Semi-official. Those maps were used by the staff at GW and Hogshead for laying out Estalia for a product for the Warhammer Fantasy Battles or Warhammer Fantasy Role-play line that never came to fruition. However, they have been accepted for years as the canonical map of the region by the community and were used by Creative Assembly in laying out Estalia for the Total War Warhammer series.
I was wondering if I could get admin/Beurocrat rights so that I'm not locked out of renaming certain pages and deleting things. I'm currently trying to organize the pages that already exist so as to help with site navigation and its difficult to do that without those rights (also means if I make a mistake like creating a page or image I didn't need then I'd have to ask you guys for help rather than fixing it myself).
As I understand it, to get these rights I have to ask one of the already existing admins correct?
I'm sorry Khajit we don't give Admin rights to new editors until they are well-proven with thousands of edits under their belt and a long history of interaction with the existing staff. Also, this decision needs to be made by a day-to-day Admin of this site who has overseen your work and knows more about you. Though I am the founder, this wiki's operations are overseen on a day-to-day basis by Mr. Paraduo. You need to first get approval of this project from him and then he can grant such rights if needed, though any award will be only temporary and will be removed as soon as they are no longer required for the work.
Also, I do hope you received permission from an admin to carry out massive changes to the existing wiki navigation structure. If you have done this work without their permission, and they find what you have done unhelpful, this will likely lead to a rollback of all the work and a permanent ban. Please make sure that any major changes you make have been first discussed and approved by an admin before they are made, and I would not continue such work without getting that approval.
Hey Montonius, glad you are checking up on our wiki. I just wanted to talk to you about some of the pages you edited. For the most part, we are fine with the changes. The only thing we ask is if perhaps you can make sure that when you seperate paragraphs if you could add our citation marks at the end of each new paragraph you made. Our site prides in being as reliable as we can concerning Warhammer lore and the citation at the end of each paragraph is our simpliest way of ensuring where exactly we get our content. If you can do us this small thing when you edit further pages, that be great for us please!
I'll do it, of course, if it makes you more comfortable. But you should know, if you didn't already, that's not the correct way to do citations. It will simply be a repeat of the same cite over and over. That is not correct footnote format, and is also completely unnecessary and burdensome to the editor.
Footnote citations are not intended to be made after every paragraph but after every piece of lore or concept that is fully involved in the cite. This is standard MLA footnote citation format as well as that used in the Chicago Manual of Style, which are the two sources for all footnote formats used in academia and journalism.
In most cases I am simply repairing incorrect grammar, unclear writing and adding missing links. I don't get involved in changing the content of the article or adding more information. Because the more important pages are often massive info dumps, they are very off-putting on cell phone screens which the majority of users use to access the content, which is why I break them up.
So I can paste the same citation at the end of every paragraph as you requested but that is just repetitive and also unnecessary for summation paragraphs such as at the introduction of a page.
It is really not necessary, does nothing for reliability since anyone who cares about the footnotes knows you don't cite every paragraph but every concept, and is actually an incorrect footnote citation format.
But having said all that, it's not a problem, and I'll add it to all future edits.
I know this is really nit-picky, but it doesn't make sense to put Luthor Harkon directly into the "Vampire" category. This is because he is already in the categories "Blood Knights" and "Vampire Counts Characters," categories which themselves are in "Vampire." So it's redundant if we put Luthor Harkon directly in "Vampire."
I'm sorry but I disagree. It makes perfect sense. Every category is all-inclusive. Every vampire character is a member of the Vampire faction and should be added to that category. You have to think about this from the perspective of a user. They are almost always going to use the most simple category present on the page to find other related pages, which is Vampire. Also, look at the Vampire category. It does already contain other Vampire characters. So we have a choice to make. Either they all are in or they all are out. I would like to see them all in. You have to approach each category system as a user would and anticipate how each user will approach things from all possible angles. On the Warhammer 40k wiki, we make sure every category contains every page related to the subject of that category. It's always the best way to be all inclusive and allow a user to find any related page from any angle they choose.
That does not seem to be how it is typically done on the Warhammer Wiki. To take a random example, the Banner of Mount Bloodhorn is in the Greenskin Armoury category, and is therefore not in the Greenskin Category. Although there are evidently some exceptions, it is typical to have the minimum number of categories and avoid redunancy.
Then that is not best practice and should be changed to the system I described above for the reasons I described above. It is also not redundant for the reasons I also explained above. Redundancy on a three-dimensional platform like a wiki is actually the point of the wiki, since you do not know from which "direction" a user will come to access information so you have to try to feed it to them from every point on the compass to extend the analogy. When we edit we must think like the user consuming the content, not like an editor. Doing what is most logical from an administrative sense is not always best for the display and ease of use of the content when dealing with users. Make the wiki easier to use in the manner thgat users will actually encounter it.
I see your points. However, your suggestions would take a fair amount of effort to implement. In addition, I see many extremely large categories on the 40K wiki. For instance, "Imperium" has over 2,000 pages in it. What is the benefit of having such an enormous category? Anyway, I'll bring this up with some of the other mods here at the Warhammer Wiki.
It's simple. The category is all inclusive. Every article deals with something Imperial-related. It is also alphabetized. If I'm a user, and I click on that category I can now look for any Imperial related article alphabetically. If I want a more specialized search I use the next, more narrow category and so forth. A good category system should be a nested hierarchy, not a series of one-offs. For instance, let's turn your question around. What good is a category called Vampire that doesn't actually contain any individual Vampires found on the wiki? As a user I would find that category confusing, especially if someone forggot to add the Vampire Characters category to a page which can happen. Redundancy also prevents mistakes like that from happening since the page will be included in at least one relevant category.
You are thinking far too narrowly about how categories are used; think of the system more like how a library system catalogues its books, which are placed within nested hierarchies. Think like a user, not an editor. As to this wiki, no of course you wouldn't reshape the entire exiting category system. You simply use all-inclusive categories going forward, and as for this particular category, as I said, it already includes vampire charcaters within it, so other editors already did what I am suggesting because it makes sense. Finally, why not just begin with a single article--say, Luther Harkon?;)