User talk:BobTheZombie


Feel free to add any pages you want proofread or cleaned up to the bottom of this list and I will go through and clean them up.


Welcome, BobTheZombie, to BattleTechWiki!

We look forward to your contributions and want to help you get off to a good strong start. Hopefully you will soon join the army of BattleTech Editors! If you need help formatting the pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions go to the Help section or the FAQ. If you can't find your answer there, please ask an Admin.

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the wiki:

  • For policies and guidelines, see The Five Pillars of BattleTechWiki and the BTW Policies. Another good place to check out is our market of Projects, to see how the smaller communities within BTW do things in their particular niche areas.
  • Each and every page (articles, policies, projects, images, etc.) has its very own discussion/talk page, found on the tab line at the top of the page. This is a great place to find out what the community is discussing along that subject and what previous issues have already been solved.
  • If you want to play around with your new wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you. Don't worry: you won't break anything. A great resource for printing out is the Wiki Cheat Sheet.
  • Also consider writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as "BobTheZombie" at the top of the page, though only do this if you're registered). You'll go from being a 'redshirt' to a 'blueshirt,' with the respect of a more permanent member.
    • This is really helpful for the admins as we will know you're a human rather than a spambot and we won't block and delete you accidentally.
  • If you're not registered, then please consider doing so. At the very least, you'll have a UserPage that you own, rather than sharing one with the community.
  • Introduce yourself at the new user log.
  • In your Preferences, under the edit tab, consider checking Add pages I create to my watchlist and Add pages I edit to my watchlist, so that you can see how your efforts have affected the community. Check back on following visits by clicking on my watchlist.
  • If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random button in the sidebar, or check out the List of Wanted Pages. Or even go to Special Pages to see what weird stuff is actually tracked by this wiki.
  • Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date.

Again, welcome to Sarna's BattleTechWiki!

*******Be Bold*******

For your consideration - Epsilon Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons)[edit]

BTZ - Epsilon Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) has been re-written. I want you to know i accepted your critique of my Beta Regiment article (posted back in 2013), to heart. As such, this article is about 40 percent shorter, where i trimmed and summarized a lot of redundant material. I feel the end product is superior, and hope others will find it so. At some point, i will go back and perform the needed revisions to Beta Regiment and the other Dragoon articles. But please give Epsilon a look and let me know. Thank you. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2016 (PDT)

Clan Smoke Jaguar Minor Characters[edit]

I noticed your comment that you think the article needs a lot of work. I spent a lot of time on that page and am wondering what you think is wrong with it? Dark Jaguar (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2016 (PDT)

I didn't say there was a lot wrong with it, I just thought I saw something grammatical near the end that could be fixed so I wanted to check back on it later. Perhaps it was nothing. I put that tag (and the comment that I "will come back and work on") when I see something to possibly proofread later. Sorry for the confusion. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2016 (PDT)
Ok, its just normally I've seen that tag used when the page is so bad it requires a complete rewrite! Dark Jaguar (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2016 (PDT)
The way I use it, it can range from "Needs to be proofread because I found a couple things and didn't have the time" to "Oh no this is very bad". Yours was obviously the former; don't worry, you're doing great :) It's awesome to see you around again and it's great to be back. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2016 (PDT)
The template actually generates a message at the top of the page that says "more detail is available on the article talk page" - it presumes that if the reason for the tag isn't obvious, then information will be in the talk page explaining what the issue is. To avoid the risk of confusion (or, in all honesty, feelings getting hurt unintentionally) I'd recommend making use of the talk page just to flag up why the tag has gone on the main article page - that way it'll be a lot easier to see if someone means "this article is terrible and needs to be rewritten" rather than "the grammar in paragraph 57 of 100 needs a bit of tweaking". BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2016 (PDT)
Yeah that's good thinking; I always try to explain in my edit summary what I intended with it, namely the "will come back and work on", which just means grammar stuff. For bigger formatting/rewriting I usually put something else in the summary or <-- --> comment it in the article what needs to be addressed. I intend to go through all the {cleanup} tagged pages and proofread all of them, but that'll take a long time...
P.S. I'm back sooner than expected :) -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2016 (PDT)


Hi Bob,

I'm doing my usual morning poke around, and I noticed your amendment to the Blackjack article base don the dev-level errata issued. When you're updating an article based on errata or ATW comments from the CGL forum, can you make sure to quote the forum text in either the notes page of the article or on the article talk page, please? The CGL forums have been wiped at least twice, so if we don't keep a copy of the text here and it happens again, no-one will be able to substantiate the amendment, and it could lead to us being accused of writing fanon again.BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2016 (PDT)

Oops, I was rushed last night - it's been updated. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2016 (PDT)


Hi Bob, hope all is well with you. Great to see you back on sarna, i read your talk on Dark Jaguar's talk page, you need work for sarna Wink.gif, i found this awesom post from Mendrugo on the CBT forum (,25780.0.html), then you have a lot to data mine and add update needed templates :), cheers.--Doneve (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2016 (PDT)

I read your response on my talk page, if you want to help out, you can involve in the Planet Overhaul project and help to update nearby system tables, here is the spread sheet link we are working from, if you have questions about the sheet, etc. talk to me or BrokenMnemonic, cheers.--Doneve (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2016 (PDT)
I'll have to check into that soon and get back to you

Grey Keshik[edit]

Spotted your request to flesh out the Sub-Stub, hopefully it looks a little better now. Dark Jaguar (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2016 (PDT)

Awesome, it looks great now! Thanks so much for taking care of it so quickly! There's a lot of pages that were started by a user by the name of Neuling that, though some of them are useful, many are simply incomplete, badly formatted, or just way out of left field. If you are ever bored, you could see what you could salvage from his edits and what pages that he started you could fill in/update. Thanks again! -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2016 (PDT)


I notice your deletion tagging, i disagree, if the image is on a valiable page its ok, if the image is not used on a page, save this for future edits, make this sence to you! Oh i forgot your cleanup tags, do you really come back and fix it by canon sources?--Doneve (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2016 (PDT)

I agree with Doneve, images are always useful. I'm always looking to add images to pages and these galleries are actually quite a good source, thanks for bringing them to my attention. Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2016 (PDT)
1) I'm not saying we should delete the pictures by any means, but rather that this sort of stuff is better done with a category rather than a page just sitting there with little to no article value. I remember a while ago that it wasn't wiki-ish enough to just have these pages with loads of pictures on them. Perhaps they have a purpose though. If we are to keep them I think it might be a good idea to put a summary or something to explain what it is so a new person can tell what's going on.
2) I do intend on coming back and cleaning up these pages; I usually do them in chunks and its easy to tag a bunch when I have little spurts of time. It's much harder to do the cleanup when I don't have consecutive time to sit down and do it. Mostly I'm not changing the information within the articles but rather clarifying, proofreading, reformatting, etc. so it's easier to read and understand. If the info is confusing or might be wrong I tag it as such and let others with more knowledge worry about it.
3) Yeah, adding more pertinent pictures to articles is something I've wanted to do for a while but something that I never get around to doing. P.S. if you do a page name search with the keyword "gallery" you'll find a ton of these. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2016 (PDT)

3145 updates[edit]

I have finally finished the DCMS part of the FM3145 updates for your review. The CCAF is also done however not as thorough as part of my updates in places is missing history however all the new units have been made with Officers and Composition History. I may go back to it, however as of right now I'll start on the AFFS.--Deadfire (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2016 (PDT)

Sounds good, just do it at your own pace; don't get all BattleTech-ed out in one sitting Wink.gif. And yeah, I'll be sure to check it out soon. Plus, thanks so much for adding all this new stuff! Don't ever take offense to me putting a {cleanup} tag on something you've worked on, because usually it's just very minor errors. Keep up the great work! -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2016 (PDT)
Oh I'm sure I've made a good many mistakes in writing for so many articles no offence will be taken for you having to clean some (or most) of them up. In addition I'm sure other parts of some of those articles need clean-up as well. Thanks for taking a look at them, and I'll remember to practice safe Lorewarrioring :) --Deadfire (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2016 (PDT)

1st Jaguar Guards[edit]

Hi Bob, I noticed you have tag the first for a clean up, given that I did this last week I'm surprised to say the least. Its also one of the ones I'm still working on along with a major overhaul of the SJ clusters Dark Jaguar (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2016 (PDT)

If you looked at the edit description, I stated it was only a matter of how the headers looked. I thought it was a little confusing having so many the same size but it didn't look so bad the second read through. Also we're not supposed to have links in the headers because it messes with the formatting. I would have responded faster but it threw away my edit because your last one conflicted. It's all good. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2016 (PDT)
No one has said your not supposed to link to sub-headers, and lots of other pages are set like this. The way I'm setting it is so that the parent Galaxy pages are not cluttered with needless repetition of cluster information. Galaxy level information is present, but the detail is elsewhere. There is a list of engagements with date and cluster linking to the full battle report in each clusters write up. Have a look at Alpha and Beta Galaxies to see the way I've done it (Beta is still being worked on). Some header are not technically headers they are just underlined normal text. I did this because if you use the next header size down its smaller than normal text! Dark Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2016 (PDT)
I've been told by one of the older admins to not put links in headers, and I've also seen how crappy it looks when it's in the bigger headers. Just because other pages do it doesn't mean that it's right. It's best to be sure and ask Frabby or BM or Doneve who've all been here for a long time and know the standards the best. I wasn't complaining about the content either. I also saw that they were underlined; I'm not sure what else you can do besides possibly find another way to organize the info, but when I looked at it it seemed like there's no other way to do it, so don't worry. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
Ah, I see the confusion. The header links were not done by me but have been there for a long time. I was more concerned about changing the sub-headers as these are linked to by other pages. Sorry for the confusion. Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
Hy guys, no links in headers, it looks crapy, and we dont use it on it, is this clear, sorry for the raw explanaition.--Doneve (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
Yeah, we're good, thanks for stopping by Smiley.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
Good I never liked links in headers, they look sh..... bad Smiley.gif Dark Jaguar (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
Links in section headers are a bad thingTM. They break the formatting of the section breaks and disrupt the flow of the page. I've been removing those links where I find them - if what's linked is important enough to need a link, it's important enough to be spelled out in the text below the header. I haven't seen anyone adding links to headers for a while now though, so I'm hoping this is a legacy problem that's slowly being stripped out as articles get updated... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2016 (PDT)


Hi great template work have your first Community Service Award, 1st ribbon award, it must added by a admin, but iam so long here and think i have the permission from the admins to step in, congrats great work.--Doneve (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2016 (PDT)

I made that template a while back but for some reason never got its documentation done. I'd really like to see it more widely used, as there's not always people on hand to answer questions and anonymous/new users may be able to see them and fix them. Oh, and thanks! -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
For the record, I support Doneve's motion (with admin hat on). :) Frabby (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2016 (PDT)

RE: Infobox Pictures[edit]

Hi BobtheZombie -- first off, thanks for the kind words of welcome :). I think though there might be a slight misunderstanding with regards to the image switching -- The images I'm uploading aren't the Reseen, but the new Classics from the MUL -- the 3025 'mechs as they are officially "the way they were always seen" as of now. It seems odd that the new official images aren't front and center now that the Unseen art is in the process of being totally phased out. Anyway though, thanks again for the welcome! I've been a long-time lurker but finally decided to take the plunge. Pat Payne (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2016 (PDT)

Cool, thanks for taking the plunge! Honestly, I'm not an expert on all the legal issues tied up with those old images. If there's a post on the BT forum by the lead developer or a statement in the books backing up what you said, that'd be helpful. I'll not worry about changing them then. I'm sure one of the admins will be around soon to help clear it up. Let me know if you want help/direction in getting started; I'll be around Smiley.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
I think Pat Payne has got it right. See User talk:Pat Payne. Frabby (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2016 (PDT)
Although we should keep the now-apocryphal reseen artwork in the gallery section on each page, because it's a part of the history of the game. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2016 (PDT)
Is the reseen artwork apocryphal or just how certain variants look? Dark Jaguar (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2016 (PDT)
From how I understand CGL, it's meant to be a real retcon that makes the old unseen completely non-canonical. However, I'm not sure if that intention was carried through, and at this time I'm loathe to ask. One especially problematic issue is the (fugly, imho!) new Ostscout - there was no need to redesign this 'Mech to begin with, as it had been taken off the unseen list; and at least one high-profile source (the novel Wolves on the Border) gives a visual description that clearly matches the old art but not the new art... and canon-wise, novels are supposed to trump art by default. Muddy waters. Frabby (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2016 (PDT)

MW4 Categories[edit]

Hi BM, wile I'm fairly impressed with the sheer workload you took upon yourself I have to ask... what's the purpose or value of the MW4 'Mech and planets categories? In the past, articles about sources - both games and novels - simply gave a rundown of the featured BattleTech within the article. This list isn't going to change for a given source, so why install a category? (MekTek is a different case, as I understand they actually introduced new designs, much like BattleTechnology did. So here a category may be warranted.) Frabby (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2016 (PDT)

I was creating those so there'd be a solid list in one place that I could refer to when I work on this video game project of mine; for the 'Mechs I plan on adding apocryphal variants to each of the pages (for each of the respective games) and for the planets the apocryphal info could also be added. It was simply to make it more organized and so I didn't have an odd "MechWarrior 4/BattleMechs" page to refer to but a category that can easily be added to. In essence I was trying something new out and I think it's a good idea. Additionally, if someone wants to see a list of all Mechs from the MW4 game series they can go to the category, or if they wanna see images from the game they can go to that one, or if they want to see Aerospace fighter images they can go to that one. The goal of these was to take this seemingly forgotten part of BattleTech (the video games) and bring it up to par with the rest of the universe. And trust me, it isn't really that hard, just a bunch of hotkeys and patience Wink.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2016 (PDT)
But why not simply add the usual "Featured BattleTech" section into the game's article? Would achieve the same thing, with a single edit. That's how we're usually doing it. I think the problem I have is the feeling that if we're doing MW4 categories then we should make them for all other games as well, which in turn doesn't look like a good idea. Frabby (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2016 (PDT)
Okay, I can see what you're saying; I wanted to have a list of all of them in all the expansions/additions to the base game, but perhaps it would be easier to just leave it on the main game pages. I'll wait with doing it for any of the other pages. However, I think that keeping the image categories is a good idea (i.e. MW4 images, MW3 images, etc.). Would you agree with that? -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2016 (PDT)