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.

Which do you trust/like more?

40kWiki allows fan-made materials. Sorry, but an Imperator Titan isn't 150 meters tall and nothing's ever been mentioned about Miriael Sabathriel corrupting a squad of Black Templars and some Sisters.

Good points.

Lexicanum out of the two but I don't entirely trust that either.

Why Not?

Lexicanum, no fan fiction, and its actually moderated (these days, i know there was a time when it wasnt) requiring citatinos and the like as proof...

Lexicanum may not go into the most depth, but IMHO that's because it only covers official existing/actual materials.
Therefore it can often not cover all the bases or with the most detail, but that that it does cover is almost always correct.

It's fairly regularly updated also and generally sticks to modern fluff, as well as being better referenced.

Lexicanum is easily the better of the two IMHO and is great for establishing the basics of the fluff, then directing you to the actual source (i.e. a book) if you want the details.
I occasionally use the 40KWiki for older, 'kooky' fluff or fan-art.

Neither.

Only the handpicked fluff that I like from the x editions that were any good (and nothing written by [name redacted] ).

If I want to look up old fluff, I go through my library of gaming books (which is quite small, as I only have the books from a handful of other games apart from 40k - Only two shelves (10 linear feet). Which I can do when away from my phone or computer. It doesn't keep getting called "Rouge" trader, either

I prefer Lexicanum but I do ocassionally stumble on to 40K wiki its pages as I like the layout more and its not as bland or lacks colour

Lexicanum may not go into the most depth, but IMHO that's because it only covers official existing/actual materials.

No, the problem is that for the incredible amount of official information out there there will never be enough contributors. While a lot of people are reading the articles, only a relatively small number is qualified enough to contribute. Meaning that everybody who does not source his additions correctly is kicked out.

As for Wikia (not Wiki, the Lexicanum is a Wiki too) and Lexicanum: be fair guys, it's two quite different approaches. The Lexicanum ONLY wants officially sanctioned information and images, while the Wikia decided to include Fanstuff in order to present a more colourful and complete (and of course subjective) impression of the 40K universe. You can't really compare them, it depends what you are looking for.

As for reliability we admit that especially the older content in the English Lexicanum is sometimes to be taken with care, as previously the enforcement of citing guidelines was too slack. Nevertheless we think it is the most reliable medium out there n the internet when it comes to a fluff repository, although there's still much room for improvement. And in the end that's why you have the sources (ideally) mentioned, you can just go and check if something is correct or not.

I prefer the wiki, only because there is about five times as much info to sink my teeth into (wrong/inconsistent or not)

Wiki has a lot more information about people in 40k such as kharn the betrayer did i know he had a kill counter in his helmet? no did i know commander dante's first name was cervan? no did i know that fabius bile almost destroy the blood angels? no so that means 40k wiki is better

Lexicanum appears to at least somewhat check the information submitted to it.

orkdestroyer1 wrote:Wiki has a lot more information about people in 40k such as kharn the betrayer did i know he had a kill counter in his helmet? no did i know commander dante's first name was cervan? no did i know that fabius bile almost destroy the blood angels? no so that means 40k wiki is better

So if I made my own Wikipedia and claimed that the United States was, in fact, a giant tortoise with a meth addiction and added loads of random "facts" to the point that I had more text than the Wikipedia page on the United States, my page would be better?


Also, the kill-counter is mentioned on Lexicanum too, citing "The Wrath of Khârn" (best name ever for a short story BTW ) as the source.

If I'm looking for inspiration or random stuff its wiki, if its for the facts then its lex.

EDIT: You should put a option for both as both have their merits.

Also, the kill-counter is mentioned on Lexicanum too, citing "The Wrath of Khârn" (best name ever for a short story BTW ) as the source.

One of the best short stories for sure. I remember reading it in Inferno! Don't even know if the BL was already around then Can't go wrong with Bill King!

chromedog wrote:Neither.

Only the handpicked fluff that I like from the x editions that were any good (and nothing written by [name redacted] ).

If I want to look up old fluff, I go through my library of gaming books (which is quite small, as I only have the books from a handful of other games apart from 40k - Only two shelves (10 linear feet). Which I can do when away from my phone or computer. It doesn't keep getting called "Rouge" trader, either

That's pretty much my approach too.

Lexicanum is infinitely better.

I certainly see Lexicanum as more authoritative... but 40wiki often has things that are at least noteworthy that ye old Lexicanum missed (choose to leave out).

Lexicanum. It has a better layout and it doesn't include fan fiction.

Neither, I prefer 1d4chan

joking aside, Lexicanum as it is a bit more reliable being moderated and all.

Lexicanum all the way. They actually require all their information have a source, a cannon GW source.

Lexicanum is better, particularly if what you're after is official/sanctioned information, and is reliably cited.

That being said, if information is lacking (for example, on a particularly obscure Space Marines chapter), then I head to the Wiki. Most of the info in it is the same as what's on the Lexicanum, but it has info from a wider range of materials, though not always cited correctly/comes from an official source. So its important to be vigilant in the information you read on it. The site does have a good gallery though, and I find whatever I find on it supplements the official 'well-known' stuff on Lexicanum.

So my advice, use both

I don't "trust" either. Lexicanum has led me to believe a lot of silly stuff in the past that turned out to be plain wrong - I still use it as a starting point for research, however, as usually they list a number of sources at the end of an article. It may be worth pointing out that the German version of Lexicanum is, for some reason, more comprehensive than the English one, having more and bigger articles.

I still have an issue with Lexicanum trying to merge any and all publications into a single coherent vision, however. The fact that a lot of what people think is "canon" does not actually tie into each other and more often than not throws up obvious conflicts the moment you start looking at details ends up in articles being contradictory, and the claim for canonicity results in people walking away with the idea that "this is how it is". Lexicanum would be awesome as a repository for the different visions included in the countless sources, but it shouldn't try to merge them into each other, because in doing so the individual wiki editors start assuming a role of authority over deciding what source should override another, obviously often depending on personal preferences. The way the website is set up now, it continues to promulgate the lie of there being any sort of canon in the first place - one of the biggest issues this fandom has.

Inquisitor S. wrote:

Also, the kill-counter is mentioned on Lexicanum too, citing "The Wrath of Khârn" (best name ever for a short story BTW ) as the source.

One of the best short stories for sure. I remember reading it in Inferno! Don't even know if the BL was already around then Can't go wrong with Bill King!

That story was in the Dark Imperium anthology. It was a pretty fun read.

It may be worth pointing out that the German version of Lexicanum is, for some reason, more comprehensive than the English one, having more and bigger articles.

The reason for that is simple: the Lexicanum is a German project. And the German side has always been very thoroughly moderated, which unfortunately did not happen with the English side. Long story short: all "English" sysops were removed and now the English Lexicanum is co-moderated by the "German" sysops. The goal is to bring the English Lexicanum up to the German Lexicanum standard.

I still have an issue with Lexicanum trying to merge any and all publications into a single coherent vision, however. The fact that a lot of what people think is "canon" does not actually tie into each other and more often than not throws up obvious conflicts the moment you start looking at details ends up in articles being contradictory, and the claim for canonicity results in people walking away with the idea that "this is how it is". Lexicanum would be awesome as a repository for the different visions included in the countless sources, but it shouldn't try to merge them into each other, because in doing so the individual wiki editors start assuming a role of authority over deciding what source should override another, obviously often depending on personal preferences. The way the website is set up now, it continues to promulgate the lie of there being any sort of canon in the first place - one of the biggest issues this fandom has

Our writers are instructed not to draw conclusions or to extrapolate or to assume things. Of course they have to be reminded of that, a note on the talk page of an article will direct a moderator's attention to the issue. And "canon" always is the most recent version, contradictory or older information should be mentioned under the "Notes" section at the end of the article. This of course is also a point where the English Lexicanum still has room for improvement. But we do not try to merge, we collect together what is known and let the reader make up his/ her mind (that's the guideline that is enforced anyway).

Major contributor for Lexicanum here, the Lex has strict citation requirements these days. Material since Inquisitor-S's great purges of 2008-2009 is generally reliable, and new material is strictly cited. It's reliable save for older articles that haven't been modified yet.

If you don't like what you see, get involved and edit provided you have the sources to correct any error. Right now we don't have many active editors, and in particular Black Library works are neglected. Get involved and I'll give you a hug.

Lynata wrote:I still have an issue with Lexicanum trying to merge any and all publications into a single coherent vision, however. The fact that a lot of what people think is "canon" does not actually tie into each other and more often than not throws up obvious conflicts the moment you start looking at details ends up in articles being contradictory, and the claim for canonicity results in people walking away with the idea that "this is how it is". Lexicanum would be awesome as a repository for the different visions included in the countless sources, but it shouldn't try to merge them into each other, because in doing so the individual wiki editors start assuming a role of authority over deciding what source should override another, obviously often depending on personal preferences. The way the website is set up now, it continues to promulgate the lie of there being any sort of canon in the first place - one of the biggest issues this fandom has.

These days fluff contradictions are covered in a "previous editions" sections as well as talk pages on articles to discuss what to do with it. That being said, there's a very large amount of older less-moderated stuff that's still in need of modification.

Fortunately 6th Edition didn't have many contradictions to deal with, as that would have required the story to progress....

I've used both in the past, but i've found Lexicanum to be very useful, always find out what I need to on there. Well organised and lots of content, just what you need.

Lex is better but 40wikia has more info.