User talk:BobTheZombie/2014 Archive

Weapons List[edit]

Almost done... -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2014 (PST)
No worries. If there something going on you think i should be ware of, that fine with me. Keep the good work up! -- Wrangler (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2014 (PST)

Operation Guerrero[edit]

Hello. How much time do I have to make the corrections? I understand that this is a placeholder that will be put back into the main article when done. Also... if you are adding the Chaos March worlds, you should also add the Disputed Territories too.--Aldous (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (PST)

Take as long as you need to add those; I have plenty of other stuff to work on in the meantime. And yes, all the stuff to the end needs references (or to be added if something is missing). Thanks. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2014 (PST)
Be advised that Zurich wasn't part of the second wave. You should add a section that covers actions by rebels/revolutionaries/terrorists that were supported by Marik Mercs. Northwind would fall under this category.--Aldous (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2014 (PST)


Hello, I moved all content of the pages which are listed of the CCAF -talk page. You can now delete the pages with out any further concern. With best regards Neuling (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2014 (PST)

Cockpit Page[edit]

Again, thank you for writing this page. You deserve this: All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon --S.gage (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2014 (PST)

Why, thank you! I guess it could still use some work, but I first wanted to save it from the decrepit form it used to have. Thanks again! -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2014 (PST)

SIAMS Training Group[edit]

Hello. Why is Leftenant General not italicized but Sao Shao is?--Aldous (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2014 (PST)

Leftenant General falls under the category of normal ranks that don't need to be italicized. See the policy talk page concerning this:
  • "Usually only Chinese and Japanese ranks get italics." - Mbear
  • "Unless the title is in a foreign language, it should not be italicized." - Scaletail
That is why I thought the rank in question didn't need the italics, but the others did. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (PST)
Spot on. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (PST)

Casual Edit Award[edit]

Good morning Bob (I have to keep reminding myself to not type Bub - I've watched Day of the Dead too many times)
I'm impressed with the tempo of work you've kept up on here since joining, and the way that you're doing things like bringing up issues in talk pages - basically, doing all the right things. I was going to give you another Act of Appreciation Award when I noticed that you didn't have a Casual Edit Award. Casual Edit Awards are notionally for when "an editor witnesses another editor making a minor addition or correction to any random article." I'd say I'm a little surprised you don't have one, but I'm going to award you one now:
Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon
Once I've checked your contributions log to make sure that you've made at least one edit to a random file, of course... Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (PST)

Thank you very much! That means a lot to me, though sadly I've never seen Day of the Dead before... -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2014 (PST)

Assistance Appreciated Award[edit]

Hey Bob, I have taken the liberty of giving you a Assistance Appreciated Award for your sterling service in helping out with the situation dealing with House Military Layouts. I am not always the most diplomatic of chaps and you stepped in and calmly and efficiently presented a very good idea of putting it to the wider community. Thank you. --Dmon (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Thanks for that; I don't even know why but I just made an account there recently and wanted to help Sarna through it. I'm planning more outreach to them in the near future. -BobTheZombie (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Re-Engineered Laser‎s[edit]

Hi BobTheZombie, do you want me to spruce up the other Re-Engineering Laser articles? Game Play/Construction Rules should be listed seperately or least be in uniformed. I think my weakest point was the infobox, its kinda confusing for me. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

Sure, go ahead and work on them; the infobox looked fine by the way. Sorry, too much going on at the moment, will check back tomorrow. -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

New Layout for military pages[edit]

Hello BobTheZombie, I discover that all text will be displayed from an article until the first sub section begins, I hope that information will help you in some way. With best regards Neuling (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2014 (PDT)

Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about the summary at the beginning of an article? -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
I Thik when you used the onlyinclude tags, the text is repeat until the first sub section of the page. When you use a whort summary and then start the text with a section like historical or overview it only whows the paragraph until then. I hope my explanaition is not to bad. With best regards Neuling (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
If you're talking about my sandbox, then yes, I was hiding what I had had on the page with onlyinclude tags so that I could still see it but not have to delete all the info. I simply forgot to fully add the intro and have since revamped the page. I think I understand all you were trying to say. Please forgive me for my difficulty in understanding you. -BobTheZombie (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

Casual Edit Award: Spidermech[edit]

Casual Edit Award, 2nd ribbonI'm happy to see how you whipped the Spidermech article into shape between the three of you. This particular article has been a thorn in my side for some time because I knew it needed a serious rework but I knew nothing about the subject matter myself. So, for getting this out of my head, I'm giving each of you a Casual Edit Award (2nd ribbon). Thanks! Frabby (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

I haven't even played MechAssault, but I thought that that article needed some help. Thanks! -BobTheZombie (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

TPTB Rulings[edit]

Hi Bob,
Thanks for including a reference to the TPTB ruling on the origin of the name of the LB-X Autocannon in the article - personally, I think one of the roles for Sarna to play is to track rulings from TPTB on canon detail that aren't specified in the published material; things like errata and rulings that tend to get lost whenever CGL backs up it's forums, or has it crashed. Anyway, I'd like to give you this award as thanks:
Random Act of Appreciation Award, 3rd ribbon
However, there is one thing I'd ask - when you're including details of a ruling or something similar in an article, can you also directly quote the detail either in the Notes section, as I've done with articles like the one on Colonial Tractors, or in the Talk page for the article, as Frabby's done with the Full Moon article? Whenever TPTB update their boards, we end up with dead links - copying the text itself across preserves that ruling, and hopefully makes Sarna more useful for those doing research. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2014 (PDT)

Thank you! It was by pure chance that I saw that post and decided it should be added to the page. I completely forgot about quoting it and will try to remember to do that if I find more in the future. Thanks once again! -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2014 (PDT)
You definitely had the right instincts when it came to flagging up Herb's ruling in the article here. What made me sensitive to making sure that the quotes themselves are included was when I was doing some work on updating the WarShip class pages and I found a reference on (I think) the Kyushu that talked about the fate of various ships having been confirmed by the Developers, complete with a link - that that led nowhere, because the boards had been hacked after the link was generated, and the area was inaccessible through internet resources like the Wayback Machine, making it impossible to dig the ruling out. I hate the idea of losing relevant information when we can do something to preserve it here Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2014 (PDT)
Why yes, of course that makes complete sense! I agree that placing the actual text here is a great idea, and I guess I hadn't thought of it, but there must have been a lot of information loss at the great BT crash of 2011. I just have to remember how it gets all laid out when you do add it though... -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (PDT)
I normally just go back to an entry I've already used a quote in and copy and paste - Colonial Tractors is my go-to at the moment. It catches me out when people change title/post though - Herb's no longer Lead Developer, for example, although I keep forgetting that. One problem I have found that isn't obvious is that some URLs don't work well with the quote code. It's usually best to use the URL for a message within a thread, rather than for the thread - thread title URLs seem to break the quote code. You can tell if that's the problem because the mask for the hyperlink shows up empty. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2014 (PDT)
I remembered that he wasn't but he posted in the developers thread and didn't care much. I'll try to find urls to posts inside next time. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2014 (PDT)


Hi Bob,
I'm doing my morning catch-up on the Ask the Writers/Developers section and I spotted your question about formatting. I think I know where you may have seen it detailed already - Mbear has a copy of it on his user page here, based on the submission criteria for BattleCorps writers as-was... Frabby has since confirmed that there's a more up-to-date version of the guidelines in use with the BattleCorps writers, but didn't get a response when he asked for permission to post it, so we're still working to the older version here. The only difference on Sarna is that for wiki categorisation purposes, unit article names use the numerical format regardless, so that they show up in the correct order, and in the last year or so I think we've started actively switching over to following the writing conventions consistently. There was a debate about it on one of the policy pages here somewhere, although I'm blowed if I can work out where. I don't know if that helps at all? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2014 (PDT)

To wit, while there is a more refined style guide document floating around in NDA space, I don't think there is a difference in the actual rulings, compared to the publicly accessible one. Frabby (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2014 (PDT)
I knew that we had something but wondered if they could give anything more detailed/up to date; I was specifically wondering about the centuries thing and wanted to know how all that was so when I get more time I can reference that and clean some stuff up. I just wish my schedule could open up so I could be on here more than a minute at a time... -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2014 (PDT)

MP in infobox.[edit]

Short answer: No. Long answer: We don't want to do that because MP isn't always relevant. You have Alpha Strike, BattleForce, etc. which can use different methods of determining MP.

The fluff speeds (96km/h) are always correct, and for BattleTech you just divide the speed by 10 to get the number of MPs.

And besides, do you really want to have to update the thousands of articles we have for 'Mechs, tanks, VTOLs, etc. that this would require? *shudder*.

BTW, you can get a faster answer and insure all the admins see your question by posting on the BattleTechWiki:Administrators talk page.--Mbear(talk) 10:47, 9 April 2014 (PDT)

Okidoki. I was simply bringing it up because someone requested I do so. And yes, I know that it would have been thousands of pages; Thanks for the response. I just hope I can kindly explain this... -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (PDT)
may I suggest "The decision was made because MP isn't the only movement measure in the BattleTech family of games. By providing the speed in km/h, it's possible to compute the MP for all the other games as well."--Mbear(talk) 03:30, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, that should work, and next time I'll go to the Admin page; I didn't try it because I didn't think of it, I guess. Also, what about the armor idea? -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
I don't mind people talking to me on my page - I like seeing the little message bar appear when I log in Smiley.gif Although, sadly, it's not because people are giving me awards so much these days. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, I'm probably the worst about giving out awards because I never think of it; that is of course until someone give me one, then I feel bad. I really should hand out more given I patrol the recent changes... -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
What armor idea?--Mbear(talk) 04:31, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
I mentioned on BM's talk page that they also wanted armor points, but that's going too specific. Sorry about the confusion. It would have helped if I had posted at one place; I will next time. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
No problem. We don't usually get that detailed. There are other websites that go into that much detail, we don't want to be one of them.
And the scattered messages problem is why I suggested the Admin page. Wink.gif-Mbear(talk) 07:38, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Army page survey[edit]

Hey, what were the results of your survey over on the forums?--Mbear(talk) 07:47, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

From BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands:
  • AFFS (the new way) - 4
  • A mix of the two - 6
  • FWLM (the old way) - 2
I also have the Layout thread saved in a text document if you want it; the formatting was lost, but all the info is still there. It looks like they've since removed it from the BT forums. There was also one person's response on NGNG that was included in the above voting results. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

Fanon wiki URL?[edit]


What URL do you have for the Fanon wiki? I just want to be sure I send people to the same place you do. The one I have is Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 04:22, 16 April 2014 (PDT)

Yes, that's the one; I didn't know there were any other BT fanon wikis... -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2014 (PDT)
I don't know if there are, but I thought we should all be on the same page. (Pardon the pun.)--Mbear(talk) 04:58, 16 April 2014 (PDT)
Hahaha... yeah I don't know why I didn't link to the fanon wiki (or more specificially, the page). Just too much on my mind I guess. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2014 (PDT)

New unit pages[edit]

Copied from Doneve's talk page. Hey can you do me a favor? When you put together a new unit page like Kappa Galaxy (Clan Jade Falcon), just mark it as a stub page. Don't include the update needed tag. The page is so empty that stub is a better reflection of what needs to be done. Thank you!--Mbear(talk) 05:26, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

I could help out; so the update needed tag need to be removed? -BobTheZombie (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
Ideally yes, the Update Needed tag would be removed. The UN tag was created to inform users that an article needed an update from a source that was under Moratorium. It later morphed into what we have today.--Mbear(talk) 09:28, 25 April 2014 (PDT)
Okay, makes sense; I will work on that later this weekend but can't do much at the moment because of internet issues. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2014 (PDT)


Hi Bob,
I just wanted to let you know there's a technical difference between rerolled - as in "the dice were rerolled" - and re-roled, as in "7 Para (V) were re-roled, becoming a standard light infantry battalion". To re-role a military unit or item of equipment is to change it's organization, structure or use to fill a new capability role. Every time there's a military restructuring here in the UK you'll read news about various units being re-roled (assuming they aren't disbanded) and when vehicles start getting used for something other than the task for which they were purchased, they're referred to as having been re-roled. It's not a phrase unique to the UK military either - you can see the Canadian military using the term here: BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2014 (PDT)

Ah, yes, that makes sense; that's what happens when I don't pay enough attention. I'll be sure to watch for that in the future. Should I revert those which I changed, or are you going to? -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2014 (PDT)
There are others? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2014 (PDT)
There were more, but I think I got them all. I wrote that before just getting them. Sorry for the confusion. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2014 (PDT)

Cave Lion[edit]

Hi BobTheZombie, when i get home today, I'll work on Cave Lion if no one jumps on between now and then. -- Wrangler (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (PDT)

Cool! That would be quite helpful. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2014 (PDT)
I've finished the revision to the Cave Lion. Please feel free to edit it to clear up any grammer issues i may had with it! I had problem with your MUL reference link on the Production Year line of the info box when i transferred the information over to a updated Infobox. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2014 (PDT)
Thanks! I'm short on time now, but will get back to it and finish proofreading it soon. -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2014 (PDT)
Okay, I'm finished with it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (PDT)

Doctor X[edit]

Thank you BobTheZombie. Wow that sounds like a lot, I'll just call ya Bob, ok and y'all can just call me Craig :) I did have the chance to make my first edit, Its on the Fidelis page, the part about the Dante-Class Frigate. It may not be as grammatically correct as it should be (blame that on early morning insomnia) but as a first attempt it wasn't too bad. Managed to get the reference thing worked out with just a little difficulty, kinda proud of that one.) I'm sure that once I become more comfortable with editing that i'll move on to article creating. but that is later, for now I'll just stick to making the corrections that annoy me the most, grammar and readability. that should satisfy my minor X (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (PDT)

Okay, "Craig" Wink.gif; yes I saw the edits and good work there, but a little hint: if you hit the "Show preview" button (Next to the "Save page" button), it will allow you to see how the edit will look if you save it, and you can then edit more but save it once you've made all the changes on the page that you want. This way the history section of each page stays a little tidier. Either way will get the job done, but the preview way is there so you can make sure it looks right. Also, if you're wondering where to start, there's always the list of pages tagged with "cleanup needed", which could always use some grammatical work. It's up to you what you want to do, so just pitch in where you can. And yes, a little OCD always helps Cheesy.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (PDT)

question about changing the case in parentheticals[edit]

Article Titles are generally capitalized, including disambig like (Battle Armor) being either Battle Armour mounted or built to be mounted on the same. why did you change (Battle Armor) to (battle armor) on the heavy machine gun?--Cameron (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (PDT)

Hello; the reason for it was a sweeping change brought by the conversation here that established "Battle Armor" was wrong and "battle armor" is correct. I was under the assumption that it should have been changed, but perhaps we need to discuss it. It wouldn't be too hard to change them all back, just some time. Now that I checked, the Manual of Style is lacking anything covering the capitalization of titles. Thank you for pointing this out; I had had second thoughts as well, but we can discuss it in-depth over at the manual of style talk page. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (PDT)
Battle Armor is part of the title, you capitalize the title, upper or lower case in the paragraph is a matter of the style manual, but Title Case is used for Article Titles Section Headers and File Names--Cameron (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (PDT)
Yes, the more I think about it, it makes more sense to have it capitalized in titles; I'll start the conversation on the Manual of Style talk page, and we can continue talking there.

"Battle armor" page[edit]

I was actually thinking we would go through and change all those links to go to the Battle Armor page and eliminate the need for a redirect. It's easier to do once the page is deleted since they show up in red. Also right now if you run a search for "battle armor" it goes to the "Battle armor" page, but if it was deleted, it would automatically find the "Battle Armor" page. --Trifler (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (PDT)

Phew... I changed a bunch of them, but I guess I underestimated how many there are. I think you're right about keeping the redirect for a while. I guess I was thinking that deleting the page would make all the [[battle armor]] links automatically go to the "Battle Armor" article, but after some more thought, I think they would just turn red. I'll keep changing some more from time to time and eventually they'll all get done. --Trifler (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
Sorry, but the redirect needs to stay. As I eventually (it will be a long time) change all instances of BA to ba in the text of articles, I don't want to have to add "Battle Armor|" to every single link. It is simply unnecessary. The point of a redirect is to take a common name (or spelling) for something and direct it to the correct article. Almost all redirects are here to stay because they serve an express purpose; you may be thinking of Double Redirects (when a redirect links to another redirect and it stops there, confusing the person who clicked on the link) or Disambiguation pages (e.g. Atlas), which are both problems to work on, but redirects are not in the same boat. I appreciate that you want to help, but please don't change ba to BA in the text (the links don't matter) as that's the point of the ruling saying that it should be lowercase. If you want to help, changing BA to ba in the text of an article would help greatly. Also, both AeroSpace Fighter and Conventional Fighter should not be capitalized unless it is in a title or the first letter may be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. Sorry I didn't get back to you quickly; I was very busy at the time. Don't be offended if you notice some of your edits get reverted; it is because you did some helpful and some negative edits. Please tell me if you have questions or need this further explained. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (PDT)
A lot of wiki's I've worked on didn't like having "Redirected here from" listed at the top of articles when it could be avoided, but if you want the redirect for battle armor then so be it.
I'm afraid those case changes you made on the Plasma Cannon and Plasma Rifle articles are incorrect because they're listed inside a table cell. Anything written in a table gets written as a title (except in cases where you have a paragraph written in a Notes section of a table or something).
Don't worry I didn't change anyone's words on any talk pages. I only fixed incorrect links to make sure they go to the article the author originally linked to, which is always ok. --Trifler (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2014 (PDT)
Well.... I dunno. I just like to be able to keep redirects in case, say, someone types it in the searchbar, and it comes up for them to click on, then they will get to the right page. I personally don't care if there's a little notice that I was redirected, because I still got to the page that I wanted. As for the table, I was unsure as to exactly how it should have worked, but I thought I had a good idea. Not that I don't trust you, but is that (the title format for tables) listed anywhere on say, a wikipedia policy page? It'd be nice to see it.
That sounds like we're actually coming from the same place then. As long as that "Battle armor" page (for example) exists with the redirect, then when someone types it into the search bar, it will go straight to that redirect page. If it's deleted, then the search will display search results, with the "Battle Armor" page listed first. Some wiki software is smart enough to go directly to the "Battle Armor" page if someone types in "battle armor" but that varies depending on the software used. In any case, it still shows up on the search. In general, deleting old pages makes searches work better. I'm not still trying to convince you to delete it; I'm just saying it sounds like we were both trying to accomplish the same thing. --Trifler (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (PDT)
Wikipedia's policy is to not use title case. Period. They have long, drawn out title names, so they find it easier to remain consistent that way. So, certainly they have nothing about using title formatting in tables on their policy pages. :) In U.S. English, it's pretty standard to always use title case in tables, but I've heard the U.K. English uses title case far less frequently in general. I'm sure that if you look around at other wikis you will find it done both ways, but my university courses and text books universally used title case in tables except where an actual sentence was written. I also worked as a proofreader for a while, and ditto there. It's the same idea as using title case in a menu, which is basically a table with one column. Most games use "Start Game" and "Exit Game," not "Start game" and "Exit game." That being said, a publication is free to set its own style guidelines, so things vary a lot between different newspapers and magazines (and certainly online). I think there's also a case for saying each item listed under the "Unit" column heading, in this example, is a row heading (generally the first column in a table, but not always, such as if the first column is used for numbering). Over the past 15 years or so, there's been a sort of revolt by the new generation against title case, which I find highly annoying. If you decide not use title formatting in the table, then note that "infantry" is currently still capitalized. Here's one example, although there are examples of other styles on the web as well: Nuclear Energy Data Table --Trifler (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (PDT)
Sorry if I sounded accusatory about the changing of the talk pages; just as a rule I never do, in case anyone would be offended. Because of that I didn't want you taking any flak. Also, I didn't mean to sound too belittling at first there; I had no idea you'd been editing wikis before. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (PDT)
Thank you. I understand your reasoning. However, I've taken flak in the past for moving articles and not fixing the links in people's talk pages. The other editors tell me "If you move a page, make sure nothing links to the old one anymore" or the talk page author says, "Hey, my links don't go to the right page anymore, and you're to blame!" so there's no winning. So far I've never had anyone complain of my preserving talk page links to where they went before I moved the article. --Trifler (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (PDT)
...and that whole searching debacle is why I'd rather have a google-centric type of search that could do the "'Did you mean (Correct Spelling)?" function, instead of the stupidly limited way it is now. As for the tables, we can go ahead and and change them to the title format; now that I look at it, it does look somewhat better with the capitalized words there. You can do that if you want, don't be afraid to do so. As for that revolt you mentioned, they're also attacking the word "you're" and giving a crap about grammar in general. I guess that's why I have plenty of stuff to do here Wink.gif . Sorry to hear about the people giving you a hard time; I don't move stuff too often, so I've not experienced that. Thanks for explaining things, and if there's anything else that should be addressed, feel free to tell me. -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2014 (PDT)
Thanks! --Trifler (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2014 (PDT)

Bob, it looks like you're manually moving the pages to uppercase titles. You can simply Move them (even over an existing redirect). Just make sure to check the "keep redirect" box. And don't forget to move the talk pages (the move order will do this automatically. Frabby (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

Wow, I guess that that does work; when I originally read the top of the Move page, it states "Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, unless it is a redirect and has no past edit history." With that, I thought that after one move, you'd have to manually move it. Thanks for pointing out it doesn't have to be done manually. I guess I should have at least tried the Move button. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2014 (PDT)

infobox update[edit]


I've updated the infoboxes as you requested. More info. If you could answer BrokenMnemonic's question, that would be good. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 06:12, 9 September 2014 (PDT)

Whoops, sorry for missing that. I haven't checked the ole watchlist in a while, and completely missed those edits. I'll get on it right away! -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (PDT)


Well done with undoing the damage from that tent spambot. You don't have a Vandal Cop award yet, so here's your first: Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2014 (PDT)

Thanks! -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2014 (PDT)


Response to your question. The article is mostly correct. If the MUL is to believed, they gave the prototype Clint 1-2 a intro date which wasn't around when the article was originally written. It should be written that it was created in 2607, but mass produced model, the 2-3T, was first produced in 2608. The stats of the feature Mech is the 2608, which is correct. -- Wrangler (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2014 (PDT)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for answering! -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (PDT)

Dates of Birth/Death[edit]

Bob - I'm personally against posting the ???? when it is unknown, particularly when both the year of birth and death are unknown. Its just my own opinion. What are your thoughts? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2014 (PDT)

Somewhere on my endless Sarna To-Do list there's an InfoBoxCharacter. In the fashion of our usual infoboxes, it would include data such as image, birthdate, and death date. (Other possibly sensible fields to have in the InfoBox include House/Affiliation, Profession, preferred 'Mech.) Frabby (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2014 (PDT)
Yep, a infobox is a good idea. I built a test version when i found time or another will do this, then we can look if it works.--05:05, 3 October 2014 (PDT)
Might as well do this now - went ahead and created Template:InfoBoxCharacter. :) Any comments should probably go its talk page. Frabby (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2014 (PDT)
I really like how it looks on Hanse Davion's article. Of course, we have far more info on Hanse than we do on Palmer Conti or almost any other character. I'm still not loving the ????, especially as we will likely never have DOB/DOD dates for this character. But i understand the logic. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (PDT)
Sorry that I missed this conversation; I was sick and didn't have much time to get on. I think that the infoboxcharacter is an awesome idea and would love to help put it on articles once I have time for a new project (might be a while). As for the ????, I dunno, I guess I was just going for the whole consistency thing, but perhaps it isn't needed when neither is known. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2014 (PDT)

Commando edit/Video game stuff[edit]

Hi Bob, I saw your edit on the Commando... and I disagree. Strongly. Sarna isn't covering any particular version of anything to begin with; when you look at the stats given in the infobox you'll see that these aren't tabletop stats, they are fluff stats (though these are of course derived from tabletop rules). I think you're mixing up two things here - the canonical existence and configuration of the Commando, and how it is represented in various rulesets including tabletop and computer games. This is not a distinction Sarna should make. Mind you, listing variants, even apocryphal ones such as the 'Blazing Inferno' and 'Death's Knell' variants from The Crescent Hawks' Inception and MWO, respectively, is okay and even positively desired. I also think the "See also" section is okay. But the text at the article header should be removed. It doesn't belong there and implies a segregation between tabletop and computer games that we don't actually have nor want on Sarna. My opinion, anyways. ;) Frabby (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

I put that there to tell people who were looking for the apocryphal video game versions where to look so they could easily find them. Without that line, it is hard for people to know to look down there at the bottom of the page. It is simply meant as a navigational aid, and not to make differentiation between the canonical and apocryphal. I've added the line to the top of many weapon pages (after getting someone else's approval), and if this should be changed, then please tell me what it should be changed to and I'll gladly change them. I just wanted to make it easier for people to find the pages they are looking for. Perhaps would it be better if I just removed the words canonical and apocryphal in that line? It still gets the point across of where to look while not dividing canon and apocryphal directly. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2014 (PDT)
For the record, we don't have any policy (that I'm aware of) regulating this question on Sarna and I'm in no position to 'decide' anything here or to tell you what to do. So this is really an open-ended discussion. Perhaps we should move it to a more suitable place where other users might chime in - suggestions?
I guess I don't see the problem you're trying to fix here, while at the same time I don't like the fix itself. I'd expect a given user who's interested in 'Mech designs from, say, MechCommander 2 to look up the MechCommander 2 article first, and easily find the list in that article. If a user calls up the Commando article looking for this info and can't be bothered to read the article (or, more likely, CTRL-F search it) then I'm not sure if we can help him.
And then there's my general article format nitpicking. The line you put to the top to highlight something relatively insignificant that's dealt with in one of the last article sections is somehow self-defeating. If this is important, move it up; if it isn't, don't highlight it at the very top. Hm. I somehow can't find the right words for why this is bugging me so much. It simply feels wrong to have there.
A compromise might be using an appropriately named section header which would show up in the TOC. But I can't think of a suitable wording right now. Again, I'm open for suggestions. Frabby (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (PDT)
I have responded at User talk:BobTheZombie/Project Video Games. We can more publically discuss it there. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

MechCommander 2 Stuff[edit]

Hi Bob. When you get a chance, I'd like a couple of people to please take a look at the stuff I added to the MechCommander 2 BattleMechs and Vehicles pages and let me know if they understand and agree with the text beneath the tables, etc. Some of it was difficult to explain and I'm not sure if readers will understand it as I intended it. Thanks. --Trifler (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2014 (PST)