User talk:BobTheZombie/2013 Archive

Heavy Metal[edit]

Metallica and MechWarrior; two of my favorite things. Also, I hate it when people call "Modern Warfare 3" MW3. That is MechWarrior 3, stupids. Ah, the unenlightened...

For Hire[edit]

If there is a page that you know of that needs some grammatical attention, please tell me, and I will do my best to respond and help ASAP.

That would be pretty much any article I go near :-p. On a serious note welcome to the wiki man. Nice to see another metalhead. Also as a little tip when your editing on a a talk page be sure to use the signiture button on the tool bar to sign your comments. --Dmon (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2013 (PDT)
It's mine, so I thought it was a given :P BobTheZombie (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2013 (PDT)


Hey, great start on sarna and i appriciate your edits on Emma Centrella, now i have a feeling to give you your first Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon award, keep up your good work, when its ok i install the awards board on your user page.--Doneve (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2013 (PDT)

I'm only about halfway done with the page, so I'll try to finish it later today. Thanks for the recognition, too! BobTheZombie (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2013 (PDT)
No problem, if you have some questions, set up a talk to me.--Doneve (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2013 (PDT)
I'm [currently] working on other horrendously worded pages, so give me a little while to get the Emma Centrella page done. BobTheZombie (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (PDT)

Operation MAILED FIST[edit]

Can you please stop reverting MAILED FIST to lower case - NATO military options have the name capitalised (i.e. Operation DESERT FOX) and the writers/line developers have indicated that this is the format they intend to use for BattleTech, which is why the more recent publications have shifted to full capitals. Ta. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2013 (PDT)

Should Operation Mailed Fist be edited within the Reunification War page to the capital letter form of MAILED FIST in order to form to standard military ops and then have all of the pages re-edited to link to the new capital form of the page? DerangedShadow (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2013 (PDT)
Oh, sorry, I thought I was doing something right, because there was another page with things in caps, and they wanted it changed; I noticed the trend and tried to help. Good thing I didn't get that far... should I revert those that I changed back then? BobTheZombie (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (PDT)
Then there is also an issue with "Taskforce MAILED FIST"; I've seen it both ways on different pages. BobTheZombie (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2013 (PDT)
All-caps spelling for operations has only crept up relatively recently; older BattleTech books didn't do this. While there is obviously a new standard here that we should adhere to, whenever an older canonical source spelled an operation out with only the starting letter capitalized then that, too, is a correct spelling. Since BTW is case sensitive, I'd say the article name about a given operation should spell it in all caps but a redirect should be installed from "normal" spelling for older material where the op was spelled normally. Frabby (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
Well, I don't know how to add redirects, sooo... could someone do it themselves or show me how to? BobTheZombie (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
I set up a redirect for Operation Mailed Fist.--Doneve (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
The Task Force MAILED FIST version still doesn't link to anything. Should it have its own page? BobTheZombie (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
Yep you are right.--Doneve (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
A redirect page gets the content #REDIRECT[[target page name]], which results in a call to that page being moved to the other page indicated. You can even sort a redirect page into categories separately from the main page, if you think you need to do that. Frabby (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
Oops, I meant Operation MAILED FIST right up there about it having it's own page, not Taskforce Mailed Fist. Sorry, it's hard to think when you are hungry. BobTheZombie (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
Task Force MAILED FIST and Operation MAILED FIST don't have entries yet because I haven't written them yet, but they're on my list of things to do in the immediate future, when I've finished updating/creating the regiment and corps level articles. Although I should get the minor character articles done too... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
If I may - I'm personally against the ALL CAPS naming on Operations, simply because its obnoxious. I realize the recent books have been using it, but those are in-universe reports, not wiki articles. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
To my eyes, the all caps format is actually easier and cleaner to read - but then I've been dealing with military operations in real life for almost 20 years now, so I'm used to seeing it. We follow BTech convention in other areas, such as italicizing certain equipment names, and this is much the same for me. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2013 (PDT)

Planet Infobox[edit]

I notice you added some empty infoboxes to Deshler and Harpster, the second is you use the false template, please take a look on Luthien as example, we use a planet and star styem infobox, oh and i delete the infoboxe's on both pages, if you have canon sources bring this up that where cool, but when the infobox is empty i do what i do, fell free to talk.--Doneve (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2013 (PDT)

  • Okay, I noticed two different types and tried the larger of the two (the kind on Luthien) after the first one, but it had weird text above the picture (something about "255 px"), so I reverted them back. Oh, and you removed the pictures along with the boxes... I left them empty in the hope that someone who had the sources would fill it in when they noticed. BobTheZombie (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (PDT)
    • Although the system articles and improving their format are important to me, I never got into this particular project too deeply, and I am sadly barely familiar with the planet overhaul procedurs. But I seem to recall that we agreed that systems about which almost nothing is known beyond the name of the inhabited planet (or a name, without specifying whether it refers to the sun, the planet, the entire system, or all of it) should not get the full infobox treatment, because we lack information to put into those infoboxes. If this is wrong, any project members please correct me. Frabby (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2013 (PDT)


Ahh! There is one at User:Zhang22! Please help Admins!!! BobTheZombie (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2013 (PDT)

Thanks to Frabby for taking care of that quickly. BobTheZombie (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2013 (PDT)

Yeah. Taken care of with extreme prejudice. :) Frabby (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2013 (PDT)

Year Pages[edit]

Hi Bob, I'm afraid you've just done what most of us have done at one time or another... according to Policy:Year Pages each line entry on a Year page like 3085 should only have one link in it. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2013 (PDT)

Sorry, I was unaware of that; should I revert all of them back then? BobTheZombie (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2013 (PDT)
Yes please. Believe it or not, about the third comment I got on my talk page was Doneve telling me the exact same thing Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2013 (PDT)
Ha, thanks for the heads up. BobTheZombie (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2013 (PDT)
Hy, one question, why you create empty year pages, the better way is when we have content for the year pages. I have not the strengh at time to searce for some dates, iam fucked up about the hospital and cannot contribute in the next days, only minor edits.--Doneve (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2013 (PDT)
Okay, I'll go through them get info on them; I'm sorry. I won't let you down. -BobTheZombie (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2013 (PDT)


Happy (American) Independace Day everyone! I won't be able to edit for the rest of the week, but I promise that I will be back soon, so don't get worried that I've left. Too many people do a few edits, then leave; I'm in it for the long haul. BobTheZombie (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2013 (PDT)


Hi Bob, I reverted your edit to the description of Agematsu, because the referenced source, Objectives: Draconis Combine literally describes Agematsu as "an inhospitable rock in space". While I'm all in favour of rewording text to avoid issues around plagiarism, I think that if you're going to make a judgement call on the tone or tenor of the comment, you need to check the referenced source if there is one to make sure that what you're finding as an issue isn't an issue within the source text itself. If it is, then I think you're in danger of stepping past reporting on canon information and into the realm of making judgements on that canon. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2013 (PDT)

Okay, that's fine; I've found more than a few instances where the wording looks more like either directly plagiarized or biased stuff, so I'll try to watch for that next time. Thanks for the heads up. Oh, and sorry for calling it immature; I couldn't think of the right word to describe it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2013 (PDT)

Planet and System Infoboxes[edit]

Hi Bob, I think I've caught all of the articles you've flagged up as needing planet and system infoboxes. Doneve and I are about the only people who go around updating the articles to use the new infoboxes, so if you find any more that need updating, it'd probably be easier to just drop me a note on my talk page - Doneve often does that when he spots missing planet articles so that I can put the basic detail on Sarna. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2013 (PDT)

Ok, will do. -BobTheZombie (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2013 (PDT)


Hy Bob, how i can contact you privatly ex. sent you a email.--Doneve (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2013 (PDT)

Email would work. -BobTheZombie (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2013 (PDT)
I'll be getting a new email address soon, so I'll tell you what it is when it gets set up. -BobTheZombie (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2013 (PDT)
Okidoky.--20:24, 17 July 2013 (PDT)
In the meantime you can use the one in the "Email this user" link on the left. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2013 (PDT)
Test mail is responted.--Doneve (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2013 (PDT)
Oh and i sent you a mail, please talk to me if you got it.--Doneve (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2013 (PDT)
Very strange you have no source material, i read this on the Operation Bulldog page?--Doneve (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2013 (PDT)

Project Proposal[edit]

I'd like to propose the idea for a new project covering Wars/Battles/Engagements/Operations (conflicts in general), because I have noticed that these pages are suffering in comparison to other page types that receive lots of attention (such as Mechs and Factions). Just a thought. BobTheZombie (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2013 (PDT)

Bob - I'd be interested in your thoughts on this article: Battle of Twycross. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
After just glancing through it, it looks good, but may be a little long. Pages like Operation Guerrero Unit Deployment Tables‎ (that specific one I worked on) are what I'm talking about: they are generally lacking and are inconsistent in format. BobTheZombie (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
I'll try looking at the Battle of Twycross page more in-depth soon. BobTheZombie (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
I just finished editing it, and it covered the battle well, was (mostly) easy to understand, and only had minor grammatical errors. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2013 (PDT)
Understood. I'm trying to do a better job proof-reading my own work.
My concern over Operation Guerrero is that there's still a LOT of information we simply do not have. Literally dozens of worlds either returned to Liao or fell into anarchy. We only have details for a few of them. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2013 (PDT)
Yeah, it probably just isn't there for a lot of them; the issue I had with the pages were that they were largely inconsistent and littered with grammatical errors. As I've said before, I hate inconsistencies. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2013 (PDT)

Operation Bulldog[edit]

Its an idea to remove the mess of the page. We move the wave's content to the planet pages but not in one to one format from the page, we can remove the Attackers, Defenders and Outcome headers and write sarna standard content, to some linked planets, we have ref. notes and can datamine this. And as second Operation Bulldog must become a comple History overview, some details can linked to the various planet pages, what do you think.--Doneve (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2013 (PDT)

Yes, I like it, and it makes sense. Perhaps we could list the planets and which wave they were in (so that people can find the info easily from the main operation page)? Also, you should put this idea on the Operation Bulldog page and see what other people think. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2013 (PDT)
Ok, i copy the talk to the main page, but my opinion is we have no responses, ok BM or Mbear can involve, but the most off the users don't take a look on this.--Doneve (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2013 (PDT)
Okay, lets go ahead with the Operation Bulldog Overhaul. If you lead the way I will tidy up after you and also do some heavy lifting if needed. Lets start with moving the info to the planet pages but leaving the Operation page itself alone: I will worry about reworking the info on-page. Your goal then would be to get the info on the planet pages in a cohesive manner. Does that work for you? -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2013 (PDT)
This is the right way, we move at first the wave content to the planet pages. I stay at this time in Vancouver and visit my cousin, but no doubt, i have full acces to all and stard with overhauling in next days.--Doneve (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2013 (PDT)
No problem, enjoy your time with your cousin; you've definitely earned time off from the wiki. Besides, I probably won't have much time for a little while now either, so no worries. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2013 (PDT)

BattleMech Master List[edit]

Hy Bob, i see you edit the page please stop, this is a redundant page, we have the semantic BattleMech Timetable page, i talk to the user but i become no feedback, i wait 1-2 days then i add the deletion template, the page is not needed.--Doneve (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2013 (PDT)

Yessir, I noticed that and added the deletion template already... the user that was working on it was on it just now, so they should notice and chime in... -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2013 (PDT)

Prodigious Editing[edit]

Hi Bob,
I think you're doing a good job with the edits you've been making and contributing here - so I'd like to give you an award. I specifically chose one you didn't already have, so that you can add an extra ribbons bar to that awards board of yours. Keep up the good work!
Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon
BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

Thanks man, I've been extremely busy lately and haven't had many chances to work on Sarna (except on weekends), so, in the words of Boxer from Animal Farm: "I will work harder!" -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2013 (PDT)

Inaccurate Links[edit]

Can you be careful about some of the extra links you're adding to articles, please - as examples from the Jaguar entry, there's a difference between an ER Medium Laser and a Medium Laser - you'd turned the "Medium Laser" portion of an ER Medium Laser entry into a link, so readers would get steered to the same article. You also duplicated the SRM 2 and ATM 6 links that were already in the infobox, which are the armaments on the main variant.
I'm also very twitchy about turning decades - 3120s - into a link, because the link 3120s doesn't take you to a description of events or actions across that decade, just to the year page for 3120, which seems like a confusing thing to do for readers who don't know why they're being linked there. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2013 (PDT)

First, sorry about the bad Medium Laser link; that was a mistake from rushing. Second, I was yelled at for removing duplicate links that are in both the infobox and the text; do you know what the official policy on that is? Third, I'm sorry about the year link, I wish we had some sort of page for that; there are ones for the centuries, correct? Oh, wait that just redirects to the Timeline... -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2013 (PDT)


Hy Bob, when you add weapon images please use TechManual and Tactical Operations as source, some better quality as the MW4 images.--Doneve (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2013 (PDT)

This was just meant to give a face to these picture-less weapons, even if just temporarily, because they looked sad without pictures. If you want, you or someone can change them at will, I was just trying to fill in the gaps. Also, if I really want, I could edit the existing pictures and make them purdy... which I might do now that I think about it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2013 (PDT)

Random Act of Appreciation[edit]

[tip of the hat] Thank you, kind sir, for following up behind me on Ever-Free and tagging it with the appropriate project. I tend to fail in keeping the newer articles so-tagged. Additionally, you also created helpful re-directs for centuries, one of which has direct bearing on this article. For this I grant you your second Random Act of Appreciation award:

Random Act of Appreciation Award

I'll update your awards board. Again, thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:06, 21 September 2013 (PDT)

Yes, seeing that redlink spurred me to take action and I'm going down the list to check that all lowercase "century" pages get redirects. I've noticed that of late I'm doing a lot things besides proofreading (which was my original aim here), but I am glad to help out any way I can and learn along the way. Many thanks for the award, comrade! -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2013 (PDT)


Evening, BTZ. I reverted your edit to 2107. The reason is because Year pages operate a bit differently than regular article pages. Each entry is seen as independent of any other entry on the same Year page. Per Policy:Year Pages, each entry must directly link to an article that supports the statement being made for that entry. Normally, redundant wikilinks are excised (from regular articles), but in the case of the Deimos Project, two different entries have been included on the same Year page, both needing article support. If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know. Thank you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:37, 21 September 2013 (PDT)

My logic behind changing it was because of the redundancy; wouldn't it would be favorable to direct people to something like Sol that they might not have heard of, instead of just having them both be to the same page? I wasn't completely sure about the policy, but was familiar with it; I still think that we should mix it up rather than limiting it to just one link. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2013 (PDT)
I understand, but -as per the policy- a number of editors hashed it over a period of time to come up with a 'mission statement' for Year pages. You can read the whole thing there, but, in essence, the year pages are meant to be direct links to the subject of the entry. Links that lead elsewhere (on divergent paths) have resulted in pages that ceased to be consistently useful. In other words, they became mini articles unto themselves and ceased being useful points that lead to elaborations (i.e., the linked articles) on that subject.
As my role of Year Warden (not a real term), I approach it as someone who wants to know more about the subject of the entry. If the linked article does not mention it, then it serves no purpose. I crafted this response to you, I see JumpShip does mention the Deimos Project and it includes the exact date of the entry (September 3), so it meets that test. I'll revert my rollback. Thank you for engaging in this discussion. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:06, 21 September 2013 (PDT)


Afternoon, BTZ. Saw you were working on Year pages at the same time I was (though different centuries). In regards to the Year pages (specifically 2653), any stated facts must also be supported by the linked article. For example, the Kanga's entry indicates Mitchell Vehicles began producing it that year and that is in the linked Kanga article, but the four following entries (regarding the Kiso, Lumberjack, Rhino and Spider) all introduce facts not supported by their respective articles. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:54, 22 September 2013 (PDT)

I put those on there because as I data mine for info on these new years I created, the Manufacturing Timeline page comes up often and lists introduction years for units and variants that are not listed in the article. I thought that I could trust it, so I went ahead and used it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
I'm not involved in that project, but using metadata -while generally fine- may not meet the stringent citation requirements for the Year pages. I'd almost suggest linking to the Manufacturing Timeline, since that page would support the entry, but that wouldn't meet the spirit of the Year policy, where readers go to the linked article to get more information on the subject of the Year entry.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:23, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
So what should I do? Continue with using the Manufacturing Timeline info or remove those and only use in-article info? -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2013 (PDT) response is taking longer than I thought. You uncovered a can of worms in inaccuracies. I wanted to do one as an example, but am finding several issues on each of the four. I'll replace this post when I fix these. Once again, it's a good thing you stuck by this issue...--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:21, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
Take your time; I'll check back in later tonight. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
My advice, since populating the Year pages is a good thing, is to add those dates to the articles in their respective locations (i.e., where the variants are listed). Ideally, you'd have the sources to cite as well, but those are 'nice to haves' and are encouraged, but are not required.
We have a wrinkle; I was going to do the research on one of those four variants and make the change as an example but discovered a conflict with the year 2653, per the entries you made:
  • The Kiso variant is shown to have been revealed in 2705, not 2653. Fortunately, the editors of that pages cited it. Ugh...but incompletely cited. The year isn't mentioned in TRO:3075, but on the MUL site, so making the addition to the article. So the actual date for the Manufacturing Timeline for this variant is 2703 (unless a more superior source overrides the MUL).
  • The primary subject of the Lumberjack is the LM4/C. The article is in error, as it lists the Introduced date as 2355, but that was for the original LM1/A. The MUL site indicates the LM4/C was introduced in 2489, which should be what the manufacturing timeline should show for this variant.
  • The Rhino (MG variant) can now support the Year page. It was introduced in 2653, but the article did not support that.
  • The Spider variant was off by two was introduced in 2853.
Okay...starting this over...I wish this had not gotten so complicated, but it did. The manufacturing timeline (I say this without checking that page myself) appears to have had major errors in it, especially where variants are concerned. That's why using secondary sources (in this case the timeline itself) can bite you in the butt.
Ideally, I would have answered your question by saying add the missing data to the linked article, so that the Year page matches it. And I would have shown you an example of that by adding 2653 to the Kiso variant. But, with due diligence, that was clearly the wrong answer.
So, in conclusion, I'd say only add dates to Year pages when you are relying on a primary (i.e. official) source, such as a book or the MUL. If you find a date somewhere here on BTW, check its reference (and confirm it's correct, if you can).
I hope you can follow that maze I took you on. For the 2653 page, I'll make the changes. If you could do the due diligence on any other Year pages you correct today, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, feel free to leave them there and when I get to them sequentially, I'll remove the incorrect data. As for the timeline page, feel free to correct it to match the original source material (or the source pages), or contact the primary team members and point this to this thread here.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
I'll try tackling this next weekend when I'll have more consecutive time to work. I'm pretty sure I understood all that, but if I have problems I'll be sure to bug you Wink.gif. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
Not a problem. I have to admit, I was a bit concerned by what we uncovered. Hopefully we can all use the MUL to fix these errors.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:31, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
Seems like my time has been and will mostly be only short spurts. Sorry; I thought that I'd be able to work on this now, but seems that it will have to wait. Possibly a holiday. I'll try to keep randomly working in the meantime. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2013 (PDT)


Bob, why you uploade images we have uploaded in the past, you can copy the file name and added to the page you want, we dont need double uploaded pics.--Doneve (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2013 (PDT)

The pictures didn't work on the page in their current format (.gif) but did work in a basic picture format (.png, jpeg, etc). That is why I changed it; if you look at the old version, they don't show up, and I fixed that. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (PDT)
Hm, you are right i testet it and the gif. format dont work, i talk to Nic about this problem.--Doneve (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2013 (PDT)
I don't understand why they don't work, because they seem to work just fine on their respective individual Clan Pages (Clan Burrock and Clan Snow Raven)... perhaps it's the table they are in that messes with it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2013 (PDT)

Year pages[edit]

Bob, I need to ask: how familiar are you with Policy: Year Pages?
The reason I ask is you've made some changes to some Year pages that will result in the entries being deleted as unsupported by their linked articles. For example, 2018 had an entry for June that linked to Takayoshi Fuchida. Within that article can be found statements that support the entry ["June: The California Research/Design Team has the first prototype fusion reactor running by this time."]. Yet, you changed the link to connect to Fusion Engine, though that article did not mention anything about June or 2018, and you haven't updated the article to do so.
In 2014, you made the entry "Seven independent Russian states begin a ten-year probationary period for admittance into the Western Alliance" completely unsupported by any article, which marks it for automatic deletion. Additionally, you again linked to fusion reactor, though you didn't update that article to mention 2014 anywhere in it, much less supporting 2014's entry.
All three of these edits would mean the entry in question would be deleted when it is reviewed by the Year Pages team, because each is now unsupported and it is not the team's mission to update supporting articles but make Year pages consistent throughout.
I'm reverting your edits to year pages where ever I see edits made for redundancy or superficial wiki-linking, but then fail to actually support the entry. Please be aware that Year pages are not typical articles and don't operate under the same guidance as main style articles. A great deal of effort has gone into consolidating Year pages over the years, both in policy and actual pages. If you have any question -or wish to re-examine how year pages are run- please contact me for assistance. I'll be glad to personally explain how to populate and support the Year pages or show you how to attempt to achieve consensus for a policy change.
Thank you.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:25, 27 September 2013 (PDT)

Yes, I am quite familiar with the policy. I changed the link to Fusion Engine on 2018, but forgot to check the page for supporting info (I was flying too fast through pages adding the newfound link); I thought "Fusion Reactor must be more relevant than just a person". Apparently, I was wrong. As for 2014, I also forgot to check the linked article; however, I did not add that line; it was already there and I didn't even touch it. These year pages seem to be kicking me in the head as of late, so I'll stick to proofreading and "consistent-izing" each one as I trudge along; I'll wait to try adding more info when I feel like getting smacked again.
One last thing: I am usually against using reverts unless it is of the very newest revision; with the rollback you did on 2014, it removed the grammatical edit(s) I did, so I'll have to re-edit that. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2013 (PDT)
I definitely don't mean to discourage our editing, so please don't take it that way. The behind-the-scenes tagging you seem to focus on is doing a world of good in organizing material.
I also apologize for coming off so harshly. My excuse is that it was very late (past midnight) and I had decided to put off discussing it with you until this morning, but found myself wondering how many other sites were revised (or would be), ten minutes after turning off the light. As I indicated, the year pages were worthless until a committee got together and cleaned them up. Doneve and I do our best to keep them viable and in order.
As for 2014, the longer Western Alliance entry was already there, but the history shows you de-linked it. If the history is in error, I apologize. As for reversions: you are right about them being too blunt a weapon at times. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:04, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
First, I've done the tagging because, like the redundant link removal I did on the planet pages, it's simple and mindless, and I can do a lot of it in just a few minutes. Second, that is perfectly fine; I'm happy that someone cares so much about the year pages and does such a good job watching everything. I commend you for that. Third, yeah, I don't know why I removed the link; must have been that No redundant links going off in my mind. Sorry.
I guess I just want to say good job policing everything, we need an admin watching over us to keep us on track. :)
As for what I've been editing: I have no idea how I got to this; I started out only proofreading, and now I'm trying to work on tons of different things at once (haha, tons). Once this stuff gets more cleared out (or when next summer arrives, whichever occurs first), then I'll resume proofreading pages. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
Your hemisphere is showing. ;) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:05, 28 September 2013 (PDT) observant of you... -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2013 (PDT)


Does the Marian Hegemony have an intelligence branch? I can't seem to locate it. I was planning to add pictures to it that are already on Sarna, but I can't find what it's called. -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2013 (PDT)

ELH image captions[edit]


Just saw your comment on the ELH page: (caption cleanup, couldn't fix unit insignias' captions). It looks like the reason you were running into trouble is the caption text was in the wrong place. The 100px that was placed after the file name was being set as the caption instead of the actual caption text. Removing the 100px solved the problem.

Using an image tag instead of a file tag might also have solved it. I don't know for sure.

Have a good one!--Mbear(talk) 06:02, 4 October 2013 (PDT)

Okay, thanks for fixing and explaining that good sir.
Oh, and about the image tag: I changed the above gallery to "Image", and tried switching the bottom (faction insignia) back and forth a few times (using preview) in the hopes it might work better, but I must have saved it with the "File" versions in the end... -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2013 (PDT)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your help and friendly encouragement Smiley.gif

I'd like to nominate you for a Direction Appreciated Award DA.jpg

Dark Jaguar (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2013 (GMT)

Thanks for that; I'm glad I could help you. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2013 (PDT)


The CLNT-2-3U was originally an field upgrade developed by the Capellan Confederation. It is a Capellan design copied by the the FS for their Bell factory. The FS were not the first to field the CLNT-2-3U. Aldous (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2013 (PDT)

I see now that it says "were later deployed by...", and your change makes more sense in that context. Thank you for clarifying and sticking with it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2013 (PDT)

Marian Hegemony[edit]

I see your post on the Researche Desk, take a look in A Guide to Covert Ops pp. 95-97, there is some info, hope this helps.--Doneve (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (PDT)

I found it now; it was linked to on that article. All I was looking for was the page (Ordo Vigilis) so I could add pictures. Thanks for leading me to that! -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2013 (PDT)

New variants layout[edit]

Thanks Bob for helping out with the variants revamp, oh and good new i can leave the hospital next weekSmiley.gif.--Doneve (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2013 (PDT)

I'm very happy to hear that you're doing better, comrade. I'll try working on the revamp as much as I can, but I fear that this week I'll be a little limited; I'll edit dump on the weekend. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (PDT)


Hy Bob, the problem with the new combat vehicle layout and what i dissued with Scaltail has solved, Mbear write a CSS code, if you are interested go to my talk page there is some info.--Doneve (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2013 (PDT)

Yes, I saw it, and I'm content with it the way it currently looks. Thanks. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (PDT)


Hy Bob,
I noticed that you've populated some notes fields with the section stub template. I don't think the Notes field should be tagged that way; while the vast majority of sections are areas that should be populated, the Notes section is an open-ended section used for recording things about the article or subject that don't fit within the other defined sections, rather than a mandatory field. It's an area where you put things like details of rulings from CGL staff, information on sources or minor canonicity stuff, speculation on shared identities or things that seem likely but which haven't been confirmed in canon, and so on. I don't think it's appropriate for the Notes section to have the section stub template applied, because that template adds the page to a category that basically says "there is information out there that should be added to the article which hasn't been already, go and find it" whereas the greater majority of articles will never need a Notes section or have anything in one. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2013 (PST)

Okay, that makes sense; I never had thought of that. I'll be sure to remove those now. Thanks. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2013 (PST)


Hello, I was wondering if you'd help me fix the table on the Operation Guerrero Unit Deployment Tables page; I want the planets' names centered, but can't figure it out. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2013 (PDT)

OK. There are two options, both which require an update to the table. Here's the abbreviated sample I'll use:
 {| class="wikitable" border="1"; text-align:center;
 ! width="80pt" |  First FWLM Wave
 ! width="80pt" |  Second FWLM Wave
 ! width="80pt" |  First CCAF Wave
 ! width="80pt" |  Second CCAF Wave
 | [[Callison]]
 | [[Denebola]]

First thing, that text-align:center needs to be in a style tag if you want it to work. So it would look like this:

{| class="wikitable" border="1"; style="text-align:center;"

Doing that will give you this:

First FWLM Wave Second FWLM Wave First CCAF Wave Second CCAF Wave

The next easiest way of centering the text is to add the align="center" to the relevant table cell, like this. (Note that I removed the text-align:center call.)

 {| class="wikitable" border="1" 
 ! width="80pt" |  First FWLM Wave
 ! width="80pt" |  Second FWLM Wave
 ! width="80pt" |  First CCAF Wave
 ! width="80pt" |  Second CCAF Wave
 | align="center" | [[Callison]]

Basically your code looks like you're setting up a new table cell with the align command in it. Sort of like the width lines above in the headings, but since the planet names aren't headings we don't use the !, but the |. This will give you a table like this:

First FWLM Wave Second FWLM Wave First CCAF Wave Second CCAF Wave

Confused yet? Good.

The other option is to use the text-align:center; CSS style like you tried to do:

{| class="wikitable" border="1"; 
! width="80pt" |  First FWLM Wave
! width="80pt" |  Second FWLM Wave
! width="80pt" |  First CCAF Wave
! width="80pt" |  Second CCAF Wave
| style="text-align:center;" | [[Callison]]

Which will give you this:

First FWLM Wave Second FWLM Wave First CCAF Wave Second CCAF Wave

The first option is obviously the easiest, but it may center every single planet name. That may be what you want here, but in other tables it may not be what you want. So you can use one of the other two methods to center the text at the table cell level, which will provide more flexibility in later cells. (Did that make sense?)

Anyway, hope that helps!--Mbear(talk) 07:36, 4 November 2013 (PST)

Ah, yes, that helps; thank you very much! -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2013 (PST)


I was looking for some extra opinions about an idea I had; what if I converted the MechWikia site into a beginners/introductory site that could help ease people into BattleTech? I already started poking around there and found out that the place is deserted -- there have been no edits for months. I could take over the site without a fight. Additionally, the pages there are utterly horrible.

I've been adding links to the sarna equivalents of their most viewed articles. If this isn't a good idea, then I'll just leave the site to rot (but possibly add more sarna links). -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2013 (PST)

Bob, please stop to use material, pics ect. from MechWikia, we come in some trouble, there is not cannon, stop at this time, when Frabby clear this, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2013 (PST)
Okay, I removed it from the page and put a deletion tag on it. Sorry. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2013 (PST)

I don't quite understand Bob's plan. Do you mean you want to use MechWikia and rework it into something like a BattleTech playing workshop?
MechWikia was (as far as I'm aware) another attempt to start a BattleTech wiki many years ago; it may be the one that was merged into Sarna when Sarna emerged as the permier BattleTech wiki. Like Bob wrote, the site is pretty much dead, and features only 256 articles anyways of sometimes questionable quality. Adding links to Sarna isn't a problem technically, but I fail to see the point - if you want a proper BT wiki, you could go straight to Sarna. Frabby (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2013 (PST)

Okay, the plan was to turn the MechWikia into more of a basic wiki with a little info and to direct people who go there to read more at Sarna. A Wikia moderator showed up today and took down my links but said they'd be fine in a "see also" section at the end, so I'll get on that. I wanted to meerly keep it basic so that people would want to go to Sarna and we would possibly see more visitors/users. That's all. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2013 (PST)
I'm going to abandon that; it just isn't worth my time, especially with how busy I am now. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2013 (PST)


What is MechWarrior BattleTech Reference, for a source, i think you mean another, and i dont like the red link to it.--Doneve (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2013 (PST)

It's the manual for MechWarrior 4, and includes lots of (apocryphal) info and pictures. I thought that perhaps it could warrant a page here on Sarna, but others may disagree. -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2013 (PST)
Then add a apocryphal image template to your uploaded pics.--Doneve (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2013 (PST)
Oh. Okay. Forgot about that. Will do! -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2013 (PST)
Thanks dude.--Doneve (talk)
No problem; I apologize, for I should have placed those tags long ago. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2013 (PST)
Please change your image source link, to MW, or i add a deletion tag.--Doneve (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2013 (PST)
To MechWarrior 4: Vengeance (Resource), quiaff? -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (PST)

BattleMech Pics[edit]

BOb, i think we use the pic that was published at first on cannon source, no apocryphal, oh i forgot that the image must come from the same source that match the infobox statates to the pics, make this sence.--Doneve (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (PST)

You mean the one on the Cerberus page? That picture is not apocryphal. I thought that we were supposed to have the earliest picture in the infobox... ? -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (PST)
You understand me false, my view was not the Cerberus pic. and yes we have the earlist pic. in the infobox from the source whitch match, the other pics come in the gallery section.--Doneve (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2013 (PST)
...if not the Cerberus, then which page is it that you're talking about? I'm a little confused. -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2013 (PST)
I also confused, the best way is when i sleep out and check the problem, i got to much blunt's then i can eat.--Doneve (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (PST)
Starting over, were you just answering my question on the Cerberus talk page? If so then that would make a lot more sense. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2013 (PST)


Hi Bob, I noticed that you took away the full stops after the names of the Officers on The Jaguar's Heart. I put them there because Doneve followed my some of my other posts putting them in. Is there a preferred style for this? --Dark Jaguar (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2013 (PST)

Because you listed them with bullets, then it generally doesn't need the period, but the way I usually see it in articles is in full sentence form (not with bullets) while also giving the year that the officer was there (see 4th Drakøns). So really, it should be changed to sentence form with the years included. Does that help? -BobTheZombie (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2013 (PST)
To be honest I don't think it warrants a full sentence unless something more than can be said. If enough can be said then it probably should be in the history section anyway. --Dark Jaguar (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2013 (PST)
I was thinking about having it go: "As of 3060, the Jaguar's Heart was commanded by Star Colonel Wager. The second in command - Star Captain Gareth - took over when Wager was killed, making Star Captain Rohana the new second in command." But I now realize that that is somewhat redundant because that is already stated in the text above it. I dunno. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2013 (PST)


Bob why you wrote out the full name, then we dont need the I.C.E. redirect, and in infoboxes it looks much better?--Doneve (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2013 (PST)

I changed it because I thought that seeing "ICE" in the infobox looked dumb as I had never heard it be called that and it helps the average layman better understand what we mean. Of course there are exceptions like ECM and BAP, but I think that the internal combustion engine deserves its full name. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (PST)

Opinion sought[edit]

Hello, BobtheZombie. Can you pop over to here? I'm trying get official opinion of this. Thanks -- Wrangler (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2013 (PST)

Pirate arcticle[edit]

Hello, BobtheZombie. Sorry for the delay. The article Pirate is only about the infantry type from the Technical Readout 3085. Neuling (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2013 (PST)

That's perfectly fine, good sir, and thank you for clarifying. Because that article is just about the one infantry type, should we perhaps make a page for pirates themselves (the faction/lifestyle type)? Or would the Tortuga Dominions cover this concept already? -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2013 (PST)
Is Pirate Groups meant to cover the groups themselves then? I just found it. -14:34, 9 December 2013 (PST)