Hi, welcome to Warhammer 40k! Thanks for your edit to the File talk:Norn-queen.jpg page.
This form of citation is "not strangely lacking;" it is a deliberate choice. Tzaa should have placed page numbers for his sources within the Sources section. I will have him rectify that. But we do not use footnote citations and never will, that is our formatting choice; I perfectly understand the deviation this is from standard wiki formatting and I'm happy with it. If you prefer the other methodology, I would suggest you use the Lexicanum, which follows more traditional wiki citation formats and has a much larger article base. Montonius 10:56, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, please read our Important Links Section for an answer to all your questions, which does specify the need for page numbers in the "Creating Content" section. I will add similar instructions to the Style Guide as it seems to be lacking. Thank you for raising the issue. I am the only currently active full Bureaucrat/Lead Administrator on the wiki. You can also send questions or concerns to Algrim Whitefang who serves as a Moderator. No wikia.com wikis have direct forums of their own; some of the largest or more well-established sometimes create separate and linked sites that serve as forums. We do not have the resources or personnel for such an endeavour at this time.Montonius 14:54, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Marq, I'm, sorry but it seems like the purpose of these discussions is just to complain. No we do not have a forum. Yes, many pages lack page numbers. That's the way it is. The page numbers situation will improve. There is no plan to build a forum at this time, as we don't have the manpower at this time to moderate it properly. That's it.
As to the Norn-Queen page, no, there is no way to check it. Yes, all the art is fan-made or based on models created by fans. We choose to make use of fan-made art as another deliberate choice. I'm quite happy with it as are many others. If you do not like our wiki or its choices of methodology, don't use it. The Lexicanum will meet all your preferences, including footnoted sources, a forum and they do not allow fan-made art to be used at all. Thanks. Montonius 22:56, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: This wiki was too old to have a forum integrated into it like any wiki here on wikia created before 2007, and thus the confusion on my part and my apologies for it. I have requested from wikia.com assistance in the creation of one, which should occur sometime in the next few weeks. Montonius 23:57, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Apology fully accepted. Let's move forward. Montonius 06:28, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
Marq, I would suggest if you have difficulties figuring out why the page numbers on the sources section of the Life Extension article were chosen based on the information on the page, you bring it up with Tzaa , the article's primary author, and the two of you can colloborate to produce source references more to your liking if there are inaccuracies. Montonius 17:43, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the info on Chemical rejuvenation
I wrote the part about the wide spread use of these drugs and the fact that they can extend a human life for about 400-500 years, at the cost of increased vulnerability to infections. This information is found through out the Eisenhorn, Ravenor and Czevak series. Montonius added the part about repairing damaged DNA and I don’t know what source he used. What he wrote sounds a lot like real life scientist’s ideas on rejuvenation. In the inquisitors handbook it’s mentioned that rejuvenation treatments includes blood cleansing, which sounds a bit like what Montonius is talking about. I do my best not getting in Montonius way so I have not questioned his changes;)Tzaa 16:39, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the page numbers I admit that I made some mistakes. And no, I didn’t mean to refer to the Carta Extremis for Erya on page 126 the radical’s handbook, I meant the passage about Cyrrik Scayls research on page 236. I have fixed that now, thanks for the correction.Tzaa 17:06, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
No Marq they're not the same weapon. One is a Hellhammer Cannon. The other is a Hellhammer SIEGE Cannon, aka the Stormsword Siege Cannon. That's why they have different entries on the page. The text makes clear they are different weapons and that's why they don't look the same. The name alone was changed in 8th Edition to rectify the same possible confusion you're pointing out. In 8th Edition the names of a lot of tank weapons were simplified for ease of nomenclature.
Now, the Baneblade has only TWO DIRECT variants. All of the others are variants of variants of the Baneblade and do not belong on the Baneblade's own page.
As to the tank weapons I am not creating separate pages for the same thing we already have on the wiki every time GW retcons a name from edition to edition when they are functionally the same thing.
Please do not have discussions about this on Talk pages. That's not what they are there for. Use the Discussions app or my Talk page if you want clarification or want to ask questions. Montonius (talk) 18:19, October 25, 2019 (UTC)