Hohiro Kurita[edit]

I saw, at 3004, the sentences : "Hohiro Kurita assassinated." Please check this, it looks to be an error... --FIVE-one 15:42, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

Per, that is correct. --Scaletail 18:38, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
You clearly misunderstood what I mean : it's not the same Hohiro Kurita that fought the Clans in 3050's and commanded the Star Leargue Reborn if he was indeed killed in 3004... So the link to the "best known" Hohiro Kurita is some kind of an error... --FIVE-one 15:08, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
I changed the link to point to where I assume it will go. --Scaletail 17:50, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

Merging info[edit]

So we have a timeline and an article for each year. Some editors edit one, and some the other, leaving both incomplete. I have a solution that I think will work, but it will be labor-intensive to make it happen. I suggest that the content of each year article and its corresponding section within the timeline be merged into a template, which will then be displayed on both pages. While it will be a lot of work to make this happen, the reward will be that there will only be one edit necessary whenever an article is updated. Anybody want to sign on to this project? --Scaletail 20:36, 20 July 2008 (CDT)

I'd be in, but wondering about clutter. Thinking with my own expansions was leaving the main timeline pages alone on the basis of them just being for major events/overview of events with the extra space of a article for every little event. Cyc 21:13, 20 July 2008 (CDT)
That's certainly a viable viewpoint, and I that I can respect. I think my concern about my proposal would be that the formats would be the same, making the timeline page quite long. I am suggesting this because some editors previously wanted to make this easier. It we want the timeline to be reserved for major events, that's fine by me. --Scaletail 19:20, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

2010 Austrialia[edit]

Doneve, added this note of Austrialia expains its neutrality. Since he has some issues with english, i'm not entirely sure where it came from. I was only able to clarify its not Austrialia the planet which he was linking the entry to. Does anyone know where he getting this from. I used to have the BattleSpace source book, it used to have expanded pre-Terra Alliance timeline. I'm not sure if where this information is coming from.

Question to timeline and yearlist[edit]

Hy I adding in last time some stuff to the timeline and yearlist....I think the organisation structure of the timeline and yearlist sites can be right date times(i hope it is the right word) and give the site a structure!?!? What are you think or the other members....???? or ideas... I want to talk the other member, what they are thinking about.

I want to do this work....but it is a lot to do...!! Greetings Doneve 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturing Timeline?[edit]

Might I suggest adding a second timeline dedicated to the appearances of the various equipment and 'Mech variants? This would mean less clutter on the main timeline, while providing a clearer picture of what was available in a given era. Onisuzume 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is far too long. It definitely needs to be thinned out. I'm on board for this. --Scaletail 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I question if we even need this article, since the Year pages account are also active and seem to be better segregated and utilized. To be honest, I had forgotten we have it, in the first place. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Granted, the year pages are also fine pages, but aren't very easy to see the bigger picture with.
So I'll see what I can do then, but at the moment I'm busy sorting out which units/variants existed from Pre-Spaceflight till 2840 using the master unit names list v1.66(1.67?). And smeg, I already have over four hundred variants/models. For now I'll be leaving models/variants without a listed year out of the list, so someone will have to go over the RS for them and compare it with the used equipment. Onisuzume 13:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that with increased visibility will come increased attention from people who may not be clear on the direction the page is headed, so it will need someone willing to 'clean' it up and good with explaining why reversions were made, etc. Good luck. I can see how it could be a resource when completed. We should find a way to tie it in to the 'Mech portal, so it gets visibility.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've decided to Be Bold and go ahead and started the page. Onisuzume 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Great Job --Doneve 19:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Onisuzume, it really needs references. I know it seems burdensome, but if you use the <ref name=xxx> method, it'll be cleaner and faster, and then it'll have verifiable value. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)