Thanks to the (unregistered) user who put this up. However, two points:
1. You use hyperlinks (single brackets: ) in the text instead of wikilinks. To link to another article from this wiki, use double brackets [] and just insert the name of the article there, i.e. [[BattleMech]] instead of [http://sarna.net/wiki/BattleMech]. (Oh, and do consider registering and getting a username!)
2. Articles already exist for the individual TROs, and then there's Category:Technical Readouts. I am unsure wether we need an article on "Technical Readout" in addition to this. Especially since TROs are just one kind of sourcebooks, and there are no overview articles on topics such as "Rulebook", "Sourcebook", "Adventure" or "Novel" that describe the medium. In my opinion, the descriptive text could (and should) be put into the category summary instead of creating its own article. Frabby 15:40, 1 April 2009 (PDT)
- I propose deletion. This article is unnecessary. --Scaletail 17:56, 1 April 2009 (PDT)
I am the author of the article in question. I chose not to register at this point because I already have so many logins in various forums that it becomes tedious to maintain the list...
I wrote the article after I conducted a search for "Technical Readout". That search yielded a list of readouts, but I simply did not see the category listing. Perhaps "Technical Readout" should redirect to the category. I saw this article as a chance to gather information on changes between the different readout editions, such as added or removed mechs, but adding that information takes time.
I reformatted the article, and changed the links. Most comments on the books were removed. In its current form, the readouts are more visibly organized into books that belong together than in the category listing, IMHO. 18.104.22.168 02:46, 3 April 2009 (PDT)
- I'm still not convinced. Category:Technical Readouts still lists them in essentially the same way you do. The information is already covered in the individual articles. I think that an article like would be necessary if we didn't already have it elsewhere, but we do. I think a redirect to Category:Technical Readouts would be the best way to handle this. --Scaletail 17:29, 7 April 2009 (PDT)