User talk:Genestealer

From Age of Sigmar - Lexicanum
Revision as of 09:06, 28 February 2009 by Jonru (talk | contribs) (magnus and skaven articles)
Jump to: navigation, search
File:Johann van Hal-Small.jpg Attention, Adept of the LEXICANUM!

This article needs some improvement on its citations.
Please help us by finding, confirming, and inserting official sources at the proper places.

Aehren

Hy there, I have a question and a request. First of all I hope that you can follow my reasons for my many changes and agree with them. Generally speaking I tried to make the categories easier and simpler to use. Many of them were simply way too technical.

Second: Are you a syops? If yes, would you mind deleting/obliterating the specimens that I collected inside of Category:Deletion Requests? Please take a cautious look and if you don't agree with the deletion of something please tell me so (preferably inside of the Category page - easier to use).

You can answer "here". Aehren 01:41, 29 November 2008 (CET)


The minute one cannot be honest if polite in the internet is the day I throw my computer out of the window. I know that I'm not perfect. Still I believe that you agree with most of my changes and with most of the candidates for deletion (?). As for the three deletion candidates that you don't agree upon:

1)That's why I was flexible and created the Category:Vampires & Necromancers (Category:Vampire Counts is also a deletion candidate - this name (of the armybook) is simply way too restrictive). My reasoning is explained in the description of the new category.

2)Category:Minor Races, Ok you have a good point there and you have convinced me.

3)I honestly don't agree with keeping a whole Category:Elves. There is an article Elves which clearly explains the basics (and also includes the necessary Sea Elves-info - "Sea Elves" being a re-direct towards it). An article about something before the civil war, or something concerning all two (HE + DE) or even all three nations (HE + DE + WE) can appear in all two or even all three categories. Giving an example: eventually somebody will create an article about the Elven gods. This article can and should be included all in the three categories (as it concerns all three nations to an (more or less) equal degree) plus a deities-category. Aehren 03:34, 29 November 2008 (CET)


Hmm, I think that these regiments belong in the categories "Dogs of War" and in "Vampires and Necromancers". In final analysis they are a product of Necromancy. It's more or less the same with Treemen, they are a part of the army of the Wood Elves. Aehren 18:38, 29 November 2008 (CET)

How are you doing? I have been largely inactive these days because of the Christmas season (between Christmas and New Year). I have been thinking a bit about being an administrator...to deal with vandals...to delete stuff...to answer questions. Well I guess someone really has to do it - so what the hell. Count me in. I'm going to talk with Inquisitor S about this but only in January. These days he seems to be quite active at the English 40K Wiki (the vandals are quite busy). I just hope that the barbarian/vandal hordes never truly notice and target this wiki. On the other hand common vandals are easier to deal with than assholes who try to push their own personal/political agenda but hide themselves behind a mask of politeness and "official neutrality" (the English Wikipedia is just full of those pricks these days). Aehren 23:39, 29 December 2008 (CET)

What I don't understand is if this vandalism is a personal revenge or something like that or a "profesional" who is paid to put publicity/links in wikis. Aehren 00:45, 10 January 2009 (CET)

Field promotion

Additional rights granted. Please note that for the next time it is best to contact me via e-mail as my access time is restricted. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 13:24, 13 January 2009 (CET)

Timeline

Congratulations upon your promotion. Now we can do some real damage (LOL).

I have been thinking a bit about creating a major article (called "Timeline" - the current "Category:Timeline" is probably better replaced by "Category:History" - a better name). Something very similar to History of the Wood Elves but even better, like the English 40K Lex has. We could slowly create a single comprehensive timeline of the whole Warhammer World by including the information from all the armybooks (armybooks first, later also dates and information from novels, etc).

It will need a couple of fields like "Date or Imperial year", "involved nations" (for example: "Dark Elves and Orcs & Goblins" for a battle between the two or only "Wood Elves" for something that only concerns the pointy-eared tree-hugers), "event" (a copy from the entry of the armybook), "notes and comments", "source" (absolutely mandatory, ANYTHING without a proper and verifiable source gets deleted ASAP, with EXTREME prejudice).

What do you think about it? Aehren 22:13, 14 January 2009 (CET)


I have been deleting some stuff. I hope you agree with these actions. In the case that you don't agree with something please tell me something asap.

I personally think that fewer categories is simply better. It's easier to see, to understand, and then to work with. IMHO too many categories simply creates too much confusion. Being honest: es ist ein deutsches Problemm - zu uebertechnisch zu sein. :)

Wikis (and this Lex) should IMHO rather be like a tree. It starts with main/central articles which are slowly expanded. New articles are created slowly and only when needed. Same with the categories. Aehren 00:40, 15 January 2009 (CET)

Real damage, eh? Do you know some good porn sites to link on...? :)
Looks like I'm sysop now in both english lexicani... - because of the spammers ;) But okay, I think two (active) sysops for every lex should be the minimum.

Timeline: there're different styles in the other lexicani:

Although the second variant looks slightly better, we surely get in trouble with it, as there're often several events in the same year (we don't have 40,000 of them here). Also the source on the right takes some space (mostly we have more to write than "Fourth Quadrant rebellion.").

Categories: we need more, when the lex grows. But you're right, the german fantasy lex has far too much and sometimes obscure ones (try to find the pump wagon here...).--Genestealer, Magus 22:07, 15 January 2009 (CET)

Portal boxes

Well to be very honest I'm very but very against the current portal boxes. These kind of boxes are useful to gather ppl who want to cooperate in improving articles about a particular subject (Wikiprojects - that's their use in Wikipedia).

But here? We are only two contributors, and way too few to need them at all. In the future perhaps, but now?

Even if they become useful in the future the correct place would be in the talkpages and not on the article pages at all. Currently they seem to be a kind of rival to the categories themselves (e.g.: 'Skaven portal' rivals the 'category:Skaven').

Another alternative is to later create larger boxes (say one for each nation) which show the major articles of a nation. Aehren 21:10, 16 January 2009 (CET)

Deletions

The "Template:SpeedyDelete" is a good idea. However having a whole article to present each case, to agree (or not) upon it... We can also do all these things inside the Category page. Right inside of Category:Deletion Requests. And this way we can clearly see all the candidates. Aehren 21:16, 16 January 2009 (CET)

Original image

ProblemsBeastman.jpg

Can you upload the whole image? I remember it and IMHO it is one the finest images of the Beastmen ever made and more than worthy to include in an article. Aehren 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tell me something, do you have more of such images (original and somewhat older material of GW)? Where did you get them? Can you upload more? Aehren 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I vaguely remember a big image of the Horned Rat. He is rising from a throne and is enormous (he also has 4 horns, etc). Could you get that image? If you can't do it today, tomorrow (or whenever). Thanks. Aehren 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A minor Skaven God? Would it be OR or something to use his image in a "Vermin Lord" article? The image could be of a Vermin Lord and it is kind of a shame not to use it (perhaps with a little note explaining the issue).

I also vaguely remember an image of a beastman, carrying two axes and walking through a forest or something. I THINK that it's the same image inside of Warhammer Armies Chaos 4th edition, page 69. Could you you find and upload that image? Thanks in advance. Aehren 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hy, how about another image? A Skaven warlord holding a spear in one hand and a shield on the other? He is looking over his army. It appears inside of "Warhammer armies skaven (4th edition)" page 72. Thanks Aehren 05:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem

There is a problem. If you don't log in and take a look at "Skaven clan", "Pillar of Commandments", and "Council of Thirteen" you won't see the references at all. I don't know what's going on. Aehren 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Orcs & Goblins" or "Orcs and Goblins" ?

Hy there I see that you made a significant change. However I believe that the proper name is truly "Orcs & Goblins". At least this is the name used by the 3 armybooks. "&" is AFAIK simply a shortform of "and", at least this is what Wikipedia says. I'm simply very much in favour of returning to the previous name (Orcs & Goblins"). Another thing: what is "DPL" ?. Aehren 15:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I see the advantages, but notice that the DPL is supposed to serve the articles and categories and not the other way around. I also think that most of the functions of DPL can be fulfilled by the categories. I'm strongly in favour of using "Orcs & Goblins" (and "Vampires & Necromancers"). Aehren 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I understand and kind of agree with having good and short articles of older and outdated fluff. Having a good short description of the "evolution of (whatever) nation" can also be done. Perhaps the best place would be in the "Sources & notes section"?

A whole category "Greenskins" is IMHO unnecessary (as are any categories "Elves" or "Humans"). I think we should rather have good articles about these subjects giving the necessary information. See Elves, Human, and Greenskin (all three articles still need plenty of work). Aehren 00:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bretonnia

I took a look at the categories Bretonnia and Skaven and I saw plenty of such articles (needing moves to the proper names). I'm trying to improve the article Bretonnia into something acceptable first. Then it could be used as a schema for the articles of other nations. Aehren 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Magnus and Skaven history articles

Hi. Could you have a look at the Magnus and Skaven history articles? I'm looking for a reason to delete them (aside from being rubbish) and was wondering if they came straight out of a book? They read like they do! Thanks--Jonru 09:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)