Talk:1st McCarron's Armored Cavalry

This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Military Commands team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.


Proposing this be merged into the main article for MAC. ClanWolverine101 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? Other regiments have also their own page. Would you also propose to merge 10th Lyran Guards into the Lyran Guards main article? --Neufeld 13:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I addressed this in the main MAC talk page - It is my position that mercenary units should be the exception to the "one regiment, one article" rule. I apply the same to Wolf's Dragoons, the ELH, etc. ClanWolverine101 14:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The MAC is no longer a mercenary unit. It has become a CC house unit. --Neufeld 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
We don't need a separate page for every regiment; we need a page for every unit (no matter if lance or brigade). What is the point of breaking up the MAC article into six others when all the information can (and should!) be found in one concise article? In this case, the individual regiment articles are even almost empty. It may be worthwile to consider detailed individual articles for units where there is actually something to say about them - the Black Widow Company does warrant a separate article from Wolf's Dragoons, and the 10th Lyran Guard is probably also sufficiently high-profile. But John Doe's Regiment of the 1234th Marik Militia most certainly is not. Nor is the Crater Cobras' 2nd Regiment. Or, case in point, the individual MAC regiments. Frabby 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
We really need Policy:Unit Pages. --Neufeld 14:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Amen, Frabby! Preach on, brother! :)
Reminder : Yes, MAC is now House. But that's a relatively recent development. And yes, I agree we need a policy page for this. Not every regiment deserves its own article, house or otherwise. ClanWolverine101 15:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh oh oh, a new policy want to start, i pray for Frabby and Revanche and...--Doneve 18:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if its been stated openly, but Frabby and I usually differ on what deserves an article and what doesn't. However, the argument he poses above (14:11, 8 April 2010) states it rather well: if a sub-unit has the same history as every other sub-unit in the parent unit, then they should share the same article (the parent unit article). Or, if a sub-unit (say 1 of 6) actually does have enough things/events/battles notable outside that of its parent unit, then that could warrant its own sub-unit article, though it would still be included on the parent article (with a wlink to the sub-unit article). The thing is: the issue of when it is notable enough to warrant its own article could very well be subjective and opinionated.
Side note: I've created a lot (with a whole lot more to come) of stub articles about one-off units mentioned in sources (such as The Star League) that could be said to be less-than-notable, if they were a part of a parent unit with the similar history. In that case -when the parent unit has been determined to have similar same history- I would support 'my' articles being merged upward. I think that is from where Frabby is coming in this case. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No merge[edit]

Very interesting discussion on the top of the page in the past. My opinion is, seperate regimental pages rule, if we put all info in one page with regiments, compositions, images, infoboxes etc. we blow up the page, any thougs to handle this on one page. I'm very interested, but the way we handle it at this time is good, one subject one page.--Doneve 17:08, 30 March 2012 (PDT)