BattleTechWiki:Project Unfinished Book/FirstBook

First Book Discussion[edit]

Welcome to the unveiling of Project: Unfinished Book. At this point, before we start discussing procedures for ensuring we capture all pertinent details and doing the best job we individually can, we should discuss which book we'd like to tackle first.

Post Suggestions Here[edit]

  • I have four suggestions to start off this discussion:
  1. Field Manual: Mercenaries, Revised: this title is still relatively recent, so a large number of Editors may have access to it. it also has a wealth of information on so many units, that by finishing the book not only will we have populated BTW with plenty of new articles, but many of them would be informative unit pieces.
  2. Technical Readout: Vehicle Annex: I have a soft spot for this oddball TRO. It would allow us to generate well over 100 solid new articles (plus all of the associated smaller stub articles that will result), but it would also hit double as a vehicle project for the site.
  3. Technical Readout: Project Phoenix: Though much of it has been incorporated via Project:BattleMech already, many of the smaller facts can now be assembled onto BTW. Plus, because of its small size and easily digested 'sections', we'd be able to complete one full title sooner, plus be able to test and refine the P:UB tracking system.
  4. Handbook: Major Periphery States: this book is still under moratorium at the moment, but there is a good chance it'd be out by the time the project were to launch. The scope of the book is huge, meaning there'd be thousands of new small articles, but there would be few new full-sized article to come out of this. It would also take a considerable amount of time to complete (especially for a first book).
My preference is for Periphery States, but of the 4, I think Project Phoenix would be saner. Other title ideas (and why)? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My suggestions depend on what our primary focus is on: are we seeking to enhance rule cross-reference or are we trying to tie-up fluff/fiction loose ends?
  1. Field Manual: ''any'': because these are the major sources of universe backstory.
  2. Technical Readout: ''any'': because these split technical details with fluff.
I think that I would lean towards the FM, House, and other primarily background 'Source' books. --Faceman 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW is a bit...undecided on how to handle rules, just yet. That's probably a good thing, what with the plenitude of material coming out right now. So, in that respect, we'd be sticking with the background material.
I had suggested Technical Readout: Project Phoenix because it was so small and the facts easily contained. However, the 'Mechs themselves have been picked apart already by Project BattleMechs. So, in that respect, we'd have an easier time getting a complete book done, adding considerable number of articles to the wiki (though light in substance). I envisioned that the starting crew (i.e., you and I) would cut our teeth on that product, and learn how to run this project. On the flip side, there might be some confusion for (possible) new recruits, who'd think we were focusing on BattleMechs (which has already been done).
However, in your three posts just today, I'm impressed at how you've picked up using code from the examples on the page around you, so I think, from the code angle, it may not be too difficult for you to get into the swing of things. Also, you've indicated you have a considerable library of OOP stuff, so that opens up our options a lot.
I still need to finish my 'lesson' essay, so, if you don't mind some guidance, why don't we put you on a training regimen: while I finish up that essay (which will show the output from a data-mined source section (the Longbow in this case)), why don't you start picking through the site and fixing, expanding, etc., various articles that interest you. I'll follow behind you and make changes that I think you missed and point you in the direction of policies and procedures that apply to what you're working on. The experience of doing this would be good for me, as well, so that I start to see things thru a new Editor's eyes.
Does that sound acceptable for the short time? We can discuss, too, what books interest you for the first target.
I think you're right about this giving us the chance to reread some of our materials. I think, too, we'll find we understand the materials in ways we never have before. I'm glad you're here. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Should I just use the BattleTechWiki:ToDo as my jumping off point for minor edits and tweaks? Already, I now know to click the 'watch' link so that I can find stuff easier. It took me 3 days just to re-find this particular discussion. LOL. I'll try to stop in and do an article or two check at least a few days a week I think I can do. Faceman 03:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; I missed this in all that I've done the past week. The To Do list would be one way. Another would be the Recent Changes page (where I usually live). A third would be the Random Page button on the upper sidebar. A fourth would be to start...wherever...and just follow wikilinks where ever they take you. You may come up with something completely different. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dielgore 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC) How can i help? i own Project Phoenix and the revised Merc manual.