Talk:Games Workshop Online Community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Assessment B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Warhammer 40,000. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Creation of page 1.1 Cleanup-Advert 1.2 Deletion of website articles 2 Still inaccurate 3 Site Removal 4 Specialist Games forums? 5 Top lists 6 More 40k sites? 7 Warhammer 40,000 References? 8 Removed Part of the 40k Article? 9 Newsgroups/Messageboards as Sources

[edit] Creation of page

[edit] Cleanup-Advert

The original article for "The Palantir" was tagged under the "Non-noteworthy Internet forum" template.

Non-noteworthy Internet forum
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page...

In order to cleanup the article and encompass the entire Games Workshop Online Community, the current version of the article has been moved so that it merges material from the Games Workshop and The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game articles. Addressing the initial concerns of notability, it is also important not to give dedicated sections of this article to websites with fewer than 2000 members. To improve this article further, please expand it or add appropriate images, and discuss what is required to cleanup "advertising" in accordance with the current tag. Thank you! Grimhelm 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The "2000 member" guideline was called into question at this article's AfD as an irrelevant and arbitrary threshold. This has now been removed, as this article is about the community as a whole, and is not a directory of individual sites. Accordingly, any mention of fansites must be relevant to the topic and be verifiable. --Grimhelm 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of website articles

The following articles underwent AfD in the week between the 23rd and 30th October:

• ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheeseweb
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Council
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Alliance
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Alliance Website

The result was to delete these articles, but the emerging consensus was that they be mentioned in this article or at War of the Ring Online Campaign where appropriate, by merging important information that could cite sources. This was supported both by the deletion nominator Angus McLellan and closing administrator Xoloz, with no objections. The rules laid down with The Palantir merge apply. --Grimhelm 12:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still inaccurate

There should be no unofficial pages listed here. The GW Online Community means those pages and forums that are part of the GW webpage. Otherwise, all these things are just advertising and fancruft. MSJapan 16:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the wider community of internet fora specifically relating to Games Workshop's miniature wargames, and not just the Official GW Forum (as is made clear in the start of this article). At the same time, "community" inately implies the fan base: for example, Games Workshop recognises that unofficial fora (as part of the GW Online Community) have become responsible for the tactical planning of the Worldwide Campaigns, and gives credit to these fora on the campaign website and in White Dwarf magazine (see issue 312, for example). Furthermore, the only unofficial sites that are mentioned are those that fit the web notability criteria (eg. all those mentioned have at least 2000 members each), otherwise it would indeed be advertising. Removing the notable fansite communities would likely reduce this article to a stub. --Grimhelm 18:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which criteria of WP:WEB are you saying they meet? Cheers --Pak21 08:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, those that have been recognised by GW have featured in published works (first criterion), while some are also important in regard to the tactical layout of worldwide campaigns. As another example, The Palantir started as an e-zine, while other sites (eg. Cheeseweb) distribute content through e-zines as well (third criterion). Those that don't fit into specific web categories have sufficient member numbers for generic notability, and just because unofficial sites are labelled as "fancruft" doesn't make them irrelevant as a large part of the GW community, nor does it disclude them from an article:

As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things [usually articles] labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. (-Wikipedia:Fancruft)

While not all these sites would neccessarily merit their own articles, they are nonetheless important branches of the online community, so there is no reason to delete the concise overviews as they stand (given in order of size and importance). Furthermore, the overviews are not poorly-written or unreferenced (any content is self-evident from their respective homepages, otherwise a separate citation is given). Nor is it unwikified or non-neutral (again, the list is in order of size).

I would of course be completely against articles about sites that are purely blogs or message-boards, but the ones mentioned in this article are far more widely-ranged than a simple message board: the three main Lord of the Rings SBG sites mentioned (The Palantir, The One Ring, and The Last Alliance), for example, are important for the online community as:

• Notable news sites (often reporting upcoming releases before any major detail is given on the main GW site)
• Article Libraries (featuring articles in greater quantities than on the main GW site)
• Hobby Showcases (with miniature galleries, competitons and hall of fame sections)

…just to name a few. So in addition to the obvious forum use, they are multi-purpose reference sites for the online community with a greater versatility than the official site. Just to show the notability of one of them, a Google search for "Last Alliance" shows the site for LotR SBG as its very first hit (out of about 433,000 hits) - and not something about Tolkien's actual The Last Alliance as one might expect. Again, a search for "The Palantir" yields first and foremost the fansite (out of 74,400 hits) instead of the actual Palantir of Tolkien's work. This would certainly seem to indicate web notability in my opinion, so the present fansites much more relevant than mere advertising.

However, if you still have an issue with giving the three main sites of each game their own subsection, then I can see no objection to merging them into one or two paragraphs. --Grimhelm 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Site Removal

I have removed the following from the article:

"The Warp" is a fairly young online forum numbering 644 registered users. The warp is a mainly Warhammer 40,000 orientated forum with boards for Warhammer 40K in general, a section for stories and editorials written by the users themselves, a warhammer fantasy board (although it is not split into Army Lists and General in the way that the Warhammer 40,000 board is, owing to the forum's 40k orientation), and a general discussion forum. The Warp has been prolific over the past few years as a hosting site for other forums and pages, but in its current incarnation it serves primarily as a discussion board.

As per the discussion page, no sites with fewer than 2000 members are to be given there own sub-chapter on this article. It may be possible to re-add it if it can assert web-notability or if it reaches the required numbers. Thank you. --Grimhelm 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specialist Games forums?

Shoould a mention of forum dedicated to Specialist Games (the GW sub-division responsible for the smaller games) be included, as these games all have their own dedicated fan-bases and forums. Also, the GW official SG forum was one of the few GW forums that wasn't axed in November 2006, mainly because these games are updated mainly from fan info. 86.132.144.114 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Darkson

I'm not too familiar with the specialist forums myself, so it would be a good idea if you want to add them. I don't expect the unofficial forums to be too large, so it's probably best to keep them all together in one section. Thanks! :-) --Grimhelm 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and knock some sort of list up (to be honest, I can only really mention the Bloodbowl forums, as I don't normally frequent the other games, but I know some people that do). When I get to it, if it's not in the Wiki style, I apologise up front, as it will be the first I add. Darkson 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I believe "Firebase" is a e-zine devoted to Warhammer 40,000, that occansionally runs articles for the Specialist Games set in the 40K universe. Darkson - BANG! 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right - and it does read as "among others" [ie. among other rulesets], although we may wish to clarify that. --Grimhelm 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I read "among others" as meaning it wasn't the only ezine for Specialist Games. Darkson - BANG! 23:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Then we definately need to clarify. Can you think of any purely SG e-zines? --Grimhelm 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a Bloodbowl one, the name escapes me at the moment, but it recently started (issue 3 due this month). If you mean various systems, but only SG games, then I don't know of any. Darkson - BANG! 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And that reads better, thanks. Darkson - BANG! 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put the Specialist Games section back. Even though there's still lifeline support for them, the article is about the online community, official or otherwise. There's a thriving Specialist Games community for many of them (uh...does anyone still play Man o' War? :) ), in fact, most of the new rules are only available online, so we know GW knows there's a significant online community for the Specialist Games. Shrumster 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, did a preliminary neutral blurb just to give SG a presence. Anyone with more info on the Specialist Games online community? I only play Necromunda and haven't done so in quite a while. Shrumster 14:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what info are you looking for? I'm one of the moderators on the Specialist Games forums.

Also, there's a "citation needed" tag on the fact that SG rules are available from the website. I'm not sure what sort of citation is needed, and if (for example) a message from the SG editior is required, I've no way of giving a link, as the SG websitehas a redirect from the hompepage, so a direct link is useless. Darkson - BANG! 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not entirely sure. Are there any major significant Specialist Games-specific online community efforts? Anything to flesh out the article with appropriate, significant info would be greatly appreciated. Shrumster 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can really only speak for Bloodbowl (my main game), though I know the other games are in similarsituations. The latest Bloodbowl rules (LRB5) was pretty much written from input from members on the official SG BB sub-forum, and from independent BB forums such as TalkBloodBowl. Jervis Johnson laid down a set of guidelines, then mid-way through the project was moved back to the main studio, passing the torch on to a dedicated member of the online community.

Is that the sort of thing? If so, I can ask the member concerned to write a better paragraph. Darkson - BANG! 20:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. We need hard references though, no first-hand info. As I expect most of the discussions to be on the fora, that might not be admissible, except for official posts by authorities like Jervis. Shrumster 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top lists

Is this forum really the "top 40k forum"? I ask, as I've honestly not heard of it, or seen it linked from elsewhere, unlike the 3 listed 40k forums. Darkson 10:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either, and among other things, it lacks sources to verify its claims. As such, I have removed it to here:

Warvault" is the biggest current topsite for the Games Workshop hobby. Established in late 2005 by the administration team of the now defunct "Scorched Earth" online forum, Warvault has gone through several incarnations, culminating in a complete overhaul following a hack attempt in May 2006. With administrators from across the community helping out Warvault, it is one of the most neutral places for the Games Workshop Online Community to go.
In November / December 2006, Warvault also decided to host the "Warhammer Realm" online forum, which was set up by refugees from the now closed down Games Workshop UK Online forums. It currently has over 400 members, making it an average sized forum, but with massive growth in the beginning. The Warvault team regularly helps out with the running of Warhammer Realm.
A new incarnation of Warvault is scheduled for early 2007, coinciding with a toplist reset.

--Grimhelm 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was also going to comment on this discussion page about the article prod'ing, but have left them here at the AfD instead. --Grimhelm 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More 40k sites?

Shouldn't there be more of the major 40k sites here? Like Librarium-Online, DakkaDakka & Bolter&Chainsword? Those are pretty significant chunks of the online 40k community, especially since Portent went down years ago. Shrumster 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The section could stand to be expanded, but only with information that can assert verifiable notability in relation to the community as a whole. "DakkaDakka" and "Bolter&Chainsword" are actually already cited in the footnotes as sources for that section. Of course, if you can find any more relevant information (and reference sources for it), then I would be glad to help. --Grimhelm 23:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will be adding them in a while. Shrumster 09:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to the Warhammer 40,000 community section. No in-text links like before, but links to the sites mentioned are tastefully added as references. Shrumster 12:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was some great work, especially with the citation! :-) I actually think that the four sites now assert notability enough to warrant having their own in-line links; namely the aforementioned Bolter and Chainsword, WarSeer, Dakka Dakka and Librarium-Online. I also think that with these new improvements and "globalising" of the article, we could submit it for Good article review. A few pictures for the 40K section might be helpful; you could post links here to any pictures you would recommend, and then I could upload the most suitable of them. --Grimhelm 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! By pics, do you mean screenshots of the sites themselves, or logos? Shrumster 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, either really, but we can only have about two or three, so the most notable pictures would probably be the best. I did some browsing through the sites, and was thinking of a screenshot from an e-zine (such as page two of Firebase - covering both 40K and Specialist Games). For a logo, you could use that of Librarium-Online, although I think a picture or screenshot from a hobby article would also be appropriate. Once we can decide on these two or three pictures, we will have to get the permission of the owner of the picture (most likely through that site's admin). --Grimhelm 11:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warhammer 40,000 References?

Someone has tagged the Warhammer 40,000 section as needing reliable references. I'm just wondering which particular statements in the article need these? AFAIK, I've referenced every single factual bit of info I've added and I've avoided bloating the article with unreferenced information. If many of the linked sources are mostly fora/discussion sites, it's because our article is about the "community", which are the fora themselves. IMHO, the spirit of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking is to prevent using posts forum posts as sources for information, and doesn't outright ban referencing fora, especially if they are the subject of the article itself? If there are facts in the article that do seriously need references, I can cut them out until we find some. Shrumster 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is (as this article has had from the very beginning), the complete lack of indication as to why anyone other than Wikipedia editors believes these sites to be notable. As for specific statements, "the popular Turn Signals on a Land Raider": which reliable source says TSOALR is popular? "A few major forum sites form a significant portion of the community as a whole". Says who? "These unofficial sites are often major endeavours, requiring significant financial investment and enterprise-level server hardware." Original research unless cited. "a testament to the dedication and seriousness that the fans take the game with" Which source is being referred to here, or is this more OR? However, it's the first bit that's the most important, not the specific statements. --Pak21 14:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I guess I was too prose-ey when I added those. I'll try rewording and taking out the offending statements. Shrumster 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Part of the 40k Article?

Someone User:75.57.161.53 just did, without an edit summary or justification. That statement (and reference) was there to show some particular actions of the Online Community (the subject of the article) and was entirely in context. I will be putting back the removed text in a while, if anyone does not object. Shrumster 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was going to revert it earlier as vandalism, but thought I'd let others have a look. Removing sourced information without a summary though is always suspect in my mind though. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the IP-person's talk page asking why it was done. Since it was properly sourced/cited, yeah, we should put it back unless the person gives a good reason why it should be taken out. Shrumster 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue the section was not properly sourced. As a primary source, forum posts should be used only for "descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources". Describing it as a "heated debate" involving "menial details" is an interpretive claim by the editor who inserted the text, and as such needs a secondary source. If the material is re-added, the interpretive claims should either be removed or a source given to support them. Cheers --Pak21 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...ok. Will do that. Shrumster 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question. Would the term "debate" be considered interpretive, or is it self-evident from the discussion? Also, how about "minor detail"? Should it just be called a "detail" then? Shrumster 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsgroups/Messageboards as Sources

Just realized that we can use these as primary sources (but not secondary, so no showing notability/verifying facts). Per WP:V#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s), "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: * it is relevant to their notability;* it is not contentious;* it is not unduly self-serving;* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.". Since this article is about the community as a whole, we can cite specific message boards, but we're only limited to stating facts about those posts (i.e. several posters in X board discussed Y) and not using them to represent the community as a whole. Shrumster 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)