Conversation Between Apostle and Angel of Blood
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 3 of 3
Use both to get your info by all means, I do for the odd bit of Eldar, Tyranid lore etc, mainly because my fluff knowledge is more focused on the Imperium both from pre-30k right through to 40k. But just remember it isn't infallible and anyone whose actually read the fluff directly from the source and can quote it, is always more reliable.
Also if you haven't already seen it, I heartily recommend: http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000
For a much more humorous and satirical take on a 40k wiki. I can spend hours in there losing myself to entertaining articles. Never use it for debates of course though ^^
Ahreet dude. Yeah, generally Lexicanum is the better of the two, it has a lot more moderators who check the edits and entries to see if they're correct and often includes the sources from which the info comes. The 40k wiki on the other hand does provide sources, but doesn't list which bit of fluff refers to which source and even then not as well sourced, it also suffers from a less thorough moderator team with a lot of fluff getting through which is speculation, extrapolation of facts or just plain made up.
Lexicanum still has the odd bit of false/made up/speculated fluff in it, but the main downfall it has, is unlike the behemoth that is wikipedia(not the 40k wiki, the main wikipedia site) itself, it doesn't have a collossal amount of people constantly updating the articles, so a lot of Lex is out of date, with some fluff having long since or recently retconned and therefore no longer valid.
I have been reading some of your posts tonight, and I figure you would be a good person to pose a question. Is Lexicanum better than the "40k wiki"? if so, or the other way around why? I like Lexicanum best, but it seems to me to be less detailed. However I can't help by think that the other site is possible detailed to the extreme, using more opinion than literary fact? I may be way off, and I would sincerely like to know what you think.