BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/NotablePilots

This page contains the various components of the "Famous Pilots" discussions.

Famous Pilots[edit]

How about a section--along with "description," etc.--entitled "notable pilots?" There, we could include info on famous (or infamous) MechWarriors. Scaletail 15:03, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I can agree with that. I don't want us to end up just copying the notable pilots out of the tros though. I would think pilots like Phelan Kell, Jamie Wolf, Victor Stiener Davion, etc. Those who are main storyline characters who are big wigs and would be known throughout the Inner Sphere, not just someone that is featured in a book and pilots a Wraith if you know what I mean. CJKeys 22:45, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
I definitely would not want to just copy the featured pilots out of the Upgrade TROs. Most of them are not notable at all. I think any character that is notable enough to warrant a article devoted to them would also be worthy of being noted as a famous pilot (and I mean a real article like Peter S-D, not a one line blurb like Nonda Toolipi). I think that the 'Mechs that were used by Solaris champions can also be noted. Scaletail 08:35, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
So, akin to the Peder Smythe discussion: What counts as a sufficiently notable character? While I do agree that pointless nobodies from the TROs should not be included, I strongly feel that characters who do have an entry in this wiki should be crosslinked, and that anyone who features prominently in a novel, game, or sourcebook deserves mention. Mind, the mention of a given pilot in the 'Mech entry should be kept as short as possible, and link to the character's entry. But I think it does in fact belong there. Frabby 01:44, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
Similar to my opinion on that previous discussion, I do not think that BTW is a place for lists. Given that outcome of that discussion, I believe that our earlier notability requirement for a notable pilot needs to be tightened up, since any character can now have an article written about them. I'll agree with CJ's statement above that main characters should be included, although I would be slightly more inclusive in saying that any character who is the main character of a novel is notable enough to have a section written about them. --Scaletail 18:51, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
I do like the idea of notable pilots. I also believe they should be either extremely well known (ie Bounty Hunter, Kai Allard-Liao) or they should be the movers and shakers of the universe who like to run around in 'Mechs (Victor S-D, Theodore Kurita). As far as personell who are key to a novel....they may be notable in the novel, but they might not be more than an average pilot in not so average circumstances in respect to being a 'MechWarrior. I also would like to see the pilots get only a couple of sentences instead of a paragraph, as the reason they are notable should be found in the bulk of their own article, not within the BattleMechs article.CJ 23:34, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
I've recently begun taking this up myself. I've been careful not to go too far in designating 'notable pilots'. They must be 'famous' and they must be identified with the mech. Sun-Tzu Liao is a good rule of thumb. He's a major character in about 20 novels; we see him use a mech maybe twice. ClanWolverine101
I dragged this discussion back out of the archive, mainly because the troubles we ran into with One-EyedJack and Scaletail's most recent edit. I strongly, totally disagree with the approach that a notable character is only notable if he has an existing article here on BTW. That can't possibly be true; BTW isn't infallible and we lack a ton or two of articles on people and stuff. Conversely, most "notable pilots" from the TROs are nobodies, and most people on whom we have articles here wouldn't qualify either. So I'm suggesting my own definition here for discussion, before I edit Scaletail's version: I say a character is notable if he is a major BT character (i.e. known to most of the fanbase) and is associated with this particular 'Mech which he piloted more or less exclusively (many notable characters don't have a signature 'Mech). Frabby 14:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Amen to that Frabby. At the very least, there should be some sort of grace period. Most of us understand that there are many, many characters we consider famous who simply do not have articles up yet. This is not a reflection on those editors in the past; merely a statement that the "great work" is never truly done. Some of us who enjoy the "notable pilots" section are getting frustrated with having our work deleted, then having to write the articles, then having to go to the mech articles and redo the work we did. There are indications that this "policy" has frustrated a new editor to the point that he quit. This, in my mind, is a bad thing, and goes against the spirit of the policy.
Do I think Frabby's proposal is an excellent starting point? Yes. Do I think there should be exceptions? Yes. I know he only used a Hatchetman once (that we know about), but damn straight I went to the Hatchetman article and added Kai up there, with appropriate verbage from Twycross. Why? Because he killed 45 Clan Omnimechs in that mech! Because that's the battle where he became a legend. Stuff like that.
Why would anyone want to delete another editor's work just to support a policy that's completely arbitrary anyway? ClanWolverine101 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the list of notable pilots as a thing that is very similar to the year pages. The 'Mech articles are not meant to be character biographies, just as the year articles are not meant to be narratives. While I'm not generally in favor of forcing editors to contribute to the wiki in a particular fashion, is it really too much to ask somebody who thinks a character qualifies as "major" to also create an article for that character? I would also like to point out that, by CJ's definition, there are only a handful of major characters. The point is not that a character suddenly becomes notable when an article is written about them, but that an article should be the reference that a character used a certain 'Mech. --Scaletail 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Scaletail on this. How can a character that no one can bothered writing an article about be notable? --Neufeld 09:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I would rather wonder why nobody wrote the article about, say, Michi Noketsuna yet... (notable Ostroc pilot up until Misery, became the Bounty Hunter later on) Frabby 11:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to side with Frabby on this, you folks are judging characters based on a fact that it hasn't been written yet, so why list it at all? Did any of you know Michi was the Bounty Hunter? There alot rich a notable characters out there, just because they're being listed for the FIRST time and in 'Mech file doesn't mean there won't be a big article coming up the pipe lines. -- Wrangler 11:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I really don't care for the Notable Warriors section. I think it's just a waste of space, but I'm willing to let the stuff be there. What I don't want to have is a paragraph of text about that warrior on the 'Mech page. That stuff should be on a separate page, either dedicated to the pilot (Victor Steiner-Davion) or possibly a big page that lists currently-minor characters (like the List of minor mercenary units page. (Once the character has more information they could be "promoted" to full page status, and fall under the Biographies project.))--Mbear 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are my points :
1) There are a flipping ton of legit "Notable" characters out there who either don't have an article, or didn't have one until just recently. If I may be so BOLD, I've written a few.
2) As such, defining who is and is not "notable" by whether or not they have their own article yet seems bunk to me.
3) TRULY notable characters do, in my opinion, add to the flavor of a mech article. Do you think more of the Warhammer because Natasha Kerensky used it? I do.
4) If anyone disagrees with anything an editor adds to an article, there are multiple pages to hash something like that out. i.e. "Dude, I really don't think so-and-so is notable..." Deleting someone else's work just so they have to write a stub-article, then making them go back and re-write their "Notable" entry doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the Five Pillars to me. (FYI - the "undo" feature doesn't always work.)
5) Based on this so-called "policy" I keep hearing about, I could go through the TROs and add all those "nobody" mechwarriors from the descriptions. I'll write a little stub article for each, then link them under "Notable" in the respective mech sections. It would be stupid, a waste of time, and probably aesthetically yucky. But it would be in line with the "policy", and therefore should not be zapped. (No, I'm not really going to do this. But it would make my point, wouldn't it?)
6) We have new editors coming to the wiki. This is a GOOD thing. They are not intruding on us. They are not defacing some sacred text. They should be treated with kid gloves. When I first joined five months ago, I did quite a few things that make me roll my eyes now. Rev and others treated me with kid gloves, so I stayed. I learned. I humbly submit I've written some pretty good articles, and made some valuable improvements to others. But that might not have happened if my first experience with the wiki was someone just deleting the work I had done based on an arbitrary policy that doesn't even make sense.
Does this make sense to people? ClanWolverine101 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your points make sense to me. I don't agree with all of them, but they make sense. One thing that I don't think as been mentioned is that adding the Notable Pilots section information directly to the page might make the entry too similar for CGL's comfort. --Mbear 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. For the record, in my opinion the content will be so different in 99% of the cases it will be a non-issue. ClanWolverine101 14:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course BTW is not complete. Nobody is saying that it is. What I have said before and will say again is that having an article about a character allows editors to establish a baseline for notability. Again, it's very similar to the year pages, where the information that establishes the subjects notability is included in its own article.
For the record, CW, editors have over and over again expressed that we do not want the "Notable Pilots" section to be ripped from the TROs, so, were you to do what you suggest, the content would eventually be removed. In addition, it would likely get you banned for disruptive editing. --Scaletail 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
... that's quite a threat, Scaletail. I did not realize that a single admin had that sort of authority. Noted.
Again : I suggested that course of action to prove a point - having an article entry about you should not be the end-all, be-all of what makes a mechwarrior "notable". As I said above, to actually do this would be a waste of time. (I do hope the other admins understood this fine distinction.)
Regarding the year pages: How many events and other items on those pages refer to redlinks? Things that don't have an article? I've seen quite a few. Now in most of those cases, the item is certainly noteworthy, and the relevant article simply hasn't been written yet. To me, that's perfectly acceptable. Seeing a redlink to something that IS notable should encourage us to go : "Hey! I should write that article. Or at least put up a stub, maybe..." I know that's been the case with myself a number of times. I see a redlink to a character or other item that I'm very familiar with and I'm very certain should have its article ~ and then I write it. Or at least put up a stub. (I've actually spent the last few days writing a new article about a character I consider VERY notable, who at the moment is showing up as red-links all over the place. Hope to have it ready tonight.) My point is that having a written article linked does not seem to be the standard we use for the Year pages.
For the record, I'm encouraged that bringing this issue up has facilitated (mostly constructive) conversation. ClanWolverine101 15:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, stepping in here: CW, assuming something did not occur that I am unaware of and this is a hypothetical discussion, I believe Scaletail was not directing any threats at you. In fact, it may have been better worded as a possible reaction to a fictional editor's edits that consistently went against wiki consensus (in the form of policy). If this editor refused to acknowledge what the majority of the editors thought was best practice, then that solitary editor was attempting to shape the grand project into only his image and that would not stand. In that case, if arbitration and dialogue by both editors and eventually admins (editors wearing admin hats) failed to bring the solitary editor onto the team, then consensus would suggest his edits were disruptive and an admin would use the ban hammer (most likely after conferring with other admins). We have not experienced that here yet, but we will, I'm sure.
But again, I'm fairly certain Scaletail did not mean that to be directed at you. It was probably just poor word choice.
We're all working towards the same goal here. In this case, I'd ask each of you to take a extra effort to reconsider what the other has said, with that goal in mind. I could have more to say about the reference of the Year pages, but I'll hold off until I'm sure we're all working together here. Thanks, both. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Notable Pilots Sample page[edit]

In a comment above, I mentioned a possible solution: Create a separate page that lists the notable warriors from each technical readout on their own page. The page would be linked to from the Notable Pilots section of the BattleMech page. A well known warrior (Natasha Kerensky, Hohiro Kurita) would link directly to the appropriate page, but the notable pilots who are currently minor characters could be listed on this page.

Advantages:

  1. New editors will not have their content deleted, but moved.
  2. Allows for fluff/flavor text to be added without affecting main article.
  3. We can use these entries as starter text for expanded articles.
  4. Nobody gets upset because their text is gone.

I've just completed a sample: User:Mbear/NotablePilots. Please comment and let me know what you think: Would something like this serve as an acceptable compromise between "No Notable Pilots" and "Not Notable Enough"?--Mbear 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats going be a mess of people on one page. Are you going divide these notable pilots with BattleMech their associated with or they all going be clumped together? I won't want them clumbed, it be too messy for a reader to get thought it. I had figured notable pilots would get one or two sentences that IT. As side note, major character prior to the Upgrade books were not notable, since many of them weren't even MechWarriors of skill. Many of notables were fantasticly skilled, or had done something to be well noted. One or two lines mention is all they should get if this notable pilot thing expands. -- Wrangler 14:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
At this point I haven't thought about how to organize it beyond the single page. I'm just trying to resolve this festering sore. Both sides (no pilots|notable pilots) have good arguments and this is my attempt to please both groups. If there's a consensus that this compromise has merit, we can probably break it down further (A-K on one page, L-Z on another?).
I had figured notable pilots would get one or two sentences that IT.
OK, but until you said that, I had no idea how much info you were planning on adding to the page. Others may go crazy and add several paragraphs about the pilot.
As side note, major character prior to the Upgrade books were not notable, since many of them weren't even MechWarriors of skill. Many of notables were fantasticly skilled, or had done something to be well noted.
True, but I don't think the major character's skills are really relevant here. They've got their own pages, so they'll be fine. My focus was on bringing the "notable pilots" to the page without adding a lot of material that isn't directly relevant to the 'Mech. (So John Doe piloted the 'Mech. Big deal. That doesn't say anything about the 'Mech other than John Doe piloted it. Info RE: John Doe shouldn't be on the 'Mech page, IMO.)--Mbear 14:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I like it, I hope finally this grievous diskussion comes to an end. It is a good compromiss, when no character articles exist, then i put it on this page, where is the problem. Good job Mbear.--Doneve 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the intent is commendable. It might be considerably more elaborate than I would prefer and maybe defeats the purpose for not being on the page, but if a compromise is the only way to bring peace to the wiki, so be it. ClanWolverine101 14:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
My goals for this compromise:
Move the Notable Pilots off the main 'Mech page 
They're characters, so they should get their own page, but they're even more minor than the minor characters, so they don't meet the notability guidelines and therefore shouldn't get their own page. Catch-22.
Keep Nic (and the rest of us) from making the unit entries too much like the TRO's.
Don't want to upset CGL. My concern with putting a lot of Notable pilot info on the page is a new editor might just copy and paste the entry directly from the TRO entry to the section, which is plagiarism and can get us in a lot of trouble.
Resolve this issue once and for all.
I have seen this issue come up several times in the past, and everyone involved gets really excited about it. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it the most controversial issue on Sarna. My hope is that this compromise will allow us to put this thing to rest once and for all, and get us back to the fun stuff (however you define it).
--Mbear 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
One thing that I didn't make clear (and thanks to ClanWolverine101 for pointing this out): My fault for not explaining. I would have a "Notable Pilot" section on the 'Mech page. Underneath it would be a comma separated list of well known pilots. So the Warhammer page would have something like:
It made much more sense when I re-read it. I think its a pretty good idea. ClanWolverine101 16:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable Pilots[edit]

Well known pilots of the Warhammer include: Yoriniga Kurita, Natasha Kerensky, Jon Doe, and Some Random Guy I Can't Remember.

The links for Yoriniga and Natasha would point to their articles, while the last two would point to the appropriate part of the List of Notable Pilots page. There's really no other way to create the appropriate link structure, no matter how hard I try.--Mbear 15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I don't like the idea of creating a sub-page. For me, sub-pages are something to avoid as a matter of principle. Also, I don't get why you wouldn't simply create (possibly stub) articles for Jon Doe and your random guy, and write whatever you were going to write on the sub-page into these articles?
Somebody said somewhere that the "Notable Pilots" section is/should be akin to the year pages. That is a good approach: There should be the name with a link to that pilot's entry (redlink or no), and a one-liner about him. If I really want to know why Jon Does is a notable Warhammer pilot then I can always follow the link, after all, and read his article. Frabby 16:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
And then we are back at the redlink issue, where I can't follow the link and know why he's notable. --Neufeld 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what the Notable Pilots page I prototyped is supposed to fix. It provides a single place for all the Notable Pilots who aren't otherwise notable.--Mbear 18:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
And it's not a sub-page of the 'Mech. It's a completely separate page that gathers every "Notable Pilot" who isn't a Major Character.--Mbear 18:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Frabby, my comparison to year articles was in reference to the fact that information included in year articles must have a cited reference in a linked article. So a redlink would be insufficient. --Scaletail 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable Pilots (Second try to explain what I mean.)[edit]

Well known pilots of the Warhammer include: Yorinaga Kurita, Natasha Kerensky, Jon Doe, and Some Random Guy I Can't Remember.

The links for Yoriniga and Natasha point to their articles, while the last two point to the appropriate part of the List of Notable Pilots page. Please follow the links to see what I mean.--Mbear 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that you try to solve the wrong problem. It isn't Jon Doe or Some Random Guy that are the problem, it is the missing Nastys' and Yorinagas' articles. --Neufeld 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well said, Neufeld. Couldn't agree more. Frabby 09:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats the issue? Lack of the notable famous characters? Weither "famous" warrior associate with the 'Mech article should remain on the article verse no bodies who are destined for the notable pilots page? Why don't we just leave main spine characters with one or with mech article and forget about the minor no-bodies. Its this notable pilot feud is going no where. -- Wrangler 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
My absence aside, I've stayed removed from this discussion over the long term because I have no position for or against notables on the 'Mech article. I think Scaletail rang true by referencing the Year pages as a guideline for notability standards (where notability is defined by available information on this wiki), but I also think Mbear's suggested solution is probably the first real workable step we've seen in solving this. Yes, it may appear that we're turning in circles, but we don't give into the frustration, for there is no answer there.
Is the compromise here that in order for a pilot to be notable 'enough' that the Editor making the simple edit of adding the name also be expected to write at the very least an identifying statement ala Mbear's idea? Yes, there are some major characters that don't yet have articles, but if Revanche the Editor feels Major Character A deserves recognition as a notable pilot for Mech Mark 3, then shouldn't it stand that Revanche be expected to write a statement on the List of Notable Pilots if he doesn't feel like starting a full-on article for the same person?
I agree that no contributions of substance should be removed from the wiki, if a compromise can be made. But I'd also would be realistic and say that if the sole contribution that Revanche the Editor felt he had to make on a particular subject was a red-link notable, in that he couldn't even make a short statement about the character for the List of Notable Pilots, then no information is really lost if deleted.
To be clear, I would support the inclusion of a 2-3 sentence statement about Aleksandr Kerensky himself on the List of Notable Pilots, if he did not yet have a full article. Inclusion on the List of Notable Pilots is a suitable compromise, in my opinion, for a major character that has not yet been otherwise graced with an article.
What it boils down to here, is that a signficant problem has a potential solution with Mbear's idea. Its not perfect (sorry, Mbear), but that's because it doesn't completely address each & everyone's personal standards they seek for this wiki. However, its perfect in attempting to meet the philosophy of consensus, which is valued. Who can bend a bit to meet it?
Let's discuss a bit more people's concerns, see if we can address and compromise in an attempt to meet them and then vote on the solution we come up with. I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't a version of Mbear's idea (but do remain open minded).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Rev - For my own two cents, I'm fine with it either way. If you think the "Notable Pilots" section under "Wolfhound" should include not only Phaelan Kell's name but also a sentence or two about who he was and what he did with his Wolfhound, I'm totally cool with that. I think that's the sort of thing we've been doing for the most part. Likewise, if we applied all or part of Mbear's idea, I wouldn't mind that either.
My issue is when someone puts substantial effort into an otherwise worthy edit, only to have their work deleted simply because the subject of the item redlinks. No conversation or discussion - simply "I get to delete your work because the old consensus says so." Mind you - if somebody hits up a Talk page and says "Hey - John Smith may have piloted a Locust for 20 years, but I don't think he's worthy of being notable in the Locust article..." that's totally cool. Talk. Hash. Compromise. Whatever. I'm totally fine with that. But suppose John Smith has an article entry and Phaelan Kell doesn't. So John Smith is notable and Phaelan Kell isn't?
That's all I'm saying. I don't like it when my hard work is destroyed. Neither does One-EyedJack. I think most of us feel that way. ClanWolverine101 02:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Copy this and I can understand it. If that does happen, I would expect the 'offended' party would open up dialogue with the deleting editor on that editor's talk page, for the purposes of exploring and working out the actions taken previously. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Which is what I've done in the past. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Mbear's proposal is to have a section about Notable Pilots for certain 'Mech models that warrant them, with the stipulation that 1) no information about the pilot other than name is provided within the 'Mech article and 2) that no redlinks be allowed within this Notable Pilots section. Post your concerns here:
So Rev, your proposing that any notable pilot listed in a respective 'Mech article, must have some kind of actual article about the pilot themselves. When listing these pilots in the 'Mech list, then they should only have the name itself and nothing more. Correct? -- Wrangler 02:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wrangler, while I didn't think it was my proposal (it was what I culled from the discussions...late to the party, sorry), yes (in regards to no information about the pilot).
"Well-known pilots of the Warhammer include: Notable Pilot Alfred, Notable Pilot Beverly". The link either points to a dedicated article on the character OR to an entry on the List of Notable Pilots page. The question posted here is: what problems does this cause?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, what comes to my mind is the risk that characters that needs their own articles ends up woolgathering in the List. The second risk is that whatever feats a character did in a mech aren't transfered to that character's page. The third issue, if that info is transfered to the character's page, where do we insert it? A separate section or bake it into the character history? --Neufeld 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Neufeld, I think the "woolgathering in the list" problem could be countered by:
  1. adding a sectionstub tag.
  2. add a message like this to the top of the list: "If you have more information about a character on this list please feel free to expand their entry or move it to a new page." (This text could also be added under each of the letters so an editor is sure to see it.)
The "where do we put the information" question could be solved by either of the methods you mention. I'd delegate that decision to the Biography wikiproject team as it seems more appropriate to discuss it there.--Mbear 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
One problem that comes to my mind was mentioned earlier: Eventually there will be a lot of names on that list. But we can figure out some way of solving that problem once this is settled.--Mbear 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that those concerns are more of a biography issue, rather than a 'Mech article issue, unless you (Neufeld) feel that the issue we're causing biographies is greater than the issue we're addressing here. Aaah, growing pains. While painful, still a good sign for the wiki. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it depends on how the changes are done. If someone just deletes the fluff text in the mech article without moving it to the character article, then we have a problem and probably pissed off editors. --Neufeld 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I know is damning to have stuff deleted, i've had that happen to me as well. What can you do? Policy is policy. We will find a solution, but there something going happen along the way. Right now, if there no article on the pilot, there listing for them pilot. That how looks right now unless Mbear's list of minior notable pilots will be implimented. -- Wrangler 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any great interest in listing the "minor" pilots. I'm also flexible on how much text each noted pilot should get - anywhere from zero to three sentences, I guess - I'm not picky. My issue is deleting someone's work with the blind justification of supporting a policy that essentially claims that anyone "famous" already has an article. From what I can tell, most people think that's ridiculous. ClanWolverine101 19:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so that's addressed with Mbear's solution then, as instead of deletion it gets moved. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
So, Editors that mistakenly add it to the 'Mech page will now be prompted to move their material to the List page or will have it moved for them by other Editors. Moving on: what other issues can people identify as being possible problems?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. Training editors in linking to the correct part of the List of Notable Pilots page.
  2. Organization of list - A generic alphabetical list is OK, but some people might want it organized by faction.
  3. Page size - Master Unit List version 1.66 shows over 4000 entries. If every unit has a single notable pilot, then there could be 4000 entries on this page. Major characters will thin this out slightly, but the list is still going to be large.
  4. References - The list of references is going to get very long.--Mbear 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur.
If I may, I'd suggest starting a new topic area (if that makes sense?) so the current discussion is better organized? ClanWolverine101 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Famous Pilots - Overview and Proposed Solution[edit]

Overview of Problem
Several editors had their work deleted because the 'Mech pages don't allow editors to put red-linked notable warriors on the page. This annoyed these editors, possibly causing them to leave.
Policy that prohibits notable pilots on article page is seen as arbitrary.
Sub-problem: How do we decide who's allowed to have an article? (Notability policy should be consulted here.)
Arguments for including notable pilots on Mech article page
Adds flavor to universe.
Notable warriors are shown on 'Mech page in TRO, so keeping them together makes sense.
Easy way for new contributors to make contribution to BTW.
Arguments against including notable pilots on Mech article page
Most notable warriors are actually nobodies. They're only mentioned in the TRO, and therefore don't meet the BTW Notability policy.
Notable warriors are shown on 'Mech page in TRO, so keeping them together on article page makes it more likely that an inexperienced Editor will commit a copyright/plagiarism violation and upset CGL.
Notable warrior section doesn't really have anything to do with the Mech/Vehicle beyond the fact that the warrior pilots that Mech. This means there could be several paragraphs of tangential information on the page that doesn't really add much to the 'Mech.
Proposed solution
Mbear proposed a two part solution:
  1. That a new top level page be created called "List of Notable Warriors." This page was inspired by the List of minor mercenary units page. This page would be the single location where warriors listed in the TRO would appear. Famous warriors who have their own page (e.g. Natasha Kerensky, Jaime Wolf, etc.) would not be listed on this page.
  2. The Mech article would get a new section labeled "Notable Pilots" which would have a single sentence underneath it that read something like:

"Notable pilots of the BATTLEMECH include: First Famous (Full Article) Warrior, Second Famous (Full Article) Warrior, First Minor (List of Notable Warriors) Warrior, and Second Minor (List of Notable Warriors) Warrior."

Advantages of proposed solution
  1. Editors will not have their content deleted, just moved to notable pilot page.
  2. Content of notable pilot page could be used as core of new biographical articles.
  3. This stress-filled issue will be solved once and for all.
Disadvantages of proposed solution
Easy for Notable Pilots to vanish into the list and be forgotten.
List will become large and probably unwieldy.
List only allows for alphabetical organization; no provision for faction, era, or other organization scheme.
List of references at bottom of page will become very long.

I (Mbear) am in favor of this approach, warts and all, because it will let us get a formal policy in place that respects both sides of the issue.--Mbear 18:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The overview is a bit off. "Mech pages don't allow editors to put notable warriors on the page." should be "Mech pages don't allow editors to put red-linked notable warriors on the page." I still feel that the solution is more complicated that it needs to be. --Neufeld 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually fundamentally agree with Neufeld's comments, however, I have yet to see an alternative solution that works. What is most important to me is that we not go back to the system we had before. Do you have an alternative suggestion, Neufeld? ClanWolverine101 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, giving people time to write the main article, and warning them before deletion would at least avoid a lot of problems. Second possibility is to allow entries with red-linked characters, but only for those characters that are in other sources in addition to TRO pilot sections. --Neufeld 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Mbear, thank you for taking the lead on this, and to all of the editors who contributed. If there was an easy solution, none of this would have been necessary, because the issues would have been resolved long ago.
I'll be blunt. I don't see the difference between adding a paragraph in a new article or adding a paragraph in a list article. Either way, the editor must be aware, or be made aware, that they cannot add a redlink character as a notable pilot on a 'Mech article. I think this proposed change is more complicated than the current guideline while not really changing anything.
So that it doesn't seem like I'm just being contrary, I'll make a new proposal, drawing on Advantage #1-2 above. When an editor adds a redlink character (assuming there is consensus to keep the character on the article), that information is copy and pasted into a new article for the character. Of course, that information would still be subject to Policy:Verifiability, so it must have sources. I would also add that inclusion in the appropriate TRO as a "Notable Pilot" is very specifically not sufficient for addition to the BTW article. I think it's simpler and more common sense. --Scaletail 00:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Scaletail - At the risk of digging up any past "misunderstandings" - I feel you make assumptions above that are hardly yours to make. I would submit that a clear majority of people who have weighed in on this issue do not believe that a present lack of an article (stub or otherwise) should automatically disqualify a character from being considered a "Notable Pilot". They certainly don't believe anyone's work should be deleted simply to rectify a policy that was only a temporary compromise to begin with. Unless I've totally misunderstood the policies of the wiki, no single admin or editor should be able to arbitrarily declare that "Either way, the editor must be aware, or be made aware, that they cannot add a redlink character as a notable pilot on a 'Mech article.", especially when current consensus clearly does not support that assertion. While I think most of us would PREFER that users write an article before they make a link to that article, I recognize that there are always exceptions. There are tons of redlinks still throughout the wiki. Many probably aren't deserving of an article. Others should be redirected to an existing article. Others still need to be written, and the fact they haven't been written yet shouldn't lead to those links being deleted.
I do agree that the new proposal creates a very different animal, without neccessarilly solving the core problems. I am uncertain if setting up stub articles for any "redlink Notable Pilots" is the best way of resolving the issue. However, if you and other users choose to make such stub articles, and that prevents anyone's work from being deleted, then I have no objection. ClanWolverine101 03:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Is not the purpose of the proposed list to provide a place for minor characters (or characters who do not yet have articles written about them) to be linked to, with a brief bio? My proposal was predicated on the idea that any character listed as a notable pilot would still need to be linked to. If I am wrong, I offer my apologies. --Scaletail 23:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In a roundabout way, I suppose so. Mbear listed the following advantages for his proposal :
1. Editors will not have their content deleted, just moved to notable pilot page.
2. Content of notable pilot page could be used as core of new biographical articles.
3. This stress-filled issue will be solved once and for all.
What I'll throw out there is this : If there a (consensus-legitimate) Notable Pilot listed on a mech (or another vehicle...) article, and that character redlinks, and a user decides to make a stub-article for that individual by whatever means (including your idea of copying the Notable Pilot entry) then that's fine. I can't complain. So I have no objection. ClanWolverine101 03:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Consensus : Notable Pilot Sections[edit]

I would like to submit the following points :

1) In the discussions above, it seems clear that a majority of editors (and admins!) do not agree with the sentiment that if a character does yet have his own article, then the "Notable Pilots" reference should be deleted.
2) Further, that a majority of editors and admins do not seem to agree that a lack of article automatically disqualifies a character from "notable" consideration.
3) The current proposal policy, while it certainly shows promise, doesn't seem to be totally nailed down yet, and is still being discussed and fine-tuned. Understand, this is not an opinion on Mbear's proposal. I actually hope it eventually passes. Its a simple acknowledgment that it hasn't happened yet.
4) Leaving the old "policy", whereby editors were encouraged to delete the other editor's work arbitrarily, would be against the spirit of the Five Pillars policy. It would discourage editors young and old from making contributions, fearful that their work would be deleted over an arbitrary policy that they know nothing about and doesn't make any sense anyway.

To that end, I am formally proposing that this old policy be dropped. Once upon a time, I'm certain it seemed like the best compromise available. At this point, that time has come and gone. Its a bad policy. It has led to frustrations, bad blood, time wasted, and at least one editor declaring they were quitting. To defend such a policy on the basis of "well, its what we've been doing" would be irresponsible. So - that's what I'm floating. I feel my four points above are valid. I feel that's where the "pulse" is. Can't fight the future. ClanWolverine101 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that editors should not be making changes to articles when new guidelines for them are pending. --Scaletail 01:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the big question is: Do people want to:
1) just add notable people that deserves their own article but doesn't have one yet,
or
2) do they want to also add minor characters to the notable pilots section?
I got the impression that 1 is the issue that caused the discussion, but mbear is trying to fix 2. --Neufeld 13:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Touche. Yes, those are two different problems. For my own part, I consider only the first one. But if someone wants to put in a "nobody" from the TROs, well, I won't delete it. ClanWolverine101 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Neufeld that there are two separate problems, and he's identified them both. My suggestion was based on the assumption that as soon as we allow notable pilots (Neufeld's #1), someone will want to add the notable warriors from the TROs (which leads to #2). So we'd have a policy/procedure in place to address both situations before there was a problem.--Mbear 18:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, it makes this discussion less frustrating. I think that we need a decision if adding #2 is desirable at all, before we make a decision on using Mbear's proposed scheme. --Neufeld 21:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The question for me is the approach. I have no problem with the current "Notable Pilots" setup. My problem is how it is executed. Two points : First, we should not define notable/not notable by whether or an article for the person is already in place. Second, if someone puts in a "nobody" character (say from the TROs), the matter should be discussed/debated on the appropriate talk page. Hit up their page and say "hey dude - this guy probably isn't notable by our standards". Deal with the situation fairly and responsibly. Is Sun-Tzu Liao, never known for his personal skills as a warrior, an appropriate example for the Emperor mech? I'll say yes (I flip-flopped on this at one point), someone else might say "Hey - we don't even know if Sun-Tzu himself ever used it in actual combat?" That's a fair debate. Let's go there. But do it fairly and with respect.
As best as I can tell, people would prefer something more concrete than my idea. Which is why Mbear's is an acceptable alternative to me. ClanWolverine101 02:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)