User talk:Dmon/Archive 2010


Dmon, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

All Purpose Award[edit]

All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon

Dmon, as a fellow Editor, I'm providing you the All Purpose ribbon, for yesterday's enhancement of so many articles with the org charts. Excelsior. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I did not expect an award for installing my charts!! --Dmon 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Hey, Dmon: the reason I placed the <references/> tag immediately under the References section heading is so that any in-article citations get 'top billing' over generic, no page biblio-style, title-only references. Generic references to whole source books provide less information to the reader and therefore should have a lower preference. You haven't violated any procedures or policy by any means and I'm still in the process of writing Help:Article Layout, but I wanted to let you know that there was a reason for my apparent madness. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask you about it bro. Makes sense really so I will alter in accordance as I work through my to do list. I have been threatening to finish the Org trees for months so I am now doing it ;-) --Dmon 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop Award[edit]

Hey, Dmon, great catch on that act of vandalism by the guy up near Ingersoll, Canada. You caught and reversed it only 8 minutes after it was conducted! Seriously, good work and great response time. For that reason, I'm proud to present you with the board's first (AFAIK) Vandal Cop award:

Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon

I'll put it on your awards board. I've placed a level 2 warning on the IP's talk page, so we can quickly escalate it towards a block, if s/he doesn't improve her behavior. Also, feel free to provide warnings yourself, as quick and visible reactions (i.e. a notice to them they have a personal message) can be a deterrent to future acts against the BattleTech community. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

woah Dude! I dont deserve a reward for sumat that I would expect everybody who is a regular user here to do! --Dmon 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree (to your expectation), but lets make it a visible 'chore' of the wiki and reward the ones who do. I've seen the majority of vandalism 'fixed' by admins, so its great to see Editors keeping an eye out. (Don't knock the ribbon; the troops need to see it! Wink.gif) Thanks again, Dmon. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Shin Legion[edit]

Hi Dmon. I was looking at Shin Legion article. Do you know if the unit mentioned in the old house source books? I've tried find the a listing for them, but i can't find anything. They just get written into the books after the fact? -- Wrangler 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wrangler, The Shin Legions as a whole where not introduced until the FM:DC book as far as I am aware, interestingly the back history of their service to the Combine has since been filled in but prior service within the Confederation (so the period of the house books) still remains blank. --Dmon 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty. I'll go hunting see if there some hidden nugget of information for them. I can't find anything saying there was a 3rd Shin Legion as well...I've done up 1st Shin legion information much as i can. Still need get some info from one more source to complete it. Thanks for the reply -- Wrangler 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
3rd's fate is detailed FM:DC p 110 Para 2 & 3. Hope that helps. --Dmon 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, well that helps. I hadn't gotten to looking up extensively. Thanks for that assist. -- Wrangler 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your OrgTrees[edit]

Dmon, I like the org trees you've built, but they look like they require some intense maintenance with the nested tables and all. I ran across something for work that might help (or inspire you): SlickMap CSS. It's designed for website organization /information architecture, but I suppose it could be modified to a TOE. The thing that really struck me was the fact that it uses nested lists, which might be easier to keep track of than the tables. (I know you've got a lot of work in the Org Charts already, and I'm not trying to make more work for you. Just thought you might find it interesting.) Have a good one!--Mbear 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbear, this might be of interest to Ebakunin, if it requires coding into the site's css code. I'll bring it to his attention. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DCMS Tables[edit]

Hi, I create the tables for a better overview and to shorten the list of sub categories. When you think the old way where better, I will accept your choice. I think tables are better for understanding complexe content or content with huge quantity. Let me know what your are thinking about my other articles. For example Operation Bulldog or MAF. see yah... Neuling 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hy Dmon i jumpt off, i agree with Neuling, but i think we must fixing some little thinks and figuring out, the ball is rolling.Doneve 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The Operation Bulldog and MAF articles are both very good looking pieces of work... but they both exemplify what I see as the problem at the same time, The DCMS tables have quite a lot of text in them compared to most of the tables in the other articles, something similar to the format of the Rank tables from the MAF article might fix the problem --Dmon 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The tables cry out for wikilinks too, even if red.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Example Article[edit]

Hey, Dmon: following on the discussion of the sub-stubs, I wanted to share with you an example of what can be created with the bare minimum of information, such as found in The Star League's Regular Army Deployment tables. For the 199th Dragoon regiment, only the following is provided on the table (p. 157):

 199th Dragoon Regiment     2764: Periphery     2765: Periphery     2767-2779: survived     2784: FS

But, using the explanation on p. 139, the following 199th article can be created. While still technically a stub, and not likely ever to be filled out with any more information, it is still very informative to someone seeking all known data on that unit. I mean this as a sincere effort to improve (and save) the sub-stubs you created, and have no intention in being antogonistic about it. I really do think every article on BTW has potential value. Best. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the SLDF articles if you wish Rev, I do not really have any genuine interest in the SLDF units and only started creating the articles as an extension of some research I was working on into other units... In hindsight a list would of been more appropriate to the purposes of the wiki. I intend to stick to slowly attempting to create a comprehensive list of DCMS units and attempting to tidy up the "house" command category's to a uniform style at the moment. --Dmon 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Roger. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Construction tag[edit]

Hey construction is only used for Policies, use Underconstruction instead. --Neufeld 23:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didnt even realise their was a difference. --Dmon 08:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Hy Dmon, thanks for fixing my little 00... ;).--Doneve 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem bud ;-) --Dmon 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The LOL Award[edit]

HOLLA again Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon....LOL--Doneve 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke mein Bruder aus Deutschland --Dmon 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SLDF Divisions...[edit]

Hy Dmon, i am done with the SLDF units, i hope i putted all on the wiki ;). Ok i fix the Royal units, then you can start with your Orgtrees...Greetings--Doneve 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop Award, Part Deux[edit]

Now down to five minutes! You cut your average response time down by 38%. Simple incredible.

Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon

Thank you for 'earning' the 2nd award. Good job.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Dmon - I read your recent edits to the Combine Military Districts, and found them quite cool. However, I'd like to suggest that the Prefectures are not worth of having their own articles. The Prefectures change constantly even during peace time, and most of the information there would strike me as redundant with that on the planet articles or the district articles. Does this make sense? ClanWolverine101 17:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it I agree with you. I will remove the wikiLinks form the articles ;-) --Dmon 17:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Org Tree necessary?[edit]

Hi Dmon, I think your Org Trees have no porpuse to me. For me it is wasted place and doesn't reflect the unit unique structure. We all know the common structure of an unit from any faction. Let's talk about it. For me it is easier to create the structure sheets for every faction like in the field manuals and describe the unique differents about it. I will not change your work. Please think about my thoughts and give me a reflection. For example: the 71st Light Horse from the ELH is a mixed combined arms regiment with all types of forces (Ref. Twilight of the Clans - Roster ELH p. 54). Neuling 16:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the OrgTrees allows them to be altered to reflect the unique elements of any command... All that is required it a little work. You personally do not find them to be of use but I have had several people comment to the contrary so maybe you have some ideas on how to make them more useful?(BTW thanks for the ref on the ELH I was just basing my work off the contents of the articles so I will now incorporate said info) --Dmon 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My own two cents : I've found the sources for the OrgTrees to be somewhat contradictory. I recall the Wolf's Dragoons sourcebook, which listed the org trees and then the complete rosters for the units. Many times, there were contradictions, or there was information on the org trees that wasn't really expanded upon. (Such as logistics support.)
... or are we talking about a different thing? ClanWolverine101 00:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if we are taking about a different thing to be honest... Most of the info in my OrgTrees is derived from the Field Manuals and various bits of fluff/scenarios etc so I am not entirely sure where the contradictions in the OrgTree in the WD sourcebook might come into this --Dmon 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. That's interesting. I'm not questioning your work; I guess I'm more questioning the source material. No matter. Certainly, if you can cite appropriate references for your tables, you should feel free to include them. ClanWolverine101 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's me again, Neuling, I give you a advice. In the next day I will change the informations of many units. This means unit composition with detailled data whenn availabe to this unit in short form. It will make it easier to you to modify the orgtree with this information. Please let me know what are you thinking about it. Tnx Neuling 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Republican Guard Name[edit]

Hello, Dmon. The current canon name for the guard main units is Republican. Not Guards (Brigade correct), Not Tikonov Republican Guards. Its in error, Dmon. Look at 20 Year update for the Republicans and look at the Field Manual: Lyran Alliance and FedCom Civil War sourcebook. You will only see (X) Republicans. That Tikonov Guard name is not their current name, new sources trump old sources. I'm not terribly fond of the current naming convention of the unit, but its canon. -- Wrangler 10:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2nd Armor Brigade[edit]

Hello Dmon. I did not realize you had wrote up a article regarding the Steel Lightning. I used the full name of the unit, verse your short name. I'm going check with the writers on forums later today see if or what is the actual canon way pronounce its name. I think my article has more info than yours. we should get rid of one them, but i wanted check with you first. I retained entire name since it could name Lyran could part of unit name verse describing which nationality it was, like Lyran Guard. You don't drop the Lyran name in it when spelling it on Sarna. -- Wrangler 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DCMS Organization Trees[edit]

Dmon - Question : What is the reference/citation for your org tress? Is it a case by case basis, or is simply listed as the "DCMS standard" someplace? Because if its the latter, I have to tell you, it serves little purpose. Most units deviate, especially after they see combat. Respectfully... ClanWolverine101 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My orgtrees are a bit of both... they start off as a "Standard DCMS template" and then I modify it based on info I find about the unit. I do my best to reference what makes the units organization individual... and as for the battle damage... it is mostly irrelevant because they are the optimum condition of the unit, the composition tables reflect the unit at various stages in its history. Either way it does not count for much because I am considering removing the Orgtrees anyway due to the apparent negative feelings a lot of people around here seem to have about them. --Dmon 07:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are interested see the Otomo article for a good example of what I intended them to end up looking like --Dmon 07:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hy Dmon why do you remove your orgtrees??--Doneve 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doneve, I am removing them because they are not very popular with other people on the wiki --Dmon 15:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm ok, i like your work, you put a lot of time to it :(.--Doneve 15:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words Doneve, I am extremely disappointed and upset that my work has not turned out as I hoped but hey if you don't try you don't find out ;-) --Dmon 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Dmon. I hope you won't be too discouraged. Its just the tables, as they exist in that format, are rather large and bulky, and there's considerable evidence most units don't follow them exactly. For example, how many regiments have a regimental command company separate from the battalions? How many battalions have a battalion command lance separate from the companies? How many mechs does the unit have - 108? (3 x 36) or 132? (108 + 4*3 + 12) ? We simply don't usually know. But I appreciate the amount of work it took. ClanWolverine101 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we found a other way to bring it in reduced form back?!--Doneve 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty discouraged at the moment but I am starting to get the urge to tinker with things again. I think the main fault is due to the format being aimed at family trees and I just tried to use it for something else. I think if the format was lighter and easier for other editors to tinker with they would probably have been more popular. But as it is a fairly minor task like adding a command Company for example was a task that required an hour or so of trial and error even for me so I shudder to think what other people thought in terms of changing them. --Dmon 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my brain is in work, i talk to you when i have a idea.--Doneve 16:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree[edit]

Hy Dmon, your are the tree specialist. I want to create for the House Factions a Family tree, like the House Kurita Family tree in the old housebook. Gives a template for it, or can you give a tip how i can start the project, thanks.--Doneve 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey bro, I already sort of started one House Kurita Family Tree, but since I only have the free PDF version of the house book I was extracting all the info from the text of the book and the project is very much on hold at the moment. I would very much like to pick it up again so maybe we could work together. (It also gives me a reason to aquire the version of the PDF with pictures :-)) --Dmon 17:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hy bro, i can give you the pictures of trees from all of the Housebooks. I put the links on this page, when it is ok, okidoky we work together :).--Doneve 17:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Links:,,,, ...i hope it is helpfull.--Doneve 17:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hy again, have you a manual or etc...where i can understand the tree code (symbols)...,thanks.--Doneve 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Hy Dmon i give you this All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon award, for your work about the SLDF Units, thanks for fixing and updating, creating missed units...bla bla bla...;.Greeting --Doneve 00:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir :-) --Dmon 13:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem Solver Award[edit]

For your efforts in corrected the mis-referenced material discovered 2 hours earlier in the 71st Mechanized Infantry (Draconis Combine) article, I present you your first Problem Solver Award:

Problem Solver Award, 1st ribbon

Thanks for staying on top of these needed corrections. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you also sir, Two awards in one day... Don't know how I did that?? lol --Dmon 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)