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.

It's an aricle about Creed, to make long story short I have quote d the most important text from the article:

"As a child, Creed was found by soldiers of the Cadian 8th in the ruins of the city of Kasr Gallen, just after Abaddon's 8th Black Crusade."

"In 999 M41, a murderous plot by Chaos traitors wiped out nearly the entire Cadian High Command and Officer Corps... and allowed Creed to be named Lord Castellan of all Cadia"

Now let me quote Black Crusade page: ""999.M37, beginning of the 8th Black Crusade.""

So according to Lexicanum Creed is 4000 years old, epic fail... ( if you read the page 57 of IG codex you will find nowhere that Cadian 8'th found him during Abadon's 8'th Black Crusade. Just that they found and recruit him, it is not said when this was done. Epic fail for guys working with that page ).

There have always been chaotic uprisings on Cadia. It comes with being next door neighbors with the Galaxy's Warp wedgie. But the idea of a 4000 year old Creed is rather funny.

Yep, lexicanum is the same as wikia in my eyes...

Firstly, it could be a typo, unfortunately every person on the planet is not as faultless as yourself.

Secondly, it could be from Codex: Eye of Terror. In which case it would be another typo in that they have misquoted the source.

Thirdly, it really isn't an epic fail, it is just a slight mistake one way or another, if you are indeed implying that the person who looks after that page should hang their head in shame then I think it is you that should actually take a good long look at yourself.

 DarthMarko wrote:
Yep, lexicanum is the same as wikia in my eyes...

Explicitly allowing made-up information is the same as making a mistake?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Yep, lexicanum is the same as wikia in my eyes...

Explicitly allowing made-up information is the same as making a mistake?

Urrr yes???
I'mean they have mistakes like wikia has.....just that...
Also allowing made-up information is in lexicanum too you know....True not so much as wikia, but they have their share of fails....
But they are great on citing sources...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Yep, lexicanum is the same as wikia in my eyes...

Explicitly allowing made-up information is the same as making a mistake?

Seconded.

It's not perfect, but outside myself, what is? It is however a truly excellent source of info and very well cited. I use Lexicanum all the time, particularly during various projects. I cant give it enough praise.

This is not even close to an epic fail.

Epic fail would be when someone replaced the entire Iron Fists entry with fan fluff, but because they left the canon sources on the page - which nobody checked - the garbage remained up for over a year.

Naturally of course the fan fluff was copy-pasted to wikia where it still remains to this day:
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Fists

To be fair wikia is slowly improving, I note they've finally removed the extensive Interceptors chapter page which was complete fan fluff - the mods left it up because it cited a source even tho it was complete bull: 1. It was only a name drop, 2. it wasn't even a name drop since the name drop was the Inceptors not the Interceptors.

Did you not realise Creed *is* 4000 years old?

When death came for him, he couldn't find him.
Then he was attacked by an outflanking baneblade...


And yeah - any site which allows random people to change articles isn't a good source.

I had a look on wikia just - I checked the Night Lords page - Does ■'Sons of Fenris (Novel) by Lee Lightner' have any night lords in?

I remember there being a fallen angel and some tzeentch, but I can't remember any Night Lords.

People tend to use wiki's wrong.

The best way to use a wiki/lexicanum is not to read the article itself, but to go down and read the citations. That's where the supposed information came from, so that would be the best research areas for you to start at. Of course, a properly cited and written wiki *should* have all the correct and proper stuff, but we all know typos and misinterpretations happen

endlesswaltz wrote:Thirdly, it really isn't an epic fail, it is just a slight mistake one way or another

Indeed. "Epic fails" are more like when an editor invents claims something is said in a source when it isn't, thus abusing the reader's trust in the listed source.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Explicitly allowing made-up information is the same as making a mistake?

By the very fact that much of the fluff in 40k is not intended to tie into each other, I'd argue that the majority of the information on Lexicanum is "made up", simply because the respective editor has to choose what to pick and what to discard, and how to resolve contradictions. Lots of personal preferences and interpretation involved there. It's why I think a wiki that would simply collect all the available information separately without merging it into an article would be more valuable.

washout77 wrote:People tend to use wiki's wrong.
The best way to use a wiki/lexicanum is not to read the article itself, but to go down and read the citations.

This, so much.

 Lynata wrote:
Indeed. "Epic fails" are more like when an editor invents claims something is said in a source when it isn't, thus abusing the reader's trust in the listed source.

And that is exactly what we are having here.
As I said: epic fail.

PredaKhaine wrote:

I had a look on wikia just - I checked the Night Lords page - Does ■'Sons of Fenris (Novel) by Lee Lightner' have any night lords in?

I remember there being a fallen angel and some tzeentch, but I can't remember any Night Lords.

Can anyone check this?
It's listed as a source on the Night Lords pages.
Thanks

SerQuintus wrote:
This is not even close to an epic fail.

Epic fail would be when someone replaced the entire Iron Fists entry with fan fluff, but because they left the canon sources on the page - which nobody checked - the garbage remained up for over a year.

Naturally of course the fan fluff was copy-pasted to wikia where it still remains to this day:
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Fists

To be fair wikia is slowly improving, I note they've finally removed the extensive Interceptors chapter page which was complete fan fluff - the mods left it up because it cited a source even tho it was complete bull: 1. It was only a name drop, 2. it wasn't even a name drop since the name drop was the Inceptors not the Interceptors.

Seconded +¸1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 washout77 wrote:
People tend to use wiki's wrong.

The best way to use a wiki/lexicanum is not to read the article itself, but to go down and read the citations. That's where the supposed information came from, so that would be the best research areas for you to start at. Of course, a properly cited and written wiki *should* have all the correct and proper stuff, but we all know typos and misinterpretations happen

Yes, this is also a great comment...If you use a citation from lex, and ignore the chapter, you are heavy abusing "the fluff"....

An awesome PR move by GW would be to create and publish an internal Wiki with the history. Allow BL authors and codex writers to maintain it...

But that would be asking for too much.

Lexicanum reports on fluff as it is presented. The contradiction is on GW's shoulders for releasing it. The odd dates of the Black Crusades vs Creed's birth in GW's own publications has been around for a while now. I don't get what the OP wants lexicanum to do, not report on it? Change it so it makes sense to him?

It's interesting that people in this thread are bashing Lexicanum for "making up information" or "making information fit the editors preference", when if that were the case, the Creed time issues would have been fixed a long time ago. Its been pointed out before and the answer has been to just leave it alone.

Did anyone stop and think that Creed is a long lost Primarch?...spent a longer time drifting in the warp and is now 4000 years old ...just cause he's a little shorter....

makes sense to me

 Harriticus wrote:
Lexicanum reports on fluff as it is presented. The contradiction is on GW's shoulders for releasing it. The oss dates of the Black Crusades vs Creed's birth in GW's own publications has been around for a while now. I don't get what the OP wants lexicanum to do, not report on it? Change it so it makes sense to him?

It's interesting that people in this thread are bashing Lexicanum for "making up information" or "making information fit the editors preference", when if that were the case, the Creed time issues would have been fixed a long time ago. Its been pointed out before and the answer has been to just leave it alone.

This. Ya'll are haters. Stop placing a burden of proof Lexicanum is never supposed to meet. It's like asking my lawn mower to bake me cookies and clean my dishes.

 Shlazaor wrote:
This. Ya'll are haters. Stop placing a burden of proof Lexicanum is never supposed to meet. It's like asking my lawn mower to bake me cookies and clean my dishes.

And the incorrect citations? Surely you admit they are accountable for those?

A minor mistake accounts as an epic fail?

The words "Epic Fail" have been so abused/over used as to be near meaningless at this point.

Taking a wiki, editable by Emperor knows who, and believing it to be a source of "truth" on anything is, IMHO, the real Epic Fail.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Shlazaor wrote:
This. Ya'll are haters. Stop placing a burden of proof Lexicanum is never supposed to meet. It's like asking my lawn mower to bake me cookies and clean my dishes.

And the incorrect citations? Surely you admit they are accountable for those?

Innaccurate citations are a problem but it's a big site with a lot of articles. The problem isn't pointing out Lexicanum goofed one time. The problem is holding them responsible for the mulitple contradictions GW itself puts out and then declaring epic fail because of one error (though to be fair this could just be a communication error. People take the word epic fail to mean different things).

Lexicanum had looser citation policies (similar to the 40k wiki) during the 2007-2009 period and this produced a decline in quality. The current membership has been working for well almost 2 years to clean it up. I can say with a good degree of certainty that any new material produced from about September 2011 onwards will be accurately cited.

Can we declare the "lexi haters" excommunicate flufficus" ?

I'd like to support the stance its up to the user how a tool works.

Lexi can't provide what even GW itself can't.

Anybody up for a GW run wiki with CS goto or M.W at the head? And don't say it can't happen.

Most of us know we look at more than 2 decades of background.
We have creations of the fanbase to help other fans, but you still need to use your head.

Tip: Humans got this "head" and "brain inside" to use it, not just to wear funny hats.

 Shlazaor wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Shlazaor wrote:
This. Ya'll are haters. Stop placing a burden of proof Lexicanum is never supposed to meet. It's like asking my lawn mower to bake me cookies and clean my dishes.

And the incorrect citations? Surely you admit they are accountable for those?

Innaccurate citations are a problem but it's a big site with a lot of articles. The problem isn't pointing out Lexicanum goofed one time. The problem is holding them responsible for the mulitple contradictions GW itself puts out and then declaring epic fail because of one error (though to be fair this could just be a communication error. People take the word epic fail to mean different things).

Agreed. I really like Lexicanum and think it's great. I don't expect them to provide continuity where GW have failed to. However, I always trusted their well-cited pages without a second thought until recently. I don't think the odd fluff contradiction is a major problem (as frustrating as they can be), but I do think that inaccurate citations are. Trust/reptuation: lifetime to build, seconds to destroy. All I'm saying is that my faith in their accuracy has been damaged and that it's a shame. But on the other hand, I also accept that it is my responsibility to seek the source material directly when researching information, and not theirs. I'll still use and enjoy the site.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Shlazaor wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Shlazaor wrote:
This. Ya'll are haters. Stop placing a burden of proof Lexicanum is never supposed to meet. It's like asking my lawn mower to bake me cookies and clean my dishes.

And the incorrect citations? Surely you admit they are accountable for those?

Innaccurate citations are a problem but it's a big site with a lot of articles. The problem isn't pointing out Lexicanum goofed one time. The problem is holding them responsible for the mulitple contradictions GW itself puts out and then declaring epic fail because of one error (though to be fair this could just be a communication error. People take the word epic fail to mean different things).

Agreed. I really like Lexicanum and think it's great. I don't expect them to provide continuity where GW have failed to. However, I always trusted their well-cited pages without a second thought until recently. I don't think the odd fluff contradiction is a major problem (as frustrating as they can be), but I do think that inaccurate citations are. Trust/reptuation: lifetime to build, seconds to destroy. All I'm saying is that my faith in their accuracy has been damaged and that it's a shame. But on the other hand, I also accept that it is my responsibility to seek the source material directly when researching information, and not theirs. I'll still use and enjoy the site.

Let me start by saying I appreciate how cordial you are and I get where you are coming from. You said it best:

I also accept that it is my responsibility to seek the source material directly when researching information, and not theirs.

I think your only error was maybe trusting Lexicanum a bit more than they deserved.

 Harriticus wrote:
I don't get what the OP wants lexicanum to do, not report on it? Change it so it makes sense to him?.

Because you know it's perfectly normal in 40k that Creed is 4000+ years old... no wonder he told Dante once "Listen noob, this is how you flak your enemy in battle...trust me, I am older than you."

My point is, if someone wrote that in some fan-fiction, ok. But the point is that this is information from official fluff and they even citated that information is in codex ( page 57 of IG 5ed codex ). Well I check it and that information is not there, so not only that the information is wrong but they lied that the information is in there.
And in the end from the fluff point that is ridiculous, that would made Creed older than Dante - and he is not even Space Marine. Not to mention that normal people like Creed don't live longer than couple hundred of years, even with the technology to extend their lifetime.

1. it is a Wiki site, and sometimes mistakes happen, and sometimes idiots edit pages for fun or trolling

2. it is a site about fictional characters. get a grip.

I know that, I have high regard for Wiki because I can find all information I can in it without going trough dozen of books.

And I know that mistakes happen but mistake this large is simply hilarious.

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:

Because you know it's perfectly normal in 40k that Creed is 4000+ years old... no wonder he told Dante once "Listen noob, this is how you flak your enemy in battle...trust me, I am older than you."

Give it a few editions, GW'll screw up a date somewhere along the line and then come up with some warp-related jiggery pokery to explain him being immortal just like Lysander.