Jump to content

Talk:Games Workshop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.152.165.79 (talk) at 16:59, 16 July 2010 (Added a note about IP complaint). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticism Header

As it is quite an imporant topic, I think all criticism of GW should be pooled under the "Criticism"-header and expanded. e.g. cost of miniatures, (oversimplification of rules), quality of army books/codices, communication with the community, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.79.229 (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful here, for two reasons: first, while I agree with much of what you say, much of it is opinion and GW's almost total monopoly allows them to ensure that negative opinion about them is very rarely published. As such, let's not even discuss this until such time as we have some worthwhile citations to back it up.

The reason I mention this is that I've tried to get a "criticism" section implemented before (and even did some research for it), but a couple of users, championed by someone going by the name of Cailil, have made it clear that they are simply not going to allow anything in this article that the company might not like. As such any evidence that anyone does come up with needs to be bulletproof to the point of absolute incontrovertibility. Cailil and co. are using the common tactic of insisting on a much higher standard of evidence for content they don't like than they insist on for content they do like, as well as other unpleasant tricks such as complaining about "ad-hominem attacks" on the basis of someone merely disagreeing, threatening to get administrators involved, etc.

Regardless, I agree with you, but if you want to get it in and keep it in, be ready for a fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.164.81 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole forum dedicated to people (reasonably politely) critising GW here: http://boardgame.geekdo.com/geeklist/48933/item/1113017#item1113017 This was in reaction to the enforced removal of a large amount of gaming material, much of which was for GW games no longer in print and dating back to the 80s.

Here's a couple of other open letters to GW, for reference: http://www.nerdnyc.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=34835 http://insidejoketheatre.blogspot.com/2008/01/open-letter-to-games-workshop.html http://boingboing.net/2009/11/28/games-workshop-decla.html

I realise this is small-time stuff, but if Microsoft can have entire entries dedicated to critisim, then I would think that GW can have a paragraph somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.58.205 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I would also be the first person to point out that a bunch of blog posts, forum threads and opinion pieces are very far from being sufficient. In my view, adequate research was done on this and it is in the history of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.165.79 (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I have just received a message indicating that I am using an IP suspected by someone - presumably Cailil - to have been used by a user called RichSatan. I have no idea whether it is even possible that this IP has ever been used by RichSatan, as I have no knowledge of or control over how my ISP assigns IPs. I am not RichSatan - I have never held any named Wikipedia account. I am willing to discuss any reasonable approach to verifying this, but until that can happen, there is nothing I can do about these accusations so I have very little choice but to ignore them.

Importing / Reprinting RPGs

I don't see any references to the problems that GW got themselves into, regarding reprinting/importing other companies games to the UK. As I understand it, other companies [such as Chaosium] made a deal with GW to reprint their games, and GW would then pay them the money. However, GW understated the number of games sold, and therefore paid the companies less than they should have. This, as I understand it, is what drove GW's move north, their abandonment of reprinting/importing other companies games and their focus on GW games/materials/etc.

193.243.227.1 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any reliable references to such actions, by all means add them. I've personally never heard that, but that's hardly surprising - if it is true, it's not something they'd brag about in White Dwarf. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thats probably a hard one to find info on, would be nice to have some more on the earlier history of GW 90% seems to be a long list of their "achievements" more than anything. --71.205.253.125 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added some earlier history. Still reads somewhat like a modern-day product list, however, IMHO. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of comments

I have reverted this edit in which another user refactored my comments and removed their old comments to which a number of users have replied. This edit was a breach of talk page etiquette - if anybody wants to retract old comments just strike them and leave a note on this page. WP:TALK explains that removing old comments, to which others have replied is disruptive as other users will not be able to follow the converstaion on the talk page. Please review WP:TALK for further information and details of process and site policy in this regard--Cailil talk 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil's constant involvement here

I'm a little concerned that there is a significant swell of opinion that some of the old criticisms section was encyclopedic, relevant and correct, and yet Cailil seems to be on a one-man crusade to bend the rules into getting it all removed. I have no position either way on the removed material, but it seems to me that the original research and NPOV rules - which, let's be clear, tend towards the noninclusion of information - are risking misuse in this case.

I think this deserves reexamination, especially if we can find someone other than Cailil to champion the removal cause. No offence intended, but the onesidedness of this debate, and Cailil's willingess to summarily remove possibly good information, concern me. Cailil, your case would be stronger if you were not so very notably alone in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.95.68 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not, and the information removed, as said, failed Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and Neutral Point Of View. SirFozzie (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite of a one-crusade really, IP 91.84.95.68. This issue and the same ad-hominem remarks were made by User:RichSatan and were shown to be false. As can be seen in the archives. An RFC was opened and by its end 4 other editors all agreed with my position that if the "comments and criticism" section cannot be sourced it has to go. This is site policy, not my opinion. Also the fact that I haven't edited this article in 2008 at all, belies your assertion that I am constantly involved here. In fact my last edit was on December 10th 2007. If you have a problem with site policy raise it at the appropriate pages. However if this incivility and assumption of bad faith continues targeted at me I will bring it to to sysop attention again.--Cailil talk 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil, I don't consider that I've been uncivil, and your quickness to sword on this point suggests ever more strongly to me that you should choose to contribute to other Wikipedia articles than this. However, if I must be more blunt - you cannot act in bad faith then use the AGF policy to excuse your actions. Again, I'm not intimating that this is what you're doing, but you must bear in mind that simply stating the rules does not necessarily mean that you are following them. You complain that many people are accusing you of acting in bad faith, which leads to the simple assumption that you are acting in bad faith. I would welcome admin involvement in this matter - again, you're trying to use it as a threat, which is not the way you should be behaving. To put it bluntly: your contributions are being widely criticised because you are not contributing correctly, and this cannot be excused by your encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. The best thing for you to do would simply be to walk away from involvement in this article. If you are interested solely in helping Wikipedia, there is no downside to doing so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.95.68 (talk • contribs)
"YAWN!" Cailil has done absolutely nothing wrong, and has followed the rules as laid down by Wikipedia. Personally, I'd like the Comments and Critism section to stay, but as pointed out, if it's not referenced, it has to go, and despite being left up for a while with just such a tag, no-one, including User:RichSatan added, or could find, any references that could allow the section to stay. If you have any references that confirm any of the points in that section, then please share. If you don't, then it's still original research, and the section would have to be removed if added again.
And I doubt any admin would get involved (it's a content dispute at best), but if they did, I'm sure they would agree with what Calili has done.
"Your contributions are being widely criticised because you are not contributing correctly" - widely critised? By who? One user (RichSatan) and one IP (who has done nothing on Wikipedia other than post to this talk page). That's hardly "widely".
So it's simple - you want the "Comments and Critisms" section? Find some references. Can't find any? Then it can't be added. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have no axe to grind either way, and I have very carefully avoided discussion of the specifics because I don't think that's where the problem lies. For the record, though, there were several very good points in the removed material which someone clearly spent quite some time looking up - the Qualiport quote springs vivdly to mind as being extremely well supported - and there quite simply was no mandate to remove it, other than being grotesquely POV. As for the "widely criticised" quote, well, Cailil himself said he would "bring it to sysop attention again". If someone's having to repeatedly complain that they're being criticised, what can I say. Smoke, fire. In any case, the core problem is that Cailil is trying to characterise criticism of his edits as being ad hominem when they are no more so than is necessary than to imply that someone's doing something wrong. He's crying wolf whenever someone merely disagrees with him, which is all I'm attempting to do now. In extremis, you could call any edits of someone's work ad hominem on the basis that it's criticism of previous work. Obviously, this is not how the rules were intended to be applied. Yes, this is an intrinsic problem with the way Wikipedia is run and if he insists on keeping it up there is probably not much that can be done about it. If Cailil wants this to be a personal page representing his opinion on Games Workshop, there is really nothing we can do. My suggestion is that he should demonstrate his scholarly disinterest by not being involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.95.68 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, is your problem with User:Cailil or with the removal of that section?
If it's with Cailil, well, he hasn't editted the article since Dec 10 (as he pointed out), and then only as per wikipedia rules.
If it's with the removal of the section, where are the edits, with references, to put it back in?Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read the article before today; I'm not responsible for when someone last worked on it. As to restoring the material, it's just not worthwhile putting the good stuff - probably one paragraph's worth - back in when it's abundantly clear that someone will simply remove it again. We need to reach a consensus before that happens. If we never reach a consensus, which I suspect we won't, it will remain out, to the general detriment of Wikipedia. At the end of the day it's not an uncommon situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.95.68 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus - without proper references, as shown by the Wikipedia rules, this section cannot be added. What is so hard to understand there. Wheter or not the information is "correct", if it can't be referenced, Wikipedia doesn't allow. Note that's WIKIPEDIA doesn't allow it, not Cailil.
If you disagree with Wikipedia's policy, you need to bring that up on the relevent policy page. If you can get policy changed (good luck!), then the section can be re-added. But there is not point complaining about someone following Wiki policy just because you don't agree with it.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this should probably be mentioned here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harrassment_from_probable_RichSatan_sockpuppets Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that Darkson, I've notified the IP user directly as well--Cailil talk 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that at least two comments I've read were sourced and relevant - a quote from a manager and the share portfolio thing, among several. Why were they removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Sir Fozzie's detailed review of the whole section (here)--Cailil talk 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have - it's the first thing I read. I assume you haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-introduced the "Qualiport share portfolio" information under the Games Workshop Group PLC section. It's good content and the page is better for having it. I can't see the "quote from a manager" in the Talk archive - where was the quote originally published? --Davémon (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Davemon. If we're specifically looking for criticisms, CEO Tom Kirby is quoted in the Independent of May 4 last year as saying the company had "become "fat and lazy" as [a result of the Lord of the Rings merchandising success]." The quote I'm thinking of (which is weaker but still OK) was "In 2003, Michael Sherwin, the company's finance director, stated that "A hobby game takes a whole day to play... is less about instant gratification"", in the Guardian. It's an older quote now, as the admin review suggested, but it was inaccurate at the time and remains so - can someone quote an '03 era 40K rulebook? The price-rises-ahead-of-inflation thing is a bit synthetic, and I'd dearly, dearly love to find a reliable reference to it - given the demonstrable correctness of the point, it wouldn't take much to justify inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk • contribs)
I've added the CEO's statement to the end of the 2007 financials paragraph, I think it helps give context to the numbers. That whole section needs copy editing, expanding and probably renaming to "commercial history" or something. Personally I'm not sure I understand what Micheal Sherwin is saying. He appears to be comparing "a hobby game" with something undefined. For that reason I won't add it to the article. The product prices ahead of inflation is a tricky one, because it borders on sythesis. However, it is also a case of basic mathematics, and straight forward statistical comparison. If we start with a staple GW product, i.e. a "Goblin Fanatic" (with ball and chain) miniature... a "C13 Night Goblin" cost 40p in 1983 (source Citadel Compendium 1, 1983 page 28) in 2008 it's £8 for 3, or £2.67 each (ref: http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=99120209011&orignav=13). No idea about the inflationary change between those 2 periods, but hope it helps! Davémon (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/article.asp?ID=1296 shows that for most of the last thirty years, inflation in the UK has hovered between 2 and 5 per cent. Even at the uppermost figure, you wouldn't have expected prices to increase more than 125 per cent (Edit - actually it's more like 300% compounded - my bad, but the point remains, they're banging up prices at more than twice the rate of inflation) between 1983 and 2008, when in fact they've increased 667 per cent. If we could find a published quote referring to price complaints, this would be ironclad, but even if we can't I still feel it's decent content. After all, it's much better supported than most of the stuff in the article and people are only objecting to it because it's criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added as much as I think is reasonable without going into WP:OR. I thought there was a clause in WP:Syn which allowed simple statistical analysis (i.e. comparison between the government and GW's inflation) but I was mistaken. This might sound crazy, but have you thought about writing an article about GW and getting it published? perhaps an independant war-games magazine or toys/games industry mag would accept it? You can obviously write coherently!--Davémon (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Personally, I'd have taken the position that making a straightforward statistical comparison to support an independently-reached conclusion on pricing policy was on the "usable" side of borderline, even given the rules as they stand, but I think under the circumstances I'll take the moral high ground and do my best to maintain a whiter-than-white approach! But write about GW? I don't know the first thing about them! Regardless of whether anyone believes me, I really did just stumble across this a few days ago with nothing more than a vague sense of disquiet that the fairly well known controversy surrounding the company wasn't mentioned - a controversy so well known that even I'd come across it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] Trouble is, there doesn't seem to be any indie magazines that seem willing to publish articles that critise GW, as GW advertise in them. No idea about toy industry mags though. Also, much of the info about GW is on the net now (good and bad), which more-often than not isn't in acceptable form to use. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many online sources for this stuff that I can't believe there isn't a single one of them that's citable. RPG.net is a reasonable source and it's mainly the removal of that material which made me suspicious. I don't think it's necessarily the case that a single unimpeachable source is required, either - we can report the prevailing opinion as evidenced by a large weight of lesser sources, and that's perfectly encyclopedic. It's important not to confuse reliability with fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe RPG.net failed "citability" rules, from what I can remember earlier (no idea personally, as I've never used the site).
Oh, and can you PLEASE sign your posts? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a large number of poor sources would not provide evidence enough to claim whatever the prevailing opinion was. To draw that conclusion would be synthesis. The sources themselves, whatever they are must pass the criteria of a reliable source so as to comply with verifiability policy.-Localzuk(talk) 17:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This anon made the same appeal for RPG.net back in July 2007[1]. RPG.net was not acceptable as a source then and its not acceptable now. Also syntheising sources to make a point is original research. The material that was removed was removed because of this, not becuase of any thing else. This has already been discussed, twice[2][3]--Cailil talk 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This anon made the same appeal for RPG.net back in July 2007 - no, he didn't, that was someone else, and I wouldn't necessarily agree with it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually an article at Playthings does criticise price-hikes and other elements of GW business: http://www.playthings.com/article/CA6538989.html I'll leave it to someone else to actually add the content in the appropriate places. The moral: Less debate, more research! :-) --Davémon (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Bring it over to WP:RSN - personally I think its fairly okay but it is a self-published site making claims about a third party, so community in-put might be a good idea--Cailil talk 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, strike my above, as long as that article was only used to cite something along the lines of "Playthings.com reports that retailers seeling Games Workshop's products have seen a reduction in sales due to market saturation and price increases" then its probably fine. To go beyond that it would need to go to WP:RSN--Cailil talk 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil, that is one very good summation of a reference, and I've added it to the article. P.S. you should apply your skills to this article more regularly! --Davémon (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Davémon, but its you who deserves the kudos - Playthings.com seems like a good source--Cailil talk 01:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calil... this is the user RichSatan, might I suggest that you calm down in your discussions here? You attacked the previous poster, and claimed they were me in a ban request against my previous account (Calil claimed that I and a number of other accounts are all my "sockpuppets", not individual people). Ultimately, you succeeded in getting me banned over false accusations. The fact of the matter is that I edited a few times and GAVE UP on fighting you over it, because I really don't care. I just wanted to let you know that since I saw my BAN by your request, that those others you listed were not me, and that I was not, and am not, the only person here who has issues with how you control the edits on this page. I'm not going to "appeal" the ban, because I've tired of the wannabe tinpot dictators that have hijacked wikipedia (and whichever handful of articles they wish to control) as of late. You just need to CHILL OUT man, it's just a freakin wikipedia article, and youre acting crazy.--Whatevereverever (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above user reported to checkuser Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is the guy who disagreed with Cailil a couple of months ago. I'm still not RichSatan nor any clone of him. This discussion has degenerated to the point where "someone who disagrees with Cailil" is now synonymous with "RichSatan sockpuppets", a completely circular and self-justifying argument used to dismiss any criticism of the Cailil position; we could get ten, a hundred, a thousand people on here saying this, and Cailil would still be throwing his toys out of the pram and shrieking that we're all clones of one another. The guy needs to be subject to some very severe admin censure for creating this situation through ad-hominem attacks and assumptions of bad faith, but I've no confidence that it will ever happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.175.175 (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you felt the need to say something nearly 4 months since Cailil's last post because...?Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I dropped back to the page to see what if anything had been done about this - as if I'm required to justify myself to you. What are YOU doing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.119.183 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anything be done? Cailil's hasn't editted on the talk page for months, and has one anti-vandalism edit on the article. Did you ever take it to the correct venue(s), or did you just want to bitch here? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also one of the WIKI users who is having a hard time swallowing the the citability guidelines. With respect to GW the situation seems to be, like many others have pointed out, that they (GW) control most of the information on them that is published in magazines. Which means that it is hard to quote criticism but easy to find quotable praise. - I would compare the situation to that of dissidents in China - with government control of the media, it is very hard to find quotable sources and IMO it would be a great boon to WIKI if the community found a way to work around this.

One futher point; a question for those of you who have experience with GW: If you wrote a splendid article on problems in the rules-design of Warhammer 7th, or about how GWs prices have been rising and rising what chance do you think you would have of getting it into White Dwarf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with policy, the best place to bring it up is at wp:village pump. Individual article talk-pages are for talking about improving specific articles within the current guidelines. Even if a negatively critical regards GWs business practices or game-design were printed in White Dwarf (magazine), we couldn't use it as it isn't independent, so fails one of the criteria of wp:rs. (i.e. an article slating Warhammer 7 would really just be an advert for Warhammer 8). Such concerns are much less for more 'neutral' topics like company history. I have found that a short while using Google (especially Books and Scholar) is a great help in finding reliable sources for most subjects - Games Workshop do not control the media. --Davémon (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight rewording needed?

the cost of some like-for-like game components (for example a "Goblin Fanatic" miniature) has increased from 40p[4]to £2.67[5], an increase of 667%

A literal reading of that sentence seems to indicated that some game components have increased by the amount stated, rather than reading as these figures are from the example miniature (Goblin fanatic). I would rewrite it, but cannot think of a way to word it without it starting to sound like the sentences we had earlier that were rightfully removed. Something along the lines of:

the cost of some like-for-like game components have risen steeply - for example a "Goblin Fanatic" miniature has increased from 40p[4]to £2.67[5], an increase of 667%

Would that be ok?

On a semi-related note - is the miniature noted in ref 4 the same as the one in ref 5? If not, is it a far comparison? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the rephrasing. Good Question - it's not the exactly same miniature, it's definitely been resculpted since the 1980's. But it is the same "game component", so in those terms I'd say it was a fair comparison. If you were fielding Night Goblin Fanatics in 1984, it would cost you 667% less than if you were doing the same thing in 2008. On the other hand, if you were building an army of plastic Night Goblins in 2008, not metal Night Goblins (the only option in 1983), it would cost you less. 2008 [4] = 90p per figure. 1983 = 40p which modified for 300% compound inflation is £1.20, which is 133% more expensive for a like-for-like game component. Of course, metal isn't plasitic, but it does throw into question the idea that the "same game component" is a justified framework for the comparison. Perhaps:
the cost of some like-for-like game components, have risen steeply - for example a metal "Goblin Fanatic" miniature has increased from 40p[4]to £2.67[5], an increase of 667%
covers it. Or perhaps the waters are too murky. --Davémon (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that Playthings article is hugely critical, with quotes, of GW pricing policy and if it's been decided that it's a good source, then much can be achieved by it. The criticism is certainly more than currently exists in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes from the individual shop-owner are a bit "unreliable" - not that I don't believe him, but that his opinion is just his opinion. He hasn't been peer-reviewed, or had his opinion reported on as a prevailing one or a trend - it's a secondary source directly quoting a primary source, and ideally we want tertiary or secondary sources. I found the site by google-searching for "Toy industry magazine" or "games industry magazine" - perhaps there are other sources out there that could be found and used? Unfortunately my time is limited. --Davémon (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, his published opinion, which implies that someone thought it worth enough to commit to a printing press - and that's really the only test we apply by insiting on published verifiability. It strikes me that we are now applying much more stringent tests to things that happen to be contentious than we do to anything else, and much as I would have all this be as bulletproof as possible, I think this could all be rather adversely affecting the quality of the article. It's this concern that brought me here in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really much point in just debating the principles. Can I suggest you add the material to the article in the way you think works best, or try it out on the Talk page first? that way people can discuss it's merits.--Davémon (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but my treatment since getting involved with this has been abysmal and I'm sure you'll understand my reticence to start researching new material only to have it thrown out by a fait accomplis - hence my interest in getting a solid consensus before doing so. If you're not bothered, fine, but in that case it probably won't be taken any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a meaningless statistic without some context as to inflation. To say that it is an increase of 667% needs to be compared against the figure for inflation. KraZug (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:BGIME78.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Games Workshop (Or GW licensed) Movies

Are there (or were there ever) plans to use one of the Games Workshop universes to make a movie? According to this article it seems to be the only media that Games Workshop has not been involved in. Retrorocker (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(not that this is the point of talk pages, but...) GW's tight control over IP and fictional direction seems to have made this difficult over the years, if the history of the novels is anything to go by. Various short clips have been shown at Games Day over the years, but I don't believe any full plans have ever been announced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Damnatus. Wgsimon (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article out of date - WHFRP

The article states that Warhammer Roleplay is currently published by Black Industries - as of at least mid 2008 this is no longer the case, the WFRP license was passed to Fantasy Flight Games (under license). Also no mention of Hog's Head, who carried the title for some years before BI . . . LSmok3 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}? :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added update tags to the article. I'm not knowledgable about the topic, but I'll drop a note on some of the WP talk pages. momoricks (make my day) 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for space hulk reissue

At present it's only a rumour, but the new release has been added to the page without a citation or anything to back it up. 118.208.105.107 (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Games Workshop artists category

Hi. I've been working lately on a couple of loosely GW-related pages for artists John Blanche and Ian Miller. I've also spent time on pages and cats for Fantasy art, etc, and discovered a category for Dungeons and Dragons artists, a sub-category of Games artists. It seems to me that many artists, albeit only a few of them currently covered on Wiki, have passed through the company in both game products and White Dwarf, and made a contribtion to the look of the core IP and for some people become associated with their work for GW in the process. This is obviously true of long-standing GW contributors like Blanche, but there are many others.
In light of this I thought it might be a good idea to bring them together under a Games Workshop artists category, like that for Dungeons and Dragons. At the moment only some of the artists are present on Wiki, or their articles omit their GW contributions, but that could be fixed and having the category might in itself encourage its expansion. I woul need a hand working out how to do it (I don't know how to create a cat page). Other than that, here's a partail list I made last night:
Adrian Smith - done
Gary Chalk - done
Russ Nicholson - done, numerous illustrations for Warhammer City
Dave Gallagher - missing, highest WD cover count of any artist
John Blanche - done
Ian Miller - done, WD covers, Death on the Reik cover, numerous work for Realms of Chaos and WH40k first ed.
Will Rees - missing, cover of Shadows over Bognhafen
Nick Bibby - missing, various works, including WD covers and images in GW Runequest Ed.
Les Edwards - done, WD covers, cover of Dark Future and Slaves to Darkness (?)
Peter Andrew Jones - missing, Wd covers
Dave Andrews - missing, various illustrations for WD and other games
Jim Burns - done, WD covers and Space Marine illustrations
Christopher "Fangorn" Baker - done, WD covers
Gerry Grace - missing, WD covers
Chris Achilleos - done, WD covers and cover of Judge Dredd Companion
Brett Ewins - done, work for Judge Dredd board games
Tony Ackland - missing, general illsutrations for WD and GW.
Steven Tappin - missing, general illusrations for WD and WH40K
Carl Critchlow - done, Dark Future illustrations as well as Thrud debut in WD
Pete Knifton - done, unknown
Kev Walker - done,unknown
Paul Bonner - done, unknown
John Sibbick - done, WD covers, cover of WFRP 1st Ed, WFB 3rd Ed, WH40k 1st Ed, GW Runequest covers

If anyone has any comments or additions, and can tell me how to make the cat page, please add. . .

On another note, although I cannot provide any specific citations, it seems to me a few things are lacking from the GW article. First, there is nothing commenting on GW core IP, its actual look-feel, hich is quite distinctive and basically gothic/germanic (currently limited to "The company is seen to have hard-to-reproduce, unique Intellectual Property. . ."), as well as the notable formative contributions to this by the artists, who only get a single mention at the end of the page under 'Other media'. Also not mentioned is the company's move to Nottingham in 1986 (which I can cite).
Lastly, another thing I noticed was that the GW template omits quite alot - although it's hard to see how it could all be included without making the template very large - particularly the Out Of Print section, which excludes most of the company's back catalog. Any thoughts? LSmok3 (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've gone ahead and created the cat, if anyone has any additions (either suggestions for new articles or already existent articles I've missed out), feel free to suggest or add. . . LSmok3 (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameworkshop sues Curse over Warhammer Alliance fansite

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326733 This wiki should mention that under a "Criticism" category. --69.73.16.202 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Games_Workshop&oldid=373831140"