Contribute · 6 minute read
How to research and cite Warhammer lore
Distinguish a published fact from interpretation, track editions and page references, and turn your research into a useful wiki contribution.
Warhammerism · Published · Editorial method and AI disclosure
A useful lore entry lets another reader check its claims. A confident paragraph without a traceable source is difficult to correct and easy to repeat elsewhere. Good research begins by making the question small enough to answer.
Instead of “explain everything about this faction,” ask “which publication identifies this character's role?” or “does this event belong to this setting or another version of it?” The narrower question tells you what evidence you need and when you have enough.
Keep three kinds of statement separate
A direct factual statement reports something a source establishes. An interpretation explains how you read the evidence. An in-universe claim reports what a narrator, character or faction believes. These are not interchangeable.
For example, imagine a fictional campaign booklet says that a commander claimed to have won a hundred battles. A careful summary attributes the claim to the commander. It does not turn the boast into an independently verified record. This is a hypothetical research example, not a Warhammer lore fact.
Use attribution where it matters: “the narrator describes,” “the publication identifies,” or “this interpretation follows from.” If a connection is your inference, say so and explain what supports it. Do not fill an unexplained gap with plausible-sounding history.
Capture a citation while the source is open
For a book or magazine, note the full title, relevant edition or issue, publication information and page or chapter. For a website, note the article title, publisher, permanent URL, publication date if shown, access date and relevant section. A bare link to a shop homepage rarely tells a reader where a lore assertion came from.
| Research note | Example of the information to capture |
|---|---|
| Claim being checked | One specific role, event, relationship or description |
| Source | Full publication title or official article title |
| Location | Page, chapter, named section or stable article URL |
| Context | Game setting, edition, narrator and time period |
| Support | What the source actually establishes |
| Limitation | What remains uncertain or contradictory |
Keep quotations short and distinguish them from your notes. Write the eventual summary in your own words after you understand the passage; changing a few words in someone else's summary is not original research.
Prefer the source that can answer the question
An official publication or announcement is usually the right evidence for what it itself says. A novel can support a description of its own story, but does not automatically settle a current tabletop rule. A current rules document is the appropriate source for that rule, with its errata considered.
Community references can help you discover publications and competing interpretations. Follow their citations where possible. Do not cite a book you have not consulted as though you checked it yourself. If you only have a secondary account, identify it and state that limitation.
For current game documents, start with the official downloads hub. For a narrative question, identify the actual publication containing the passage rather than assuming a download page can substantiate it.
Handle differences without erasing history
When two editions or accounts disagree, record the scope of each. Check whether the apparent conflict concerns different times, settings, narrators or types of publication. If it remains a real difference, describe it with both references instead of silently choosing whichever version fits the paragraph.
Do not move an Age of Sigmar statement into an Old World entry merely because a name is familiar. Likewise, a current tabletop roster does not by itself describe every force that has existed in the fiction. Context belongs beside the assertion, not hidden in a general disclaimer.
Submit a focused, reviewable improvement
Open the article's Edit tab. Keep the change narrow enough that a reviewer can compare the old and new versions. Add source references next to the claims, remove unsupported embellishment, and use the edit summary to explain what changed and why. Include edition or narrative context where it affects the meaning.
If the topic is missing, propose a new article. Start with a concise introduction, organize distinct questions under headings, and list the sources you actually used. Disclose AI assistance; a model's output is not a source and still needs checking.
Accepted contributions receive page-history credit. A declined proposal should explain what needs work; it is not a reason to resubmit the same unsupported text. The contributor hub lists practical starting points, and the editorial policy explains review states and corrections.