User talk:Frabby/Archive3

Individual Ships Template[edit]

Hi Frabby,

I've put together an infobox template I think should hopefully be suitable for use with articles on individual WarShips. As soon as I can work out how to upload it/create the temple here on Sarna, I'll get it uploaded for your review. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (PST)

ETA: Ok, I think I've got it uploaded. At the moment, all of the fields bar the reference year and the ship name are optional, to make the template as flexible as possible. My intent was that the infobox could be used multiple times in a single page if needed, where we know a ship has been in service with multiple navies/organizations and commanding officers. An example of that might be something like a named ship from Historical: Liberation of Terra where we know the name of the ship, fleet and the CO in the battle to liberate Terra, and then later we know the same ship was in service with Clan Snow Raven under a particular Star Admiral within the Swift Wing Pursuit Star or something similar. Where all we know is that the ship served in different services - such as the Terran Alliance navy, Hegemony navy and Star League Defence Force navy, I'd expect that information to go in the article.

Equally, the ISD and OSD dates are intended to be flexible - they could be the date that Clan Coyote recommissioned the ship and then the date they lost it to the Snow Ravens, followed by another infobox detailing when Clan Snow Raven brought the ship into service and the date it was destroyed above Dyev. Equally, it might just be the date the ship was destroyed at Espilon Eridani during the Hegemony liberation campaign, if that's all that's known - although again, I'd expect the text of the article to provide clarity if needed.

Does the template look ok to you? I've tried placing a sample in the article on the TAS Dreadnought. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2012 (PST)

Ah well, might as well discuss this here.
My idea for the template was to keep it brief, and collate only "hard" information on it, i.e. factoids that aren't bound to change. Remember that some ships are around literally for centuries. History stuff (name, affiliation, CO, etc.) is poorly suited for infoboxes and should always go into the article text instead. I have always hated Infoboxes with a given reference year with a vengeance, as they will be wrong for any other time period and therefore hardly relevant.
Also, I'd suggest to name it "InfoBoxIndividualVessel" so that the same infbox template can be used for individual WarShips, JumpShips, DropShips, Small Craft and Space Stations.
My suggestion for the infobox would be to include (only) image, last known name, type, class, date of launch, date of destruction/decommissioning.
That would mean the following should be removed from your template: refyear, CO, formation. We're missing type (e.g. WarShip, DropShip, Space Station).
Frabby (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (PST)
I have amended the template as instructed, although I also added a few new fields to allow for tracking up to two name changes within the template. I generated the Blake's Sword article to test the template and updated the Dreadnought article to match. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2012 (PST)
The in service date line seems to imply the ship "Blakes Blood" was in service with the WoB when it first launched rather than first being launch as the SLS 'Wier. You can add a template box below the info box for all named ships that served under dfferent nations and names. It can include when they served with different nations, those dates and under what name.--Seth (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2012 (PST)
...which kinda showcases my problem with transient information in the infobox. I am of the opinion that the purpose of infobox templates should be to make our life easier, and should not be used where they don't. Given the potential complexity of a ship's history, I feel this all belongs into the article text proper and cannot adequately be crammed into an infobox. Frabby (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2012 (PST)
The TAS Dreadnought article also shows that In-service/Out-of-service dates don't cut it, as that would be limited to a single owning faction and doesn't work well with a ship that was, say, built by the Hegemony, then operated by the Star League, mothballed, broken from mothballs, deployed again, refitted to upgraded specs, disabled, salvaged and repaired by some faction, captured by another faction, turned into a musem ship and finally destroyed by sabotage? Perhaps we could have a infobox section called "Ownership history" that gives a rundown of dates, names and affiliations. But I still think I prefer to remove this from the infobox altogether, and into the article.
As for images, I imagined this part only for images depicting the exact vessel in question. If an image of another (or an unnamed) vessel of the same class is shown then I think this must be spelled out in the image caption; if we want to do that then we need an optional image caption section in the infobox. Frabby (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2012 (PST)
At this point, it sounds as if it would be easier to simply not have an infobox at all. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (PST)
Sorry if that sounded frustrating. I do think that having an infobox would certainly help to organize the articles, even if it's a very small or short infobox. We just need to hammer out the details. Frabby (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2012 (PST)
I think the Individual WarShips category needs to be made a subcategory of the Individual JumpShip category, for simplicity's sake; at the moment, every single WarShip is going to end up being double-tapped, and anyone looking for JumpShips is going to have to wade through a category that contains all the JumpShips and all the WarShips, while all the WarShips will already have their own category.
In terms of naming conventions - which probably need to be agreed before I start rushing in and spawning lots of articles - I would suggest that we append the term (vessel) in brackets after the ship name. I'm thinking here of ships like the Dreadnaught-class Black Lion. Where we have two ships of the same name of different classes, I'd suggest using the name of the class in brackets, with one taking the (vessel) suffix if the class is unknown. I'm thinking here of the 31st century Conqueror-class Ark Royal built by Clan Snow Raven versus the Star League era SLS Ark Royal that won the first Martial Olympiad. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2012 (PST)
Sounds good, though I'm undecided if we should add "(vessel)" to unique ship names. It feels like disambiguating something that doesn't require disambiguation. A similar problem is the affiliation code - "SLS Manassas" vs. simply "Manassas". I can see a lot of redirects going up here.
One of the reasons why I want an infobox, and a reason I previously failed to communicate, is that the infobox can be made to include a category - "Category:Individual vessels" in this case. Saves us the trouble of adding that tag to each and every article. Still, the articles will have to categorize by type, subtype and class, e.g. a given article will be categorized into "Individual Black Lion-class ships", "Individual Cruisers", "Individual WarShips" besides being classed into "Individual vessels" through the infobox.
Btw, I don't think we should treat WarShips as a subcategory of JumpShips. They are very different animals, and what is only a secondary function for the former is the raison d'etre for the latter..
Anyone else here who wants to chime in? 12:39, 22 December 2012 (PST)
To be clear, I only meant to include (vessel) in a unique ship name when there was a need for disambiguation - hence my SLS Black Lion versus Black Lion class example.
I would still prefer to avoid categorising WarShips as both WarShips and JumpShips, which isn't the case at the moment; it feels like double-counting WarShips and making JumpShip category listings unnecessarily cluttered. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2012 (PST)
Some questions:
1. How will you handle situations where a vessel gets captured? For example several WarShips were built for the Star League, were recovered by and entered service with the FWL, but were later captured by the WoB. If you're not wedded to an infobox, you could modify the tables we use to indicate the reign of a ruler to cover that data.
2. In the above situation, do you propose an article covering the career of the individual ship? Using the ships mentioned in #1 above would you have three articles (one for SLS Lollipop, one for FWLS Sucker, one for WoBS Rock Crystal)?--Mbear(talk) 09:25, 26 December 2012 (PST)
From my point of view, I'd cover it the same way as I do planet articles where the planet changes name, and how I've tried to cover it in the Blake's Sword article. The article uses the most recent name for the ship, with redirects for the old names pointing toward it; the article itself is divided up by service, so the article for the ship you've described would be an article for the Rock Crystal, with the history section including a description of it's service as the Lollipop and Sucker, and with redirects for Lollipop/SLS Lollipop, Sucker/FWLS Sucker and WoBS/WBS Rock Crystal all pointing towards it. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (PST)
ETA: Those rulership succession boxes are a really good idea, btw. I'm trying to think what the greatest number of changes a ship has been through that we can identify. 3 is pretty common, particularly for WOB ships and maybe some of the Clan ships. Is there a ship with a name that's changed 4 times? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2012 (PST)
OK. Sounds like you've got it. Just add that to the create a warship article, please, so others can see how to do it. And to answer your question, I'm not aware of any ships that have changed hands 4 times, but that doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. Maybe you can start with 3 entries and add more as options?--Mbear(talk) 04:15, 27 December 2012 (PST)
It would be easy enough to set up a template with ten variable fields to track up to ten different name changes, and thereby have an info box that can list all of the previous names a ship has had up to the current name, if that would be a useful thing to have in addition to the succession template? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2012 (PST)
Honestly I have no opinion at this time. WarShips aren't my thing. If I see something that I'm not sure of, I'll let you know. :)--Mbear(talk) 07:19, 2 January 2013 (PST)
OK, possibly tangential question; how do you want Assault DropShips categorised? For example, Mercenaries Supplemental identifies the Kicker specifically as an Assault Triumph. Do you want these DropShips categorised based on the original class - so Triumph, in this case - as the variant, so Assault Triumph, or as both, with Assault Triumph-class DropShips as a defined sub-category of Triumph-class DropShips, with Assault Dropships categories as both, so checking the Triumph category would bring up all Triumphs, but checking the Assault Triumph would filter in only those specifically defined as being the Assault variants? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2013 (PST)
Phew, good question. My first impulse was to treat them as a variant of the class in question, i. e. lump the Assault Triumph together wirh the Triumph. But you're right that it might make sense to differentiate. I'm open to suggestions. Frabby (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2013 (PST)
Whatever we agree for the Assault variants should probably also apply to the -C variants, where they're clearly differentiated... although I've not found a named -C variant, despite having been through both Field Manual: Mercenaries and the first Mercenaries Supplemental, I've not found one yet.
From my point of view, I don't think that we lose anything by taking Assault DropShips and adding both categories, Individual {DropShip}-class Vessels and Individual Assault {DropShip}-class Vessels, and making the latter a subcategory of the former. What we would gain is the ability to define subsets of the main category, which could be useful information for someone. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2013 (PST)
After a little research I've made up my mind: I vote for Assault-subtype DropShips to be considered separate designs from their parent designs. They should get their own article and their own "List of named vessels" category, and should be referenced in their parent design's article (and vice versa) as a "related design". I agree with your reasoning that they're different designs in the fashion of "-C" DropShips and IIC designs (with the Broadsword being the Leopard-C in all but name, and "-C" in turn being the "IIC" of spacecraft), and no mere variants. In the case of the Assault Triumph the massively increased mass is probably the deciding factor for me that screams "re-design". Frabby (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2013 (PST)
That makes sense, I'll swap the Assault DropShips that I've found over to use the new category.
On a seperate but related note, I've been adding the ship names to the various ship class pages; some only have an entry or two, but some, like the Union DropShip, have a fair number of named vessels appearing. Should I continue to list the individual ships within the class articles, or would you rather see a link to the relevant individual ships category? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2013 (PST)
I was going to suggest to simply include a "See also" link to the respective class's "List of named vessels" category. I'd do it myself, but I'm swamped with work elsewhere and am not terribly active on BTW right now. Hope it'll be better in a week or two. Frabby (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (PST)
If you can give me an example of another page that uses a "See also" section, I'll use that as an example and roll it out across the various articles. ETA: Found an example! Working on it now.
The WarShips are going to be hard work because they tend to attract a lot of attention, but I'm starting to see a healthy number of individual DropShip and JumpShip articles now. It almost feels like I'm making progress! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (PST)


hey, there's nothing like one of the powers that be telling you your work is crap to suck the fun out of your day. Thanks for putting up with me. (And thank goodness Herb didn't get involved.) That'll teach me my lesson: Never try to use logic and real world examples to try to fill in gaps in a description. ;) --Mbear(talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (PST)

DropShip classes[edit]

Hy Frabby, i notice that you revamp the various JumpShip, DropShip, WarShip categories, but i miss the Inner Sphere DropShip classes and Clan DropShip classes category.--Doneve (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (PST)

I couldn't bring myself to re-introduce these categories. Their usefulness is arbitrary at best, but the really important problem is that Sarna BTW is an OOC source covering a fictional universe. As such, Sarna BTW needs to avoid time references relative to "now". Words like currently, now, recently, soon, incumbent are all verboten because they imply Sarna BTW to be set at a fixed point in time. I do count "extinct" among them because you can never know if those "extinct" designs won't re-appear in the future. Such things have been known to happen in BattleTech, after all. Frabby (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (PST)

Founder's Awards[edit]

Hy Frabby,

I noticed the news article this morning when I logged in about nominating people for the Founders' Awards, and I wanted to check if I'm eligible to nominate people - the news article says all users can nominate, but the Awards page says that only Admins can nominate people for Founders' Awards. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (PST)

The Awards page says Founder's Awards "may" be nominated by Admins but also states nomination is not required. Given that nomination isn't required and that there aren't terribly many admins active right now I reckon any user may (and should) nominate. I'll update the project page accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. Frabby (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2013 (PST)

TRO: Vehicle Annex (Revised)[edit]

Hy Frabby, i see you're a little bit involed in TRO:VA Revised, when i read the credits section, congrats :), i think you become the man to update the Technical Readout: Vehicle Annex page with the new Revised version, and how many you was involved in this great update version.--Doneve (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (PST)

The Theseus Knot[edit]

Hy Frabby, I've just added articles to the wiki for the three WarShips mentioned in the BattleCorps short story The Theseus Knot, the Lakshmi, Klingenthal and Minotaur. I'm working from Mendrugo's review, as I'm not a BC subscriber, and his review differs from your plot summary on here slightly. Can you take a quick look at the three articles when you get a spare moment, and check I've got the details right? Ta. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2013 (PST)

Hy again. I just read through your plot summary for Theseus Knot, and you have the Lakshmi down as an Avatar class cruiser - do you have a page reference? If you do, I'll update the description of the SLS Lakshmi accordingly. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (PST)
It's page 94 of the print anthology (and the third page of that particular story, with a half-page image on p. 2) so it would be on page 3 or 4 of the PDF: "he still missed the elegance of the Lakshmi. Fresh from the builder's slip, he had commanded the Avatar-class heavy cruiser..." Frabby (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2013 (PST)


Thanks Frabby, for fix my misspelt Friden Aerospace Park page, my fingerst are to fast, and the brain was to slow Wink.gif.--Doneve (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2013 (PST)

Rewritten: 4th Skye Rangers[edit]

For your approval, I give you the 4th Skye Rangers. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2013 (PST)

Frabby - please checked the Talk pages for Heany and the Fourth. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2013 (PST)


Hy Frabby,

I posted a rather lengthy couple of comments on the talk page of one of our new members, Thehawk, after I spotted him or her having some trouble with references. (I know I could've just pointed them at the help page, but I thought it might seem friendlier to show more of an interest). I later realised that Thehawk was trying to add one of the unique 'Mech variants from the new MechWarrior Online new game to the Commando page here. Is it ok to incorporate those 'Mechs into the main pages? I realise that I really don't know what the policy is regarding combat units from computer games. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2013 (PST)

MWO is an official (if expressly apocryphal) BattleTech product; ergo, original material from MWO is equally official and apocryphal. Case in point, the "Blazing Inferno" Commando variant described under "Apocryphal variants" just below the Death's Knell.
As for what goes on this wiki, everything (Policy:Notability). The only caveat being that whatever BTW covers needs to have been published elsewhere, as BTW does not seek to publish BT fan fiction. That latter part is what the Fanon Purge was about. To wit, even non-canonical fanon can be notable enough to warrant inclusion here on the wiki, if it is notable enough and was published elsewhere. See for example Berserkerbanden or LaCasse list.
I don't have time now but I'll clean up the Commando article shortly. Frabby (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2013 (PST)

Corrections: Fourth Skye Rangers[edit]

Frabby - So I tried this: CBT Forum Kathleen Heany Questions, and came up empty. Oh well. Looking over it all, I see that you were right. Regarding the 4th Skye Rangers, I've cleaned up and consolidated the assumptions, both in the body and the notes. I resubmit the article to you for approval, and hope that you'll find it of good quality. If you like how I handled the discrepancies and assumptions, I'll make similar changes to the Kathleen Heany article. Please let me know what you think. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2013 (PST)

Ready the summary comments - this is why i never wiki edit with a smart phone. ;)
Let me know what you think when you have time. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Question Regarding Administration[edit]

Hi Frabby, Sorry to bother you. I've lately had little more time on the weekends to write up couple of articles on minor characters in the Battletech universe which haven't been fleshed out yet. I wanted touch base with you, ask who would be good person to interact make sure my articles i'm writing up are up to standards. I'm uncertain if your fully retired, i would classify me as part-timer who semi-retired. There been large influx of better writers than myself (I'm grammer challenged.) coming on lately, when i first came on there weren't many folks aside you and rev and couple others. Any advice you could shoot myway, i'd glad take in. - Wrangler (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2013 (PST)

You're a valued member of the Sarna BTW community, and with a healthy number of good edits. Maybe your writing/grammar isn't always top notch, but you're not the only one in this and frankly, I can live with bad grammar much better than with wrong information. My advice, therefore, is to be bold and write/edit stuff here to your heart's desire - the more the merrier. Just mind that you get your facts right. Grammar can be cleaned up. :) Frabby (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2013 (PST)

Review: Perigard Zalman[edit]

Frabby - I'd like to nominate Rebs for a Good Article Award for his Perigard Zalman piece. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2013 (PST)

Yes. And another one for Dawn Moffat. It's great to see articles of this quality! Frabby (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (PST)

Product Infobox[edit]

Hy Frabby, can you take a look on Record Sheets: 3075 Unabridged - Age of War, the infobx on the top is a little bit broken.--Doneve (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (PST)

Hmm. I can see the box framing is missing on the top, but I have no idea how to fix that. I'm really helpless regarding coding issues. Wasn't this issue raised in the past already (for the Template:InfoBoxCreature I think)? Frabby (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (PST)
Yes you are right, we had the promblem in the past, i talk to Mbear if he can help.--Doneve (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (PST)
There's a missing border-top CSS rule there. Unfortunately it's in a CSS file I can't access, I need to have Nic make the fix. I'll ping him in the Sarna wiki forum.--Mbear(talk) 09:34, 20 February 2013 (PST)
I've asked Nic to make the change.--Mbear(talk) 09:40, 20 February 2013 (PST)

Pretty Baby & MWO Canon Roll Back[edit]

Hi Frabby. So what do we do about canonity of MWO? There no source for hard canon facts units being depected in the game. I edited Canon when i removed a entry about MWO Variant of the Pretty Baby Awesome, which MWO came up with some stats for. There IS a Pretty Baby which is canon, but thats notable pilot from TRO:3025, same pilot. But the Awesome has notations of being modified. It Still shouldn't be listed as Canon unit unless we have valid source with the Stats. I read information in the Canon article to make sure me adding the MWO among other things not a valid source of canon material since its a video game. I wasn't aware of your conversation with Herb when i did that edit. -- Wrangler (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2013 (PST)

You're right, MWO is not canon. But even if not canonical it is an official product. This is our very definition of apocryphal. MWO is in the same boat here as BattleTechnology or the other computer games.
The tricky part is to properly segregate fully canonical information from apocryphal information. We've had a very similar situation already with the Death's Knell variant of the Commando a canonical but unstatted 'Mech that was statted as a variant instead of a standard 'Mech by MWO. It should be mentioned under "Apocryphal variants" or probably just under variants, but then clearly marked as apocryphal. Add a line stating that the 'Mech as such is canon but the non-standard configuration is apocrypha from MWO. Frabby (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2013 (PST)
Is there way to no other way to list this variant which fall under the apocrypha? I've found that when you add apocrypha, editors tend to put apocrypha tag on the article, and it affects the entire thing. That was why i whole saled removed it. Could we have seperate article listing all apocrypha 'Mechs instead without getting the main canon articles getting mixed up with it?. People looking up units could end up saying Sarna is listing apocrypha variants, without really reading the article (or know what apocrypha means in some cases...) -- Wrangler (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2013 (PST)
This touched upon a bigger point: Apocrypha tags. Back when the tags we currently use were introduced (I did most of that and also re-wrote the Policy:Canon, in co-operation with Revanche and Scaletail), there was a discussion about the apocryphal tags. My suggestion was to approach the issue much like Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki, does it: They don't mark the entire article, they just use two tags "Apocryphal information begins here" and "Apocryphal information ends here" within the article. That's a much cleaner and easier-to-understand approach, but I was voted down. The others feared the articles would look cluttered and unfinished with the tags used in mid-article in this way.
I still don't agree with this old reasoning and I still think the Apocryphal Content tags are not optimal, so I'm open to suggestions here. I might start another attempt at segregating apocryphal content by Begin/End tags. After all, we've had our Fanon Purge since then. Frabby (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2013 (PST)
Well, i won't want see the apocryphal listed items abolished from the site. They do deserve their place here. I think a new code/template needs to be setup to keep them from confusing would be readers. Too many times i've seen mentioned on the offical message boards that they were thinking that listed apocryphal line item was in fact as canon as the rest of the article. Personally i'd endorse a seperation section in a main article that mentions the apocryphal variant, but Sarna's rep is getting ruined by stuff that either not cited or clearly marked as being questionable. I think draconian method must come, where i think that there should be page dedicated list of apocryphal items put togther or be listed in its own article. I'm more lists such as: List of Apocryphal BattleMechs or List of Apocryphal BattleMech Variants. I know it going be pain in butt, but i can't see anyway to keep it seperated without people getting confused. A tag/flag which doesn't effect the article(which i don't think is coded) could be made be listed next to the apocryphal variant for instance. Highlight yellow or something so a read can tell there something up with it. Somewhat similar to how Rules Notes are listed for Equipment. -- Wrangler (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2013 (PST)
Here's how Wookiepedia does it: Sample article section Could this be the way forward? Frabby (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2013 (PST)
It could be. I rather have something that was more line-item sort thing. Flag for sentence verse anything below the Warning. Again, i'm semi-retired so i don't have much say about it! :) -- Wrangler (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2013 (PST)
BattleTech has done a much better job about keeping information canon than Star Wars has, so, in general, I feel like we have less need to call attention to it. I'm not quite sure why we need to tag a whole article if we put an apocryphal BattleMech variant into a discreet section. If "Pretty Baby" is under a section in the Awesome article titled "Apocryphal Variants" with a link to the Canon policy and a note about where the information came from, do we need to do more than that? --Scaletail (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2013 (PST)
I agree a great deal with the idea we should get away from branding a whole article apocryphal. We have units like the Crescent Hawks and the 1st Somerset Strikers, who've been confirmed as canon, but had their origins in non-canon material. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2013 (PST)
Articles that are entirely apocryphal (either as a source, like BattleTechnology, or because the article subject is entirely derived from apocryphal sources, like Grig Griez or Keine Chance!) should still be marked as apocryphal articles right at the top. It's only those articles that mix canon and apocryphal content that are a problem. And here we have a sliding scale of sorts: Some things were developed in an apocryphal source from a canonical one-liner somewhere so that their name and existence is canon but little else (like Menlo Drews); conversely, others are almost completely apocryphal, but got a nod from the developers in the form of a brief mentioning somewhere (e.g. Kiudo, Cameron's Legion); then there's the "middle ground" section where a substantial lot of info is straight canon but a lot of additional info is not, for various reasons (Crescent Hawks); and finally, there's articles on canonical subjects where only a small section or piece of information is apocryphal (either an important bit, like in the Shandra Noruff-Cameron article, or some minor aspect like in the Wendall Puritan article).
I think the approach to mark specific text parts as apocryphal (by marking the text, or using begin/end templates) works well on the latter two. I am a bit unsure how to approach subjects where essentially only the name and existence of the subject are canon, and any detail information is apocryphal. Frabby (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2013 (PST)
Gentlemen, I'm late to the conversation and I may have missed this suggestion (and maybe my opinion has changed since it was last heavily discussed), but can we do shading? Like we do for rules? It could have a section that even bypasses the whole 'apocryphal' tagging and instead represents...I dunno..."Other Media", if not "MechWarrior Online". I'd still use the 'apocryphal' tag for an article that was solely about an aspect of MWO, but for in-canon article sections, we could use shading to make that area stand out. For example, let's say the 1st Alarion Jaegers' article was about a 'Mech instead of a company. Where the [1st_Alarion_Jaegers|game notes] are presently, the parent section could read "Other Media" and the shaded box could be labeled "MechWarrior Online".--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:50, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
I've tested my idea on Awesome. Another reason I like it is because it links to other BattleTech-related sites and allows us to link elsewhere within our own humble project. Whatcha think?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
Looks good to me, at least using the Steiner skin view. I'd like to see a disclaimer (small print or otherwise) in the box spelling out that in wiki terms we consider the 'Mechs apocryphal though, just to deflect any criticisms of us trying to pass the variants off as canonical even by implication. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
Sorry for late response. I've been tighted up with IRL issues. As for Rev's experiment. I'm not sure. I rather not have it flashy or stand out like Rules/Construction rules in articles about weapons. I prefer to have my wrinkle to apocryphal, by just listing it as a Apocryphal Variant without entire article listed as such as commented before. Alternately, I would like to see if possible a small ikon or small graphic/text symbol of some kind next to the entry listing, like [Apocryphal Notice]. Stating with visual notice not overwhelming the section this is a apocryphal entry. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2013 (PDT)

Individual Vessels[edit]

Hi Frabby, I thought you might like to know that we just passed 250 new articles in the Individual WarShips category. If you include DropShips and JumpShips, I'm about to break through 400 articles on individual ships with my next ship article. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2013 (PST)

Canonicity of German BT Novels[edit]

Hi Frabby, I just spotted your exchange with Herb over the canonicity of the German-only print novels when I was doing my daily trawl for interesting snippets in the Writers forum over on the CGL board. You may already be planning on asking this, but I think it would be well worth asking Herb to clarifiy which novels are canon and which aren't - it might even be worth listing the various novels with a spoilerific description of the main canon implications (Leonard Kurita had Ian Cameron's wife assassinated!) so that Herb could give a simple yes/no response on which are canon and which aren't. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2013 (PDT)

I fear the question is moot. Much as I'd love for the German-only material to be canon, it clearly doesn't fall under Herb's definition (published in English - presumably so that all writers/factcheckers can actually read and know it). The only reason I raised the issue was that Randall, during his time as Line Developer, made a different ruling and Herb only implicitly rescinded that with his Canon definition. Now we have the potentially unclear situation cleared up; that's what I wanted to achieve.
It may be noteworthy though that Randall's ruling means the German novels were fully canon for a time (technically, either until Herb posted his Canon definition or, at the latest, up until this clarification). Does raise their status on the apocryphal totem pole quite a bit, imho. Much like the BattleTechnology 'Mechs of old... Frabby (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2013 (PDT)

New Ways[edit]

Hello Frabby, tnx for your message. I use new ways to create the content for sarna. I recognize that you viewed the article of Kleinwelt. Can you tell me if the new way is correct in form of typos and writing style or is something missing. I find a place to create my work without to fear a conflict with the rules of sarna. With best regards Neuling (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (PDT)

Hi Neuling, there's a couple of typos/grammar issues in the article, but overall it looks fine. It certainly is readable, and doesn't seem to be breaking any rules as far as I can see. I haven't checked the numerical data, but I trust it is correct. I'll go over the article and do some copyedits when I have some time. Thumbs up from me! :) Frabby (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2013 (PDT)

Monitor (spacecraft)[edit]

Hy Frabby, great article, any idea in witch category we put the article.--Doneve (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2013 (PDT)

Pffft. You got me. I plainly forgot. Hmm... Category:Technology, I suppose? Frabby (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
This is ok, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (PDT)

Production and Years[edit]

Hello Frabby, I had only a few thoughts about the manufacturing places. At the moment all products are mentioned regardless if they produce or not. When I remember correct show the information in a historical content. My idea is to make the sites a little more diffent. We have the information of the Objective Raids, the various House Handbooks and also the Objective series. That gives us for the overall production 3 time frames: 3054, 3067 and 3079. What do you think about my idea because I will not change anything in that way before I ask the community. With best regards Neuling (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2013 (PDT)

Quite on the contrary, Sarna takes an universal standpoint and does not endeavour a given historical fixture. There is no "now" for Sarna, and there should be no 3054, 3067 and 3079 versions of Sarna. But of course it does make sense to note (on the manufacturing center articles) the times when they were built, expanded, damaged, etc. Frabby (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2013 (PDT)


Hi Frabby, in anticipation of you purging spammers again today, I wanted to flag up that one of the new accounts, User:Juvat93, looks to be a genuine new account, not a spammer despite the odd name (he or she is currently uploading images of various invasion waves during Operation REVIVAL). BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

Heh - if you hadn't warned me off, there would have been another accident right there. Another spambot registered right between this poor guy's registry and his first meaningful edit, and his follow-up uploads also had spambot account creations in-between. Close call. Thanks for the warning! Frabby (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2013 (PDT)
No problem - as soon as I saw his username I thought "that looks just like a spambot", and with so many of them being registered these days it felt like an accident waiting to happen. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2013 (PDT)


I'm not sure if you've seen it yet, but Herb has posted up a plot summary of the remaining missing parts of his Forgotten Worlds story here. It may be worth asking permission to list the summary here against the relevant articles... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2013 (PDT)


Frabby, please delete the [[#REDIRECTCommunications System#Poor Targeting its an Design Quirk redirect, I had some finger trouble and noticed i don't adding the correct redirect, thanks for doing this.--Doneve (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2013 (PDT)

Ulric Kerensky[edit]

Frabby - When you have time, Ulric Kerensky has been rewritten. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2013 (PDT)

Congress Page[edit]

Hi Frabby, you rolled back several edits on the Congress-class WarShip page yesterday that I'd made over the last few months while working on the individual ship articles. Can I ask why? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2013 (PDT)

(facepalm) Accident. The fourth of this kind, I think. :( It's a one-click button that doesn't ask for confirmation, and when I'm browsing the site via smartphone I sometimes don't even realize I hit the rollback button. Frabby (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2013 (PDT)
No panic, i added the content again, after Frabby's accidential rolled back.--Doneve (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2013 (PDT)

Dark Age pdf's[edit]

Frabby i feel we added the two pdf's from the BT download section to sarna as like the Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) article to the electronic books section on the books category, i mean MWDA: Uniques and MWDA: Sneak Peaks, when it is ok for you i create the main body of the product articles but need a little bit help for the writing in the description and notes section, can you help me when you have time? Thanks.--Doneve (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (PDT)

Like I said, I think they need articles if they were published as individual publications. But I know next to nothing about all the MWDA stuff so I'm way out of my depth here. What I could do is go over the articles and check for grammar, spelling and style but content wise I doubt I'll be of much help. Frabby (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2013 (PDT)


Hy again, i want to stard in the next days XTRO:1945 vehicle pages, i know its a semi canon source but its clarifid by Herb, and i adding at the bottom of the pages the wikipedia template, i checked the wiki and the sourcebook and some is stolen or copyid from the wikipage, i hope this make not problems, i have the GNU License in view.--Doneve (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (PDT)

This is actually something I advise you not to do.
This is not about copyright; it's about the scope of Sarna. All vehicles from XTRO:1945 are nonfictional real-world vehicles and not BattleTech vehicles. I have taken care to provide wikipedia links for them; there is nothing more BattleTech-specific that could be written about them. Therefore I think they have no place on the BattleTechWiki. Look at it this way: If you start adding WW2 vehicles, then you would have to add them all - not only those from XTRO:1945, because everything in the real world up to 1984 is part of the BattleTech canon. The question is, do we want to cover the real world up until 1984 here on BTW? I don't think so. Frabby (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2013 (PDT)
You are right, its not so good to mix real world thinks with BT, thanks for your answer.--Doneve (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2013 (PDT)

Bernard Craw[edit]

Hi Frabby, given your interest in the German novels (and in case you haven't seen it yet) the author Bernard Craw has started an account over on the CGL forum:;u=15566 - based on what he's said so far, I think you may want to strike up a conversation or two with him! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

Thanks for pointing it out, but we were discussing stuff in the same thread back in 2011 already. :) Frabby (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

For Your Review - Battle of Twycross[edit]

Battle of Twycross is up. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2013 (PDT)


Unacceptably late, but I do owe you your full round of good will for your achievement. Your Outstanding Member of the Year Award shows community consensus works! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:35, 2 May 2013 (PDT)

Good catch[edit]

Despite it being the top news article, I didn't put two and two together, as you did in regards to Crduemling. Glad you did. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:34, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

Well, yeah... given I was the one to delete him... ;) I'm just glad he re-registered. That's the first of the seven or so accidential deletes I made so far. Frabby (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

Apocryphal/Semi-Apocryphal Products[edit]

Frabby - How should we handle using Apocryphal Products as legitimate references? The source in question are the BattleTechnology magazines. Yes, some of the material is obviously contradicted by other sources. But as I understand it, much of it is not, and some of it was written by the same writers as the novels and early sourcebooks. Understand, I'm not talking about writing an article about a Apocryphal 'Mech that never appeared in another product. I'm talking about using the magazines as a supplemental source for events, characters and units. What do you think? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

That's exactly what the "Apocryphal Content" tags are supposed to cover (see above: User talk:Frabby#Pretty Baby & MWO Canon Roll Back). In a nutshell, yes please go ahead and include any and all information from apocryphal sources - but make sure the apocryphal content is marked (as in easily identifiable) as such, and properly referenced.
As example articles that combine a lot of apocryphal content with a minimum of canonical content, check out Kiudo or Jimmy Lee. Conversely, an example where most of the article is from canon sources but one small but important detail is apocryphal, see Shandra Noruff-Cameron.
Hope this answers your question. If not, I'll try to explain it better. :) Btw, there are no "semi-apocryphal" products. Frabby (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
Thanks for the response!
If I may, for articles that are primarily canon with a small amount of potential apocryphal material, I kinda dislike the banner at the top. Wouldn't it work better if we had a smaller "section apocryphal" banner? It feels wrong to stain an entire article with the dreaded "Apocryphal Content" tag.
As for my "semi-apocryphal" description, it may not be official, but it seems apt for many works. Take the BTechnology magazines: A lot of the material from them is verbatim what you'll find elsewhere. In other instances, there have been other sources that have indirectly referenced something from the magazine. Likewise, there are things that are completely contradicted by the canon material, and other elements (like some 'Mechs put in production) seem highly implausible.
The current developers have been clear that the new material takes precedence over older material, and thus, some of the older material may no longer be canon. These are actual line products, not fan magazines. If there's a precedent there, then we can certainly accept that there are varying "grades" or "levels" of canonicity. That's my point.
Should we resume this convo in another place?
Thanks! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
Didn't Rev suggest something along the lines of putting apocryphal sub-sections of articles inside a bordered box, akin to the way the Rules section is currently handled in unit articles? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
Re: Apocryphal/Semi-apocryphal - a given source is either canonical, or it is not. "Apocrypha" is a word Herb Beas himself has been avoiding, but it fits the bill for a plethora of "official but not outright canonical" material including de-canonized material. This is a complicated and sometimes convoluted issue. To pick BattleTechnology as an example, it was plain full canon in its day. Herb ruled it was not among the sources against which new fiction had to be checked, effectively downgrading it to non-canon. However, there's that disclaimer that says (to paraphrase) any officially published BT material that makes sense (whatever that means) can be considered (whatever that means) to be part of the shared universe. And that's where the Apocrypha definition kicks in - not 100% canon but way further up the totem pole than fan fiction. I don't see much room for "semi-apocryphal" in this, but let's not split hairs here.
Newer taking precedence over older has always been the case, and is only relevant for fully canonical products. Though when you look closely, there are only a small handful cases ever. Even BattleTechnology was written from an in-universe standpoint and can thus be proven wrong in-universe without a retcon.
As for highlighting fanon, as written above I'd prefer the Apocryphal warning tag to go away too and somehow mark the text. I'm not fond of Rev's suggestion and still like the wookiepedia approach better. Though that's better discussed in Template talk:ApocryphalContent. Frabby (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
Perfect! Taking this there! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

issue with thumbnails[edit]

Hello Frabby,

I hope you can help me in some way. I'm updating the maps on Sarna step by step but have an issue with the following file
Error creating thumbnail: File with dimensions greater than 12.5 MP
. Sarna didn't create a thumbnail picture of it but the image is uploaded correctly. Know you a solution for that kind of problem. With best regards Neuling (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2013 (PDT)


Could you please have a look at User:Mbear/Davion Assault Guards when you have a minute? Let me know if I'm missing anything you wanted. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 09:27, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

I see the same basic problem here that I always seem to have with infoboxes: time-specific information. Only very little information isn't dependent on the "current" time. When you're covering hundreds and hundreds of years then it doesn't make sense to cite items like commanding officer or deployment in the infobox. These items change so often and are outdated so quickly that they really belong into article sections instead. Otherwise, the infobox is either always outdated or cluttered to the point of not being clear and informative anymore, and ultimately, useless. Frabby (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

Re: 1st Somerset Strikers Sourcebook[edit]

If the sourcebook is canon, it begs the question of why it is not listed as a source of canon on the 1st Somerset Strikers page, since that's where I got that info from. Mattiator (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2013 (PDT)

Aha. See what you mean. Well, to make it short, the canonicity section in that article got it plainly wrong. Catalyst Game Labs never declared this sourcebook to be non-canon. This is a misunderstanding based on a quote from the Line Developer who said that (paraphrased) certain products including the 1st Somerset Strikers sourcebook, Objective Raids, and the Luthien scenario pack were riddled with errors. They were not de-canonized, although many people got that notion. I'll go and correct the entry in the 1st Somerset Strikers article. Thanks for pointing this out. Frabby (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2013 (PDT)

Moratorium violations/Plagarized content[edit]

Frabby, do I need to remove Muso-ka's content completely? I haven't looked at every page to see if he just did a data dump, but I can remove them quickly if we need to.--Mbear(talk) 06:46, 10 June 2013 (PDT)

Actually just to be safe I deleted the pages.--Mbear(talk) 06:51, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
The articles as such, with just an image and the infobox (and bare of fluff text) could remain. They'll be recreated eventually anyways. Keeping them could possibly be a violation of our Policy:Moratorium but then again maybe not, as the units as such have been around for a long time already. In any case, it wouldn't be legal trouble for Sarna BTW.
The plagiarized content, on the other hand, is a big problem and needs to be removed immediately. I don't quite understand why he's doing it after my earlier warning (and he's apparently really copypasta'ing content from the TRO PDF, judging from the odd line breaks), but if he doesn't stop I'll have to play admin with him. Frabby (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
Yeah, but I figured better safe than sorry, you know? It's not like the affected pages had 5000 characters in them so recreating them should be simple.--Mbear(talk) 07:38, 10 June 2013 (PDT)


I was recommended to ask you about this; in the variants section for 'Mechs and on timelines, should it be in the present or past tense? It seems to switch around a lot depending on the page. BobTheZombie (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2013 (PDT)

I am honestly not sure if Sarna BTW has reached a consensus on the issue. Personally, I hold that Sarna BTW is an out-of-character resource and not set in any year within the BT timeline. Accordingly, all content here should be presented in present tense. The exception would be items that definitively are past as in over (concluded events). A Locust is a 20-ton 'Mech (because it still is, and will always be); but Mercer Ravannion was a DCMS officer, because we have a death date for him. And I've said elsewhere already that time-relative terms such as now, present, incumbent etc. should be avoided. Try to write in an encyclopedic style.
By the way, I'm impressed and very happy with the copyediting work you're doing. Keep it up! Frabby (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
If the Locust goes out of production and becomes an extinct design in 3250, will it still be correct to say that the Locus is a 20-ton 'Mech, or would it be more accurate to state that the design was a 20-ton 'Mech?
I'm possibly a little blinkered on this because the vast share of the work I do on here is historical information, so I'm almost always working in the past tense, but it seems odd that I should perhaps be refering to extinct units, designs and ships in the present tense even if they've not been in service for hundreds of years....BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
In my opinion (and mind you, it's just that!), the Locust can never be extinct because it's a design, an immaterial idea, a concept. A bunch of stats that exists for all time.
And I hate the guts of the "extinct" concept. Within the universe, only very few (I really want to say none) of all designs/items ever become truly extinct. After all, you just need somebody in a Solaris VII garage to dig out the specs and hand-build a new specimen a year, decade, century or millenium later. The "Obsolete" quirk is as much extinction as you can actually get in the BT universe, as far as designs go. Frabby (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2013 (PDT)

Apocryphal content, part 2[edit]

Frabby, could you drop by Template talk:ApocryphalContent please? I've made a couple templates and I'd like your feedback. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 07:22, 28 June 2013 (PDT)

Yeah, that talk page is an open tab on my browser right now. I'm a tad bit busy with other stuff right now, but I'll chime in as soon as I find the time. Frabby (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2013 (PDT)


I've never seen this before - Chinese Unit Names; there is mainly only one person working on it. What should be done? BobTheZombie (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2013 (PDT)

I was a bit unsure about this myself, but I concede that the page content seems well-informed and even fairly informative. I'd say it falls into Sarna's (barely used) Essays category. For now I'm willing to let it be, especially as it is linked from the official BT forum in a thread picking up steam, thereby advertising Sarna BTW on the sidelines. I'm still unsure if the page should perhaps be moved into a subpage of MrKiasu's userpage eventually. Frabby (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2013 (PDT)

Camo Specs pics[edit]

Frabby - Are we allowed to use graphics from the Camo Specs website? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2013 (PDT)

I take it you're talking about Camo Specs (the website), and not Camo Specs, the sourcebook? My first suggestion would be to straightforward ask them. In my experience, most people and firms will allow you to upload images from their site to a wiki if you cite their origin (i. e. proper attribution) do not modify the files. Beyond that, there's always the "fair use" doctrine, but make no mistake - for this to work the file needs to be integral to the article. Fair use is no carte blanche, and a bit more restrictive than some people seem to think. Frabby (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
My example is this: Say I'm writing/editing a unit's article. I'd like to use a photograph of sculpted & painted minis within the body of the article, just to add flavor. Does that work? Would I need permission from the artist/photo uploader, or from an admin at Camo Specs? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
If you want to go with existing legal precedent in the US (and I think that Sarna's servers are based in the US, so that's where the case law is from) and play safe, include thumbnails of the images only in your article, linked back directly to the original images on Camo Specs so that readers can only view high-res versions of the image by going to the original. That's if you're worried about either not contacting the painter/modeller/artist to obtain permission to reproduce the image.BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
Thank you for that. I'm thinking the thumbnail alone wouldn't add much to the article. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
It sounds as if the best way to go is to contact the artist and get their permission to display the image or artwork in question - and to future-proof Sarna, I'd stick a copy of that grant of use in the talk page for each article. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
Just make sure the images are more relevant than being just eye candy, and have some informative value such as showcasing a paint scheme. Sarna BTW doesn't want to be an image repository (see Policy:Images). Frabby (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
Oh, yes. Showing off the paint scheme is the main point. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2013 (PDT)

Les Dorscheid[edit]

As the expert on obscure BattleTech publications, what do you think of this? - I don't think it's an official BattleTech product, although I'm not sure because it uses the BattleTech logo and trademark. The fact that it's described as "Gallery Set One" makes me wonder if that's one of a set of gallery packs released by Les Dorscheid, or if it's one of a set of gallery packs released by FASA. I can't see a product number on it, so I'm thinking the former, but I thought if nothing else you might find it interesting. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (PDT)

I've seen this a few times on German Ebay and was thinking the same as you (and I think it's a Dorscheid publication, not a BattleTech publication). But I wasn't prepared to pay the price they asked and haven't held one in my hands yet so I cannot be sure.
Hmm. Now that you brought it up, perhaps a stub or placeholder article can be created. Perhaps someone actually owns this item and can fill in the blanks. Frabby (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (PDT)

For Your Review - Beta Regiment[edit]

Beta Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) has been posted. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2013 (PDT)

Possible Bogus Article[edit]

Hi Frabby, i'm not sure who keeping out for rogue editors these days. However, new user named Redstonizer produced this Time swapping theory‎ article. Some weird 21st Century article about time travel. He also changed Timeline to accomdiate his writing. Can you refer someone to look into this, there not much about the early canon. I know they didn't really get into time theory in that kind of detail. I left him warning about getting battletech references. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (PDT)

There is also a character page presumably linked to it: Daniel Martin. Should that also be in question of deletion? -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2013 (PDT)
This is fanon, and we remove some content imidiatly, oh i added also a deletion template to the Daniel Martin article.--Doneve (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (PDT)
Thanks guys. I have deleted the articles and notified the user in question. Frabby (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2013 (PDT)

Hey, I just stumbled upon this today; I'd like to know if it is fanon or not and if action should be taken. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2013 (PDT)

The article is horrible and badly in need of a rewrite, but (according to the talk page) the Spidermech may actually feature in an official if apocryphal source, the MechAssault 2 - Lone Wolf computer game. Unfortunately, I don't own this game and know nothing about it. I wouldn't want to delete the entry before checking out this possible source, though; it may not be a bogus article after all. Frabby (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2013 (PDT)

reasons of concern[edit]

Should there be a problem with the maps, I will not upload any new maps and ask to delete all others at the server to protect from any legal trouble. I await your anwser and don't upload anything new until we get a solution. With best regards Neuling (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

The maps are certainly nice to have - if we're allowed to have them. I suggest you contact Øystein and simply ask him (via email or a BT forum PM) if copying the maps was okay or if you should delete them. Frabby (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
The question is send to Mr. Øystein and I inform you immedatly about his reponse. Neuling (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
I send him a message but getting no response . At the moment I thinking about it to continue the map work and should their are any problems I will delete them immedatly. What do you think about it? Neuling (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2013 (PDT)

BattleCorps Story writing[edit]

Hy Frabby, i read your well writen BattleCorps storys, how long you need to datamine and write the story, iam very interested in this, i have a buddy they write very well stories (ok it's an english teacher) but he comes to BattleTech after i give him some novels. I say register on the BattleCorps page, to sarna and the BT forum and talk, he has fully access to my biblio and is very interested to write some stuff, but he is a newbi in the BattleTech universe and i want to support him, any thoughts.--Doneve (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Thanks for the flowers! :) I was surprised to find that I'm an extremely slow writer, and so I'm only aiming for one publication per year. (A new story of mine has been accepted and is being factchecked and edited right now, and can be expected to be published this year.) There is no step-by-step guide to story writing, it's a creative process. You need to have a good, interesting story to tell, and you need to know the BT universe enough to not violate its feeling, aesthetics and established canon. I cannot offer help for the former, but regarding the latter there's a self-help group of established and aspiring BattleCorps writers called the Writer's Workshop. It is a Google group run by either Craig "Trbotrtle" Reed or Phil "joechummer" Lee. Contacting either of them should allow your friend to join the group. In this closed group you can post story drafts and get feedback from (semi-)professional authors on your writing, with tips for improvement and also some preliminary factchecking. The Workshop essentially seeks to help authors improve and polish their story enough that it will have a chance to be accepted for publication by BattleCorps. Hope this helps; any further questions, just ask. Frabby (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2013 (PDT)
Thanks so much for the Google group info, i tell this to my friend, he is a monster in reading in this time some BattleTech stuff to have a overview of the universe and some thinks.--Doneve (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2013 (PDT)

Manufacturing Center policy[edit]

Hy Frabby when you have time please look on this talk User talk:BrokenMnemonic#Award, about our issus, and i hope you can help us, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2013 (PDT)

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't add anything useful to the discussion. My understanding of the semantic wiki expansion is poor. I hope Mbear can help out. Frabby (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2013 (PDT)

Unusual FASA Products[edit]

Hi Frabby,
Is this another candidate for your ongoing list of obscure FASA BattleTech products? I know I've never seen that map before, but now I want one... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2013 (PDT)

Yeah, never saw that before either. Nor do I know anything about the French BT community or the Casus Belli magazine, so I'm at a total loss for information here. Luckily we got a file of the map that I can put into the Map Pack article; but beyond that, there's not much information yet to put on the wiki. Frabby (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2013 (PDT)

Award Precedence[edit]

Afternoon, Frabby. I hope you don't mind but I updated your awards board to reflect the precedence of each award. It's not a site policy, so please feel free to tell me to back off if it bugs ya! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:20, 21 September 2013 (PDT)

Vessel Categories[edit]

Hi Frabby,
Are you reorganizing the vessel categories? Only I've seen you're going around adding categories like "Individual Aegis-Class WarShips" and "Individual Overlord-class DropShips" where categories like "Individual Aegis-Class Vessels" and "Individual Overlord-class Vessels" already exist within the Individual WarShips/DropShips/JumpShips category tree and are in use. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2013 (PDT)

Yep, I found I didn't like the generic word "vessel" when a more informative word like DropShip, WarShip or JumpShip could be used, and I decided to go ahead and implement the change while the number of articles is still manageable. You're welcome to help out. :) Frabby (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2013 (PDT)
OK, when I get some spare time I'll start working through categories. I wish you'd mentioned it before I wrote the first 750 or so, though Tongue.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2013 (PDT)
I've finished up the outstanding DropShips, JumpShips and WarShips. You missed the Sovetskii Soyuz, Winchster and Yamato categories in the individual WarShips section when you were clearing up, btw. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2013 (PDT)

Ship categories[edit]

These are incredible lists of articles you're putting together. I'm enjoying going thru the ship articles.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:11, 29 September 2013 (PDT)

Checking Nyx[edit]

Hi Frabby, since your very active and pretty good at seperating canon from non canon. Can you look at the Nyx article? I wrote it originally with info from TRO:3085, however someone discovered a PDF that was up loaded on the main website which called MWDA: Unique Mechs and Pilot Cards. They added a mentioning of a WizKids variant called the NX-23. I asked writers about it, they told me if its not in the MUL, its not canon. So i seperated the variant from rest of the article and put a {{ApocryphalContentStart}} on the MWDA Variant section. I personally want remove NX-23 reference all together since it was judged to be non-canon. Alot those data cards made for the later expansions were didn't quite keep to canon. Can you look at this and NX-23 reference should be removed from canon listing? Thanks -- Wrangler (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2013 (PDT)

Hy Wrangler, i jump in, the source is cannon, it comes from CGL dowload section sources, and it is not stated that the products is apocryphal. It is not a statement when the variant is not listed in the MUL page, i see a lot of lacks on the Mul page they have no states for units descripted in Historical: Liberation vol. 1 and 2. But this is my point of view.--Doneve (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (PDT)
This is a tricky one. The baseline is that all MWDA material from WizKids is fully canon, and the NX-23 should thus also be canon. And I don't mean to belittle the MUL one bit, but saying that "if it's not in the MUL then it's not canon" is a goal, not a fact. The MUL still has missing units and cannot negatively define canon in this way.
Bottom line, it's an official MWDA product and so it's canon even if there's no record sheet and no MUL mentioning (yet). Frabby (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2013 (PDT)
Hi Guys, sorry take while to respond. If you look at my reference in moving the NX-23, the Ask the Writes forums response was part my citing. They had out right said that their considering the MUL (not 100% done yet) more canon than the product in the download page. Shouldn't it be considered apocryphal if writers themselves say it isn't rock solid? -- Wrangler (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (PDT)
Well, Paul explicitly admitted that if something that fulfills all criteria for canon otherwise isn't in the MUL then it is either not canonical after all, or an error in the MUL (or simply not input yet). This "either non-canonical or an error" ruling means omission by the MUL doesn't automatically make canonical designs less canonical. Frabby (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2013 (PDT)


Hi Frabby, I have a question I think you may have the answer for. I've been updating some WarShip entries, and found myself needing to use the plural of Sovetskii Soyuz. At the moment, I'm using the English pluralization, which I think is Sovetskii Soyuzes; however, Sovetskii Soyuz is a Russian name - it means "Soviet Union" - and I think in Russian, the plural of Sovetskii Soyuz would be Sovetskii Soyuzij, although I'm checking with a Russian friend of mine to make sure. Given that Sovetskii Soyuz is a proper Russian name, should I be using the Russian pluralization? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2013 (PDT)

No idea. That's definitely something you should "Ask the Writers" over on the BT Forum. Frabby (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2013 (PDT)

Canon or not[edit]

Hy Frabby, please take a look to this forum talk [1], i think MechWarrior 4 is Apocryphal, but why Herb say its canon?--Doneve (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2013 (PDT)

Where does he say it's canon? He said that all he could say was it's "maybe canon" - which essentially boils down to Herb saying he doesn't know if there's an actual canon reference somewhere. He didn't rule either way. Basically, he dodged the question (which is okay, given everything he said about Canon before). Frabby (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2013 (PDT)

Battle of Luthien (Clan Invasion) concerns[edit]

Frabby - When you have time, please review the recent additions to the "Battle of Luthien (Clan Invasion)" article. Huge chunks of content were copied directly from the book. DJ has been making minor alterations, but even the structure he chose is copied directly from the scenarios. Can you please give it a look? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2013 (PST)

Thanks for the notification. I'm on it, but don't have much time right now. Frabby (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2013 (PST)

MekTek is Fanon?[edit]

I noticed that only a few MekTek 'Mechs are over at the Fanon Wikia, and wondered if all of them should be there, and also if the original articles should stay on Sarna. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2013 (PST)

I've never played the computer games past MW2:Mercenaries so I'm a bit out of the loop here. Unfortunately, MekTek doesn't even have an article here yet that clears up its nature and canon status. As I understand it, MekTek and its packs are an extension to MW4, released under a legal and valid license from Microsoft (but with no input or factchecking whatsoever from FASA/FanPro/CGL). As such, the material is apocryphal on the bottom end of the totem pole, bordering on non-canon. Sigh. Somebody with a better knowledge should really go and write that article.
Anyways, yes, if there are original 'Mechs and vehicles in there then they should have their own article each, with the apropriate Apocryphal tag. However, other wikis are no official or reliable sources; they may only suggest where to look for references in official sources. That is to say, yes, please write as many articles about MekTek material as you can, but don't use other wikis as sources. Use the original information sources, i.e. the MekTek games material, directly. Using original research and not simply repeating unverified stuff from other unreliable sources is what sets Sarna apart and makes it better. Frabby (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2013 (PST)
I wasn't planning on using their info, but rather was just pointing out that they had some of our pages that were copied over from the Fanon Purge, and wondered if that even mattered. I guess that it doesn't. If I find some free time I'll try doing some research and start that page. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2013 (PST)


(copy from BobTheZombie's talk page)

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

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

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

Answered on Bob's talk page. Frabby (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2013 (PST)

Page Merge[edit]

Hi, Looking at these two units I think these pages should be merged: 16th Battle (Clan Wolf) and 16th Wolf Guards (Clan Wolf-in-Exile). I wouldn't go ahead and just do this without admin approval so I was wondering what you thought? --Dark Jaguar (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2013 (PST)

Answered here: Talk:16th Wolf Guards (Clan Wolf-in-Exile). Frabby (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2013 (PST)

The Art of BattleTech: A Game of Armored Combat (Japanese edition)[edit]

Hy Frabby i have the book, come we in some trouble when i upload som unseen 'mech pics, and add the apocryphal image tag? If you are interested i give you my mediafire link for the book.--Doneve (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2013 (PST)

(Sorry for the late reply.) This is definitely interesting, although as a foreign language edition is wouldn't be canon (only apocryphal). But I don't see why you should get into trouble for uploading stuff if it falls under the Fair Use doctrine. Sarna BTW is a non-commercial community project and the unseen treaties don't apply to us. We only have to heed copyright laws, and Fair Use permits us to use copyrighted images to some extent. Frabby (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2013 (PST)
Here my link for you [2].
Can you help which 'Mech name is it in BT, there no names on the images, i know a handfull of this but not all.--Doneve (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2013 (PST)


Frabby when you add ref. notes please update the bibliography section, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2013 (PST)

Thanks for the reminder. Though honestly, a Bibliography entry is only warranted if the source named actually has something to say about the subject. There are some cases where I may have to quote or reference another source that only indirectly pertains to the article; in such a case I usually put a link into the reference but don't place the source in the Bibliography section as that would be misleading. Frabby (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2013 (PST)
I understand you, but i think the biblio must updated when a ref. not is added. But this my personal feeling.--Doneve (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2013 (PST)
For what it's worth, I think that if the source is being cited indirectly, I think the explanation for citing it belongs in the Notes section - I've done that myself a few times where I've been using a process of elimination to prove something in the absence of direct statements.BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2013 (PST)

Individual Ship Articles[edit]

Hi Frabby, I've tried writing my first help article, which is about writing articles for individual vessels. I used the format for the "write a new DropShip article" page as a template, and I tried to incorporate everything that'd come up in discussion between thee and me while the first few hundred articles were being written. I've posted the article, but it's a bit longer than most because I've tried to provide guidance on things like naming the articles and populating the article, which means it may not actually be fit for purpose. Could you take a look and let me know what you think, please? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2013 (PST)

I'm pretty impressed with it. It's a good guideline and I don't think it's too long - it simply has to cover a lot of ground, and does that well. Frabby (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2013 (PST)


Hi, I am a long time user (viewer) of this site for information that I can not get elsewhere. I have noticed you are one of the few to actively add useful information to the site. I particularly like your articles on obscure (from my point of view) BT stories and the synopsis you provide. I have seen the awards page and I believe I'm eligible to do nominate you for an award, as a thank you from an appreciative user. Substantial Addition Award, 2nd ribbon --Insidiator (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2013 (PST)

Thank you very much. Obscure BT products are indeed a pet project of mine, and I'm particularly happy to see I'm not the only person interested in them. As for BattleCorps stories, I'm also hoping to promote the site a little. There are some truly great stories there, and if you're into BT fiction then there is no way around BattleCorps. Frabby (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2013 (PST)


Hello Frabby, I discover that many technologies have an Prototype Date but I have no clue which is the best way to show it. I think an additional row at the technology infobox is helpful. Further more some technolgies were lost and later reintroduced. What is your opinion about that. Neuling (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2013 (PST)

I'd be quite interested in seeing prototype dates listed in the infoboxes, as it seems like useful information to track - if the decision is that it's a good idea, I think I can add the line to the infobox as needed. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2013 (PST)
A very good idea Neuling, but we must update some infoboxes we dont have a stand alone technology infobox.--Doneve (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2013 (PST)
I agree that the information should be in the article, but I'm not sure if it has to be in the infobox. In any case, I reckon you could put all this information into a single field, e.g. "Introduced 2750 (prototyped 2745); lostech by ca. 2850; rediscovered by NAIS 3055". Or something like that. I would like all of this information to be in one place, not spread out all over an infobox. But maybe that's just me. Is there even an InfoBoxTechnology as of yet? Frabby (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2013 (PST)
No a InfoBoxTechnology dont exist at this time.--Doneve (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2013 (PST)

Hidden Worlds[edit]

Hi Frabby,
Herb just made this post overnight, giving the names and locations of the five Hidden Worlds. It seems an odd way to reveal that information - should it be taken at face value and incorporated into the planet entries here? I'm never quite sure when there's a joke being played... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2013 (PST)

To wit, anything posted outside the "Ask the Writers" and "Ask the Lead Developers" sections is not official. As such, Herb may have provided us with a peek behind the developer's curtain but, as he admits himself, Obeedah and Taussen have not yet canonically been identified and possibly never will be.
As for a joke being played, I got the impression that Herb used to be a prankster, then became cynical over time to the point where he may have alienated some fans, and since stepping down has been cooling off. I don't think he's throwing around red herrings anymore like he used to. But still, the "canonicity" of this particular information gives me headaches. Frabby (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2013 (PST)
Continuing the in the vein of canonicity decisions that could cause us fits, Jymset's comment on the canonicity of Record Sheets: MechWarrior Dark Age 1 has repercussions for a fair number of designs that have entries on here, particularly those that haven't had updates through the TRO:3145 series. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2013 (PST)
I have read his comment, but it's not quite as dramatic. Note that he didn't say RS:MWDA1 was actually apocryphal; he only said "can be considered purely apocryphal for our purposes". Technically, that doesn't remove its canonicity and only means the authors have free reigns to retcon this particular source in the newer works wherever they felt it was needed. In this fashion, that marks RS:MWDA1 a still canonical, but error-ridden product where much content may have been corrected/retconned in later products (much like what Herb said about Objective Raids or the Luthien scenario pack some time back). In summary, this may warrant a note on the article page for RS:MWDA1 but doesn't significantly affect the individual designs unless their stats were changed. Frabby (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2013 (PST)

Opinion sought[edit]

Hello, Frabby. Can you pop over to here? I'm trying get official opinion of this. I know i'm minior voice on this, is important. Way we write articles is effected by similarities to this, Thanks -- Wrangler (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2013 (PST)

Even More Ships Stuff[edit]

Hi Frabby,
I'm working my way through the invidiual ships articles, renaming the articles as needed to meet the new naming convention and fixing double redirects as I go. I noticed in the article on the Ryu (Farragut) article that while the article is an apocryphal article due to the source, it mentions a Kitty Hawk-class carrier named the Enterprise (which is currently linking to the McKenna-class battleship SLS Enterprise), as well as two Aegis-class heavy cruisers, the Patrick Henry and Michael Collins (the latter of which is a very loaded name) and the Baron-class destroyers Lancaster and Templeton. If we're going to have an article on the Ryu, we should have articles on the other five ships - if you can give me the information for the references (page numbers and chapter titles, if possible) I can construct skeleton articles from the detail in the Ryu page.
I also put together a banner for the individual ships work I'm doing, because while it's not a Project with a capital 'P', it is something that's attracted interest from at least one person on the CBT forum. Given that you're refining the policy on how the articles should be assembled, I wasn't sure if you'd want a copy to display or not. The text isn't great, but is hopefully legible; the image source is canonical, as it's from the cover of the AeroTech 2 Record Sheets book: Individual SpaceShips.jpg I based the size on the Project Planets: Cartographer banner Rev gave me for all the work I did on maps for the project. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2013 (PST)

Like every December, I'm virtually drowning in a crazy workload, hence am not very active here. But yeah, now that you mention it articles for the five apocryphal ships in question should be quick & easy to make. Guess I plainly forgot them after inputting the Ryu. Please elaborate on why Michael Collins is a loaded name; it didn't ring a bell with me.
I like your banner, btw, and was even tempted to put it on my profile. But for now I think I'll stick with my policy of not subscribing to any particular project on Sarna, seeing how you're doing the lion's share of the work anyways. Frabby (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2013 (PST)
I thought you might be busy, that's why I offered to have a crack at writing the ship articles for you. I like seeing all the individual ships migrating onto Sarna, although I've still got a load of articles to write - including about half the Blakist fleet and some blocks like Wolf's Dragoons WarShip fleet. Still, that could end up being a good Christmas project for me. Having done all of the Jihad and Reunification War stuff last year, I thought this year was going to be about the Star League Civil War, and instead it's been about planets, spaceships and TROs. Weird, right?
Michael Collins is a significant figure in 20th century Irish history - politician, revolutionary and IRA leader, and was a key figure in the Irish Civil War. He's also a tad contraversial, because of allegations of him ordering or being involved in IRA incidents such as the assassination of Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson in London. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2013 (PST)
ETA: I've been reading DropShips and JumpShips - we currently have categories on here for individual JumpShips, DropShips and WarShips; which do the AS Columbia, Procyon, Altair and Ark from pages 6-7 count as? Or do we need something new? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2013 (PST)
They're not jump-capable, so don't qualify as either JumpShip or WarShip. It is arguable if they fall under the definition of "DropShip" as they lack a docking collar. My suggestion would be to categorize them as generic "Individual Ships" (just saw that category needs cleanup), and create an extra new category besides Individual DropShips/JumpShips/WarShips named "Individual early spacecraft" or somesuch. Frabby (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2013 (PST)
I've got a confirmation I needed on the Ask The Writers forum - I'll hopefully be able to do something with the ships now. One thing I was wondering, though; do you think it's worth adding the individual spacecraft categories to the Sarna front page, in the same way that planets, weapons, technology and the like are all advertised? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2013 (PST)