Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm going to start a wiki encyclopedia for 40k canon (and one for fantasy). My goal in doing this is to eventually have a Warhammer encyclopedia available that is more reliable and easy to read than some of the other ones that exist now. I'm currently in the process of setting up the wikis.

I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions for what they would like to see in a 40k encyclopedia. For example, features, categories, layout, or anything else significant to readers or editors.

I'm also wondering about a name for it. I've called it Sturmkrieg so far, but I wonder if a different name would be better (it uses the sturmkrieg domain name though).

Two of the best ideas I've had so far are Liberkon and Liberkonov.

I was also thinking that we could work with some of the 40k background forums to record information that gets discussed.

Please share any ideas, suggestions, or comments.

I'm kind of curious. What are you going to do to make your wiki more reliable and easier to read than say Lexicanum?

What can it do that Lexicanum won't? Lexicanum is the go-to 40k wiki type deal, and I don't know what anyone short of GW could bring to bear that challenges it.

http://www.lexicanum.com/

To make it easier to read, I'm going to use the Vector skin, which is the same skin that is used at Wikipedia. I will also be minimal with customizations, to keep it easy to read. That should make it a lot easier to read than Lexicanum, and since a year ago, WH40K, which has a highly irregular skin that makes it very difficult to read and edit.

For reliability, I don't think it will be hard to become more reliable than WH40K, which has absolutely no footnotes and hardly any citations at all. Lexicanum is also not always well cited, and its citations frequently lack verifiability. I would require a standard citation format (although without getting into too much formatting detail ).

We would work on adding content by working with gaming stores and working with the users of canon forums. I often see really good conversations about the fluff, but the nature of the forum doesn't make for a good source for other people to go to. I plan to try to build off of what the forums have accomplished.



I don't have any content on the canon encyclopedias yet, but you can see the general layout of them. Also, you can look at the English Sturmkrieg, which is fully set up.

http://www.sturmkrieg.com

Isn't the point of a wiki that you work with the wiki to improve it? Why not work with lexicanum to improve the things you mentioned?

Not trying to shoot you down, but this seems like a lot of work when you could expand on the current projects.

Not to mention the domain name has nothing to do with or sounds nothing like a 40k/fantasy reference or name. Lexicanum at least sounds like some form of High or Low Gothic.

As Pretre said above, just work on making Lexicanum better. Frankly, its pretty darn good and most stuff has a number of citations to fluff sources. Failing that, there's also a 40k wiki, though its less comprehensive than Lexicanum at this point.

I would like to agree; Lexicanum is by far the established standard for a 40k encyclopedia. You would need to make yours drastically different and better to solicit any traffic,

Call it lexicanum

pretre wrote:Isn't the point of a wiki that you work with the wiki to improve it? Why not work with lexicanum to improve the things you mentioned?

Not trying to shoot you down, but this seems like a lot of work when you could expand on the current projects.

Yeah, this. Tell them your complaints, and maybe you can even work with them to improve it. Saves you a lot of time and qualified contributers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the theme of it though! Looks really clean, although I think those blue shadow things are a little annoying. I mean, at least from being used to wikiepedia being all white after a while

I have to agree, it seems to be a little late to introduce competition - at least if you don't have a really good idea and a large team of people helping you, for the fluff of 40k has become vast. Real vast.

Additionally, how would you handle the contradictions between the different sources? There is (intentionally) no canon in 40k, which is why the fluff as a whole is a mess, which in turn is why Lexicanum is a mess.
The only improvement I could see anyone offering would be to have this new database list the different fluff in clearly parted segments based on its origin instead of trying to lump everything into a single "consistent" article.

I've been crazy active on Lexicanum lately, hell I've basically created/written/uploaded all their stuff regarding 5th Edition Necrons. The site really needs more active members. It's much better then the 40k Wiki, whose primary admin has this bizarre belief that fanart/fanfiction is acceptable canon and locks articles to stop them from being vandalized. For instance the nicassar article on 40kwiki has them being depicted as large polar bears.

Especially with the name, competing with Lexicanum will be impossible, which will soon hit 6,000 articles. If you're willing to oversee thousands of articles, then you could do a lot of good on Lexicanum. Really by this point Black Library material is its primary weakness, as being able to write a summarized article with citations on 1 guy with a topic that spans an entire book you may have read months ago is quite annoying. If Lexicanum can get anyone who can expand Black Library material it will greatly benefit the site.

As for complaints against Lexicanum, besides perhaps the visual appearance (which imo is far less important than content and actually sets the mood for the gothic grimdark of 40k well) there's really nothing I can see worthy of complaining about that can be changed. A lack of content on x subject? That can only be fixed by getting more editors. The basic policy by the admins is you need to have citations (book and page number) for any kind of change, even a minor one. New pages also need to be put into a category to prevent dead ends. It's a good policy that prevents misinformation and will not be changed, especially if you know anything about Lexicanums primary admin Inquisitor S. So if the OP can factually cite whatever new material or even content changes he wants to make, they will be most welcomed on any article.

One of the things I plan to do about contradictions is to give new fluff precedence unless it it obviously worse. For example, if a Space Marine chapter is recruited from two planets, and then a new codex says five, I would go wi five. However, if a codex says that an army of extremely pure warriors has never been corrupted by Chaos, and then Matt Ward writes some half baked thing designed to cause suspense and nothing else about how half the army was corrupted, I might go with the old fluff. Also, anything GW writes will have precedence of anything by BL, most likely.

Information is not optional if it's new and overrides older stuff then it has to replace it. The old can stay, but with a message announcing it as outdated. Needs to stay objective.

I agree though the studio's fluff takes precedence over the others.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:One of the things I plan to do about contradictions is to give new fluff precedence unless it it obviously worse. For example, if a Space Marine chapter is recruited from two planets, and then a new codex says five, I would go wi five. However, if a codex says that an army of extremely pure warriors has never been corrupted by Chaos, and then Matt Ward writes some half baked thing designed to cause suspense and nothing else about how half the army was corrupted, I might go with the old fluff. Also, anything GW writes will have precedence of anything by BL, most likely.

Lexicanum generally says this by making a note about canonical conflict between two additions. For instance here:

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Kabal_of_the_Flayed_Skull#.TutGC2NFunA

As to trying to prioritize or filter cannon:

It is not our place to determine what information gets included. If GW or its affiliates published it under the 40k franchise and did not retract it...then it stands. No matter how conflicting or ridiculous it is.
I agree that the most recent studio books should be considered the "primary" sources of 40k...but you also cannot discriminate against an author simply because they write for BL, as some of those authors are also former studio employees.

Well, it would probably be better to just make a note of the conflict. I'm not someone who would take out everything Matt Ward did, only stuff that creates conflict.

Lightcavalier wrote:but you also cannot discriminate against an author simply because they write for BL, as some of those authors are also former studio employees.

See, the problem with 40k "canon" is that the writers (such as Gav or ABD) themselves have stated that there is no continuity. It's really just the fans who made this up (likely because continuity is usually a good thing, and because it'd be common sense to assume that books set in the same universe respect each other) - which results in problems when you create an article made up of sources which were never meant to exist in the same "interpretation" of the setting.

This has nothing to do with discrimination, it's simply about accepting that - as Mr. Thorpe said - "none of these interpretations are wrong", meaning you cannot even go by date or origin when determining which bit of fluff can override another though the contradiction hits you straight in the face.

I wholly agree with your point. Although I was using discriminate in a bit of a broader context then you seemed to take it.