because of said purchases, seems notable to me. I could easily go to amazon and purchase the books, and easily verify it myself, or do I really need a 3rd party to read and review suchthings. And reliable may be harder to claim, but if you have to delete an article simply because some college didnt read a popular sci fi story and go "oh that is credible" then I dont see what the point is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there a single reference in the horus heresy article to a secondary source mentioning the war? Something separate from the books published by games workshop (aside from the novels)? Again, it is notable if it has been covered in significant detail by reliable, independent secondary sources. If not, then it doesn't matter how "important" we think it is. Notable is defined, clear as day, in the wikipedia policies. Protonk (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you dial down the patronizing language here? A ten second Google search found various book reviews of the series, some summarizing the plot in far more detail than Wikipedia manages. You are splitting hairs here to defend a suspect edit and being condescending while you're at it. Yes, I have read the guidelines. Yes, I know what links are and what color they tend to be. This edit still goes far beyond the pale.

Sorry. guess I was too busy being a cancer and an asshole to notice. I'm not splitting hairs. the horus heresy article is absurdly long in current form. Unsourced material in the "weapons" article should be removed. Those are policies. We may differ on how best to undertake them, as we are doing here. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The information on the articles was taken from popular WH40k books. Notable. These books are in active print. Verifiable. These books are presumably approved by Games Workshop, otherwise they wouldn't bear the name WH40k on them. Reliable. I fail to see any problem with these sources.--Project Kurtz (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A critical component to reliability is independence. If the publisher of your "secondary source" is not independent from the subject of the article, then you have a problem. Protonk (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then we should just destroy most of wikipedia if everything here has to be confirmed by a secondary source. I wasnt aware harvard was having studies on sci fi novels. Such a guideline is unrealistic, and while i'm sure it would be dandy to have everything confirmed by 4 other things, it isnt realistic at all. I just hit random article like 5 times and found all of them not meeting up to your standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually we shouldn't. We should remove things that can never be sourced and source things that can. And they aren't MY standards. MY standards have nothing to do with this. It is the standard of a community written and edited encyclopedia. You'll find, if you stick around, that it tends to produce some good work. Protonk (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'll just read the stupid article, Protonk, "First described in the "Slaves to Darkness" Realm of Chaos (Warhammer) manual it was used as the background for the original "Epic-scale" Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus games since, providing a justification for inter-imperial warfare, it spared the effort to include different armies in the basic games boxes. "Horus Heresy" is also the title of a novel series published by the Black Library, a collectible card game produced by Sabertooth Games and an out-of-print Games Workshop board game, with both games being based on the events which occurred in the Warhammer 40,000 universe." It looks like the first paragraph of the article mentions Games Workshop, The Black Library, and Sabertooth games. One of those, I'm sure, is "secondary" and "independent".

Right. The novels are sufficiently independent from the company to be considered a reliable source for that article--presuming that we treat fiction as a "source" on events in a fictional universe. But lets grant that. Even if we grant that the article should exist, should it be 7,000 words? Protonk (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Er - just briefly on this - both Black Library and Sabretooth Games are owned by Games Workshop. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Should it be 250? No. There are cover-blurbs longer than the meat of this article.

RIght, but 250 is probably closer to where it ought to be than 7,000. In other words, the desired length of this, given the sourcing and the subject is probably ~1,000 words. Not ~10,000 words. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so let's revert the article and start paring it down. Whoever keeps restoring Allemandtando's defacement of it needs to stop. Let's leave virtual deletion by a single individual as a last alternative and let the community do its work.

And I disagree, at least half of the existing articles belongs there.--Project Kurtz (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As it is written now that is not in accordance with the style guide (of course, just a guide) for fiction articles and with WP:NOT. This should be an encyclopedaic coverage of the subject, not a 5,000 word play-by-play. Hamlet, probably the single greatest work of fiction in the english language, gets 12k words on WP. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Its not like wikipedia is a small niche website that needs all the kilobytes it can get. Its 2008, text isnt that big. And 7,000 words is sure alot better than 2 tiny paragraphs that werent even larger than the example photo. If I wanted to get someone started on the horus heresy, I would direct them to that plethora of information.

If you read WP:NOT you'll see an answer to that. wikipedia is here to provide an encyclopedia, not a full spectrum of content on all possible areas. It is entirely possible (and legal) to start a WH40K-pedia and copy ALL of the current material there, then edit everything in as you like. Star trrek did it. Star wars did it. Etc. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet still, an article on a single Star Wars novel, let's say "Darksaber" for example, contains four times as much information while citing only three sources and not a single one of them print. You can find dozens like it. The debate here for me is not that this article needs changes. My problem is that the means and end of Allemandtando's actions are completely inappropriate and not condusive to good editing.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the cruft in the star wars section has not been cleaned out doesn't mean that it gets to stay elsewhere. I've done some arguing on the "lightsaber combat" and "lightsaber" articles, along with other AfD's for crufty star wars articles. Editor time is finite. We can't fix every problem. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing my point. The scope of Allemandtando's deletions and now EEMIV's runs counter to the changes these guidelines espouse. If they would stop undoing the reverts then actual work rather than slash-and-burn defacement could begin.

We are all coming at this from different perspectives. If you feel that the article deserves 5k words and they feel that it deserves 1k words then you will ALWAYS come to blows over the appropriate method to approach the goal. There is no way I would start editing a 7k word article (with the intent of reaching 1k) bit by bit. I would remove huge chunks. Protonk (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I suggest you do remove large chunks when you begin to edit, not before and certainly not as your only edit. Leaving the smouldering stump of an article behind for others to take care of at some unspecified date does not help those editors or anyone reading the article, let alone these guidelines you quote so poorly represented by those who would follow their letter without considering their spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.145.104 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, instead of popping a blood vessel and remove chunks you know NOTHING about, you can just not worry about such a trife thing. It would do all of us a favor.

No one is popping a blood vessel. Protonk (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If your editor time is so finite, why not spend such prescious time FIXING articles, or IGNORING them all together, instead of Cut and Burn policies that can, will, have upset people.. I honestly doubt that someone is going to go to wikipedia, see an in depth article on lightsabers and yell "THIS IS BULLCRAP!" and never visit wikipedia again. The reason I loved wikipedia was because of all the information I could find so easily, and on things I couldnt find anywhere else. But if you guys are really gonna trim the fat because it doesnt meet up to unrealistic standards, then wikipedia isnt as good as a website as I thought it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Non-verifiable and non-notable information is of critical importance to the project. Wikipedia aims to replace all other broad encyclopedias as a source of knowledge. In order to do that it needs to shed the stigma that comes from being able to be "edited by anyone". That doesn't mean kill fan articles on site. It means, as I said, ensure that articles are backed up by sources and cover subjects that are notable. Protonk (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When? I sure as hell didnt go to wikipedia for it to be a normal encyclopedia. I thought the website was shown on time magazine because the idea of being edited by anyone was new, bold, daring, and original. If you guys want to turn wikipedia into a normal encyclopedia that is just run by you guys, then get out of wikipedia.

It IS bold daring and original. But the stigma remains. we want to turn wikipedia into a repository for all information that is notable and supported by reliable, verifiable secondary sources, in keeping with the rest of the policies. I can say that you guys aren't the first group of forumgoers to find an article and swarm down on WP. And you won't be the last. I would REALLY like it if some of you stayed and made accounts. Once you get to knwo the place it is fun. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When has being bold, daring, and original been a stigma? ALOT of people i'm sure were enjoying the appeal of such a thing, I'm pretty sure when Wikipedia, hell, the wiki system in general was made, that was the purpose. But when you speak of "We" wanting to remove said stigma, it makes me wonder if you editors who are fighting this so much really have what is best for wikipedia. If you guys were running Encyclopedia Brittanica, then I can see your point. Instead, all you guys are trying to do is turn a democracy into a totalatarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. And as I've said twice before, the stigma arises from the possibility of building a reference work without experts. Britannica hires/hired professors and writers to make the entries. Wikipedia has none of that. So people who look from the outside think "gee, this article about the Crimean war could have been written by a 13 year old. How do I know it is true? They only way we can make our reputation in the world on that subject is to INSIST on quality control. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See the above link re. WP:NOT#INFO. And just because Wikipedia does have huge capacity, that doesn't mean we should use that breathing room as an excuse to fill articles to the brim with every iota of information. Wikipedia does, in fact, have several technical limitations. One of the ways Wikipedia overcomes them is through its sister projects, such as the myriad in-universe wikis on Wikia, to which a lot of material has been migrated. There's even a WikiProject around here somewhere that tries to serve that exact function. --EEMIV (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullocks again. I really doubt the integrety, and supposed 'reputation' of wikipedia will be tarnished by a warhammer 40k article. But if you guys are so insistant on making these articles to par of being looking like the work of experts, instead of slashing and burning the articles and pretending they didnt exist, why dont you instead proof read the articles for grammatical errors and such. No one said you guys had to be experts on the matter. You guys are editors, not deleting police.

We aren't claiming to be experts. But we aren't just copy editors (and neither are you). It is each us our duty to make sure that EVERY article meets the guidelines. As soon as you let one go, you let a million go. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Domino Theory has been proven to be a logical fallacy, you know. 24.208.6.131 (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in that link says anything about a fallacy, BTW. Protonk (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Domino Theory is a Slippery Slope logical fallacy. I'm surprised the Domino Theory article doesn't mention it; the Slippery Slope article does, under Related Links. 24.208.6.131 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) I know. Step into my office. As the article says, the heart of the fallacy is the assumption that some transitivity exists between occurances. I'm not asserting that. You suggest that we not monitor for core policies on articles. I suggest that monitoring needs to be strict in order to ensure that articles (by and large) adhere to it. I don't need to appeal to a slippery slope (and I didn't) to get there. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion will give you a good idea of the throughput we see on marginal articles. Special:Random will show you what already exists in the encyclopedia. I don't need to pretend like letting this article through "triggers" something. This article is an example of the thousands of articles that need to be deleted, pared down or modified considerably in order to meet the standards of this wiki. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe if various editors stopped cutting down these articles repeatedly, you'd give the people talking here, the ones arguing for the articles, the chance to pare them down. Give them a day or two to make these edits, rather than deleting 90% of any articles that don't match. We are now definitely aware of the fact that the articles need work - no changes were made before because no one thought the articles needed them. Now, we know, so change can start, if you're willing to let it.

A day or two? Really? horus heresy has been on wikipedia in some form since 2004. We are more than willing to let change happen but it doesn't happen without prodding. and it honestly doesn't cause articles to shrink if you leave them alone. Protonk (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Really. The problem wasn't being addressed before - if you don't tell some one that something is wrong, why should they change it? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an analogy for a reason. We've seen the changes you want to make to the article, and disapprove. So what does that mean? Now its broken, and we're going to fix it. 24.208.6.131 (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It usually means that editors like me and EEMIV will get tired of getting crapped on for removing information after a while and we will give up. Then the articles tend to remain in the same state for a long time. I don't think that you guys and us will agree as to the desired length of the article. We will probably fight over that as long as we are b oth engaged in it. But I can tell you right now that the Horus article as it stands might not survive an AfD. That is how limited the "out of universe" sourcing is. Imagine if the intended audience is someone who might WANT to get interested in 40K but isn't familiar with it. Then try to write an article for that person. Just like the guys at the math project try to make articles accessible be people without math PhD's, we need to make fiction articles accessible to people who aren't coming from fansites. Those are just the breaks. I don't get to take pages summarizing specific details of an economic theorem. I have to present it in a non-specialist manner. Doing that for fiction means substantially shortening the plot synopsis. Protonk (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By your, and EEMIV's logic, If I cut say, my hand on a sharp metal pole. Its a flesh wound, iti snt a big deal. But, it isnt up to standards to my body, so, instead of disenfecting cut, and placing bandage on it, I should just cut off my entire arm from shoulder the shoulder. Because that'll totally bring it back up to standards.

I hear they amputate for gangrene. Protonk (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because an article that had TOO MUCH EFFORT is the equivilant of gangrene, yep, not the insertion of pensises in the front page of wikipedia, nope.

Obviously we aren't equating the page with vandalism. We are saying that the page is far too long and unwieldy to be part of a broad encyclopedia, given the sourcing involved. Besides. Being unable to pare down a fictional story into a 1,000 word synopsis isn't my idea of too much effort. Protonk (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

If the articles had its own page on the dropship massacre or flight of the einstien, then I might see your point, but the article in question is a very important event in a popular fictional series. To remove all the information from it would be as stupid as removing lightsabers from star wars. Oh, wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, and lightsaber reads much closer now to what WP:RS and WP:WAF call for. The complementary article at Wookieepedia fills in the in-universe minutiae. It's a functional, symbiotic relationship between the projects. If you don't like the policies, then engage on their respective talk pages and try to change consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And the article is almost 2,000 words. About a single kind of weapon in Star Wars. Taking that into consideration, a 7,000 word article on a pivotal event in the WH40k universe doesn't seem too excessive to me. The Optimus Prime article is twice that length.--Project Kurtz (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Word county is tertiary. 2,000 words offering a real-world treatment and cited to reliable sources is fine; 7,000 words lacking either -- and particularly both -- of those is not. But it's sourcing and perspective that matter far more than word count. --EEMIV (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? There are only four specific references for the text of 2,000 words, averaging out to 500 words (or about two pages) per citation (not to mention that "Lightsabers in Popular Culture contains two of those four). The nine websites listed at the bottom might as well be labelled "Related Links." That is laughably shoddy by academic standards, but proves that citations are often a hinderance to the discussion of the subject in question. Any professor can tell you, number of references does not a coherent or informative treatment make.

You're preaching to the choir. Lightsaber is a work in progress. Lightsaber combat is going to be merged into it and it will get a much more "out of universe" feel to it, along with some better sourcing. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the only ones who actually care about making lightsabers "out of universe" are you guys, and not people who honestly care about lightsabers. If I was johnny average who was curious about the lore of lightsabers, I would visit wikipedia. I MIGHT want out of universe info too, but not having both in the article is just unfair. These "requirements" you are setting just makes it seem that you editors are trying to turn wikipedia into something it wasnt meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You want solely in universe? Go to wookiepedia. You want verifiable information that comes from reliable sources, come here. Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve a need for trivia. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems there's a disconnect between your expectations of Wikipedia and what the project has long established as its guidelines and aims. Take a look, in particular, at WP:WAF (guidelines for writing about fictional topics). The real-world, out-of-universe perspective is a long-standing standard for Wikipedia; there are frequently links in articles about fictional topics to Wookieepedia (Star Wars), Memory Alpha (Star Trek) and other in-universe wikis for these topics' fictional histories and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I, as the average internet goer, and not "wikipedia expert" dont read, nor particullarly care about such "standards" that you guys have set up. And i'm pretty sure most people who simply go to wikipedia and read it will be the same. Could I just go to wookiepedia? Sure, but wikipedia is THE website for info, it has had real world coverage, you can find it on the internet as easy as finding ebay. Wookiepedia i'm sure isnt as "mainstream"

Just because you don't care about the policies and guidelines doesn't mean they cease to exist. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then please set up an account and try to change policy and consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, who says that the lightsaber article is the right length? I'd shorten it more, or provide more citations. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then let interested people clean the articles up instead of having uninterested people tear the entire article to shreds and prevent anyone from fixing it properly. I know for a fact that there are people able and willing to clean them up as long as people stop deleting the entire articles.--Project Kurtz (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the 'interested' people all seem intent on keeping the articles as is, and as they are they cannot meet standards for the policies or the MOS. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The "edited" articles fail to meet the standards of an "encyclopedia" in the most essential definition of the word. I think my imperfect article trumps your irrelevant edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.145.104 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the most essential definition of the word? Protonk (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The content is in the pages' edit history. If people can go in and cite to substantiating secondary sources, then all the power to them. But it is counterproductive to just let cruft sit unaddressed -- certainly the length of time its sat in these Warhammer articles is sign of that. One of the key pillars of Wikipedia is that the burden of proof to offer reliable sources is on editors who want to add/restore information -- annoyingly, none of the IP editors who have undone Allemandtando's edits have added a single source in their blind reversions. --EEMIV (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it funny that you call them edits. Because they really aren't edits. It's a defacement, plain and simple. The people reverting the articles are trying to revert them to their more relevant previous versions. Whether or not these are up to your insane standards (that half of wikipedia doesn't live up to anyways) at the moment is irrelevant; they are there in the MEANTIME so people who come to the page looking for information on the the Horus Heresy, Ultramarines, or the Powerfist will be able to find information, rather than a paltry excuse for an article. Having the old articles in the archive makes room for one person to fix the article. It does not leave room for a community effort to fix it.--Project Kurtz (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here. Take a look at this. that is wikiproject:Simpsons. They cover every single simpsons article on wikipedia and they keep them WELL in line with the project goals. Many of their articles are feature articles. They patrol their pages to ensure that episode summaries are the proper length, that all sourced material is cited properly, and so forth. THAT is what your article should look like. Let's take The_Simpsons_Movie for an example. Probably the single most significant simpsons article. See how they handled it. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's no reason the people trying to work on this together can't get these articles to a level similar to that. The plain and simple truth is that editing; truly editing articles takes time, and it is much more difficult to build up from 260 words than it is to modify an existing 7,000 words. Give people an opportunity, a reason, and incentive to work, and they will work.--Project Kurtz (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. More specifically. Look at the plot summary. For the single most singificant (and technically longest running) simpsons production, the "plot" section ran 4 paragraphs. That is what I wanted you to get out of the reference. Protonk (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it the most significant, but whatever. Since most of my previous examples have been the Horus Heresy, let's continue from there. The event this article is about, unlike the Simpsons Movie, is a well-documented, fifty-five day occurence. "Marge and the kids decide to go and save the town, but Homer refuses to help the people who tried to kill them." supposedly describes a good fifteen minutes of the film, which is wholly 1/6th of a feature film presumably one and a half hours long. This simply cannot be done with 1/6th of the Horus Heresy.--Project Kurtz (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But the point of wikipedia is not to tell the story of horus heresy. I'm not saying that you need to take it down to 4 paragraphs, but it has to be on the same order of magnitude. Protonk (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the current length of the article is a very apt summary of a fifty-five day occurrence, wouldn't you agree? Now all they have to do is build on top of that and add the rest of the crap that isn't really relevant to what people are looking for when they search the Horus Heresy, but having it there will make nitpickers like you happy. (Huh. I could've sworn I signed this.)--Project Kurtz (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a summary in the broadest sense of the word. Also. WP:NPA. Don't throw names around here. As for 55 days: Battle_of_Stalingrad. That actually happened. And it lasted 7 months. And turned the tide of the biggest war ever fought. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually is. maybe you should learn what the definition of a summary is. And I only used the name because it describes what you're doing oh-so-well.--Project Kurtz (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA doesn't provide an exception for that. Don't use personal attacks on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine, sorry. I wasn't making an excuse for it, just an explanation.--Project Kurtz (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Regardless, what about the stalingrad comparison. That is obviously too short for a full retelling or even a detailed retelling. Heck, I've got a work of fiction set primarily during the siege of stalingrad on my shelf. Just that book is about 1,000 pages long. But we don't write the military history articles in order to soak up every detail. That isn't our job. Our job is to provide an accurate, comprehensive and verifiable encyclopedia of knowledge for a general audience. Protonk (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

So, naturally, if the page in question, regardless of how much useful information it has, doesn't look like that, it should be stripped bare of nearly all information (useful or otherwise) until someone manages to dig through the archives and bring it up to your standards. That makes sense.

No. The plot details should be minimized and the focus of the article should be on the out of universe relevance. Protonk (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

except that a fictional event such as this really doesnt have any sort of out-of-universe relevance. it is simply an important fictional event. that is why we want the information for it. to see the fiction, not to know how it affects the world at large. because it doesnt.

then you have to consider seriously if it belongs in wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'l have to consider alot of crap that belongs in wikipedia, acording to you at least.

Sure you would. But honestly, if an article (on a subject of fiction) is supposed to consist of a synopsis of the fiction, an overview, and some other sections describing the impact of the fiction on other works or RL, then how are we supposed to square an article on something that has no impact outside of the universe? Protonk (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. If you're interested, though, the guidelines for elements of fiction that meet Wikipedia's notability requirements is hotly debated. Consider creating an account and engaging in the discussion. --EEMIV (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, the camp for "lets leave articles as it is" seems to be tiny. I think probably a reason wikipedia is popular (at least it was for my friends and I) was that we could find ALOT of knowledge and things here on wikipedia. If suddenly, anythign I'm looking up just says "See website A" Then i'm not going to be interested in wikipedia then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.78.238 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You CAN find a lot of knowledge here. It just isn't all going to be specialized and parochial. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horus_Heresy&diff=222588069&oldid=221666342 Look at what was done to the Horus Heresy. The column on the left is before the edits, with full, detailed information on the build up to, and culmination of, a fictitious event in the 40k universe. On the right, are two paragraphs, one telling you that the Horus Heresy is discussed in 40k novels, and the other saying there is a game of it. If someone wanted to know more about the Horus Heresy, they'd want to look at the column on the left. The column on the right, what the article is now, is completely useless to anyone trying to learn about this event. Your reason for deletion of 90% of this article was that the article "wasn't in-universe," that it "presented fictional events as fact." There are two problems with this reasoning. First, when every date in the article is after the year 30,000 AD, its hard to imagine anyone would accept them as fact, thus making them in-universe to begin with. Second, altering an article to sound like every sentence is fictional simply ruins the clarity of the article. There was nothing wrong with the previous article, and were I an editor, I would restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.6.131 (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

THat is just a link to this page. Protonk (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed the link. >> Mistakes happen at 3 am. 24.208.6.131 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just letting you know. Protonk (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, honestly, if you were a 40K fan and wanted to know a lot about Horus Heresy, you would be HEATED over the size of that page. But imagine that you are a researcher looking to get some general information on Horus Heresy. Which would be more hepful? Protonk (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would find the longer one unnecessarily wordy and the shorter one lacking in information.--Project Kurtz (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Neither is good, but the two-paragraph stub is far, far worse.

But if the goal is 1k words (5k is honestly no different from 7k), then it is easier (and farm more realistic) to get there from 250 than from 7000. Protonk (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Cutting down is easier than building up. QED, in fact. NotARusski (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — NotARusski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wat. First. I don't think you mean Q.E.D.. Second. The Horus article has basically been in its current form for almost a year. If it were easier to cut down, it would have cut down over time, not grown slightly. Third. Without diligence and countervailing opinions, the article will remain the way it is for the foreseeable future. Protonk (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Less "as was to be", more "as has been." Common usage, etc etc. Regardless, you're wrong. NotARusski (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — NotARusski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That isn't a terribly persuasive argument. Protonk (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering I only have a passing knowledge at best of 40k, I actually found the longer article extremely informative. A little long winded, I will agree, but that's what paring it down is for. The shortened article was entirely useless, in every meaning of the word. I'm not arguing for 40k here, I'm arguing against hack and slashing articles as an acceptable practice. Because, honestly? It isn't.

It is if you need to shorten things. there is no way from 7k to 1k other than hurt feelings. Look at the original version of this page: hist. From that paragraph grew this entire 7,000 word article. Articles don't shrink without concerted effort. They call it creep for a reason. Protonk (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet to quote you, "Word county is tertiary." It doesn't matter if the size of the article is expanded as long as certain pertinent, not-plot-related information is added, and it's honestly easier to take existing information and clean it than to write entirely new information, unless you're dealing with something hundreds of times larger than 7,000 words.--Project Kurtz (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You aren't quoting me. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ALso, the information doesn't disappear. It is in the edit history. Protonk (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Which means nothing to the average user looking for information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.97.72 (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The last comment wasn't about the average user. It was about the ease of improvement on the article. the average user shouldn't see a 7 thousand word run-down on a series of events where something like 8-10 paragraphs will suffice. Protonk (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On that I agree, but they also shouldn't see a useless stub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.97.72 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a worrying development, huge amounts of work just being utterly destroyed on a whim. The 'its written in-universe, its a bad article!! Exterminate!' argument is just horrible. That's cause for fixing the article, not rushing in and destroying it before anyone can notice people are raising objections about it let alone fix it.--Him and a dog 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well go to it then - I mean you are not another of an endless stream of people who talk a good game but actually don't do anything to improve the articles or try and address any of the multiple issues raised in the merges, redirects and AFDs. So which article are you cleaning up and sourcing first? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should I spend the hour or so I have free every day creating something when I know you're just going to destroy it a few days down the line?--Him and a dog 13:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if you add reliable 3rd party sources and write prose that treats the article subject as an object of the narrative then it is impossible for anyone to destroy - here are some examples of where I have done just that in some pretty poor articles:

[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7].

It's really nice and easy for people to sit on talk page and tell us editors who can be bothered to find decent sources and try and write according to the MOS and try and do clean-up work, that we are doing it wrong and we are disruptive but accordingly you have to understand that when you constantly get it in the neck from people who suddenly disappear when you ask *them* to have a go themselves that I'm not inclined to take their views too seriously.

I've issued this challenge before to people and I'll issue it again to you - pick an article, any article you like in the warhammer 40k list that is currently unsourced and written in an in universe perspective and show me how to do it - I'll not edit or touch the article. If this requires too much effort on your part, don't be surprised that I haven't got a lot of times for your thoughts about those matters. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the good work you do

Hey, didn't want to post this at ANI because I'm not sure how public/private you are trying to keep your old username... anyway, I just wanted to say, when I saw your old username, I was like, "Hoo boy, now here's a deletionist with an agenda, this is going to get ugly." But actually, I've found the cruft-removal work you do to be quite fair and well-considered. I have a lot of sympathy for how depressing it must be, and yes, as I said, I am too cowardly to do it myself, even though I know it needs done. Like I say, I'll back you up on the WH40K stuff. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think cleanup is impossible? I am with you on this, as is EEMIV. If we all keep an eye, the IPs will get bored and/or blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you doing this because you feel that erasing unique information from public access is in spirit with the goals of wikipedia or are you doing this because you feel you need to prove something? Can you please hold with the deletions, consider working on improvements that do not consigning articles into the depths of edit history.

99.240.112.75 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Man. Reading is fundamental. There is a HUGE wall of text right above you explaining why we are doing this. You know, the one that got broken into three sections for readability? Oh, that and all the policies, guidelines and MOS entries that dictate writing an article in a certain fashion. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am doing this because I am aware of WP:What Wikipedia is not, and I think this is it. It is not a guide to the entire WH40K universe. This information should be trans-wikied to a dedicated WH40K Wiki. However, it is not encyclopedic, not by any stretch.

Anyway, this has already been explained to you. I am sorry you feel the way you do. I know this seems like a lot of work is being destroyed, but it's not being destroyed -- it's just being suggested that you move it somewhere more appropriate. That's all I have to say to you on the topic, thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing it because we have a manual of style and guidelines about how articles should be written. Fictional material should be treated as an object of the narrative, not like it actually exists. In additional, real world commentary and analysis should be provided for a subject independent of the source material itself - with the best will in the world, that material simply doesn't exist for the vast majority of those articles. If you think I'll doing this wrong - please select an article, YOU perform the clean-up in line with our policies and guidelines and let's see what you have left. or is that too much like hard work? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that, knowing full well that the proper course would be to transfer the information, you opt to destroy it entirely; thusly preventing the chances of the latter from being accomplished?

And now you're trying to force work on someone else because you're too lazy to transfer the info but not lazy enough to seek out two dozen articles and slash them to oblivion?

Why don't you leave it alone until someone does it? What you're doing is sealing information into oblivion, you're not making any attempt to continue the work of previous editors with their project and somehow all of you feel it's your right to come along a ensure that this will never be completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, nobody is destroying any information (at least not yet). By turning the pages into redirects, Allemandtando has graciously preserved the edit history, so all of the content can be retrieved via the user of the "history" tab at the top of each page. You can then transfer it to another Wiki if you so desire.

Ironically, if the edit warring over these pages continues, then we may be forced to go through the Articles for deletion process, which could actually end up destroying this information, or at least make it inaccessible to people who are not Wikipedia administrators.

All the more reason for us to come to a civil compromise on this! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, threatening people because you aren't getting your way is quite mature. Why don't you wait a bit? I'm asking around for editors from dedicated wh40k wikis for help. Any further actions from your end should be ceased, unless they are contributing to the migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact kind of person I was talking about all last night. I don't claim to be able to properly edit the articles in question, because I don't have the knowledge. But there are people who do. Cleaning up articles takes time and cooperation, not slash-and-burn and thirty seconds of personal deliberation. Allemandtando, like me, does not have the knowledge of the topic to properly clean up the articles. However, his self-righteous butchering of certain articles (some of the combinations and redirects were called for and necessary. Removing 90% of the content on certain pages was not.) is the wrong way to go about cleaning up the articles, and I'm ashamed of him and everyone who supports his actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Kurtz (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — Project Kurtz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It wasn't meant as a threat, it was meant as a reality check. Here's the thing about WP:AfD: It is based on community consensus, i.e. a bunch of people voice their opinion, and then if there seems to be consensus to delete, the article gets deleted. If our small group can't come to a consensus, then that is a way of involving the larger community. And I am telling you this, not as a threat, not as someone opposing you on these articles, but just as a simple fact: The community will vote to delete. Trust me. This is reality, not a threat, not intimidation. It's reality. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If the community means everyone that you tell to say to delete it, sure. It IS a threat, it IS intimidation. Plain. And. Simple. We have already agreed that there are better ways to fix these pages. There are people trying to properly fix the pages. Now what you need to do is stop the nitpicking and reverting pages to a butchered, useless version while people actually work on them.--Project Kurtz (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — Project Kurtz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"everyone that [I] tell to say to delete it"?!? Did you just imply what I think you implied?

I resent in the strongest possible terms to your implication that I would WP:CANVAS in order to pad the !votes at a deletion discussion. I have never done this ever, nor would I even consider it. Actually, I think it is fucking retarded when people try to canvas for !votes, because the admins closing the deletion discussion can see right through it and it actually gets you nowhere. Even if I was unscrupulous enough to do so, I wouldn't bother to expend the wasted effort for such a futile and transparent tactic.

I challenge you to go through my contrib history and find a single instance when I WP:CANVASsed for votes in a deletion discussion. How dare you. This is not something I do, and it's not something I would ever do, and anybody who has ever interacted with me on any basis will tell you the same exact thing.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I did stop reverting, since User:99.240.112.75 has been willing to engage in some dialog and had a reasonable request. We are looking into the possibility of getting the info moved to a dedicated WH40K wiki, and in the meantime I have stopped changing the pages to redirects.

Anyway, I consider your implication about WP:CANVASsing to be a personal attack, and I urge you to either provide a diff where I canvassed for !votes, or else take it back. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What you would consider a personal attack is not a personal attack. There's no way to prove or disprove that you have done so in the past. Your defensiveness tells me personally otherwise, but as there is no solid proof, I withdraw the comment.--Project Kurtz (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I also resent your implication that this is a single purpose account. I created this account yesterday. I will use this account to do something else when I find something else to do, but as this was an ongoing discussion. For one who takes personal attacks so seriously, you seem to be throw them around an awful lot.--Project Kurtz (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) If that wasn't canvassing, where did all those IP's come from on some random guy's talk page? Protonk (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted a friend who has some... 'expertise' with the subject material involved. He and I will be free this weekend and we will take the time to reconcile any material that the Lexicanum lacks. It is Monday after all, as much as I would like to resolve this matter immediately to prevent it from spiraling out of control and involving the admins, both of us will not be able to accomplish this task immediately. Until then, I hope all involved can draw out plans for all articles involved so that will save us the time for searching for all of them. Thank you for your time. 99.240.112.75 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note (I'm not touching the rest with a 10 foot poll), lexicanum and Wikipedia have incompatable licenses. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand WP:CANVAS correctly, Canvassing is not always a bad thing. Interested parties were informed of what had happened, and each individual decided on what to do on their own. Some people (like me) started talking about it on the talk page. Some people went and reverted the articles. Some people ignored it. We were not given a call to arms, we were handed a newspaper with information on what had happened to the WH40k articles on the front page, and each decided on how to respond. That is not bad canvasing. After all, without it, the efforts to properly fix the articles (evidenced above) would probably not be happening.--Project Kurtz (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You do understand it correctly. If you go to a BBS and bring in a dozen committed editors who source, copyedit and improve 40K pages, that would be awesome. Canvassing applies when someone brings in editors in order to participate in a discussion with the expectation that they would lean a specific way. Because everything works (most everything) by consensus here, canvassing is VERY damaging to that process. And honestly, perception is reality. If, for example, one of these articles went to AfD and these IP's all showed up, they would be ignored as canvassed or sockpuppeted votes. My advice to you is have all these guys who are coming on and getting pissed off make accounts and start editing. I think you'll find that if an article is being actively worked on it will get less attention from people trying to shorten it. Protonk (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios

I got hold of some warhammer material (and have more coming later) - from just a quick skim, I don't think there are *any* warhammer articles that don't have big lifts from copyright material. I have started to remove it when I can find it. Those who have such material, can you check an article against any source material you have. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is fine, though I am puzzled why you have gone out mass nominating various articles for deletion. I read that someone will transfer all of the articles this weekend, but should your actions go through it will mean some pages will not have anything retrievable. 76.71.152.81 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope it wasn't me who you got the impression from. I have no timetable for my own transwiki. However, I do make copies of VFD'd articles before they go, so I will have them if someone wants them. (As long as they're still up by tonight). --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've exported Weapons of Necrons, and Weapons of Tau, anything I missed? --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

@76.71.152.81: I for one would not be comfortable with the idea of Wikipedia temporarily hosting copyright-violating material for the purposes of transferring said material to another wiki. I think Allemandtando's actions are defensible from that standpoint.

Really, the tragedy here is that somebody didn't notice the problems with the WH40K articles when they were being built. Somebody has gone to a lot of work to transcribe the books onto Wikipedia, in violation of both US and UK copyright law, as well as numerous Wikipedia policies. If somebody had been like, "Hey, don't do that," maybe they wouldn't have wasted their time :( --Jaysweet (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles nominated for deletion are based on lack of notability or reliable sources. None have been based on copy violations. Allemandtando has already removed the offending copyvio lines. AlmondManTwo (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry for the confusion. Well alright. I suppose the 4channers can always ask an admin for the deleted article text if they want to transwiki at some point in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed? christ no, I've just done the real obvious ones from one book. I'm mixing it up with other editing because I've already got a rep as some sort of monster with the Warhammer fans. I don't do this sort of stuff because I like deleting stuff, I do it because nobody else wants to do it. It would be great, if other people would have a go at clean-up - anyone fancy having a go at the space marines article? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to help clean up? I only recently discovered the tabletop game, and I have a handful of source material myself, so I can improve the articles to avoid any copyvios. I'll also take some time to merge or rewrite some of the articles you nominated for deletion. AlmondManTwo (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest, at this stage, it would be helpful if a couple of people had a go at cleaning up an article without my involvement. At this stage, any warhammer clean-up I do is instantly reverted by IP editors. I'd also be interested to see what people end up with when they treat the material as it should be - as an object of the narrative. I've picked that one, because I consider it a core warhammer article and getting that in a good state is the best move before considering what content should be merged or redirected to it. So who besides AlmondManTwo is up for having a go at the space marines article. ? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start with some of the smaller merge proposals. I'm new at this but I should have something to show for this by the end of the day. If you may be kind as to assist me by pointing out any articles that violate or do not meet up with WP guidelines or standards by leaving some leads on my user talk page. I'm taking the AfD articles as precedent first though. Thank you for any help you can provide. Edit: Currently reviewing the Manual of Style, and taking in a list of every article on wikipedia. I've noticed at least two articles have been locked, but they should be editable once I am ready to start making changes. AlmondManTwo (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

if you approach the admin who did it, they are generally willing to unlock - I'd help but I'm going in the process of being stalked and need to deal with that. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Just an idea, I think I have a way to deal with whoever is stalking you. Those individuals who keep reverting your edits? I'll try something to reduce their frequency. AlmondManTwo (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what's done and needs to be done tomorrow night. Much of this can and needs to be merged. There's more articles that look suspiciously like they've got copyrighted materials in them. I'll have to check my collection. Darxide (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD pollution

Guys, can we either 1) please stop nominating W40K articles for deletion wholesale, or 2) if you're going to AfD them, please do so in one fell swoop. I'd have a lot less heartburn about the rampant deletionism if the AfDs indicated that transwikiing had already occurred. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

nobody wants to do it - those notices are all six months old. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that nominating things for AfD is a great way to motivate editors to work on them, but nominating a ton of articles separately creates excessive work for AfD reviewers, leads to a bunch of redundant comments, and generally gives me the option of either wasting my time or watching hard (if misguided) work get flushed. Deletion is a LAST RESORT--nominating a single article, or the group of articles as a block, would have gotten the point across. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User 99.240.112.75 said it would be started this weekend, I've asked Falcorian to back up the AfDs just incase they are deleted before they get around them. Also, how do I go about backing up articles? AlmondManTwo (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to your meaning. Wikipedia automatically keeps an edit history of pages which can be reverted to and fro unless an admin deletes them. Darxide (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Successful AfD's do result in administrators deleting articles. That's the point. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to AlmondManTwo's inquiry as to how to back up articles. If indeed he means how to back up articles in the event that they are deleted then the best thing to do would be to edit -> Ctrl-A -> Ctrl-C Darxide (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a very last resort as it doesn't preserve the edit history. I have a script that uses Special:Export recursively to preserve the edit history (and allow it to be Special:Import'd into other wikis). --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to assume good faith here but this mad dash to AfD so many articles seems very pointy to me. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if I was going to be pointy - I could mass-nominate about 75% (maybe even 80%) of the warhammer articles and be pretty sure that they'd be deleted. I've just stuck to the obvious ones I've edited and where the content duplicates a more concise summary somewhere else. I'll not do any more AFDs for the moment and any future ones I'll propse here. I've got some books coming so I suspect the weekend is going to be busy with slashing out copyvios. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been outstanding for sometime according to what I'm reading and many of the articles nominated could in fact stand to be merged. I and several other editors have been mobilised to act. Should Allemandtando have an ulterior motive then the Emperor will judge him accordingly. Darxide (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No mergers are allowed, neither is any clean-up - so best of luck with that. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that editors go around the AfDs and start rejigging stuff. assume good faith Allemandtando Darxide (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No sorry, I mean in general - any clean-up you attempt will be reverted by ip editors - nothing to do with the AFD articles. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That has only happened if the newly edited article was reduced to uselessness. If an article were properly edited, rather than simply cutting out large portions ambiguously, there would be no need to do a revert. 24.208.6.131 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious conflict of interest here, one person here's idea of cleanup was to turn an informative article into a barely coherent stub. Cleanup is needed, that's not in question. When people start going on a powertrip and deleting everything in the article it's something completely different. Then to nominate articles for deletion because they don't get their way. It's no better than a child's temper tantrum. I think User:Allemandtando/Abd/KillerofKruft/how ever many other names he has to avoid ready identification of his vandalism should just be IP banned. His contributions to Wikipedia are decent (Star Wars) but hardly any more important than WH40K or Buck Rogers. His detractions are far more telling. 72.73.220.147 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Clone Trooper" and "Blaster" have no notability or sources indicating it. And that was a clean-up? Why the double-standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.110.123 (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Space marines

So the project has attracted the attention of a lot of editors, surely now we can see some of this fabled clean-up work. as above, I'd like to suggest the first article to be done (because it's core) is Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). Who wants to make a start? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate on Talk:Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) Darxide (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? - this is the project page and I am making an appeal to this project for some assistance? I mean.. some of you do plan to do some editing? right? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's locked at the moment, but my impression is that the main article will become too bloated if we merged all the individual chapter articles. I'm thinking that we keep each of the individual chapter pages separate, with improvements to rework the fictional story elements to avoid the in-universe narrative perspective. The scouts, terminator and gene-seed stub articles should be merged (though the latter two depends on how big they become after working on them). The Black Templars need a page of their own, and simultaneously this should fix the Second Founding article (which I am currently browsing the history of for any unique info that the individual chapter pages lack).

Basically, sort everything/merge first, polish out the in-universe with emphasis to preserve content (to avoid causing ire to the IP editors) second, thirdly re-establish links and category pages, then finally review. Allemandtando suggested that we limit our current scope to the space marine related articles for now, and I think that's a fair statement that will prevent us from biting more than we can chew. AlmondManTwo (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer if we decided what stays and what goes with an emphasis on goes. The problem is the articles go too deep and are sprawled too far. For this specific article I have started a title on Talk:Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). Anyone who wishes to contribute to the reconstruction of this article would be better off going there. Darxide (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The rest I suggest that is that it means that you start with the core article and once that's in a decent shape, you can work out more clearly what needs to be done with it's sub-articles - merge/expand/redirect etc. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I sort of started a list of this way back when... But no one really gave me a hand so I left it alone. You can find it here. I'd be glad to help impliment something like this (That is, a plan for upmerges, and then exicution) if I had some help from quality editors. :-/ That's always the hard part. Anyway, under this scheme that I was planing, individual chapters would get maybe a sentence in the SM article, if that. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We can use that Mr. Unsigned thanks. Darxide (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried that - I was reverted and called a vandal. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I had that happen a few times too, you just have to stick with it. ;) --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

back, some of the stuff doesn't quite match up to the book in my hands word per word (4th ed vs whatever old ed), but once the lock is gone I'll start bringing up suggestions on copyvio and changing the narration to out of universe perspective. AlmondManTwo (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How many articles do we have?

The warhammer cats are a mess - anyone think of a way for us to either a) fix the problem or b) quickly work out what articles we have and where they are? --Allemandtando (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The background is organized around factions. The factions themselves can be established as notable because while Dawn of War was produced under license from Games Workshop, the design teams were not the same and it does not represent the same publisher. I have seen a lot of rubbish about notability from people who do not understand enough about the company to make the distinction regarding independence.

That said, details about the factions are never going to be notable in their own right. They are just details. As such, they need to be integrated into the faction pages. Deletion was the lazy answer for dealing with content.

That's nothing at all to do with the question I've asked - you are talking about content and individual articles, I ask talking about organisation. Categories are how content is organised at wikipedia - so if an article is in the warhammer 40k category, then a sub-category to it should be warhammer 40k technology, warhammer 40k races - but they haven't been done like that - making it difficult for the reader to find material. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in developing a sub-category if the content posted there is going to be removed. But it would makes the most sense to impose a heirarchy based on "races" at the top level. Races in 40k share few cultural elements and very little technology. That is why each had its own technology page originally, rather than having a single page covering all of them. Technology in 40k is a property of "faction", not a category in its own right.Khanaris (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

hey I'm open to suggestions - I guess the first thing is to make sure that everything is tagged with warhammer 40k - that way we can get an idea of size and content. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer as a fictional setting is not the same as one drawn from a book or movie. The fact that it was originally designed for a game defines its scope. People searching for information on the background are much more likely to be looking at one faction in particular first. In order to be useful, any structure would to be organized with that in mind. Sub-categories under that should include technology, culture, and characters. Because we are dealing with a wargame, those three headings cover pretty much the entire scope of the background material from various sources.Khanaris (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with those headings - comments from the floor? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add, though, that the vast majority of the content about the game was produced for just three of those factions, being Chaos, the Space Marines and the Imperial Guard. If we think of pseudo-independent novels published by Black Library as sources, most of the information they contain describes those factions alone. So those sections could become bloated without further sub-division.Khanaris (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

at this stage, I'd just be happy to work out where everything is and how many articles exist. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I might focus on finding all of the dead links from what has already been removed. If it was a ratnest before, now it looks like a ratnest that somebody set on fire and kicked into a ditch. The question of where acceptable borders stand with regard to notability has to be settled first. If you are looking for a list of pages in order to continue calling AfD as you have been, you can do your own research. You don't need to understand the fictional background in order to assess notability and organizational issues. But you do need to understand the relationship between the various sources involved and the real-world scope and history of the material. That is not easy to cite. But people need to understand what is being indicated when there are citations of work published by both THQ and GW. Verifiability and notability are not the same thing, but they have been treated as the same with regard to how sources should be found and listed.Khanaris (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can try sprucing up a rats' nest with a coat of paint but in the end you still have a rats' nest. If the shebang is as bad as you say(and looking through it it is at the very least disorganised to all hell) then I'd be in favour of throwing it all out and starting again with the first priority being the making of a fancy template that contains all the factions. 213.94.204.33 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "both GW and THQ"? THQ are licensed distributors of Games Workshop's intellectual property. They cannot possibly be presented as an independent third party reference. Secondly, you're right that until now verifiability and notabiluty have been treated the same. That's what's changed recently, hence the AfDs. Primary / non-independent sources may be used to verify, but not to establish notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Allemandtando is a sock of a banned user, ding-dong the witch is dead

Now that User:Allemandtando is gone, can we start working on restoring all the damage he did? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the articles were full of copyvio, badly written, completely unsourced, and completely abusive of WP:WAF, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If a valid user wants to nominate them again, they are welcome to do so but this should be a matter of simple procedure. We absolutely should not be rewarding ban-evading, single purpose, sock-puppets like this. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't a unilateral action. A consensus was established to delete awful articles, and we should not punish the encyclopedia for the sins of its editors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of those AfDs were pretty close and may have been pushed to delete by the unauthorized actions of a banned user and his coterie of hangers-on. All of User:Allemandtando's work product is now called into question. At the very least all of the articles he nominated should go to DRV as they were bad faith noms in the first place. Quite frankly, I'm sure many of them would not survive another trip through AfD but the principle is important. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Coterie of hangers-on" is a pretty nasty accusation to make with no proof. Moreover, this is the short path to bureaucracy hell.

Can you name a single one of those articles that was sourced? Or had any potential to be sourced? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from and to some extent I agree with you; I do feel, however, that the principle here is important enough to restore these articles on procedural grounds. As far as good faith goes, I'm sorry but you should look into the case history, when a banned user is using single-purpose accounts to vandalize the encyclopedia good faith gets exhausted rather quickly, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Showing banned users we won't reward them!" is a point worth disrupting important cleanup work on the encyclopedia, and single-purpose accounts that work within Wikipedia's structures are allowed.

If we're going to be hyper-technical, let's be hyper-technical. Day wasn't a banned user; he was a blocked user evading a block. He was blocked for harassing people and only blocked indefinitely because he was unrepentant and did not intend to desist. Unless you can explain how deleting these unsourced articles full of OR and copyvio was somehow harassment, there isn't even a procedural case to be made here.

So he's not a banned user, there was a consensus of other users to delete this junk, nobody's claiming that it wasn't badly-sourced drek, and, on top of all of this, the last of the AFDs were STILL closed as delete even after Allemandtando was revealed to be Frederick Day.

Now, what are we gaining by undeleting then redeleting these? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mergeable content, valid redirects, public contribution histories, goodwill of the good faith editors who work on them, good bases to restart the articles when additional sources turn up, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no, you are going to get the same damn result and more ill will on both sides. But hey, don't take my word for it. Take it to WP:DRV and see what happens... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have given me pause to consider (plus, I'm getting sleepy). Would love to get some more project member's opinions on this. Have a good night (or day as the case may be in your area). Cheers mate. L0b0t (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Every one of those AfDs enjoyed the support of editors active in the domain and of various pillar doctrines of the project. It wasn't a vote, and one missing "body" wouldn't have changed any of the outcomes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a great extent. However, that "one missing body" would make a great deal of difference because none of those articles would have been nominated in the first place. Do I think the majority of them would survive another trip through AfD? No, no I don't but that's irrelevant. Without the presence of a single purpose, sock, whose sole purpose was deleting articles, the AfD wouldn't have occurred. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument. If the articles aren't appropriate for WP (which they aren't), then any deletion of them should be supported regardless of who the nominator was. To argue otherwise is to take the extreme minority position that any blocked editors should have all their contributions to the project rolled back as a matter of course, something which currently applies to only a handful of contributors over the entire duration of the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To add my own opinion on this subject I believe that this news should not affect our work and we should continue our reorganisation as we were doing. Darxide (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, there's nothing you can do to restore those articles. We've already transwiki'd them so you don't need to worry about the deleted articles. Go ahead and cut them down, it's 'cruft' anyway.

What we have now, instead of a nearly complete compendium of 'in progress' work, is a mixed shatter of articles that have gaping holes in various subjects. All of you might as well continue your blind support and delete it all.

What a shame, now there is no repository for new possible content from the traffic of unique IP editors that flow into WP, and any attempts to fix the even worse mess of broken and unlinked WH40k articles will be hampered by the IRL sock puppets from the Cabal Clubhouse meetings during Friday between Frederick Day (Allie), Man in Black, EEMIV, Jaysweet, Protonk and their admin friend, Neil (who has made sure every AfD article was deleted, that is, the ones he could personally catch).

Oh, you didn't know? They collaborate on Friday night and discuss how to better coordinate their plans on ensuring Wikipedia is clean of any policy violating articles EXCEPT their lovely little Star Wars articles, which they actually take time to clean up and fix. Of course, should people like us get in the way, they start pulling out threats and procedural abuse to get the job done.

Makes you wonder how every AfD was a 'consensus to delete', when its the same 5 people bandwagon in every discussion arguing 'per nom' while several unrelated individuals state otherwise.

Despite their efforts though, we've rescued a fair deal of content before deletion. Feel free to continue deleting articles to keep your little playground the way you brits want it. Hope you have just as much fun tackling other genres, like LOL pokemon. Take care and try to keep Fred's latest sock puppet hidden longer this time, will you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmondManTwo (talk • contribs) 09:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your paranoid rambling. It will be given due consideration. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8