Talk:Cities of Death

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Warhammer_40%2C000#Cities_of_Death]] The anchor (#Cities_of_Death) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

merge proposal[edit]

This article has got a serious problem - its an ad not an encyclopedic entry. Generally I doubt that Codex:Cities of Death actually deserves its only article so I'm going to recomend merging to Warhammer 40K#Current edition--Cailil ^talk 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whole heartedly agree. It's not like it's even a stand alone game. Definately should be merged. IMCO - JohnDoe244 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian philosophy would suggest that it merits its own article if the book could be considered a notable publication. Since I'm not confident in rigorously applying the notability guidelines, I'd say conditional agree: If it can stand as a notable nonfiction book or manual, it can be its own article; otherwise it merges. Sojourner001 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is little more than a sales catalog to support a concurrently developed GW plastic toy line. It was marketed as an "expansion" of the 40k rules to promote more use of GW merch on the table top. As its effect on 'expansion' of 40k's fictional universe is nil, it barely merits mention at all. And only the enthusiasm of players who like the plastic "City" building models earns that much. 68.32.85.51 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book extends the game by providing a number of additional rules, and changes the game mechanics when a game is played using urban terrain. There is a precedent for this kind of book having its own article on Wikipedia, (the articles in List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, for example). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't work on precedents it follows the notability of a subject and frankly 68.32.85.51 is right the book barely merits a mention in an encyclopedia and certainly doesn't deserve it's own article because there are no 3rd party reliable sources talking about it. And notability is measured by 3rd party reliable sources. This suggestion is 5 months old so if there are no strong, policy based objections I'll summarize the page, merge it to Warhammer 40K and redirect from here on May 2nd--Cailil ^talk 21:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]