BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands/Archive

Initial article creation[edit]

Would it be OK to first create articels with only a bit basic info like names & nicknames so we can make sure everything is were it should be and furthermore nothing is missing? I was thinking about doing it this way but that sentence: "When creating an article, fill it in with info. Articles with no text may be subject to deletion." made me stop.--BigDuke66 18:37, 17 February 2009 (PST)

I say go for it, add the articles and add a stub tag where appropriate. I think the sentence you mention refers to articles about which nothing can really be written for lack of information. And then there's the difference between "may be" and "will". Frabby 03:23, 18 February 2009 (PST)
Per one of the many discussions on Canon or Notability (I'm too lazy to look it up right down), we discussed deleting tiny articles that were essentially placeholders. I was under the impression at the time that we had consensus for that, but maybe it only applied to articles on fictional characters. Or some fictional characters. That's the reason I placed that in this project. That, and I plan to actually find that and enshrine it as a policy, unless that consensus has changed. Besides, it's a pain in the rear to change the categories for a bunch of articles. It becomes incredibly frustrating when there's no text in them. In case we need to change some background architecture, it's easier to do that with less articles.
Aside from the practical, I would argue that placeholders do not serve a worthwhile purpose. I understand why you would want to do that, but it doesn't provide any information on the subject to the reader. An empty template just makes the article look like the creator didn't care enough to finish it. --Scaletail 17:34, 18 February 2009 (PST)
Well the administrative part(setup, add basic info, category placement, etc.) of all the units made me start creating those articles. We already had a discussion about the commands & what to place were, so I think we are the best ones for the job of making the initial setup so that all the "normal" user especially the “fan boys” of specific units have to do is to fill them up with everything info they can get. That's why I think we should at least place one example unit article for every brigade in every faction so that others know where & how to place the rest of those units.--BigDuke66 16:01, 20 February 2009 (PST)

Naming conventions[edit]

The BattleCorps style guide says that numbers in unit names should be spelled out:

Any command military number designation equal to or under 100 should be spelled out. For example: Twenty-first Galedon Regulars and Ninety-seventh Adder Sentinels.

Wonder if we should adopt this approach, as it comes from BattleCorps, and provide redirects from numerical designations. Opinions? Frabby 03:23, 18 February 2009 (PST)

Well when I search for a unit I don't spell the numbers out and personally I hate this approach in sourcebooks too because you have to search for the number and for the spelled out version just to make sure you don't miss something and think of a typo in it and you will never find it no matter if it's a hardcopy or PDF because letters just disappear in the text(numbers are more easily recognizable) and the search function won't find it, only way to get it is by reading the entry. OK you can still search for the name but if it’s common in the book or in our case the Wiki it won’t really help to track a specific unit down.
Furthermore it's a waste of space & time.
Just try and search for thirteenth, you don't get a unit, try 13 you still don't get a unit, now try 13th and you finally get a unit. Getting the user to use those "end forms"(st, nd, rd, th, sorry not sure how they are called) isn't that hard but I don't think they go all the way to even spell the numbers out, I mean that's what numbers are there for instead of letters. In the end it doesn't help in any way I could think of and so I would say lets stay with numbers.--BigDuke66 10:20, 18 February 2009 (PST)
While I do normally like to stick with the BattleCorps style guidelines, I think there's a difference between written text and article titles. The Field Manuals use numerical designations. It would also provide for inconsistency with titles that read "Third Royal Guards" and "666th Mechanized Cluster". I think we should go with numbers in titles and words in text, where appropriate. Note that the requirement to write out numbers in the body of an article is already called for in the Manual of Style, so we don't need to specify that guideline here. --Scaletail 17:39, 18 February 2009 (PST)
After thinking on it a bit I'd say you have me convinced and numericals should be used for the articles. Scaletail is spot on when he says writing fiction and writing wiki articles is a different pair of shoes. Plus, we can have redirects. Just see that we keep a unified approach (I'll mercilessly move articles that do not use the numerical approach). Frabby 14:20, 23 February 2009 (PST)

Unit Tables of Organisation[edit]

I've been playing with the military symbology found in Strategic Operations, and I'm willing to generate them for each command as information becomes available. Wikipedia has been doing the same thing for real-life military units. Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? Alkemita 22:28, 23 February 2009 (PST)

I don't understand what you want to do. Could you elaborate further, please? --Scaletail 16:04, 24 February 2009 (PST)
See for a real-world example. Since Strategic Operations introduced a canon Military Symbology for the BTU, I thought it would be good to graphically represent BT Military Commands using it. Alkemita 07:26, 25 February 2009 (PST)
Sorry to say that but I feel the idea is more or less unworkable. The main issue I have with the concept is essentially the same that I already mentioned about the Merc Infobox: The information is bound to change quite often, all the more so as BT units frequently see combat action, incur losses and reorganize. For example, a complete rundown of Lindon's Company would see them at virtually all stages between company and regiment at various times until they are destroyed for good approaching Terra. Just how many infoboxes/tables would you want to post for a given command? Frabby 07:46, 25 February 2009 (PST)
I don't intend to do this for every stage of a given command's existence, just where we have enough information to construct such a TOE. There's certainly enough data in some of the Field Manuals for the 3059-3062 timeframe to do this. Alkemita 08:16, 25 February 2009 (PST)
It certainly would be a big mistake to create a heap of articles with empty templates in them.
I'd say, post an example on this page before we come to a conclusion. --Detlef 10:49, 25 February 2009 (PST)
Firstly, just to clarify - this is not a template. It's a graphic showing the TOE of a particular command. As Frabby pointed out, BTU units change over time, and there are many where we don't have enough information to work out their TOE. So, my approach is that if we have enough information, we do one, if not, we don't. If we do one for the unit, the title will include notation specifying the time period, for example, "Waco's Rangers, 3025 TOE". I'll do an example in the next day or so and upload here for comment.Alkemita 10:56, 25 February 2009 (PST)
We have already the section "Composition" were a detailed ToO should be described. Putting a graphical ToO to the left or right of the text or link to a complete grahpic sounds interesting for me.--BigDuke66 19:57, 25 February 2009 (PST)
Waco Rangers TOE 3025
Okay, as promised, here's an example of a unit TOE, in this case, for the Waco Rangers in 3025. This is based on the one found in the Mercenaries Handbook, but using the updated symbology published in Strategic Operations. Now, I must emphasize that one of the nice things about this is that we can be flexible about how much detail we show - we don't have to go down to the Lance level like the example does. We can show only as many levels as we have concrete information for.

Alkemita 13:30, 26 February 2009 (PST)

Comment on picture: The font is too small and some of the symbols are confusing to me. Overall, I don't see how such a hierarchy-tree would add information or clarification. --Detlef 14:45, 26 February 2009 (PST)

Did you view the picture at full size? I used minimum 14pt font, which would have been clearly readable at full size. The symbols used are straight out of Strategic Operations, so if you don't have it, I understand that they would be confusing. Alkemita 21:26, 26 February 2009 (PST)
I just watched the picture in higher resolution here in the BTwiki and in full resolution (external link). I can identify some letters but not the whole abbreviations. EDIT: sorry, full resolution is also internal link --Detlef 03:22, 27 February 2009 (PST)
That looks good to me. But I wonder if we could incorporate something like that on a smaller scale into the "Composition" section by placing the appropriate symbols at the beginning of the line. As most units will only have a rather simple ToE taken from the FMs righting down the composition and placing some symbols sounds much easier as to make such a detailed tree that is in most cases not possible because info is missing. Making such tree for units that provide that much detail is OK but for a normal RCT that has at best a dozen sub-units by name a symbol in front seems to be better suited. Look here 10th_Lyran_Guards#Composition and imaging to replace the squares with symbols wouldn't that fit better?--BigDuke66 09:10, 27 February 2009 (PST)
We could certainly put an identifying symbol for each of the units listed under Composition, but they would be kind of self-evident. For instance, FM:LA talks about the 3rd Donegal Guards RCT having an AeroSpace Complement consisting of the 879th and 77th Independent Wings. Without info about the weight classes of those Wings, the symbology won't add any more information to what's already there. If you think it's still worthwhile, I'd be happy to draw up some symbols.
I never thought of these TOEs as being part of every Military Commands article we write. I can see doing one for the Davion Assault Guards, for instance, because it's make-up is pretty clear, but not for a WoB Shadow Division, because we have too little data.
I think it's pretty clear that there's not overwhelming support for this idea, so I'll put it on hold for now.Alkemita 09:59, 27 February 2009 (PST)

FedCom Units[edit]

What about the Commands of the Federated Commonwealth?

  • The FedCom RCTs were specifically units of the FedCom, but neither of the LA or FS. -> FedCom Command
  • Some of them joined the LA and were renamed to Alliance Guards. -> FedCom and Lyran Commands
  • Virtually(?) all Lyran/FedSun units were FedCom. -> FedCom+Lyran or FedCom+FedSun

I suggest a further category "Federated Commonwealth Commands". --Detlef 03:19, 24 February 2009 (PST)

EDIT: We also still have no category for ComGuard Commands. --Detlef 03:22, 24 February 2009 (PST)

I agree on both counts. --Scaletail 16:04, 24 February 2009 (PST)
As we portray the actual situation as far as possible think it would be enough to put the Alliance Guards into the LA category and set up a FedCom category where the original names are listed and redirect from them to the corresponding Alliance Guards unit. The other FedCom units are now part of the FedSuns(at least I think so) so putting them there and again redirecting from the FedCom category to them seems to be the best. Regarding the ComGuard well I think we wanted to put them into the under Misc Commands.--BigDuke66 19:47, 25 February 2009 (PST)

Change to Info Box[edit]

I've noticed that the info box includes a line saying "Unit Profile as of (year)". Given that some units will have histories that range from pre-3000 to the 3075 timeframe, can we remove this line?Alkemita 14:40, 2 March 2009 (PST)

It just indicates when the information of the profile is updated to timeline wise, fairly easy to fill in considering the various field manuals have specific dates. Cyc 14:46, 2 March 2009 (PST)
Okay, understood. Alkemita 15:07, 2 March 2009 (PST)
Could we also include a line in the info box for if the unit has been destroyed/disbanded? if the unit is still active we can just put the word active or n/a in the space. Dmon 18:47, 11 March 2009 (GMT)
This could be problematic as units are occasionally reconstituted years after they are destroyed. I think an optional line for "Out of Service" that can be filled in with the year of decommission/destruction or simply left out if it doesn't not apply would be best. --Scaletail 15:35, 11 March 2009 (PDT)

Militia articles[edit]

So we now have Kathil CMM and Valexa Capellan March Militia. We need to decide on a standard: either the abbreviated name or the full title. Whichever we do not choose should be a redirect for any and all such articles. I currently don't have a preference, but it needs to be one way or the other. --Scaletail 18:07, 4 March 2009 (PST)

I propose spelling out the full title as the page name, with the abbreviation as the re-direct.Alkemita 20:10, 4 March 2009 (PST)

Capellan Warrior Houses[edit]

I wanted to create individual pages for each Warrior House, but they're redirecting to the generic article. Can we get this fixed? Alkemita 07:27, 11 March 2009 (PDT)

I am having the same problem with the Otomo. --Dmon 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Easy, click on say Otomo, once it redirects you go back up to the top and you can see it mentions where its redirected you from, click on that link and it takes to the true page, merely replace the redirect stuff with a full entry on it and your set. Its why they're redirects instead of pipes, to allow a true article to replace the redirect when the time comes.Cyc 14:25, 11 March 2009 (PDT)
Thanks, Cyc! Alkemita 15:39, 11 March 2009 (PDT)

Clan units[edit]

What are the guidelines for Clan commands?

  1. So far, we have a [Category:Clan units] and it would be wise to split it up into the individual Clan commands.
  2. What are the guidelines for the names of these articles? [Clan Wolf Alpha Galaxy] or [Alpha Galaxy (Clan Wolf)]? [6th Jaguar Dragoons] or [6th Dragoons (Clan Smoke Jaguar)]?
  3. Individual articles for each Cluster/Keshik or (as information is sometimes rare) combine the clusters to their respective Galaxies? --Detlef 08:47, 14 March 2009 (PDT)
Just like the other units, there should be different levels of categories. Most of them haven't been created yet because there is nothing to put in the vast majority of those categories at this time. As for individual commands, I am for the name excepting (Cluster), e.g. "4th Wolf Guards", "6th Jaguar Dragoons", "Silver Keshik", etc. I see the problem with Galaxies, as there are few with unique names. I like the Galaxy name (Clan) proposal, e.g. "Alpha Galaxy (Clan Wolf-in-Exile)", "Alpha Galaxy (Clan Nova Cat)" as it fits within existing nomenclature and makes sense on a disambiguation page. --Scaletail 10:42, 14 March 2009 (PDT)
But we also have to differentiate between [Golden Keshik (Clan Wolf-in-Exile)] and [Golden Keshik (Clan Wolf)]. And most Clusters don't contain the Clan-name in the unit-name, for example "666th Mechanized Assault" or "Pharao Keshik".
My suggestions are:
  • adding general touman info to Clan-articles
  • for Galaxies: [Alpha Galaxy (Clan X)] categorized in specific Clan's category) + disambiguation pages categorized in a general Clan category)
  • for clusters: for example [6th Jaguar Dragoons (CSJ)], [Falcon Guards (CJF)], [Golden Keshik (CWiE)], [9th Strike (CC)]to eliminate all doubts, to whom this cluster might belong
  • the clusters are redirected to it's Galaxy (leaving room for turning them into extensive articles) --Detlef 11:37, 14 March 2009 (PDT)
I like the above, with a caveat. Galaxies get re-organized from time to time as well. If you see from my initial [[Alpha Galaxy {Clan Wolf-in-Exile)]] article, I've kept the article about the Galaxy as a whole, with the individual clusters linking off to their own articles. I suggest that the component Clusters of a Galaxy be treated as follows:
  • If there's enough information on them to warrant their own article, they get their own article.
  • If there's only minimal information, the link takes you to a "Misc. Units (Clan XX)#Unit Name" article, just like we've done for minor mercenary commands.
This approach allows Galaxy articles to remain substantially on-topic, and prominent Clusters get their own article.

Alkemita 11:49, 14 March 2009 (PDT)

But the minor mercenary commands are not part of a bigger structure. Just imagine "Misc. Lyran Commands" for example. --Detlef 12:00, 14 March 2009 (PDT)
Minor Mercenary Commands are not part of a bigger structure precisely because in most cases we only have throw-away references to them. We have more information for the Clan units, thanks to the Field Manuals and other sourcebooks, and can therefore put more into the Misc. Units article. For example, Misc. Units (Clan Jade Falcon) could have:
  • 1st Falcon Dragoons - Created out of isorla taken in the Harvest Trials from Clans YY and ZZ, this Cluster was assigned to XX Galaxy in 3060.
  • 2nd Falcon Dragoons - ...
Now, the other way we can do this is to create articles for all these clusters anyway, which, I will admit, part of me would prefer, but I'm getting the impression that we only want full articles for units with substantial information available. The main thing I guess, is that I'm trying make sure that Galaxy articles are about the Galaxy itself, rather than a short intro before going into each component cluster and Keshik's history and tactics.
The method depends on the ressources.
If there are e.g. no composition and history infos available for most units, then your method is better. If there are infos available for most units (which I doubt), then such a "misc. units"-article would be a bad choice. --Detlef 14:12, 14 March 2009 (PDT)
Okay, unless it turns out to be unworkable, when I get back to doing Clan units, I'm going to create articles for individual Clusters. Alkemita 17:09, 14 March 2009 (PDT)
I don't think individual Clusters need to have their Clan noted in the article, unless there is more than one, simply for the purposes of disambiguation. For that matter, singular Galaxies don't need their Clans noted. There are many Alpha and Delta Galaxies, but (for example) if there is only one "Tau Provisional Galaxy" in all of the Clans, then the article title need not be "Tau Provisional Galaxy (Clan Star Adder)", because there is only one such Galaxy in all the Clans.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I do wonder how much information can possibly be in a Galaxy article and whether we should come up with a standard format. After all, Galaxies do change and are essentially administrative units that do not have the history or unique flavor of IS brigades. My guess is that the articles will probably be short with links to the different articles on the Clusters that it has contained. --Scaletail 19:30, 14 March 2009 (PDT)
Okay, guess which [2nd Regulars]-cluster am I thinking of? Which [16th Assault]-cluster am I thinking of?
If the article-names are not clear, we will get endless rows of disambiguation pages, article moves, link corrections and discussions whether this is alright in this or that particular case. (believe me: been there, done that)
SUGGESTION: If the Galaxy-articles will lack the info, then why not one huge touman-article, that links to all clusters? The touman-history would contain the broader Galaxy-level battle-history of a clan and changes over time. The cluster-links lead either to an article or redirect to the touman. --Detlef 07:06, 15 March 2009 (PDT)
It's easy to make the article's title "6th Regulars (Clan Wolf)" while "6th Regulars" is a disambiguation page. See what I just did with Golden Keshik. I'm not sure how I feel about the Galaxy articles. I think I like the idea of them in keeping with the structure for the IS military commands, but I'm just not sure what is appropriate for inclusion in them. I guess I'm not really ready to make any rules about them just yet. --Scaletail 08:41, 15 March 2009 (PDT)
I see a problem in realizing the need for a disambiguation page. Example:
Imagine there is an article [1st Regulars] concerning the 1st Regulars of Clan X. You write an article mentioning the [1st Regulars] of Clan Y. All links are blue and everything looks fine, except that you have to watch after every unit-link every time you edit an article, to make sure it really links to the right unit. --Detlef 08:49, 15 March 2009 (PDT)
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Do you want to get rid of disambiguation pages? Do you not want to use them for command articles? --Scaletail 08:58, 15 March 2009 (PDT)
My point is, that including the Clan into the article-name prevents confusion (for the readers) and do-overs/unnecessary extra-work (for the creators).
Another point is, that I get the notion that this discussion leads nowhere.^^
So, leaving aside the names, we should decide, which structure we will apply for touman->Galaxy->clusters. --Detlef 09:13, 15 March 2009 (PDT)
I find the current military unit template quite adequate for commands of all levels. I did Alpha Galaxy (Clan Wolf-in-Exile) using exactly the same template as for other military units, and I find that the template scales quite nicely.
As far adding Clan names when mentioning Clusters in the articles, I think this should be dictated by the need for clarity - if it needs to be mentioned, we'll mention it. I like the disambiguation page idea, since by my count there's at least three Golden Keshiks and several 1st Regulars among the Clans. Alkemita 13:00, 15 March 2009 (PDT)

Including the Clan-name delivers disambiguation before even clicking on the link, which means, that you can see whether the link is right, without following it.
For example the 328th Assault is mentioned in CWiEs Alpha Galaxy and the link is red. What happens if you write an article about Clan X's 328th Assault? It's a totally different cluster, but CWiE's link would nevertheless become blue.
-> EVERYTIME you create a cluster-article, you have to check all "what-links-here"-pages if you have to shuffle articles and create a disambiguation page.
I'm just trying to maximize clarification for the reader and minimize the amount of work for the creator. --Detlef 13:41, 15 March 2009 (PDT)

I think we might actually be talking about the same thing here, but coming at it from different angles. For myself, when I'm writing in the article, if I'm talking about Clan Wolf's 328th Assault Cluster, that's what I'm going to call it in the article (by piping thus: "328th Assault (Clan Wolf)|328th Assault Cluster"), no reference to Clan Wolf added because it should be clear from the context that it's a fellow Wolf unit. However, the article name itself should be "328th Assault (Clan Wolf)". The disambiguation page remains useful for those who just search for "Golden Keshik" and the like. Alkemita 17:58, 15 March 2009 (PDT)
Exactly. [1st Regulars (Clan X)] for the article, [1st Regulars (Clan X)|1st Regulars] for the links that are actually employed and disambiguation pages for those who have to "Search" or don't know better. --Detlef 04:33, 16 March 2009 (PDT)

I'd like to ask you about a question that arose in my mind while reading the "Recent Changes" section. I noticed several Clusters are named only with their denomination. For example the 4th Wolf Guards, a Clan Wolf Cluster, is enough to designate it and is a canon referance, as we often read it this way in sourcebooks. It doesn't need to contain the word "Cluster", as it is its "formal" name (4th Wolf Guards is in fact called "The Cyclops Cluster" but it's another problem). However some Clan clusters should have the word "Cluster" in their name. I'm thinking about Assault or Battle Clusters. Actually, their respective article named only by XXX Assault or XXX Battle, not with their "formal" name that contains the word "Cluster". I know their article have a disambiguation but by keeping going this way, we clearly scorch those Clusters name. An exception should, from my opinion, be added for these particular Clusters as I never saw in any sourcebook these Clusters called this way, only with their complete name (XXX Battle Clusters) or their number werehas other "standard" Clusters (same example : 4th Wolf Guards) are not always refered with the word "Cluster" so in that "standard" case, the convention is right. (moreover, some Cluster's name don't have the word Cluster at all such as the 11th Wolf Guards (The Lightning Pack), confirming the convention). I hope you will understand what I mean. --FIVE-one 11:48, 30 April 2009 (PDT)

That would be akin to adding "Regiment" or "RCT" to the end of every IS unit article. Of course the long name of the 3rd Royal Guard is "3rd Royal Guard RCT", but that designation is unnecessary. Just like the Clans sometimes have "Cluster" in the long name of the Cluster. --Scaletail 13:35, 30 April 2009 (PDT)
Difficult problem, easy solution: "If the name of the unit ends with an -s, then the term cluster is not added to the name."
The result: 1st Guards, 2nd Regulars, 3rd Jaegers... compared to 4th Assault Cluster, Battle Cluster, Garrison Cluster... --Detlef 05:44, 1 May 2009 (PDT)
I really like that! I would worry about consistency in article titles a little, but it makes sense. --Scaletail 09:44, 1 May 2009 (PDT)
I'm not sure if I really understood what you mean and if you understood what I mean but Detlef solution looks to be pretty nice.
Also by this request, I wanted to point the fact some cluster don't have in their "long designation" the word "Cluster" indicating its size, but simply have "Cluster" in their name and were never referred without it in canon sources, as opposed to other unit having a name which "Cluster" is only added to refer at its size. By removing "Cluster" we simply scorch the Cluster name. It's only a matter of canonicity of unit naming. Of course these Cluster don't have the user to have a "long designation" by adding Cluster, because they already have this indication in their formal name.
It would be the possible for IS regiment in the same case. --FIVE-one 17:08, 1 May 2009 (PDT)
So ? Any news for the Clan units naming convention ? Detlef solution looks to be the best solution at the moment. --FIVE-one 02:52, 15 May 2009 (PDT)