Talk:Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Warhammer 40,000 on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

1 About the Page so far
2 Moving
3 Lead section
4 Why Somguy's changes are wrong
5 History merge
6 Fair use images
7 Background
8 Not quite right.
9 Non-free images warning
10 Sanchi
11 Fair use rationale for Image:Space-wolf-omni-sb.jpg
12 Fair use rationale for Image:TheFounding.jpg
13 Fair use rationale for Image:Tanith-ghosts-blist.gif
14 Fair use rationale for Image:WarriorStern.jpg
15 Fair use rationale for Image:Eisenhorn cover.jpg
16 Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodquest.jpg
17 Fair use rationale for Image:Kal Jericho.jpg
18 Fair use rationale for Image:Lone wolves cover.jpg
19 Fair use rationale for Image:Whm1.jpg

[edit] About the Page so far

Hi, I'm currently updating, so its not in its final format (there are some catagories to add, etc). All books with more than one work can be included as a main book. Smaller books and short stories not related to a book should be included at the end of its section. I'm updating and adding information as fast as I can. However, if there is something that is desperately wanted to be added now, don't hesitate to say so and I will move it to the top of the priorities.

A note: this page is for creations dealing with BL, not loose stories just found in the codexes or in White Dwarf. If a BL work crosses into the above two, then it should be mentioned. SanchiTachi 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give a good reason why this shouldn't be AfD'd as a POV fork? You've ignored consensus on a previous page and duplicated content to get your way. Aside from you having taken the time to expand the number of novels, its content still doesn't match its title. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem, contact Swatjester. SanchiTachi 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked you. Please answer the question. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The two entries have very different scopes and remits. Granted some of the content of this entry is based on the original but they are not two entries covering the same topic in different ways and should be fine. As it is this entry is quite large and might need a little tightening up, meanwhile List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels needs expanding and focusing, There might be some grounds for a complaint but that is purely going to slow down the unlocking and subsequent editting of the other entry which should over time resolve this issue anyway. It isn't ideal but it will result in two very different entries which should be fairly solid and useful to people. (Emperor 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

As I don't want to deal with crap again, I'll accept that. I still find the manner in which this was carried out to be quite contrary to how Wikipedia works, though. This should have been done after discussion, not before, so this problem wouldn't have cropped up at all. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving

You boys are doing it again so cut it out and we'll talk about it. There is basically no need for the disambiguating on this entry as there is no other Black Library gaming entry so namin conventions say keep it as simple as possible so this should be at: Black Library gaming' (Emperor 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Unless, as an edit summary says, there will be others called "Black Library gaming (X)" in which case this is fine for now - if they never show up this can be moved. (Emperor 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Lead section

As there is dispute over this discuss it here - don't edit war. Someguy is right that it needs to be concise and explain the scope and remit of this entry. I'd suggest:

Black Library publishes spin-off and tie-in material for the vaious Games Workshop games, including Warhammer 40k. This material in turn has prompted the development of rules and figures that themselves tie-in with the storis published by Black Library.

Somethign like that. (Emperor 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I answered the moving thing on Allison's page. As for the lead you suggest, I like that. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited Someguy's lead to put in correct wording (as the wording he had was inprecise on how the company is involved in the things following). Also, there will be a Warhammer page and a Necromunda page, as Warhammer and Necromunda have the same book lines and tie ins. They are Forked based on size, which is permissable, and the disamb page is necessary to point out the differences. Also, there is no difference between the two ref list formats so I don't see why people keep changing it from one to the other. SanchiTachi 22:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Reflist}} is the standard, and the column feature prevents it from pushing the page down. As for your disambig concerns, you'll want to make Black Library gaming a disambiguation page if that is your intent. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Note: multiple columns currently render properly only in Mozilla Firefox,[1] though the feature is included in CSS3, so it should work for a larger number of browsers in the future.[2]" seeing as how you constantly decide to make it "two" columns, when the columns wont appear because of the size of the entries, and seeing as how it only applies to a minority of web browswer, your constant changing is inappropriate. Thanks. SanchiTachi 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Sanchi on that one - I see no difference in the refs regardless of which tag is used - I've not come across a page that puts them in two columns for me (IE7).

However, question to Sanchi - why should Necromunda fiction have it's own page? Does it not fall under the W40K banner. If not, I assume you intend to have a BL gaming (Blood Bowl) page, seeing as there are 3 novels for BB? Darkson - BANG! 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Somguy's changes are wrong

1. Bolding of the name is not for emphasis. Its to describe the game, as opposed to a book. Furthermore, the rule he quotes does not pertain, as that bolding in "1st para" also applies to the "lead" which is considered the introduction.

2. Swatjester has already made it clear that he will deal with me, not you. If you have any problems, stop edit warring and take it to him.

Please respect the admin's ruling, thanks. SanchiTachi 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

i commented on your talk. Please discuss this, instead of turning to Swat as a go-between. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afriad point 1 is incorrect - there was excessive use of bold against guidelines. Bold should be used in a very limit tightly defined way: WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. Someguy (and the anonymous user) are right to remove it and the current version (last time I checked) looks to be essentially correct - with the first incidence of the title words in bold. (Emperor 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Putting in Italics is misleading and not correct. Use of Italics implies that Warhammer 40,000 1st edition is the game that its approved for. If you want to go through and put in each edition that the game is in, then you be the one to correct it all. Warhammer 40,000 bolded is to distinguish it as the gaming system, not a particular book. Italics are for books. Bolding is for major projects. SanchiTachi 23:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All I changed was the bold on the word "games" as I have no feelings one way or the other about the italics (you didn't remove them with your last edit though) - the issue is the bold in the lead paragraph and you seem to misunderstand its use. My previous post provides the details and I hope that helps clarify things. (Emperor 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

On the bolding of the subject in the opening paragraph see: WP:LEAD#Bold title and WP:MOS#Article titles. In this case: Black Library and Warhammer 40,000 games (games as gaming isn't used - might want to think about seeing if it can be reworded - not vital but...). It does not inply anything about whether they are titles of anything, which your previous edit summary suggest you think this means: "Warhammer 40,000 games is not the title". I agree it is not the title of a project - it is the subject of this entry hence it is bold. (Emperor 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Regarding your last edit summary, bolding games isn't vandalism, as you seem to be missing the emphasis, and therefore separation, placed on Warhammer 40,000. One is separate from the other, but both are bolded as part of the article's subject. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User Someguy is trying to claim that "Black Library gaming" (a verb) somehow equates to "Warhammer 40,000 game" (a noun). User Someguy refuses to cite verifiable information for his choice of a title. That is all that needs to be stated. SanchiTachi 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"User Someguy" is trying to get you to see that an italicized word followed by a "normal" word are two separate things, regardless of the bolding. Please listen. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to read what I have said - the subject of the entry is in bold. No one is saying it is a title. Please also read the style guidelines I link to above. If you think that three editors or wrong and you are right you can drop a note in on the talk page of WP:MOS and ask an independet editor to have a look. (Emperor 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

You are now well over WP:3R and may be on 6R by now. This is ridiculous for something so minor. Please take time to read what has been said and the links I have given and seek a third party to give advice if need be. I have dropped a note on your user page but given the rapid rate of clear up I doubt it will last very long hence my doubling up here. (Emperor 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] History merge

If anyone comes here curious as to why the page is gone, Deskana is doing a history merge to address GDFL concerns. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have terrible timing. Merge done apparently. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

I don't think we can come up with justifications for having the comic covers on here as well as the entry that deals with them so I'd recommend focusing on keeping the ones not shared and possibly coming up with a fair use rationale that we can use for both sets of images. Anyone game? (Emperor 03:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Coming up with rationales is easy enough, though the duplicate covers can go. Simply put, a rationale is as easy as:

"Image is used in said article to illustrate a specific book or issue of a comic where no free alternative can be found."

— Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those. I will have to look into those as I haven't uploaded an image in a while. Glad to hear it is straightforward. (Emperor 15:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Background

Short stories and other pieces of fiction were created for the White Dwarf magazine, for Warhammer 40,000 rulebooks and gaming guides, and other publications, such as the Citadel Journal and their official websites. Later, these evolved into larger novels.

Does a mention be needed to made here that the Dark Future game (which has no connection to W40K) had novels published by GW over 10 years ago, before BL was formed? Probably not here, come to think of it.... Darkson - BANG! 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite right.

These stories are written in the perspective of humans,

Apart from the stories written from the perspective of the Eldar (Eldar Prophecy for example), Chaos (Daemon World) and Tau (Fire Warrior). Darkson - BANG! 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That line could probably just go. The synopsis suggests the perspective anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images warning

Please examine which of these images are essential to the article. It is not the case that all seventeen images "contribute significantly to [the] article", such that they "increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" and without them "the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired". Some of the topics represented by the images are not even discussed in the article; others are found in the main article on the topic and are duplicated here. These seventeen images also do not constitute a "limited" use, seventeen images are not necessary "to demonstrate" the subject of the article, Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000). Most of these images need to be deleted, and the ones remaining need to be specifically and significantly discussed in the article. —Centrx→talk • 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You said that not all the pictures apply. Really? Which ones? Because every picture is mentioned in the article. They are all either models released by Black Library, which seem to be on the left, or the pictures of one of the many books mentioned on the right. I think that if you are trying to connect books with game, that visually, it does just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.133.79 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 31 May 2007

They need to be actively discussed in the article. It is not sufficient, for example, to simply have the title of the book listed among others in the article. All seventeen images are not necessary to give the reader a significant understanding of what the figurines, book covers, etc. look like. —Centrx→talk • 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of "actively discussed" because each one with a picture has at least one paragraph discussing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.133.79 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 May 2007

No, "Kal Jerico" has exactly one sentence. "The Founding" is a title listed among several others, though the series in general is discussed further. "Rebel Winter" is not discussed at all. Several have multiple images for the very same paragraph. Seventeen images is too many. Non-free images are a necessary evil in light of the dual purposes of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia. Seventeen images are not necessary such that without any one of them "the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired". If I remove one, the reader's ability to understand the topic is not significantly impaired. If I remove two, the reader's ability to understand the topic is not significantly impaired. How about if I remove ten, or fifteen? I don't know, but it is up to the authors of the article to make a good-faith effort to only include images that are absolutely necessary for having an encyclopedic article. —Centrx→talk • 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG, if you are going to complain that there isn't enough information on Kal Jerico, like, put more in. Dur. I remember reading that on the welcome to wikipedia page. If something isn't right, add to it and make it right. If you don't know what to add, there is a tag for that. I saw it before but I don't know the name. It says "this page needs an expert". Gesh. If you remove one, what does it add? Thats the thing. Only delete if it adds to a page. When you list a series of books that has 9 books, why whine that one of them was picked? If you remove two, it makes the whole thing look lame. Why did you put pictures for one and not the other? The reader would wonder why the editors are so retarded to leave something as obvious as that. Why don't you bitch about the pictures of superman comics when they don't even really come up. Or whine about how many pictures are on the animal page, because clearly you are a picture-nazi who thinks that pictures are somehow the devil. 75.104.133.79 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to keep the discussion WP:CIVIL. Centrx is pointing out the fair use policy and concerns have been raised about that angle in relation to this thread. If you want a second opinion then you can raise it on the talk page over at WP:FU. While I suspect the answer will be the same it might generate more input and ideas about moving forward. (Emperor 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

You put in the one line about Jerico. Defend your work! That guy called you out and didn't assume good faith that you were going to expand it. The guy is using a reverse Sodom and Gemmorah Lot process of logic (for those who don't know the Bible, Lot argued God down to saving the city if there was just one good person there). It seems that this guy wants to arbitrarily remove other people's work because its not done. People need to be bold and get off their butts and contribute instead of sitting back and yelling at people as if they were slaves to be ordered around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.139.78.169 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 June 2007

Some of the "gaming" images could go, because the BL figs were/are (normally) dioramas, and therefore not suitable for tabletop gaming (Leonatas and Jericho being obvious exceptions here). Darkson - BANG! 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply, the images are only appropriate after the subject is actually discussed in the article and seventeen would be far too many regardless; I am here in response to a reported copyright violation, not to write an article on a subject in which I have little knowledge or interest. You can either fix the article yourself, crafting with your knowledge and interest a good article with an appropriate, lower number of images, or I can start deleting some of the images without the benefit of knowing which images are more important to keep. —Centrx→talk • 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we just proved Godwin's Law. :( --GentlemanGhost 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanchi

Note 2 editors on the talk page and one on the entry were Sanchi Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi. It'd be worth checking their edits to make sure they haven't been deliberately disrupting the page (although I suspect some of you have). It obviously has a bearing on the above discussion. (Emperor 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Space-wolf-omni-sb.jpg

Image:Space-wolf-omni-sb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TheFounding.jpg

Image:TheFounding.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tanith-ghosts-blist.gif

Image:Tanith-ghosts-blist.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WarriorStern.jpg

Image:WarriorStern.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Eisenhorn cover.jpg

Image:Eisenhorn cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 10:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodquest.jpg

Image:Bloodquest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kal Jericho.jpg

Image:Kal Jericho.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lone wolves cover.jpg

Image:Lone wolves cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 10:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Whm1.jpg

Image:Whm1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)