Where does the information about the Hanseatic League come from? Frabby 04:01, 28 February 2009 (PST)

Maybe from Field Manual: Periphery, The Periphery, or The Periphery 2nd edition? I'm not really in the mood to check which, but I think its from one of those. Onisuzume 04:42, 28 February 2009 (PST)
Answered with edits to Hanseatic League page.--S.gage 16:35 6 May 2009 (EDT)
Ummm... there is NOTHING UNDER "REFERENCES" on this article. Could somone with the sources please cite the article? I'd do it myself, but I don't have the books. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2013 (PDT)

Hanseatic League[edit]

The Hanseatic League may be in the Deep Periphery, but that is still the Periphery. Why should it not be included in a list of Periphery nations? --Scaletail 19:19, 7 March 2009 (PST)

The Deep Periphery is located beyond the Periphery. The first is "misterious, legendary, largely unknown, and far far away" to the Inner Sphere which has irregular contact through ComStar with the Periphery. If it were the same then there is no point in having two articles at all. The Hanseatic League is included in the Deep Periphery article as it should.
I agree with Scaletail. The Hanseatic League has more worlds than the St. Ives Compact, and a formidable army compared with most of the Periphery factions listed. A similar argument could be made for other deep periphery realms. Previously, Deep Periphery resided beneath the "See Also" heading. So far, I took the liberty of elaborating this small section to include the five major deep periphery powers.
I know this might mess up some links, but why not combine the articles? In that way, "deep periphery" powers would be a fourth catagory on this page, easier to navigate to and higher profile. That, or perhaps place a link to Deep Periphery on the main page.--S.gage 01:20 6 May 2009 (EDT)
My feeling is that people do in fact differentiate between the (near) periphery and the deep periphery, and that they should be treated separately. But I admit that this is arbitrary. As a compromise, I suggest to include a disclaimer in the article that says something to the effect that "periphery" as per this article refers to the "near periphery" adjacent to the Inner Sphere while technically the it also includes the "deep periphery" beyond. Frabby 23:19, 5 May 2009 (PDT)
I agree, there is a distinction between "near" and "deep" periphery - it would be hypocritical of me to not acknowledge the distinction, since I freely admit to having a great interest in the "deep periphery". I also agree, "deep periphery" powers do not need to be placed on The Periphery page and a disclaimer at the beginning of this article would be a good idea.
HOWEVER, a disclaimer does not improve the ease of navigation to the Deep Periphery which really is the core of my argument. Without searching explicitly for the Deep Periphery, the current navigation is convoluted, and the profile of this region of space is almost non-existent. One does not have to follow the link from the Inner Sphere page to get to The Periphery, no?
The "deep periphery" should be more visible than it is now. The background for BattleTech and MechWarrior is more open, and there are many unknowns (and many plot hooks) within this region of space. For the interim, I feel that placing links to the Deep Periphery page and to major deep periphery realms is a temporary compromise.
Could we simply add a link to Deep Periphery to the main page? I can write that on the test page. Adding such a link would satisfy the question of profile. Also, increasing the ease of navigation would abate the need to place links to deep periphery realms on the Periphery page. Thoughts?--S.gage 11:41 6 May 2009 (EDT)


I am somewhat concerned about the wording of the text - it is not encyclopedic, but rather looks as if it was taken verbatim out of a sourcebook. If the latter were the case then this would be plagiarism and in violation of the "free content" core policy of this wiki. Can anybody confirm or falsify this suspicion? Frabby 23:19, 5 May 2009 (PDT)

As I have been reading this article, I would have to agree with Frabby. I reworked the article (but left the Deep Periphery section, which should be removed). I used a single save, so if you want to revert, it won't be a pain. However, I do think the new version is better - less jargon, more organized, and the Amaris Civil War is actually mentioned. Thoughts?--S.gage 16:27 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Arbitrary classification[edit]

Differentiating between "major", "medium" and "minor" periphery powers is somewhat arbitrary and as such I suggest this separation is abandoned for the article. Plus, there should be a category "Periphery factions" to which this article should link. Frabby 23:19, 5 May 2009 (PDT)

I agree, these are arbitrary distinctions (one of several of my points regarding the placement of Deep Periphery on a separate page), but I left them untouched. I did not want to decide about these distinctions.--S.gage 16:32 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Picture Missing[edit]

Hi there, something happened to the picture that was on the article. Any one know what happened it? -- Wrangler 20:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see it. It took about seconds to load on my broadband, so maybe slower for you?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Could also be slow because I was doing a little reorganizing of this article, trying to include more info on the SL BEAT programs.--S.gage 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I must have horrible connection, the article's picture still "x" out. Weird, i'll see if its doing that when i get back home. Come to think about it, i think it maybe the network security. It fairly touchy on some imagines. This must be differient kind of file. -- Wrangler 19:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I just created a new version of the file that uses GIF encoding instead of JPG. This gave me a file that was ~40K rather than ~668K. That will probably help. (JPGs are great for photos and artwork, but for images with a low number of colors like this one, GIF often compresses better.)--Mbear 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see it fine from my home, i'll have see its fine from work. Weird, most time i don't have this problem. -- Wrangler 00:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Periphery Map[edit]

I am reverting the edit by Doneve. When the image size is reduced to 250 px, the page presents the image as a negative, which is completely illegible and uninformative to the article. Further, there is only one image on the page, so such a reduction is not required by the image policy and does not significantly improve load time, even if a legible image was possible.--S.gage 23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up, how can one produce a negative (in case the positive image is preferable to the negative produced in a gallery or by making an image a thumbnail)? Thank you!--S.gage 23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, i think the Map was helpfull for the page.--Doneve 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Brotherhood of Randis[edit]

In my opinion they don't really count as a 'common' philosophical/religious order because they are limited to just Randis (This is dodgy ground when just a few lines up are the neo hedonists who are limited in spread as well), also, Randis already has a link on this page under minor powers.-- 04:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also argue that the Omniss aren't all that common. How about just removing the word "common" from the title? --Scaletail 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll wait a day to let a hero come in and ruin our consensus and then remove it.-- 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll play the hero - remove it :). You are right, The Brotherhood might get around, but they are a small order of MechWarriors and their handlers. There are hundreds of settled systems in the Periphery, and they are not everywhere. The Omniss are probably more prevalent, considering their presence on many of the agrarian worlds of the Outworlds Alliance, and their missionaries' (oxymoronic) propensity to travel...--S.gage 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
...I have no idea what happens now. We don't have a consensus so some guidance from an experianced editor would help me.-- 19:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand - I wrote "I'll play the hero - remove it", which means just that, there is consensus. I'll make the change.--S.gage 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)