Talk:3053

Contents

[edit] Template idea

I had an idea of separating out events in a year article. What do you think of using these divisions? Thanks. --Ebakunin 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the /idea/ though not necessarily all of the division subjects. The idea of the division, I like the varying colors, but I'd recommend making it as simple as possible: births/deaths, technology, military events, others. That's just off the top of my head, so the limited list may be flawed in what it includes. For example, what is a military event? in my mind, invasion, noted raid, surrenders, note unit movements. Other points of view? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What Revanche said - it certainly is beautiful, but maybe a little over the top. What I like most is the era indicator at the top. Exact dates should be given in the article wherever possible. Frabby 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What categories should we use then? I think "Political and military events", "Important births", and "Technological development" are fairly obvious. Deaths are almost always politically or militarily related, so I think "Births" would be sufficient. What else would work? Thanks for the input. --Ebakunin 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Damn me for doing this, but if the scope of BTW is to track all canon facts (a preview of my upcoming reply to your email, Ebakunin), should we be picky about what facts are notable for the Years? And, if not, should it just be "Births" rather than "Important Births"? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a good deal of leeway with the categories, as long as it's not "fluff". It's more for ease of reading, as years like 3053 have so many significant events that they all become a blur. --Ebakunin 22:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, here I go again. Why are half of these things on here? How important is knowing that the King Karnov air transport was first produced or that Stalwart Support was formed? This should be the important stuff, not every single event that happened in a given year. At a certain point, it becomes so much that the list is no longer useful. I thought the idea for the year articles was to have a list of the key events, followed by a link that shows every article that links to that year, thus giving a reader a more complete picture. If the year articles continue in this fashion, there absolutely needs to be some organization to it. --Scaletail 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with that approach. The whole point of the divisions is to restore a little order. --Ebakunin 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Smiley.gif
In all seriousness, most were added because I had spare time at work and no formal indication of what was/wasn't to be added, something I guess this talk page will nut out Cyc 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Scaletail, you and I do differ in focus on this (I appear to be more aligned with Cyc). I'm all for using the interconnectedness of wikis to allow one to find in one format everything that applies (or is semi-relevant) to a particular search item, while you want to focus on what's important and not get bogged down in the minutiae. Unfortunately, both intents can only frustrate the other. Ebakunin's method appears to address a middle ground. I presume it is not an acceptable manner of dealing with importance 'creep' though?
On a somewhat related point, I'd like to propose our Manual of Style be expanded into specific Policies, where details regarding the proper use are discussed. Discussions very like these can be easily found there (for later review, reminder, etc) and the results displayed as BTW's policy on the matter. If we had a Policy:Years that said the intent of the Years page is to list important events only (with a demonstration of determining importance), the divisors (if adopted) acceptable for inclusion (where the Year warrants it), etc., etc., then we could refer back to a easily found center of policy, rather than frustrate you when Editors not-knowledgeable (or forgetful, as in my case) act boldly. I'd be more than happy to take policy under my wing (as I stole many of our first ones from Wikipedia), but you seem to be more of a successful policy wonk in your crafting of BTW-specific policies. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] What is "significant"

To get an idea of what's a significant event, would you please copy this ♦ and paste it next to topics that you believe are not significant? Thanks for the help. --Ebakunin 18:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Done. --Scaletail 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I agree with everything except "Clan Smoke Jaguar prototype Charybdis fighter carrier DropShip enters service, renamed the Miraborg-class in honor of Tyra Miraborg" (related to a major storyline) and "Capellan Confederation raises Harloc Raiders 'mercenary unit'" (significant military unit with a really weird history). Any other thoughts/opinions? --Ebakunin 03:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am flexible on the Harloc Raiders, and I can see your point with the DropShip class. --Scaletail 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to stay out of this, 'cause I feel I'd come across as more critical than intended, but...how do we codify this? To the average Editor (and I feel like one with some of the events you reference here), I have to simply believe they're more important than another without really being certain. Would the birth of a minor child of a major character qualify, if say that minor character has one BattleCorps story focused on her? I'm feeling like it may boil down to Justice Potter Stewart's position on obscenity, in that I'll know what's important when I see it...but that means we'll constantly be fighting the battle of who believes what. Some help here? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
All the George Haseks are confusing me. I would not consider this one's birth important, as he dies before he can do anything. How about this for a compromise: keep the timeline streamlined, but ban only the most trivial things from year articles. I can be amenable to that. --Scaletail 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to see some of Justice Potter's obscenity before we make a final decision. --Ebakunin 02:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Cheesy.gif

[edit] Small Change

Both Scailtail and Revanche are right:

1. Often, fiction will take a seemingly "minor" point, and make it integral to the plot (two of my favorite authors, N. Stephenson and N. Gaiman, do just that), so who are we to exclude details?

2. Too many little details are present, especially during the Clan Invasion and Jihad eras.

I am firmly with Ebakunin here, and I want to make a very straight-forward suggestion: use the pre-existing categories Events and Characters. Also, some people may not want to look at weapons development, just the date of introduction for their favorite BattleMech, so separate them. I've used divisions as guides to help the reader find info fast. Lastly, I assume that "Other" is for seemingly "Minor" points, so I changed that subtitle, too. Sorry, I been reading this for a while, and I thought I might be bold here.--S.gage 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, I made no changes regarding "importance" of events here.--S.gage 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This productive conversation was majorly sidetracked following this last comment. It is being restarted on a new Policy talk page, and will remain on-topic. Comments by all are solicited. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Pissy Whinging by Communibus

[edit] Start Qualifying Statements

Ok, I know I haven't been around here for 8 months. I got pissy with Scaletail over the Rulers articles that I started putting on the Wiki and when he stated that he didn't like it, I took my ball and went home.

Yes, I'm a little bitch.

It is 8 months later and frankly I'm still a little pissed. However, I decided to start visiting again and when I saw some new articles by S.Gage in "my" neck of the woods, early 21st/22nd century, I saw some articles that I wanted to edit again. I started exploring and saw that some people had been working on the years articles and timeline (again, I like doing that) and came across this discussion.

[edit] End Qualifying Statements

[edit] Start Rant

Ok, I'm still a little pissed but was going to suck it up cause I'm really just punishing myself...but became a little bit more pissed when I read Scaletails comments on this discussion page.

Scaletail, what is your deal, dude? What is the perspective that you come from on writing for a Wiki?

As far as I'm concerned, everything is fair game to be written about by someone using their own time and energy. There is no such thing as minutiae on a Wiki!! If I want to write the most detailed and cited article that I can, one line, about the most esoteric thing that I can find, then anyone should be allowed to do that without comment.

When I started on the timeline and year articles, when I first started here in the beginning of 2008, I thought the very same thing that Ebakunin came up with. In fact, I like his idea and execution tremendously!! It looks good and who cares if "someone" thinks an event or anything is insignificant or not?? Someone took the time to research it, write that line and link it and as long as it's documented and cited, it's frakkin' BattleTech and should be included on the BattleTech Wiki!!

As far as the ruler articles go (or any article for that matter), since when does a Wiki article have to be fully formed and fleshed out before it's posted? It's a frakkin' Wiki!! You post at your speed and others will collaboratively write with you! I mean seriously, WTF is stub for anyway then??

As far as lists vs. articles, on a Wiki, there is room for both! Let's have it all!!

We all have different styles, different amounts of time and different areas of interest. Let's stop judging what is "trivial", "minutiae" and too little and let's worry about SPAM, layout and accurate information. Some enjoy fixing links, copy-editing and the odd duck that writes the beautifully long faction articles, etc.

[edit] End Rant

Finally, I want to enjoy editing on BattleTech again. I want to do this without worrying that my article on "Left-handed Smoke Shifters" is too esoteric. I want to do this without worrying if my article is complete enough for inclusion or if I have to come back to it in 3 days before it's deleted. I want to do this without worrying that I put under 2223, they started growing beans on Denebola (if it's in the books).

Let's have the most linked, detailed, complete, best Wiki on the subject of BattleTech that can possibly exist. Let's end up with Catalyst (or whomever these days) searching HERE for their research!!

I await my deletion,

Communibus Locis

p.s. I would have done this privately if I could have found anyone's email addresses. Sorry.

p.p.s. I happen to think that Scaletail is an excellent administrator (not to mention an off the charts contributor), just not so much on the policy stuff...

p.p.p.s. I know I'm mixing issues. It's 8 months of buildup. Sorry redux.

[edit] Admin Comment

Having read your "rant" several times with admin hat on, I feel that you have not crossed a red line. Therefore, I do not see a neccessity to delete it, nor to reprimand you. I will not give you any orders about it either (not that I could anyways), but I do kindly suggest that you remove this entire section and put it on Scaletail's talk page where I feel it belongs. You may also want to revisit the tone and overall rather emotional style.
As an admin, I still feel compelled to remind you of the Orange Pillar, the fourth of the five Core Policies of this Wiki, before this possibly gets out of hand: Be civil.
Communibus, you have been a valuable and notable contributor here for some time and you can be assured that your work is appreciated. There has to be a constructive way to go about whatever the underlying issue is. (I haven't checked your entries, nor Scaletail's editing of what you wrote.) I'd very much prefer to see this issue solved, rather than either party getting fed up and possibly leaving.
Frabby 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)