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.

Ok, this thread is kind of a hydra - multi-headed. Essentially, I use Lexicanum in almost all I want to know about 40K. However, as a big Salamanders fan, it irks me somewhat to see that the Salamanders page is missing a good chunk of info that is found in BL books I own (Tome of Fire short story collection). I want to edit it (requiring me to make an account), but I wasn't sure of a couple of things. These are:

A) What is considered canon in 40K? BL Books, White Dwarf, Forgeworld Books, Other?

B) How often do others use Lexicanum (I.E, is it worth me editing the page to benefit others or is Lexicanum generally ignored - hence the poll)

C) Do people find Lexicanum to be generally good for representing official canon?

D) Is it 'right' for me to edit the page, simply because of what I have read in the BL books?

E) Finally - If the 40K Wikia, despite it's general unreliability, contains bits I have read in BL books, should these not be included on the Lexicanum page?

I know it's a convoluted thread, but if people can provide some clear answers then it would really solve a pet hate of mine. (Also, viewers to the thread who don't want to actually comment - feel free just to do the poll)

http://www.lexicanum.com/

A) Everything is 'canon', just make sure to source points correctly so people can make up their own minds.

B) Whenever I need a quick reference for something, or I fancy reading up on a broad subject, like history of the Eldar.

C) Pretty good, better than that god awful Wiki.

D) If you can source it, and you know you're 100% correct, then yes, it's right.

E) Only include them if you can source them.

Major editor of Lexicanum here so I'll give my 2 cents:

A.) Anything that is released by a studio/company relating to Warhammer 40,000.

B.) Some people like it, some people hate it. Varies to the individual.

C.) It gets bashed a lot, and we get the whole "there is no canon" spheil that gets brought up in every thread.

D.) Of course as long as it's properly cited

E.) Lexicanum is drastically under-staffed and anything can be added by anyone as long as its properly cited. The articles are not as long primarily due to a lack of editors and the stricter citation policies.

Cheers mate. To be honest, I may have misinterpreted the term canon. To clarify, I mean by canon ' generally accepted by the 40K community to be the true course of events' (even though it's fiction ). If I can read it in a BL book, does that mean it's 100% correct and worth referencing?

EDIT: @Harriticus - Well if it helps, i'll certainly edit Lexicanum as I can't see how it isn't useful IMHO.

EDIT: @Harriticus - Can I edit without an account or does it require one?

 Warpig1815 wrote:

EDIT: @Harriticus - Can I edit without an account or does it require one?

Yeah, it requires an account.

Cheers mate. To be honest, I may have misinterpreted the term canon. To clarify, I mean by canon ' generally accepted by the 40K community to be the true course of events' (even though it's fiction ). If I can read it in a BL book, does that mean it's 100% correct and worth referencing?

Not exactly, because another BL novel may say that it didn't happen that way, and neither book is wrong.

@Psienesis - Hmm, that in particular, from what I have read in other places, seems to be a particular gripe of fans, so i'll tread around it lightly. In my case, the Salamanders info I'm wanting to add to Lexicanum isn't directly contradicting anything already there - merely adding, and as it comes from a BL book devoted entirely to the Salamanders, it's probably safe to include it, even if someone else later changes it.

Take, for example, the duology Prospero Burns and At Thousand Sons, which depict the same exact situation... but from opposite sides of the conflict, resulting in a lot of conflicting representations of every event and its consequence.

I dislike the Horus Heresy in general, but I thought those two books were very clever writing.

A) As has been said, everything is canon if sourced properly.

B) Couple of times per week.

C) Fine enough. I play Tyranids, so everything is kind of crazy there.

D) As long as you aren't 'correcting' what is written. I think it's perfectly fine to add to it.

E) I think redundancy is always useful. What if I don't read the 40k wikia?

Well, I've applied to Lexicanum, so I'll just have to see what I can do to improve the Salamanders article. Cheers to all posters. And the poll results (at time of post) show that the majority of voters do indeed use Lexicanum frequently.Thanks all.