Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/References

Nice stuff. I'm not entirely sure about some of the titles though: I pulled them out of the British Library's catalogue, but some of them certainly don't agree with what I'd call them (or what eg Amazon calls them). Cheers --Pak21 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my best guess is that they should be called 'Warhammer 40,000, series name, book name'. ie. 'Warhammer 40,000 Codex: Space Marines'. The novels are easy enough to find out from the Black Library site... -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Dwarf references[edit]

Large numbers of the articles have references to (the Australian edition of) White Dwarf. I propose to (slowly) reformat these from the current format, which is something like

White Dwarf Magazine (Australian Edition). ISSN 0265-8712
- Index Astartes – Crimson Fists. Issue 288. Distributed by Games Workshop Australia in December 2003.

(from Crimson Fists) to using the {{cite journal}} template to format them something like

"Index Astartes – Crimson Fists". White Dwarf: Australian Edition (288). 2003. ISSN 0265-8712. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Any objections? Cheers --Pak21 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good idea. It will allow easier maintenance of the references in general if they all conform to a {{cite}} format. We could also convert any online ones that don't currently do so to use the web reference one (which can later be changed to cite web when it is finished). -Localzuk ^(talk) 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've just done all the articles in Category:Chaos Space Marine Legions, and will do the rest similarly unless anyone has any complaints, suggestions for improvements, etc. Cheers --Pak21 10:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been doing the references in Vehicles of the Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) using the "cite journal" template. Working great so far, and it seems cleaner that way. Shrumster 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Armour II[edit]

I've added the details of Imperial Armour II, but have left it in the incomplete section as I wasn't sure if it belonged with the codices or other books. The ISBN on the book matches what was already listed, but when I checked it online I found some sources listed the ISBN as IA2[1] and others as L'empire (Warhammer Armies S.) [2] EsonLinji 14:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it in "Other books" for now (not that it really matters too much), along with a note about the ISBN discrepancy. Cheers --Pak21 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web-based sources[edit]

I'd just like to note that several of the web-based sources (in particular those dealing with army rules and special characters) were originally published in either an out of date Codex, or in White Dwarf magazine. -- Saberwyn 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted :-) I'd suggest that for WD articles, we could then use the 'url' parameter of {{cite journal}} to give both sources in one reference (as done with the Space Crusade review). I'm not sure how to deal with dual Codex/web references: I'm torn between giving the Codex, which is the primary source, and the web version, which is easier for readers to both use and verify. I guess we should probably give both. Cheers --Pak21 13:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, we could use the 'url' parameter of {{cite book}}. D'oh. --Pak21 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll have a look at the list and tag which ones are from where. -- Saberwyn 21:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codex editions[edit]

I think we (me, to a large extent) are being inconsistent with our use of edition numbers for the Codex references. Some of them (eg Codex: Necrons) are using the edition of the 40k main rules which they refer to as the edition, while others (eg the 2003 release of Codex: Imperial Guard) are using taking the edition as the n^th release of that specific book. Any views on which of these two styles we should be using, or possibly a third style known as "don't use it" (as the title and year uniquely identify each book anyway, even before we start considering ISBNs)? Cheers --Pak21 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to associate the Codexes with which rules-set they were released under. -- Saberwyn 02:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest the format "Nth" edition Codex:"Army" "Nth" Release - so 3rd edition Codex:Chaos Space Marines 2nd release, for example (the "release" helps differentiate between a Release and a Printing--Charax 10:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Templates[edit]

I think we should add citation templates to the references, so they can easily be added in (copy->paste) by editors. Lemme try out adding some for the Necromunda references. Shrumster 08:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novel arrangement[edit]

How should the novels be arranged? Right now, it seems like they're in alphabetical order (title). One other option is alphabetical order (author). I'm good either way. Which one should it be? Shrumster 07:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think title might be more convenient, as (at least for me) the authors of the novels are less well known than the novel's themselves. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, title it is! Yeah, was thinking title would be better. Just realized it would be much easier/convenient to do it that way since we'd most probably be looking for a specific book title when we're inserting references. Will start categorizing the novels in a while. Shrumster 08:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art Books[edit]

I noticed there wasn't a section about the Horus Heresy art book series. There's a lot of information in there relating to the "history" of the 41st Millennium. If someone has the information on it, it would probably prove a valuable reference. Redilarus (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]