Talk:White Scars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Not sure how to add it but here is the link to more information on them from the armageddon 3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.20.226.14 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] "influences"

I just removed the "influences" section. The Warhammer 40,000 Wikiproject's current guidelines say that it is best to refrain from having such sections as they are "insignificant and cannot be cited", and I happen to agree with them. While I see that the WS's do have a Mongol-inspired flavor to them, I also think that flavor is superficial at best (not extending any further than their names and their preference for mounted units- but their tactics and strategies are very different, especially in the current ruleset). Cheers.--DarthBinky 17:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the edit, but I think it should be pointed out that they are proposed guidelines at this point in time. Cheers --Pak21 17:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that... oops. That's why I mentioned that I happened to agree with them. Anyway, all's well that end's well. --DarthBinky 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it agreed to remove the influences? This is actually quite a big deal because if its decided to remove them on one page it should be applied to all and I dont see it as insignificant? The history of Jaghatai Khan is basically the exact same as Ghengis' not to mention he actually bears the surname khan... I think its a good idea to have the influences to see how it relates to life, for the purpose of non-gamers who may read these? Lowris 10:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just read the description of Jaghatai here and it doesn't really match Genghis' overmuch, aside from superficial things like the name, or that he unified some tribes (but if that's enough to mention it, then we might as well mention others who've "unified tribes", like Attila, Osman, Muhammed or even Charlemagne; my point being that it's just too superficial to warrant mention). And yes, the same standard should be applied across all Warhammer 40,000 pages, and I have been doing just that (I recently removed a similar section from the article about World Eaters/Angron, as well as from the Necron one). There is a vague resemblance, I'll admit, but it's just that- vague. And unless the writers explicitly state that they based X faction/race upon Y move/historical figure/etc, then we really can't cite it. What if we say that they based it upon Genghis, but then GW's studio folks state that it was based on Kublai, or some other historical figure? Then the whole time it said Genghis, this article will be wrong, because we didn't have a reference.

Anyway, I mentioned earlier the project guidelines (which, as mentioned, aren't "official" policy yet) to show that there is a running consensus out there, and that it's not just me abusing my editor abilities. If you disagree with that consensus, you are more than welcome to go to the guidelines page above and voice your concerns. Cheers --DarthBinky 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was using Ghengis as an example, the matter in which they rose to power is the same, through the attack on their village etc etc but thats not important - i just think it might not be a good idea to completely remove the external influences sections from the warhammer articles Lowris 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)