User talk:Frabby

Archive 1 (created 04 January 2012)
Archive 2 (created 01 January 2013)
Archive 3 (created 03 January 2014)


I'm glad that you found the wrong co-ordinates for Gotterdammerung. I was wondering if you could take a look in your atlas of the Inner Sphere for Hunan. It's placed on the map here to the northeast of New Avalon, but it's listed as being part of the Capellan confederation and as having been part of the Terran Hegemony. I think this must be wrong, but I have no way of checking it. If it's possible, could you take a look?

Follow up: The co-ordinates are listed as: (X: 333.04 Y: 333.04)

Thanks, --Workerbee 09:41, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

It is located in the triangle formed by New Aragon, St. Andre and Foochow, fairly exactly "north" of Zaurak and Kaifeng. The Atlas gives the coordinates as X: 73,04 Y: 96,76
Btw it is a known problem that the planet's X/Y coordinates are wrong. When the entries were auto-generated, the X-coordinate were erroneously put into both the X and Y slot. Nic is aware of this and it will hopefully be corrected in a future update. (See Category talk:Planets# Major Problem with Coords). Frabby 13:10, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks again. --Workerbee 15:24, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Wouldn't that be (73.04, -96.76?), as Hunan is "south" of Terra? Since you've become the planetary coordinate guru, would you be able to check and make sure that the master file has as that data correct? I've already corrected Menkent, Blue Diamond, Gotterdammerung, and Hunan. Specifically, could you check out Sakhalin, Scituate, Cartago, and Chamdo? Thanks! --Scaletail 17:42, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Yes, you are absolutely right: Hunan is at Y -96.76, sorry! Regarding the others:

  • There are in fact two systems by the name of Sakhalin: One is a CapCon/Sarna Supremacy world at X: 62.33 Y: -142.92, the other a Lyran world at X: -24.25 Y: 153.09. The one on this wiki is the CapCon world, Sakhalin (LC) is missing as of yet. I had already noted it on the article some time ago (CC/SS world is spelled Sachalin in German material, but not in the original English sources).
  • Scituate has X: 88.67 Y: -221.94 in my Atlas. The wiki apparently used a positive Y coord, as it is erroneously shown at approximately the same altitude as Mannedorf (which is Y: 228.98).
  • Cartago placement seems to be correct (at X: 141.09 Y: -10.17)
  • Chamdo placement also seems to be correct (at X: 10.43 Y: -153.61); however, in the immediate vicinity Yunnah seems to be slightly misplaced. The correct coordinates for Yunnah are X: 27.67 Y: -124.13. It should be halfway between Corey and Second Try but here it is erroneously shown on the same altitude as Tsinghai and Chamdo, at Y: -153.61.

Checking the big file? I am honored, but it is a daunting task. It will take time. (Add the fact that some names were actually translated into German, i.e. Second Try is named Zweitversuch (lit.: Second Try) in German. That one could be guessed, but it literally took me a year to figure that Rand is meant to be The Edge...

Oh, and then there is that issue with "missing planets". It grew to quite a collection on the CBT forum, and there are other cases. This wiki, for example, has Ferris (Outworld Alliance) but there seems to be another Ferris in the Oberon Confederation which as of yet is not mentioned here. Frabby 18:17, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

The file does have Sakhalin (LC) at the correct coordinates. It has Scituate at 88.67,221.94 so that is incorrect. Yunnah is a tad off at 27.64,-154.13. Both have been corrected. It is daunting, I agree... but something does need to be done about the planets that are not represented, especially the planets of the Marian Hegemony and Circinus Federation. I also feel like Clan planets should be added, as well as those in the Deep Periphery, but that's a whole separate issue. --Scaletail 18:46, 1 June 2008 (CDT)


Frabby, please review the discussion that developed after your opposition statement in regards to doing away with coordinates. The question needs to be settled as to from where these coordinates should reliably come. It's not as clear as simply providing printed canon coordinates.--Rev (talk|contribs) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ties That Bind[edit]

Hi, The short answer is yes Smiley.gif The long answer is here. --Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2014 (PST)

Hi, I have the scan you wanted, how should I send it to you? --Dark Jaguar (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (PST)
I've sent you an email. Frabby (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (PST)
Sent, let me know that if comes through OK --Dark Jaguar (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (PST)
Got it, much appreciated. I take it the story does conclude with her walking through the door; it does seem a bit abrupt.
Now, about that MFUK stuff... ;) Frabby (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2014 (PST)
Yes that is the end of the story when she walks out. The next page is an advert and the one after is the Colossus preview. --Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (PST)

Fanon Still Here[edit]

I ran across the ER Intermediate Laser and was very confused for a moment, but then discovered it was fanon. I want to add "Not Canon" tags to all those weapons and other fanon things still here, but they are under User pages, and one had a {NoEdit} tag, which makes me wonder: can I add tags to all those, or is that trespassing on other people's personal stuff by editing it? Or should I move that stuff over to the fanon wiki and put deletion tags on it here? -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (PST)

I'd personally rather not have these pages, but they are sub-pages under the user pages and as such not part of the wiki mainspace. When we purged fanon we agreed to leave such pages alone as long as they're clearly marked non-canon, because user pages are essentially considered taboo for other editors. Frabby (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2014 (PST)
So just to clarify, I should put the "not canon" tags on there then? -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2014 (PST)
Yes, definitely. If it's not canon, it absolutely needs to be tagged as such. That's an exception I've always made for the user page taboo. Though in the example of the ER Intermediate Laser you linked above, I note the tag is already in place. Are there non-canonical articles on user-subpages that are not tagged? Frabby (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2014 (PST)
Well, if you looked at the history, I had to add the tag to it; and yes, there is a good number of them that need tags that I will get to later tonight. Oh, additionally, should those fanon weapon pages get Project Technology tags on their talk pages? -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2014 (PST)
Thanks for doing this Bob. And no, fanon articles should not be included in any wiki projects. Ignore them to death. :) Frabby (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (PST)
The user pages were a sort of compromise for editors like myself who were drawn here initially as a place for fanon but ended up contributing to the canonical portions of the wiki nonetheless. Basically it was a sort of "thanks for the help" gesture. Indeed, for the most part I was the only one speaking up for the inclusion of some fanonishal items based on quality. As the project lead on the Project Technology, I wholeheartedly concur however that these pages should NOT be included in any canonical project. I've gone and added the non-canon tags to my own little vanity user pages seen here: User:LRichardson/Essays. Thanks for tolerating them. ; ) -- LRichardson 13:05, 19 February 2015 (PST)

Corvette Weights[edit]

Hi Frabby,
I tweaked your comment about the common upper mass limit for corvettes from 300k tons to 450k tons when I was adding the Mako and Pinto to the list. All of the designs other than the Vincent are below 300k tons, that's very true - but from the few figures that are available, the Vincent seems to have been the most numerous corvette by far (500+ hulls, as compared to 100+ hulls for the Mako) and it weighs in at 412k tons. I agree that most designs fall below that weight, but it looks as if there were probably as many Vincents as there were other corvettes combined, unless the RWR was dropping Pintos like kittens, and the term "most corvettes" makes me think of hulls when I read it, rather than designs. I hope that makes sense - it may be that the article needs to be reworded to be a bit clearer? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2014 (PST)

If I understand you correctly you're saying that the Vincents are so numerous that they kinda dominate the Corvette class? I'd be okay with that and really don't have much of an issue with the upper mass limit for corvettes. I just felt the Vincent, being more than 1.7 times the size of the next smaller corvette, was the odd man out in the corvette family. It's really a light destroyer, though for some queer reason someone insisted on calling it a corvette. Perhaps to explain your point it should be mentioned that the Vincent was built in large numbers? Frabby (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2014 (PST)
That's basically my point, yes - but that was based on the article using "corvettes" rather than "corvette designs" or something to differentiate between the ships as a group and the designs as a group. Of the various designs, I don't think there are any numbers anywhere for the number of Vigilants, Nightwings, Trackers, Bonaventures and Pintos. We do know that there were a bit over a dozen Fredasas, a dozen Zechetinu, two dozen Foxes and a handful of Inazumas. In contrast, the Mako had over a hundred hulls built in 90 years, while the number of Vincents - produced over almost 350 years, longer than any of the other designs - was revised down from over a thousand to around 500 hulls. If Catalyst declared that half of all the corvettes ever made were Vincents, I wouldn't be surprised - and that would mean the number of Vigilants, Nightwings, Trackers, Bonaventures and Pintos produced would need to be in the order of 70 hulls each to balance out. Corvettes really are a designation divided into two halves - Vincents and everything else. I think I might hunt around for referneces for the article, though - I'm not convinced of where the weight limits came from, and there are some serious oddities in there. The Cruiser is officially a heavy cruiser, despite the fact that it's only 90k tons heavier than the Vincent. The Vincent was the first corvette to be introduced in canon via TRO:2750, and was 200k tons lighter than the next ship up, the Essex, with the Lola III another 60k tons heavier still. I think the Vincent is definitely at the top end of the corvette range in terms of weight, but it is effectively the definitive corvette, and the other ships introduced between 250k tons and 450k tons are all specialist carriers and transports. I think there's been a lot of class creep - cruisers occupy a huge range of weights, and overlap with some frigates and destroyers. But I'm rambling now... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (PST)


I noticed that Aldous has been re-adding info removed because it is under Moratorium, and I wondered if it mattered enough for me to remove all the info (specifically ones from FM:3145) for the two days until it is cleared. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2014 (PST)

Policy:Moratorium is a self-imposed policy, not something we're obliged to follow. Therefore I'd say leave it as it is. You might want to notify Aldous of the fact that his edits have been in violation of this policy though. I'm in a bit of a rush myself and cannot look into matters right now. Frabby (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2014 (PST)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up; I'll be sure to notify him then. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2014 (PST)

BattleSpace (Answer)[edit]

Hi Frabby, here your answer. Short version is Yes, there was two books. I think the English version maybe been lengthier than your (i believe) German version. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

Sorry for the late response. Short version, Broken's version maybe match for one i have, two documents in one electronic package. -- Wrangler (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
Just spotted this - I compared my electronic and physical copies, and the electronic copy is faithful scan of the book in the box set. The confusion arises because the book in the box set is internally subdivided into two books, complete with their own indices, with no explanatory note - meaning if you're working from an electronic copy in isolation, it's entirely reasonable to think that there are two books stuck together in the one file. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2014 (PDT)


The Reseen may have new artwork, but they still represent the same 'mech. There is no separate page for any of the Reseen 'mechs on here. As a compromise I simply deleted the line, to match the other Reseen 'mech pages. --Trifler (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2014 (PDT)

Well, yes and no. The reseen represent how one particular new variant of the 'Mech looks, and subseqently published variants conveniently used the reseen art as a baseline, to avoid the unseen problem. It's still the same 'Mech family though, and in the article we aim to present the first real-world image associated with the 'Mech which in the case of the unseen is their original unseen image from the first TROs or boxed sets. Frabby (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (PDT)
Not sure if you've seen it yet, but I wrote a reply to what you wrote on my talk page. --Trifler (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Extra Sentence[edit]

Hey Frabby, I noticed that on the Richard Humphreys page there is an extra sentence at the bottom, which causes an error because there are refs within it. Should it be moved up to a certain part of the page, or removed altogether? -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2014 (PDT)

D'oh. I copied it there because it was a reference that I didn't need for this article, but which I wanted to keep would come in handy for another article down the road (on Evelyn Humphreys). Steven and Evelyn's surnames weren't mentioned in most of the available material, so for the longest time I couldn't be sure if Steven was actually a Humphreys (and thus, a legitimate accepted son of Richard) because I didn't see it spelled out anywhere. Finding his daughter Evelyn named as a Humphreys was a crutch at first, until I found that one reference naming Steven a Humphreys directly. I didn't need Evelyn's quote anymore at that point, but figured it should be put in her (yet-to-be-written) article because it was so hard to find. Long story short, I copypasta'd it below the actual article for further reference... and forgot it there. Frabby (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
Okay I removed it. Thanks for the explanation! -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (PDT)

Mercenary's Star[edit]

I just saw that you reverted my edit to the article for the Mercenary's Star novel, and wondered why. Looking at the page, the current ref leaves a cite error, but when the info is moved to the Notes section and the ref tags removed, then it is all better. In its current state, you cannot normally tell what the ref is trying to say. I didn't put a references/ tag because those don't belong on those pages. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (PDT)

Ah, ok - I missed that there was no References section. The point is, the novel is lacking dates but its timeframe has been established through other sources. Consequentially, the correct timeframe is given in the infobox but needs to get a reference to its outside source. In such a case, I have no problem whatsoever with putting a Reference section even into product pages, when those external references provide relevant data that isn't in the product itself. Frabby (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
Okidoki. Sorry that it had to be overcomplicated. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2014 (PDT)

Les Dorscheid Portfolio[edit]

Hi Frabby,
I think you and I may have discussed this before, but I can't remember where. There are a couple of portfolios of BattleTech art by Les Dorscheid up on eBay; it's listed as Gallery Set One, with the BattleTech logo and the copyright information for FASA on it. You can see them here: - my question is, should that be listed here as a BattlTech item? (It may be already, but I couldn't find it via the artist's bio page here, so it might just need re-tagging). I know the name "BattleTech Gallery One" is a bit vague, in that it might be the first gallery of art by Les Dorscheid for BattleTech, or it may be the first of a series of BattleTech Gallery sets by a range of artists, but it feels like something we should have listed here, given that we include things like that very dodgy fanfic novel... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (PDT)

Yes, I do remember this popping up in the past. I've seen those items on Ebay as well, plus there's individual Earl Geier artwork sold on German Ebay. The portfolio finally got a decent description in the link you posted, where it's described as a signed limited (2500 units) edition of six art pieces. You can zoom in the cover to see "Published with permission from FASA" and "published by S.Q. Productions Inc.". I reckon these are more "Les Dorscheid" products than proper "BattleTech" products, but they definitely fall under our Policy:Notability and should be included. As for canonicity, this product as such is non-canonical but does meet the criteria for meta-source. I'll see if I can find the time tonight to put together an article based on that ebay link of yours. Frabby (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2014 (PDT)
I don't know if this is odd or amusing, but there's another copy of that portfolio on sale on the US version of eBay, from a different seller, with the exact same image - right down to the number on the certificate of authenticity. The fact that they're published "with permission" from FASA would suggest that they're affiliated products, but the fact that it's clearly marked as BattleTech Gallery One makes me wonder if it was something sponsored by FASA. I wonder if it's worth me asking over on the official forum if the LD knows anything about that line of products... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2014 (PDT)
It's always worth taking that potshot at getting an answer... though I doubt anyone at CGL could tell you today if or what deal FASA had with Les Dorscheid or SQP Inc. back in the day. Or why these Portfolios spring up only now (I first saw one on Ebay in ca. 2010, but never before). Frabby (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2014 (PDT)

Hanse Davion / Infobox[edit]

Frabby - I'm really digging the new infobox you used for Hanse Davion. Over time, I think it can literally improve hundreds of articles. Have a Substantial Addition Award, 3rd ribbon on me. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (PDT)

Thanks. :) Frabby (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (PDT)

More Video Game Discussion[edit]

I continued the discussion here about what to do with those lines. Please chip in if you can. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (PDT)

Empires Aflame[edit]

Hi Frabby, I have a quick question for you. As a new product, should Empires Aflame be under a moratorium? I'm conscious that it's available for free, so there's perhaps no financial loss to CGL if we put details up here, but I'm not sure if it's status as a Hallowe'en freebie overrides the general stance on including detail from recently-published sources here on Sarna. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2014 (PST)

Policy:Moratorium doesn't apply to free products. Which makes sense, given that its purpose is to avoid spoiling products which are being sold for money. Conversely, freebie products are of a promotional nature and can thus be covered immediately on Sarna. Frabby (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2014 (PST)
On that note, since XTRO:RF has been declared as canon, should its included 'Mech Variants be added to the associated battlemech pages?
The other April Fool's Products do not have any information on Sarna aside from their summaries and tables of contents. Amaroq Dricaldari (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2016 (PDT)
Yes, since XTRO:RF is fully canon the 'Mechs could be mentioned as official variants. Given that they are quite unique refits I'm personally not convinced that they are notable enough, but it would certainly not be wrong. Frabby (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2016 (PDT)

MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries[edit]

Frabby, the infobox is broken.--Doneve (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2014 (PST)

Fixed. Frabby (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2014 (PST)

Planets Project[edit]

Hi Frabby,

Following on from the poll results, I'd like to get the Planets Project moving again. Rev's life has clearly kept him from being able to push the project forward, and the current state of play is that I posted up the revised proposed template here here two-and-a-half years ago, and the result was just three of us commenting. Do you still have a fundamental objection to the affiliation list with dates remaining in the article? Only since you and I had that conversation, the editing history of planets is basically Doneve/me adding more data points, me adding narrative detail when I work through books, and nobody else really doing anything specific to planets, so at the moment we're not getting the narrative you want, the narrative and data points I want or much participation beyond the normal jogging. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2014 (PST)

Good question BM. Iam in work to update the owner history, but very slow, i hope we can found a clear consensus.--Doneve (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2014 (PST)
Frabby, I've started testing the new article layout by working through the planets starting with A. I think I've managed to get half a dozen or so done this afternoon. The new article layout has the interesting side effect of turning a lot of planet articles into system articles. One of the problems I'm running into is lack of detail, though; if you look at an article like the one for Abbadiyah, you'll see that the required text for the article overview encompasses almost everything known about the system - I had to scratch around to find anything to put in the system history section. It might be worth thinking about whether the requirements for each narrative section need tweaking, given that the vast majority of the planet articles on here will probably have very little detail in them to begin with. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2014 (PST)
Turning the planet articles into system articles was the whole idea behind the exercise, wasn't it? ;) I don't mind the lack of detail at all. Changing planet articles into system articles is a huge and important change to boot, and it doesn't make much difference if the item you're lacking detail on is a planet or a system. Also, look at it this way: Unimportant, un-detailed systems are bound to be less interesting to users whereas high-profile systems tend to have a lot of detail on them available. It's really systems like Hesperus that should shape the article layout. That said, if certain text headers remain empty then you don't have to have them in the article. Think of the layout as a tool to make your life easier, not a form to make your life miserable. Ignore it where it doesn't help you. Frabby (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (PST)
It seems to be working fairly well at the moment - Doneve and I have started rolling the template out, and I've changed a few minor things as I get more practised. Where there's nothing in print about the system, I've started marking them as having one habitable world or construct rather than simply at least one habitable planet, because I don't think we can be certain that they aren't significant systems in the same way that the Gulf Breeze system is, with it's inhabited mining station, or the Periphery system where the settlement is built around a recharging station with DropShips stuck on it. I'm not entirely comfortable with having an "as at -current year-" statement in the header, but it does make it easier for casual readers to work out where the world is, particularly for those that we don't have maps for yet - although in practise, I'm using either 2750, 2765 or 3145 as the current year. One specific problem I hit is Achernar, though - there's a lot of information in the planetary info section in the current article with no citations. Some of the detail looks sort of right from what I could find in texts like Dark Age Republic Worlds (3130), but there's a lot of information I can't find a source for. I don't have a lot of the novels though (or any of the Dark Age novels) and I've only got a small percentage of the BattleCorps shorts. Could you take a look and see if you can identify the source information? I've checked and it doesn't look like it comes from BattleTechnology, which was my first thought, but I think that the Call to Arms novel might be set on Achernar, and I think there's a Decision at Achernar short that I don't have a copy of that may have supplied the detail. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2014 (PST)
The Chaos Irregulars short story is actually titled Decision at Acamar and has nothing to do with Achernar. A Call to Arms is indeed set on Achernar, but I haven't read most of the DA novels yet including this one. I suspect most information comes from this novel though. Frabby (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I checked A Call to Arms, and you are right Frabby, the most info comes from the Novel, but i know iam not a fluff writer i hope any other can step in and add some infos and references from the source.--Doneve (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I hate to say it, but I'm not going to rush out, buy A Call to Arms and read it for the sake of the article. I know my commitment is lacking, but so is money... and I'd rather buy the new Succession Wars books that are coming up ;) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I can added the info from A Call to Arms (but from the german novel), i hope anyone can check the speeling and grammers ;).--Doneve (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I can do that! I'm off out to a Christmas lunch (and have been drinking a very agreeable Cabernet Merlot blend all morning) but I'll take a look at the article tonight or tomorrow. Remind me to give you an award for assisting an admin in a time of need (and intoxication!) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I think I have the english Epub version of A Call to Arms on my HD (I got a bunch of DA novels in print and an even bigger bunch as Epub, and legit I may add but like I said I didn't read them all yet). Maybe I'll make that book my next novel project then.
BrokenMnemonic, what new Succession Wars era novels are you talking about? Did I miss anything? Frabby (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
Not novels, I'm afraid - I'm thinking of Historical: First Succession War (and hopefully others to follow). I love their Historicals series with a passion, and now we're getting ones for the Succession Wars, so it's going to be like Christmas over and over again. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2014 (PST)

Apocryphal Weapon Notice: Re-Revisited[edit]

I stumbled upon the discussion we had about the line at the tops of those weapon pages again, and I decided to go though and delete them. Retrospectively, I think it is better without them. Just wanted to let you know. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (PST)

Turning Points Article[edit]

Good idea Frabby, I agree that a single page might work better. I'll fill out a generic Turning Points article with the Historicals and add the other series over the coming week when I get time. That way anyone who's interested can find a list of all the Turning Points PDFs and what each of them deals with. Orwell84 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (PST)


As the custodian of canonicity here on Sarna, you may find a post on the Canonicity of the MUL produced by Welshman of interest - something to add to our policy on canonicity, perhaps? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2015 (PST)

Thanks for pointing me to this message. It is indeed interesting. But I don't see any noteworthy change to existant policy there that would warrant a change or addition to our article or policy concerning Canon. Frabby (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2015 (PST)
I was thinking more that it would be useful to record for clarification purposes, in case in the future we get people querying why details are "wrong" here in comparison to a particular source - I like being able to point people at direct rulings. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2015 (PST)
The general problem is that you can never be sure if an omission on the MUL is an error or an oversight. The MUL cannot in good conscience claim that it is the definitive canon source simply because that would technically de-canonize units that have not yet been entered, to say nothing of possible errors. I wouldn't consider it any more canon than any other product. Still, I'll check if the posting you linked above should be worked into the MUL article. Need to think about it. Frabby (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2015 (PST)

Speaking of Canon : Tactical Handbook[edit]

Near as I can tell the Tactical Handbook counts as canon under the definitions, even if some of the technology was not included in later publications. I have made pages for the Caseless AC/2, Caseless AC/5, Caseless AC/10 and Caseless AC/20 as the stats of a couple of those in THB were different than a standard AC with different ammo. The results of a failure were also substantially different. In the fluff I merely mentioned that they were exceedingly rare and may not have ever been produced, but it is hard to cite the absence of something. If you could take a look at these and tell me if this description fits the style and whether or not the Caseless AC's are apocryphal or not. Thanks. -- LRichardson 12:50, 19 February 2015 (PST)

I remember paying good money for that book, only to have all the equipment declared illegal a year or two later. Years later, most of it was brought back, though sometimes with changes.
I'm not at all bitter at FASA. Nope. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2015 (PDT)


Hi Frabby,
I was just reading your article on the Norseman, and I'm a little nervous about you categorising the ship as a Star Lord by implication in the absence of a definitive statement to that effect. With other ship articles where the class of a ship is implied but not confirmed, I've been leaving the class field blank but including the detail implicating a particular class of ship in the notes field, so as to avoid any suggestion of "making things up". I'm possibly being overly-sensitive after seeing a few arguments on the CGL forum about editors on Sarna presenting opinions as fact, and I think you've made a good case for the Norseman being a Star Lord, but you don't have definitive proof at the moment. Can I suggest that you pitch an "Ask The Writers" question detailing why you think the Norseman was a Star Lord and asking for confirmation, so that you can then link the question to the article and state in the article that you're presuming the ship class to be Star Lord until clarification is given? I think we'd be on safer ground then. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2015 (PDT)

You're basically correct. That said, besides the Star Lord there were only three Scouts and I think a Scout cannot be refitted with a LF battery and still have a hardpoint. For me it's established beyond reasonable doubt that the Norseman was the Star Lord in that fleet... and for "unreasonable doubts" I have included the note clarifying that there is a tiny chance that this is incorrect. If you're still uncomfortable then you're welcome to change the article and I won't object. As for "Ask the Writers", I honestly don't think they can be bothered to answer that one. Frabby (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (PDT)
I debated posing an Ask the Writers question, but after looking at the decline in the number of clarification questions I've asked that actually get answers, I decided it was probably a waste of effort. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (PDT)

System Names[edit]

Mendrugo has posted a list of system names that differ from the colony names used on maps in the books, which I've copied and pasted here:

As this is something of a passion of yours, are you able to indicate where the references detailing the system names may be? I've been doing some work on confirming uncited information as I slog through the planets updates where I've got a good idea of where the information is, but for the changes above - at least as far down the list as Boltin - I've either not noticed it or am unaware of it. I'd prefer to get the articles updated correctly, but I'm already looking at approximately 20 months of work at my current pace to update all of the planet articles to the new format, and I don't really want to start chasing down names that may only be detailed in areas like BattleCorps fiction I don't have access to. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (PDT)

Thanks for the notification. Some of these I know, some of these I dimly remember, many I haven't heard of before. I'll go and pester Mendrugo about his sources. I could have sworn that I had entered some to Sarna already, such as Weisau - it got a detailed "Worldbook" writeup in BattleTechnology (now apocryphal) naming the binary suns Orpheus and Eurydice, and the inhabited planet Brimstone; only the system as a whole is named Weisau according to that writeup. Looking over the article, however, it seems I didn't actually add the info. I definitely need to update these articles. Btw, though this should go without saying, you rock for the work on planet (harrumph, System!) articles. Hope Doneve can go help you out again soon (quite a topic of its own). Frabby (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (PDT)


There's an interesting statement here from ├śystein regarding the canon status of the Falcon and the Wolf sourcebook. It's rather interesting, given the place in the timeline the book occupies between the various Clan sourcebooks, but I think we should perhaps annotate the sourcebook article as a warning to editors. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2015 (PDT)

Thanks for pointing this out. I note, though, that the thread in question was not posted in either "Ask the Writers" nor "Ask the Lead Developers" and as such merely gives ├śystein's opinion on the matter, and not technically a ruling on canon. That is to say, he effectively only pointed out that The Wolf and the Falcon is a particularly error-ridden book. Herb made similar statements before about Luthien, Objective Raids and a third product that I can't remember. They remain canonical sources, even though very unreliable ones - canonical only where no other source contradicts them, so to say. Frabby (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (PDT)
Swell. I just wrote an article - Marialle Radick - that used The Wolf and the Falcon as a major source. :P
In fairness to myself, i also noted three glaring discrepencies in my notes section of the article.
With respect to the book, I would suggest we simply note that there are major errors in the article's Notes section. Calling the whole book apocryphal is several steps too far for me. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (PDT)

Present vs. Past Tense in Articles[edit]

Sorry for the long delay; I made a short survey. Tell me if you think any of the wording should be changed, otherwise go ahead and fill it out. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2015 (PDT)

P.S. You can put the link on the minor news section of the front page if you want more editors/readers to find it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (PDT)

Good idea. I'm not entirely happy with the wording of the survey though; let me get back to you about that when I got a spare minute. Frabby (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (PDT)
Email sent. -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (PDT)

Development of IO[edit]

You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, Herb's written quite an interesting post on the recent development history of Interstellar Operations. It's up on the CGL forum here. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (PDT)

Nothing really new in there though. I'm in the factchecker group, and as such I've seen (and participated in) some of the work process. Sarna will have to go over this tome with a very fine-toothed comb given all the hard data we're going to get. :) Frabby (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2015 (PDT)

Sarna as a Writing Resource[edit]

Given how infrequently Sarna gets any praise, you might like to have a quick scan through the chat log posted up by a couple of the BattleCorps writers here where Sarna gets a shout-out as a non-canon but useful source. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2015 (PDT)

 :) Though Craig has been using art taken from Sarna (and tagged as such) in his blog for a long time. I get feedback from a great many people using Sarna as a BT resource - my feeling is that we've achieved the status of being "the" BT wiki. It's pretty much a community fixture now. People rarely praise what they perceive as granted, but conversely we're getting better at not getting slammed, too. ;) Frabby (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2015 (PDT)
It is a very nice feeling to know we are literally making the BT universe better with our work. On the note of the BattleCorps stories, do they have a moratorium period like everything else?--Dmon (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2015 (PDT)
Hehehe sarna rules, i know sarna became some critics in the last years in the BT forum, but we are on a good way to give sarna what it is, a wiki for anyone they love BattleTech and his background, and this is great :).--Doneve (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (PDT)
This makes me happy. I want to say thank you to you guys above ^ for being awesome contributors and adding thousands of pages to the wiki. You guys built this thing up from the ground, I merely stumbled upon it. I'm truly grateful that you people have done the bulk of making this wiki prosper, and have allowed me to help out in my little ways Smiley.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2015 (PDT)

In response to Dmon, yes, the Policy:Moratorium does apply to BattleCorps publications. You can add a stub article right away, but no plot summary or other spoiler-y content yet. Frabby (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2015 (PDT)

I'm not sure if you saw it, but Worktroll just cited us as "a really useful resource" and "a great way to see a high-level overview of what's out there." He also pointed out that we aren't perfect, but it's always good for us to have goals! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2015 (PDT)

Well, yeah - we're the BattleTechWiki, after all. :) German author Bernd Perplies also cited Sarna as a valuable reference and factchecking tool in the acknowledgement section of his novel Die Kanonen von Thunder Rock. Frabby (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2015 (PDT)

Clan Wolverine[edit]

Hi Frabby, i removed the plagiarized content from the page, why do you added it again and removed Cyc's content and ref.notes?--Doneve (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2015 (PDT)

I did? Oops, sorry - wasn't intentional. I only wanted to add Betrayal of Ideals to the bibliography and clicked "Edit" from the "recent changes" view. Apparently what happened is that I edited the older version with the removed content still in it. I think. I'll go back and fix it. Frabby (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2015 (PDT)

Rare BattleTech Items[edit]

There's a thread runing on the forum here that I think would make for very fertile ground if you want to try and persuade people to give us details/photos/articles on some of the rare items out there. Iron Sphinx apparently has some items like pasteboards that formed the masters for some of the early maps and some of the early convention displays, for example - little bits of history I think it'd be great if we could preserve images of on here. I'd offer to do it, but people actually like you on the forums Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2015 (PDT)

Hm Iterstallarj Operatins woks.--Doneve (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (PDT)

Orca Talk[edit]

Hi Frabby, can you comment on the Talk:OrcaÔÇÄ for me? I just posted something there. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2015 (PDT)

Hi Frabby A Question[edit]

Now iam stumpled accros Chris Wheeler IS Atlas. Now is the question i want to contact him, if i can to use his planet discriptions here on sarna? Any idea how i can contact him from which sources he added the description if its ok to do this or not, or when you have contact to him can you do this, your enghlish is must better, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2015 (PDT)

Which atlas is it, can you provide a link? I'm traveling right now and using my smartphone which I hate. I'll be back to my computer wednesday. Frabby (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2015 (PDT)
Here is the link [1].--Doneve (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2015 (PDT)
Ah, that's the old TeamSpam Atlas. We can't use it, as the fluff is copied verbatim from the old Housebooks and other (mostly) FASA-era sourcebooks. A meta-source full of copyrighted yet unsourced texts. Frabby (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2015 (PDT)
Okidoki, thanks for the answer.--Doneve (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2015 (PDT)

Character Infobox[edit]

Frabby - Please check Marialle Radick. I decided to use the infobox i saw on the Hanse Davion entry. Should we make this standard? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2015 (PDT)

Yes, it was initially my intention to have this infobox as standard for all characters. After all, we have established standard infoboxes for various types of vehicles including 'Mechs, for factions, for real people, and whatnot so I figured we needed something for characters as well. However, in the case of many minor characters the infobox would remain pretty empty so I reckon there are many articles where it doesn't make sense to have. That's why I was hesitant to make it standard. Frabby (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
That's totally fine. Look at wikipedia. RL people of particular import often get infoboxes, while others do not.
So i propose we make it standard for major characters. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
Hy guys, i forgot totally the character infobox, i start to update some bios with the infobox, a new project is what i need, the planet overhaul suck me out.--Doneve (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2015 (PDT)07:39, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
We missed you Doneve! :D ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
Yo Doneve, how're you doing? I fixed your problem on the Patrick ScoffinsÔÇÄ article. The problem was that you forgot to close the bracket on the year links in the infobox for birth/death, i.e. [[2708], making the entire rest of the article one huge wiki link and never closing the infobox template.
It's cool if you're going to insert the infobox into suitable character articles, though I do feel a bit bad for BrokenMnemonic if the tedious system updating work falls solely on his shoulders fortwith. If and when I'm done with reworking Ship Class and Individual Ship articles and categories I'll go and help BM with the systems. Frabby (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
Thanks Frabby to fix my tomatos ;). Oh i don't forgot the planet overhaul and BM, but a little break i must do, i dream from the coordinates spreadsheet and that's not good, in this advice cheers.--Doneve (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2015 (PDT)


Hello Frabby, I noticed you had started with the name changes. I've been moving which has taken up an absurd amount of my time and I just now got the internet working. I was wondering if you could tell me where we are now since I've missed a week or so/exactly what I could do to help. It's nice to be back. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (PDT)

Nice to have you back Bob! As for the name changes, I've finished (I think) all class categories and am now working through Category:Individual Spacecraft letter by letter. I managed to finish "C" yesterday and haven't yet started on "D".
The routine goes like this: Any article with a diambiguation in its title (anything with brackets really) gets renamed to "Name (Individual class-class type)", where class-class is left out if unknown, and type is either Small Craft (none yet), DropShip, JumpShip, WarShip, or "spacecraft" for those where not even the type is known or for special cases like the Altair class.
To rename, I move the page & talk page with a redirect and then delete the pointless redirect from the original talk page. Frabby (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (PDT)

Individual DropShips[edit]

Hi Frabby, I know you love a challenge, so I thought you might enjoy this one - how do you fancy doing the individual ship entry for the named DropShip depicted in the illustration on page 2 of Field Manual: Crusader Clans? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2015 (PDT)

You've got to be kidding me - "FASA"?! (facepalm). What class of ship is that anyways? Frabby (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2015 (PDT)
I've just taken a quick look through the DropShip images we have on here, and it doesn't look like any of them - that combination of short and long quadrilateral plates around the midline is distinctive, and not in any of the pictures here. The ridged areas below them might - might - be bay doors (the Seeker has something similar) but the engine pod visible at the bottom is quite distinctive too, and also doesn't match anything else I can find. I wonder if we have a FASA disambiguation page on here yet, what with the Pentagon World, and the academy on Finmark, and... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2015 (PDT)

Spacecraft naming convention[edit]

You talk this to me:

When moving a mainspace article, I usually also move the talk page but I then go back and delete the Talk Page redirect from the old article, as it's not needed for anything.

But the problem is i cant delete pages only admins can do this, i found a lot of pages there can be deleted, i dont want to be come a admin, but is there any way to change this, hmm Nic must involded in this.--Doneve (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2015 (PDT)


Hi Frabby. I know it's not canon source, but its actually monitor except in name. The WarShip in Welcome to Nebula California, the Imperial Destroyer is technically Monitor type vessel. I'm not sure if you want mention that in your Monitor article. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2015 (PDT)

Herb expressly declared the Nebula California April Fools publication non-canonical in its entirety. Nothing in there belongs into the BT universe, and thus I don't think these ships deserve mention elsewhere on Sarna. Frabby (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2015 (PDT)

MW1 Additions[edit]

Since those are from a video game, shouldn't the info you're adding to the pages be surrounded by apocryphal tags? -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2015 (PDT)

Yes... basically. I've actually done it in a few cases. But the tags cannot be used inside the infobox (frequently for planetary populations) and in some cases the MW1 writeup is basically all there is on a given system. But now that you're calling me out on it, I agree that I was just being sloppy. Thanks for keeping me honest. I'll add the tags in from now on but I'll probably not be able to go back through the list and insert them in the articles I've already done as I only have a little desk time left today. :( Frabby (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
I don't mean to burden you; I can pick up the older ones too. You know how I just love to add those tags Wink.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
Wait, I just noticed something else: shouldn't "MechWarrior (1989 Video Game)" be added to all the bibliographies? If so, I can surely do that for you. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
I made a conscious decision not to list the game under "Bibliography" because it has so little information (population, environment, one-liner). I had refrained from using this apocryphal information at all and only reconsidered following a recent forum thread about Land's End, a world with literally no other published info anywhere else. Frabby (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
If we have enough information about a planet to include a populated infobox, then I'd honestly prefer to see the MW1 information in a notes section rather than the infobox, because of the problems with adding the apocryphal tags inside an infobox.
I notice that in some cases, articles have both the system and planet sections of the articles populated, but the MW1 information is being put in the system section - that's the wrong location in that instance, because as it's information about a specific planet within that system it should go in the section for that planet - I'd suggest under planetary history sub-section, as it's providing information about that planet at a particular point in history - rather than in the system history. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
I think that's what I did (though I admit I was very tired yesterday and was called away a few times, so I may not have been very cosistent). The general idea was to add meaningful information from the MW1 game into planet/system articles where there was no other good information, and usually the descriptive one-liner was and environmental tag was as important as the population number. In those (not very many) cases, I copypasta'ed the "main" infoblock text with population and envinronment information, the one-liner if it held any meaningful information, and the disclaimers about the entry being apocryphal and the environment tag being only a very rough guideline. In many other cases, only the population number was relevant (planets that already had a good or better writeup for their environment etc.) and in those cases I put it into the InfoBox that was usually already present, with "(apocryphal)" and a reference to the MW1 game in place instead of the Apocryphal tags that can't be used inside the Infobox. Luckily, in many cases the game apparently took its numbers from the old housebooks and those are canonical sources for the (same) population numbers; in those cases I didn't have to include any MW1 information. Frabby (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2015 (PDT)
So what's the final verdict on this then? -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2015 (PDT)
I'll go back over those edits I did and make sure that
a) ApocryphalContentStart/End tags are put in place in all cases except where only an infobox was updated (in which case it's still noted within the infobox, just not with those tags);
b) MechWarrior is mentioned in the bibliography section except possibly where the info taken from the game is too insignificant to call the game a source. Frabby (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2015 (PDT)

Lucian Carns[edit]

Frabby - For your review. Lucian Carns. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2015 (PST)

WarDog MikeÔÇÄ[edit]

Hi Frabby, when you found time, please can you take a look on User talk:WarDog MikeÔÇÄ, you can better answer his questions, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2015 (PST)

Thanks for the notification Doneve! I've added my two cents on his talk page. Frabby (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2015 (PST)

SLS Hermes[edit]

Hi Frabby,

I just wanted to let you know that we do know what happened to the SLS Hermes - it survived in Clan service and according to Field Manual: Warden Clans was in service as the Treachery. There should've been a redirect up for SLS Hermes to the Treachery, but I must've missed it when generating the Treachery article. Sorry about that! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (PST)

Thanks for the info. I'll go and merge the articles then (and make a redirect for the Hermes...) Frabby (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2016 (PST)
It looks like I remembered to set up a redirect for "SLS Hermes" but not for "Hermes". BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2016 (PST)

Annual Awards[edit]

Frabby - Will Nic and the Admins be doing awards this year? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2016 (PST)

Apocryphal Information and the Timeline[edit]

Hi Frabby,
I ended up on the timeline page for 2990 via the Dormandaine page today, and I noticed that there was an interesting tidbit on the planet Niomede in there, so I went to have a look at the planet article, and it's brought up something I'm a little wary of. I had to do a bit of digging to check that all the detail in the planet info section had been added by you from the German-language novel Karma (you forgot to add a reference note in that section), and I think it predates the apocryphal tags. However, because the information is all apocryphal, I'm concerned about it being used up in the timeline pages, because we don't currently tag the timeline pages with apocryphal tags for information. So, potentially, someone who's scouting around for facts for things like writing projects or background detail via the timelines pages, without going into the source articles, could end up taking apocryphal information as canon information.
So, as I see it, that gives us a few ways forward:

  • Do nothing and live with the risk (could cause us some embarassment)
  • Start tagging apocryphally-sourced information with the ready-made tags in the timeline articles (which could make the timeline pages start looking a bit cluttered)
  • Stop listing apocryphally-sourced information in the timeline pages (potentially removes interesting pieces of information for people).

I'm not sure that any of those is ideal, but I'm not comfortable with not having a discussion about it, so I thought I'd drop you a line here to get your thoughts. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2016 (PST)

I obviously forgot to add the apocryphal tags in the Niomede article - duh. Will put them in shortly. It does say right at the beginning of the section, though, that the info comes from the apocryphal novel Karma. :)
As for the year pages, good catch. The tags are too unwieldy, imho, to include them in such a list (or an infobox, to give another example). But I feel the info should be presented, and it should be mentioned to be apocryphal. I think the way to go is to simply note "(apocryphal)" in the list or infobox, add a reference, and note again in the reference that the source in question is apocryphal.
Finally, regarding Niomede specifically, the info about the world's rediscovery in the book is too vague to accurately point to 2990 so that entry in the year article is probably untrue. I suggest deleting it, or at least add a note to the effect that it was around but not neccessarily in that year. Frabby (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2016 (PST)

Ship Service Dates[edit]

Hi Frabby,
I was just looking at your most recent change to the individual ships template; back when I first started working on the template, you argued about having dates relating to when a ship was in service in the infobox, because of problems with ships like the Zughoffer Weir and the other Blakist ships that had more than one period of service, including ships that had been listed as destroyed at least once, such as the Bordeaux. I'm easy with either including or not including the dates, but I'm curious as to what changed your reasoning for objecting to including the dates back when the project to get all the ships onto Sarna started? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2016 (PST)

I freely admit that I changed my mind here. The reason, I think, is the sheer mass of vessels we now have (over 1500 individual ship articles at this time, with way more to come) combined with the fact that we're lumping together ships like the Acari, which was built between 3059 and 3066 and destroyed in 3066, with ships that were destroyed as early as sometimes in the Age of War. I found that I wanted a note in the infobox telling me at a glance when the ship in question stopped to be relevant (i.e. destroyed). And that in turn prompted me to include a construction/entering service date as well as it wouldn't make sense to include one date but not the other.
Note that these fields in the infobox are free text fields. Beyond a mere date, I'd like to have a brief explanation included so that there are no misunderstandings. The serviceuntil entry should thus read, for example "Destroyed 12 May 3066", or "Mothballed 2770, declared decayed beyond recovery in 2801" (I made up those examples). Obviously, more details would be in the article text. Frabby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2016 (PST)
Assuming that I get some more spare time in the future, I want to start adding in more ships from some of the more recent publications, like the Leagues mentioned in Interstellar Ops. For my own peace of mind, could you tackle a few of the problem ships - like the Zug - and update the infoboxes for them, so that I can see what sort of format you're looking at using? That'll help me be consistent with future work. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2016 (PST)
More ship articles is always good. :) I'll add a few dates to a few infoboxes shortly, but I just learned that I'll be away over the weekend and I have a lot of non-BT work to do until Tuesday. Don't expect much from me until then. Also, keep in mind that the purpose of infoboxes is to make everybody's life easier. In complicated cases, like those with convoluted service histories or arbitrary data, it may be wise to leave the infobox blank if there's no clear, concise entry that would do the situation justice. Or, if you're a completionist, you could even insert "See article" in the fields to highlight that it't not a clear-cut case. Frabby (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2016 (PST)


Hi I've watched you tirelessly plug away at edits over the years and wanted to show my appreciation for your hard work. I noticed you do not have this award and I really think you should. I wish I could award it at a higher level! Dark Jaguar (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2016 (PDT)

Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon

Why, thank you! Frabby (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2016 (PDT)


Sorry to bother you, but I was putting together a page for 'Mech (magazine) and adding scans of the covers. Unfortunately I added the wrong images to four files. I have now added the correct ones but I was wondering if you could delete the earlier erroneous versions on these files please - File:MechV2I2.jpg, File:MechV2I6.jpg, File:MechV2I7.jpg and File:MechV2I8.jpg

Lesson well and truly learnt about trying to upload too many at the same time! Dark Jaguar (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2016 (PDT)

While there seems to be a function for deleting earlier versions of a file, it results in an error message for me. I'll flag this up with Nicj. Anyways, since you have uploaded the correct images now I reckon we can leave it alone for now. Frabby (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2016 (PDT)
OKay, thanks for the assistance :) Dark Jaguar (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (PDT)

New Spammer Report[edit]

Hi Frabby , sorry me again so quickly but the following user User:Mxvbfdjv is actively spamming. Creating pages -Online USA !!1 844 655 0455 (norton t.e.c.h s.u.p.p.o.r.t p.h.o.n.e n.u.m.b.e.r norton h.e.l.p d.e.s.k n.u.m.b.e.r)- and -Outlook helpline ((I*844*655*O455))outlook technical support Phone Number outlook help desk phone number-. I deleted the content but thats all I can do. Dark Jaguar (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2016 (PDT)

Zap. Frabby (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2016 (PDT)

Another spammer[edit]

Jonathan tanner, and there may be other junk articles. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (PDT)

A Fanon article, but technically not spam. I have deleted the article and deferred to the BattleTechFanonWiki. There are no other edits from this IP. But we're dealing with a BattleTech fan here, not a spambot, so I'm not banning him. Frabby (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (PDT)
I saw this last night, I think you are overly generous calling that article fanon  :) Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2016 (PDT)
Remember the original Thomas Hogarth article? Written in all-caps? Painful. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2016 (PDT)

BattleCorps WarShips[edit]

Hi Frabby,
I'm snowed under with work at the moment and I keep forgetting to mail the next chunk of the planets spreadsheet to my work account to do systems work, so I've been going through the WarShip articles and generating articles for the remaining WarShips listed in the class articles without individual ship articles. I've just come across a link that took me to the BattleCorps Ship Profiles page, which lists three WarShips that don't have articles here yet - the Tracker-class Krait and the Aegis-class Repulse and Tadeo Amaris/Athens. I don't have access to the BattleCorps unit pdfs - are you in a position where you could add the individual ship articles for those three ships? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2016 (PDT)

"Snowed under with work"... yeah, I know exactly how you feel. Anyways, yes, I have all BC ship profiles and I'll add them in shortly. Frabby (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2016 (PDT)
Just to check, does the pdf on the Tadeo Amaris definitely refer to her as having been the SLS Athens? The reason I ask is that if she was mothballed in 2544, she should still have been the THS Athens rather than SLS Athens - the Star League didn't form for another thirty years after that date. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2016 (PDT)
Built in 2415, served over 100 years before being mothballed. Wasn't reactivated for the Reunification War, sat in orbit around Titan until 2763 when "a number of mothballed WarShips were turned over to the Rim Worlds Republic". No affiliation prefix is given in the timeline, except that it says in the very first sentence the Tadeo Amaris "began its career" as the SLS Athens. You could always argue that this was its designation not from the start, but when it was given to the RWR in 2763. I might revisit the article. Frabby (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2016 (PDT)
As it couldn't have begun its full career as the SLS Athens in 2415, I'm guessing we could interpret that sentence to mean "began its career (with the Rim Worlds Republic) as the SLS Athens..."? I've also flagged up errata on the CGL forum for FR2765:P, because the WarShip list for the RWR doesn't list any Aegis-class ships, but this BattleCorps article shows that they had at least one. I'm sure errata are annoying from an editorial standpoint, but I like being able to tie bits of products together... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2016 (PDT)
I've just finished checking; every WarShip that's ever been mentioned in a WarShip class article on Sarna now has an individual ship article. From this point onwards, it's back to digging through sourcebooks. Which reminds me, I must dig out my copy of IO (Beta) and get those Leagues onto Sarna. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2016 (PDT)
Same here, with a focus on BattleCorps stories. :) Btw, don't use a designated Beta product as a source - Beta implies it's not fully sanctioned as canonical. Combat Manual: Mercenaries demonstrated just how big changes can be in the final product. Frabby (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2016 (PDT)
I was planning on using the Beta IO as a source, but flag up any ships mentioned in the Beta that aren't in the full version as apocryphal. The Beta is a licensed product, after all - it's just been superseded. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2016 (PDT)

Founder's Exceptional Ambassador of the Year Award 2015[edit]

Frabby, you've done an amazing job helping shape the wiki to what it is today. Thank you -- always Nicjansma (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2016 (PDT)

Thanks... though as you may have noted I've already retired my Awards Board wholesale. ;)
And that's fine, I just wanted to extend my personal thanks! Nicjansma (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2016 (PDT)

Tenses... Again[edit]

I've been scratching my brain trying to remember, we did come to consensus about the tenses being used? It was past for everything but equipment? I want to get back into proofreading some more stuff here and just couldn't remember. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2016 (PDT)

Encyclopedic approach: Present tense by default, past tense for temporary/passing things like people. Frabby (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2016 (PDT)

Sir Roger[edit]

Frabby please take a look on the Sir Roger page, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2016 (PDT)

Computer Games[edit]

Hi Frabby, i want to uploade to the computer games the front cover images of the games, can you add the missing infoboxes to both, this was a great help.--Doneve (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2016 (PDT)

Was away over the weekend and only saw this now. Will add the infoboxes later today. Frabby (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2016 (PDT)
Thanks, but please take a look on MechCommander (Video Game) the infobox looks a little bit odd.--Doneve (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2016 (PDT)
I think I fixed your infobox display Doneve, take a look Dark Jaguar (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2016 (PDT)
Thanks Dark Jaguar!--Doneve (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2016 (PDT)

Shadows of Faith[edit]

Hi Frabby, I noticed you wrote the original page for Shadows of Faith. I was looking for any info on Tiaret Nevversan. Her page is flagged with an update for this story, but for some reason I only have the first 3 parts. Do you have the complete work? Would you have minutes to check if there is any mention of her in the last 3 for me please? Dark Jaguar (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2016 (PDT)

Did a quick ctrl-f text search of all seven parts, and Tiaret only briefly shows up in part 2. Which is already covered in the article. Frabby (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2016 (PDT)
Thanks for taking the time to look, much appreciated Smiley.gif Dark Jaguar (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2016 (PDT)

Cannon vs. Apocryphal[edit]

Hi Frabby, ich schreib dir diesmal auf deutsch! Ich bin mittlerweile nicht mehr damit einverstanden dass wir cannon material mit apocyphal material in einer seite mixen. Es ist nur eine idee aber k├Ânnen wir nich einen apocryal link in die betreffende seit einf├╝hren damit der inhalt getrennt voneinander angezeigt wird? Es sind so viele 'Mech seiten damit ├╝berh├Ąuft das wir dass layout ├Ąndern k├Ânnen, es ist nur ein gedanken anstoss, w├╝rde gerne deine meinung dazu h├Âren was du dar├╝ber denkst. Bis bald--Doneve (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2016 (PDT)
Also einerseits finde ich auch, da├č viele Artikel mit banalen oder ├╝berfl├╝ssigen Informationen zugem├╝llt werden. Andererseits sind meiner Meinung nach nicht die apokryphen Inhalte das Problem. Ich denke man mu├č sich fragen, was ein Sarna-Artikel ├╝berhaupt abbilden soll. F├╝r mich ist wichtig, da├č alle relevanten Informationen m├Âglichst kurzgefa├čt dargestellt werden, und dazu geh├Âren f├╝r mich eben auch die apokryphen Informationen. Ich will daf├╝r nicht eine zus├Ątzliche Seite anklicken m├╝ssen. Frabby (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (PDT)

Okay, so to paraphrase and translate Doneve's point for a possibel discussion, he feels 'Mech articles in particular are getting cluttered and suggests changing the structure of articles by cutting out apocryphal content to a separate page. I agree about articles being a cluttered mess but for me the remedy would have to copyedit them for a better, more concise style. I wouldn't want to put the apocryphal content on a separate page; for me it's very important that all information is accessible on one page, with one klick. Frabby (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (PDT)

The apocryphal banners are very large and only add to the cluttered affect when used inside an article, any way of making them smaller (same for section stubs). While I agree some articles need copy-editing, too much can remove a lot of useful detail. Dark Jaguar (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2016 (PDT)


Not sure if you are aware but the "Mageallon" misspelling for "Magellan" does not appear in all print runs for Technology of Destruction, it was later corrected. Dark Jaguar (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2016 (PDT)

No, I wasn't aware of that. Good to know, thanks! I take it the "MkII" part remained though? Frabby (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2016 (PDT)
Yes it's still the MkII Dark Jaguar (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2016 (PDT)

Mark 1 Omnis[edit]

I'm not sure if you've seen this, but ColBosch has given a debunking of the "Mark 1 OmniMechs" associated with TRO: 3050 that I've heard odds and sods rumours about for years. Would the Mark 1 OmniMechs count as Vaporware? It would seem useful to keep a record of a BattleTech urban myth debunking on here for posterity somewhere, but I don't think we specifically have any articles on urban myths here. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2016 (PDT)

I've been vaguely aware of the rumors, and of repeated statements by ColBosch and/or Herb, and possibly others to the effect that such "Mk I Omnis" never existed. I feel the issue doesn't belong into the Vaporware article though because it really doesn't fall under any definition of Vaporware. I guess you could add a Notes section to the OmniMech article and (briefly) adress the situation there. A BattleTech-specific Urban Myths article, perhaps under the Essays category, might also make sense if we have enough such rumors. Right now I can't think of another false rumor though that such an article could cover. Frabby (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2016 (PDT)

New Book[edit]

Blaine Pardoe about 4 hrs ago announced a new book for Gen Con, based on Clan Wolverine, how is this handled? Here is the info on it: ClanJF74017 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2016 (PDT)

Saw it, and I'm definitely going to get it when it comes out (if I can procure a copy). Since the book is said to have additional content over the BattleCorps story, it should get the usual moratorium period after publication, and then the Betrayal of Ideals article should be updated. Although Sarna doesn't have a proper policy in place for this question (that I am aware of), we have always treated print products as the lead product in articles, even if a PDF version was previously published. Frabby (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2016 (PDT)

New user message[edit]

If I may ask, why the heck is the New user message bot blocked? I just noticed now and had to add a bunch of missing welcome tags to talk pages. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2016 (PDT)

 ??!! D'oh. My bad, sorry. I think I probably did this on accident while dealing with a spambot. Have Un-blocked the New User Message. Thanks for pointing this out. Frabby (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2016 (PDT)
It's all good, it just took me a while and a lot of head scratching to figure out why it wasn't doing its job. Thanks! -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2016 (PDT)

Clan expert[edit]

Frabby, a buddy of mine is writing a short story andhas just asked me for details on the Second Exodus. Previously, he would be my go-to guy for Clan history, so I really can't help him. He'd prefer to bypass the official forums. Do you have a recommendation as to who our resident Clan expert might be? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:24, 21 August 2016 (PDT)

Sadly, no. And I have to explicitly exclude myself here, I'm nowhere near an expert on Clan stuff. Plus, I've increasingly falling behind with reading all those new sourcebooks CGL is churning out. That said, I'll of course still answer any questions that I can answer though. There's not much information available on the Second Exodus that I'm aware of. Frabby (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2016 (PDT)
Then it sounds like maybe he'd like a sounding board, if nothing more is available. I think his question will center on the 800 and their division into the Clans. Do you mind if I give him your email address, or would you prefer I send you his? Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:43, 22 August 2016 (PDT)
He can contact me at frabbybc at (I think the adress you had is the old "spacious" domain which isn't used anymore.) If it's okay with your pal I might pass a question on to Phil Lee, assistant BattleCorps editor and a Clan expert in his own right. Frabby (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2016 (PDT)
Nice...I'll pass that along. Thanks, Frabby!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:44, 23 August 2016 (PDT)

Preceded by / Followed by in serial products[edit]

Hi Frabby, I've responded to your inquiry. I'm sorry it's taken little while. I'm not on as i used to be. As into your thoughts. I find it still useful to hafe the Preceded / Followed in the info box. It does help people to feel things are connected. XTROs are finally puttering out, arguably the last ones are upon us this year. However, core novels are beginning to start up again. Example: Is Embers of War be considered part of the main of novels verses side story / stand alone story? I think it is side story in bigger story-line the Jihad is, however, i think there so few books published so far part of the series, that EoW is more mainline story. CGL hasn't really been doing tight job yet of string products together, however they are. I know it sound bit confusing. However, i think keeping the Preceded /Follow links for future use will be a good thing. It gives sense of "How Many books are there in this series?" sort thing to it. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2016 (PDT)

Fact checker[edit]

Hi Frabby, I want to become a fact checker only on german products, can you help me! What for skills i need? My english is not perfet i know, but i hope you can help me! The CGL guys are very critical is there any chance to give you a mail and you can look if it works in german language! --Doneve (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2016 (PDT)

Ich f├╝rchte, da kann ich leider nicht wirklich helfen. Ich habe Ulisses selbst meine Hilfe als BattleTech Factchecker insbesondere f├╝r ihre neuen Romane zwei Mal angeboten, aber keine Antwort bekommen. (Mit Bernard Craw hatte ich mich mal in anderer Sache unterhalten und er hat mich pers├Ânlich als Factchecker f├╝r Gier hinzugezogen, das ging gar nicht ├╝ber Ulisses.) Da bleibt Dir eigentlich nur, direkt mit ihnen Kontakt aufzunehmen, vielleicht hast Du Gl├╝ck. Ich w├╝nsche Dir jedenfalls viel Erfolg! Frabby (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2016 (PDT)
Hi dank dir, ich hab mittlerweile alle deutschen BT novels und finde so viele fehler...unglaublich, naja ich glaub i hab keine chance, aber danke, ich versuche mein gl├╝ck. BT is in my heart.Doneve (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2016 (PDT)Doneve (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2016 (PDT)

Planet overhaul project[edit]

Hi Frabby! Do you have infos if sarna's planet overhaul project influence the Touring the Stars series, iam very interested on this subject, you have the better conections to lot this out.--Doneve (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2016 (PDT)

While I do believe that the authors and factcheckers consult the Sarna BattleTechWiki in the process of their work, I am not aware of any direct link or collaboration between the Sarna project and the TTS products. Why do you ask? Frabby (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (PDT)
I ask this for my personal interest, but thanks for the response, oh and a hail to you for the 20,000 article, best wishes.Doneve (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2016 (PDT)