Talk:Horus Heresy
Battle Articles[edit]
I don't doubt that we can write nice articles on each of the battles mentioned under the "Warhammer 40,000 fluff" section. There's more than enough information out there in Black Library books and so on. That said, I'm wondering (partly caused by a comment that Dr. Thompson made on my talk page) if we really "should" be making these articles, or how we should be going about it.
There are wikis out there that dedicate themselves to Warhammer 40,000, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: The Gathering, and so on; I'm not trying to say that we can't or shouldn't have articles about topics in those games ourselves (especially when I've written so many), but it's worth thinking about what we're "about" (that is, what sets us apart from those other sites). I think that a reasonable guideline (that I've been unconsciously using sporadically, and will be following more thoroughly in the future, now that I've laid it out in writing and thought about it consciously) is that, wherever possible, we should try and tie everything back into one or more aspects of actual gaming -- rules, models, and so on -- as opposed to other wikis, e.g. Lexicanum, that explicitly exclude gameplay and rules from their "scope". For example, when I create articles on Warhammer 40,000 vehicles, I include (or will someday add) sections about the unit's rules and models, how they have changed over time (both how the unit's rules have changed, and how the way that they "fit" in the game has changed), and so on.
I'm not planning on removing the redlinks, and I won't put the articles up for deletion if/when they get created (heck, I might just write one or two myself -- I know that the Battle of Isstvan III has a campaign system in Forge World's first Horus Heresy book, and the Siege of Terra is what the board game is all about, so there's certainly a tabletop connection there), but I think that, when writing and improving articles, we should try and include (or at least bear in mind) how one could actually use whatever the article is about in a game (or some other connection to gaming), and if an article hasn't got any connection to the tabletop, people editing the page should consider how to add it.
I'm still trying to sort out exactly what I think and how to articulate it, so don't take me too seriously (I certainly don't think that we should shoehorn a "Tabletop" section into every article that lacks one, or delete articles that don't have stats, or any similarly drastic course of action), but there's probably something worthwhile here. If/when I get it more clarified, I might turn this into an essay on my userpage or something. --Not LongPoster Again 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Spoilers[edit]
Who the hell thought adding spoilers is a good idea and why, I wonder? --Flutist (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thomasrive added some a few weeks ago and no one cared. I added the rest because it was clearly okay.--97.104.199.133 22:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Angelus?[edit]
Did they rename Angelus to Malevolence?
