Lexicanum or Warhammer Wiki?

saberslash117

Which do you guys go to for lore? Personally I like the wiki.

Draxynnic#3149

Original sources by preference, although I don't come even close to having them all.

Generally, whichever is better referenced. Such things are inherently unreliable if they're not referenced, but when they are well referenced, you can a) check the references yourself if you have them, and b) you have a reasonable expectation that if someone is spouting garbage, someone would have checked the reference, realised that the reference doesn't say what they claimed it does, and called them on it.

Segersgia#8273

Warhammer Wiki

- frequently updated
- sources from older lorebooks and RPG-books
- a lot of information
- artwork from lorebooks and RPG-books
- pages don't end in stubs or non-existent topics.

Lexicanum is great for 40k, but I would recommend the normal wiki for fantasy.

Urgat

The wiki is also full of BS, so no, certainly not the wiki, unless I want to double-check for hard facts (dates or whatnot, things I know already, and know isn't made up by fanboys). And even then, I check the source, because sometimes the source is BS too (yesterday only, I discovered that "it" made up big'uns for goblins, and listed the 8th ed armybook's orcs big'uns page as source. Of course, there isn't a single mention of goblins there).

Red_Dox#2328

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://warhammerfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Warhammer_Wiki
Both have pro and cons.

Lexicanum started as a german site, so the german pages are usually better then the english ones. In some cases the Lexicanum page for one topic might prove more useful then the Wiki page and in many other cases the Wiki page has C&P more lore from WFRP or other sources into their article.

It is hard to say which one proves more useful, in the past while doing
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/187169/possible-future-ll-speculation-list/p1
I found for example that one them may have an article to the searched character, the other had nothing. In older cases, both might have nothing. So my special char list in that topic is a wild mix between both sites and stuff I rather directly plugged from sources.

As long as you may decide to check both on a subject you should always be on the safe side. And never, ever, use 4chan wiki articles for reading up on lore or even as a argument in a discussion. Anyone doing that is asking for a "ignore" option.

------Red Dox

GreyKnightDante

Urgat said:

The wiki is also full of BS, so no, certainly not the wiki, unless I want to double-check for hard facts (dates or whatnot, things I know already, and know isn't made up by fanboys). And even then, I check the source, because sometimes the source is BS too (yesterday only, I discovered that "it" made up big'uns for goblins, and listed the 8th ed armybook's orcs big'uns page as source. Of course, there isn't a single mention of goblins there).

I am the admin of the Warhammer wiki and I would like to know where all this "full of BS" is coming from? If your talking about the Little Big Un, then I can point out to you that Little Big Un's are canon, they came from the Skarsnik novel, Chapter 9 "No Job for Goblin" where the main character Skarsnik returned to his tribe the Backstair Boyz....apologizes for the wrong sourcing, but when you are just one of three contributors to a wiki with 4,000+ pages, you tend to forget to cite certain parts.





Please tell me what other "BS" is there in the wiki that I can fix

Urgat

I don't know man, I've been browsing it for years. Apologizes if you felt hurt about it, but I did have many results over the years that were wrong or unsourced when I was discussing fluff on Warseer and was looking for info.
On a side note, I did read Skarsnik and don't remember that. Kuddos.

alex33#8263

I use both but as with every wiki and wikipedia i use them with caution. Be advised that wikis can be edited by any random guy with an account. If I'm not sure if it is right what is written i try to get the actual books and armybooks.
Especially with the WH Wiki I often had the problem of checking the original source only to find myself on a page with an artwork. Wikis are good to brush up your knowledge but if you're really interessted you should get the books or... well "digital versions" to be sure of it

GreyKnightDante

alex33 said:

I use both but as with every wiki and wikipedia i use them with caution. Be advised that wikis can be edited by any random guy with an account. If I'm not sure if it is right what is written i try to get the actual books and armybooks.
Especially with the WH Wiki I often had the problem of checking the original source only to find myself on a page with an artwork. Wikis are good to brush up your knowledge but if you're really interessted you should get the books or... well "digital versions" to be sure of it

If that's the problem, then I can assure you that many of the more important pages are protected from annymous users or anyone that hasn't been a wiki contributor for less than a month. If this is the greatest concern for the integrity of the wiki, I may perhaps have to lock all pages as well.

GreyKnightDante

Urgat said:

I don't know man, I've been browsing it for years. Apologizes if you felt hurt about it, but I did have many results over the years that were wrong or unsourced when I was discussing fluff on Warseer and was looking for info.
On a side note, I did read Skarsnik and don't remember that. Kuddos.

Its fine. I'm more interested in improving the wiki in anyway.

Urgat

I wish I could help, but now that Warseer is basically dead, and since I haven't found (not really looked for, really) a good forum to discuss WFB (8th ed), I'm not really into it anymore.

PLHenry#4565

GreyKnightDante said:

Urgat said:

The wiki is also full of BS, so no, certainly not the wiki, unless I want to double-check for hard facts (dates or whatnot, things I know already, and know isn't made up by fanboys). And even then, I check the source, because sometimes the source is BS too (yesterday only, I discovered that "it" made up big'uns for goblins, and listed the 8th ed armybook's orcs big'uns page as source. Of course, there isn't a single mention of goblins there).

I am the admin of the Warhammer wiki and I would like to know where all this "full of BS" is coming from? If your talking about the Little Big Un, then I can point out to you that Little Big Un's are canon, they came from the Skarsnik novel, Chapter 9 "No Job for Goblin" where the main character Skarsnik returned to his tribe the Backstair Boyz....apologizes for the wrong sourcing, but when you are just one of three contributors to a wiki with 4,000+ pages, you tend to forget to cite certain parts.





Please tell me what other "BS" is there in the wiki that I can fix

I believe Urgat felt it was BS because the Big'un page lists the Little Big'un's source as the 8th Edition Orc & Goblins Army Book rather than the Skarsnik novel.

GreyKnightDante

PaulH said:

GreyKnightDante said:

Urgat said:

The wiki is also full of BS, so no, certainly not the wiki, unless I want to double-check for hard facts (dates or whatnot, things I know already, and know isn't made up by fanboys). And even then, I check the source, because sometimes the source is BS too (yesterday only, I discovered that "it" made up big'uns for goblins, and listed the 8th ed armybook's orcs big'uns page as source. Of course, there isn't a single mention of goblins there).

I am the admin of the Warhammer wiki and I would like to know where all this "full of BS" is coming from? If your talking about the Little Big Un, then I can point out to you that Little Big Un's are canon, they came from the Skarsnik novel, Chapter 9 "No Job for Goblin" where the main character Skarsnik returned to his tribe the Backstair Boyz....apologizes for the wrong sourcing, but when you are just one of three contributors to a wiki with 4,000+ pages, you tend to forget to cite certain parts.





Please tell me what other "BS" is there in the wiki that I can fix

I believe Urgat felt it was BS because the Big'un page lists the Little Big'un's source as the 8th Edition Orc & Goblins Army Book rather than the Skarsnik novel.

I've already went and updated the page. So right now it should be up to speed.

Huskar_94

Ive read both a lot, but i usually end up reading the warhammer wiki more, for both fantasy and 40k stuff. I find it has more information on stuff compared to the Lexicanum, but both are decent and i dont have a lot of on hand stuff to read, most of its my brothers but its either novels or older rule books etc.

BaronKlatz#7357

"And never, ever, use the 4chan wiki articles."

Good lord is this the truth right here.

That site is only for entertainment purposes only. Every time I see someone recommend them to a lore-newbie a piece of me dies because he's gonna have his head full of meme'd nonsense generated by fanboys and stuff put into the wiki for humor purposes only.

Example: the Grimgor page spreads more of the idiocy "he kicked Archaon in der nuts, hurr hurr" that Arch made up on his youtube channel.

It was disheartening to have to argue that with newbs who fervently believed it due to "well, everyone says it happens with consistency" until some lads posted the SoC article that proved Arch lied.

/rant.

Urgat said:

I wish I could help, but now that Warseer is basically dead, and since I haven't found (not really looked for, really) a good forum to discuss WFB (8th ed), I'm not really into it anymore.

Have you tried the EEFL(eighth edition for life) forum? Awesome guys that keep it's spirit alive with the 6th edition chaos dwarf armybook maker in charge.

They do everything from bring army books up-to-date, make the AoS stuff work for 8th and set-up tournaments.

Red_Dox#2328

BaronKlatz said:

Example: the Grimgor page spreads more of the idiocy "he kicked Archaon in der nuts, hurr hurr" that Arch made up on his youtube channel.

It was disheartening to have to argue that with newbs who fervently believed it due to "well, everyone says it happens with consistency" until some lads posted the SoC article that proved Arch lied.

/rant.

Interesting. I short that story mostly to "...and then Grimgor shows up, headbutts Archaon to the ground and wins the battle for Castle Grayskull." Had assumed if people talk about a kick in the nuts they are also just exaggerate that battle a bit. Never knew that Arch displayed it wrong and so spread it due to his lore-vid popularity.

-----Red Dox

DolorousEdd

Warhammer wiki, definitely. Before starting a new game with a race/character I always read wiki's pages about them. I loved their Skarsnik page... Or maybe his story. Which I wouldn't know without the Wiki.

seienchin

I amn ot a big fan of the wiki personally. It uses a lot of warhammer fantasy RPG stuff and I also remember warhammer online as a source once but Lexicanum is not much better.
If you want to have the lore completely unfiltered and from lots of different sources and get a "bigger" picture I admit that wiki is without a doubt the place to go. I might not like it but I acknowledge that it does a really good job at what it aims at.

4chan wiki is great for long time fans since most articles are ironic and for some controvers topics like Matt Ward. If you know why people hate him and a lot of 7th and 8th edition lore additions then a regular WIKI cant (and shouldnt) give you an answer.

Easiest place to get into warhammer lore are youtube videos but dont rely on details. The "Grimgor showed up and kicked archaon in the nuts" kind of "free story telling" is rampant there.
Overall though talking about warhammer lore is fun and although I am a 4-6th edition purist that is rather reluctant accepting later lore I am glad that there are enough changes over the decades to discuss.

I also like that CA is doing their own thing with the lore. I might dislike some stuff but in the end their liberties with the lore brought us Fimirs as Norscan allies, new bretonnian units (hit & miss though...) and the cult of pleasure from older lore is back in the ring after 7th edition retconned Chaos as one of the main influences in DE society.

Urgat

BaronKlatz said:

Urgat said:

I wish I could help, but now that Warseer is basically dead, and since I haven't found (not really looked for, really) a good forum to discuss WFB (8th ed), I'm not really into it anymore.

Have you tried the EEFL(eighth edition for life) forum? Awesome guys that keep it's spirit alive with the 6th edition chaos dwarf armybook maker in charge.

They do everything from bring army books up-to-date, make the AoS stuff work for 8th and set-up tournaments.

Nah, but I will, thanks

TheChocolateJesus#3772

I prefer the Warhammer Wiki.

Galvinized_Iron

Red_Dox said:

And never, ever, use 4chan wiki articles for reading up on lore or even as a argument in a discussion. Anyone doing that is asking for a "ignore" option.

And why is that?

Red_Dox#2328

Galvinized_Iron said:

Red_Dox said:

And never, ever, use 4chan wiki articles for reading up on lore or even as a argument in a discussion. Anyone doing that is asking for a "ignore" option.

And why is that?

The same reason why you do not believe people wearing tinfoil hats and with a "The End Is Nigh" shield on your streetcorner. Nobody takes them serious, you can literally hear how looney they are if you listen to their favourite topic and if you quote them as a credible source you look like a tinfoil hat wearing idiot too.

-----Red Dox

Nymurax#6193

GreyKnightDante said:

Urgat said:

The wiki is also full of BS, so no, certainly not the wiki, unless I want to double-check for hard facts (dates or whatnot, things I know already, and know isn't made up by fanboys). And even then, I check the source, because sometimes the source is BS too (yesterday only, I discovered that "it" made up big'uns for goblins, and listed the 8th ed armybook's orcs big'uns page as source. Of course, there isn't a single mention of goblins there).

I am the admin of the Warhammer wiki and I would like to know where all this "full of BS" is coming from? If your talking about the Little Big Un, then I can point out to you that Little Big Un's are canon, they came from the Skarsnik novel, Chapter 9 "No Job for Goblin" where the main character Skarsnik returned to his tribe the Backstair Boyz....apologizes for the wrong sourcing, but when you are just one of three contributors to a wiki with 4,000+ pages, you tend to forget to cite certain parts.

Please tell me what other "BS" is there in the wiki that I can fix

I was searching for the fate of Abhorash during the End Times ( still holding out hope for him appearing in Total Warhammer) and got on the Lexicanum site. While there wasnt anything significant on the End Times, there is a big part on Abhorash that's not on the wiki. I'm sceptical wether it's canon but I thought I'd post here to check. There is also conflict in the history of Ushoran between the Wiki and the Lexicanum. In the Lexicanum it says Neferata didnt prevent Ushoran from drinking the Elixir but gave it to him herself and later she and Abhorash served under him in Mourkain loyally.

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Abhorash#Mourkain
http://warhammerfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Abhorash#The_Fall_of_Lahmia
http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Ushoran
http://warhammerfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Ushoran

Jaxhammer#8130

I know this thread is ancient but what the hey

Both have pros and cons? The Wiki has depth, but the Lexicaunum seems to have a wider breadth of information.

Both Wikis don't seem very keen on letting anyone add information unless they're in "the circle". I have more experience with this on the Wiki, and I'm just sort of extrapolating about the Lex since it requires you to request an account (lol?) from established users, which just seems odd.

Of course, the best way to enjoy lore is directly from the source in either case.

Beast_of_Guanyin#8747

Jaxhammer#8130 said:

I know this thread is ancient but what the hey

You know you're breaking the rules, but you do it anyway.

Nice.

Jaxhammer#8130

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 said:

Jaxhammer#8130 said:

I know this thread is ancient but what the hey

You know you're breaking the rules, but you do it anyway.

Nice.

Actually, I didn't know that was a rule. My bad.