Talk:Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on August 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

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 is a very sketchy beginning for this article as I'm not hugely confident in wiki editing. Please refrain from linking to it in any other articles to avoid confusion and duplication, but also please refrain from deleting it until it's 'ready'. Try to make comments here before altering things in a big way, please?

Thanks. Sojourner001 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now, so I'll be helping to keep an eye on it for you. I'll let you fuss around with it some more before doing anything. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe style

This sort of thing has popped up a couple of times on articles I'm involved with. I fail to see how an article entirely about that work of fiction can avoid writing in such a way, other than obfuscating the text in a way that makes it look encyclopedic while simply restating the information already there. Sojourner001 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WAF yet? If not, that's obviously the place to start, along with all the articles which are linked from there as examples. Possibly if the information you're trying to include can't be written in an out-of-universe style, then it may be the case that it simply shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia in the first place. Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed. The guidelines don't seem to draw a distinction between an article that refers to a fictional element within a wider topic; say the storyline of a TV show within an article about that TV show in general; and an article whose entire premise is to synopsis a fictional work. Also bear in mind that most of the text isn't mine; it's crossposted from other articles who likewise are an in-universe perspective.

Finally, I'd like to point out that if the comic book wikipedians can do it, why can't we? Sojourner001 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An article whose entire premise is to synopsis a fictional work is something that should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7: "Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction". --Pak21 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes; another thing: This article had a work-in-progress banner on it, indicating that I was aware of its shortcomings and that it's obviously unfinished in many other ways. You removed it for no reason that I can see. The talk page is there for a reason - I'd appreciate it if you'd voice your concerns there before slapping a banner on the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sojourner001 (talk • contribs) .

The template I removed should be used when an article is undergoing active work; it is there to let other editors know that other edits may be occurring at the same time as they edit to reduce the risk of edit conflicts. As the article hadn't been edited for a number of hours when I saw it, removing the template was entirely the right thing to do. As for the cleanup templates, they are there to let other editors know of concerns that exist with this article. Don't take them personally. --Pak21 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I'm slowly plugging away on a rewrite for this article. I aim to condense down all this guff into a much shorter article, move as uch of the grand-scale fiction here as possible, and replace swathes of cruft with links here. Feel free to hunt down situations where this can occur.Sojourner001 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work, it certainly needs it. I think that most of the background info in wiki40k is plucked direct from codex astartes and the like, word for word. It's incredibly unencyclopedic, not to mention plagiaristic. mattbuck 01:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)