User talk:Mbear/archive2011

Question and Information[edit]

Hi Mbear, I have complete my projects: with the war of 3039, the ronin wars, fedcom civil war, antons revolt and the andurien session/canopus war. Fell free when you want to put this information in a unique article. Operation Revival and Jade Falcon incursion article will be modify also in the near future by me. And now my question: which program did you use to create the fantastic looking rank insignia or know you some other good ways to create the smoke jaguar galaxy insignia...Neuling 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I used PhotoShop to make the images. If you don't have lots of money to pay for it, you might try Paint.NET or GimpShop.--Mbear 12:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be a canonicity jerk here, but please keep in mind that re-creating rank insignia or other imagery by oneself constitutes fan work, i.e. non-canon, and must be marked as such. Technically, only images taken from an official website (namely CBT.com) or photocopies/photographs of existing canonical material can be considered canonical for the purpose of BTW. Frabby 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You're not being a jerk, you're advising us. There's a difference.--Mbear 14:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Tag Question[edit]

Hi, Mbear, I've never contributed to BattleTech Wiki before but I was wondering about perhaps doing so. I've actually had about a dozen BattleTech articles published over the years in magazines like BattleTechnology and MechForce Quarterly. I am also the original creator for the non-jump capable WarShips called Monitors.

What I am interested in doing is submitting a wiki for a mercenary unit that I created and was featured in several of the articles published in Battletechnology and MechForce Quarterly. The unit is called TekTeam Technical Services and is essentially a unit of mercenary technicians that sell their services to the highest bidder, travels in a modified Mule class DropShip set up as a mobile repair base and is supported by a small security force.

Would it be have to be published in the non-canon units section, or because it was published in the 'official' magazines for BattleTech at that time, would you consider the unit at least quasi-'canon'?

I would probably need some assistance in figuring out how to use your templates for an article on TekTeam Technical Services as well. Thanks.--— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by 71.74.86.252 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 5 January 2011.

71.74.86.252, I've addressed your question on my talk page.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Breaking News date little off[edit]

Hi Mbear...17 January 2100 The moratorium for Operational Turning Points: Death to Mercenaries has expired. BTW Editors are now free to make edits using this source as a reference. Can you fix that? -- Wrangler 22:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks!--Mbear 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Style Box[edit]

Hy Mbear, is it usefull to add a style box, like the Game Rules in the Technology section, to the Military unit articles, it is a idea, any thought, thanks.--Doneve 19:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I'd say no because AFAIK we haven't officially started adding the style box to the Game Rules articles. I'd prefer to finish one category (technology) completely and then start on the next thing.
I also don't know where you'd put the styled box on the Military Unit pages.--Mbear 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Take a look on this 21st Division (Word of Blake)‎, only a example.--Doneve 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Well. That looks OK to me, but we should probably discuss it before you just start doing it. I'll copy this page to the Policy_Talk:Canon#Game_Data_in_articles section to see what happens.--Mbear 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thats great, thanks.--Doneve 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tnx + Infobox - problem[edit]

Tnx for your help and I have another request about the Infobix which I tried to create, but with no success. Can you help me? Neuling 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Infobox[edit]

Hy again, can you take a look of my User/Doneve Infantry Infobox, example, thank.--Doneve 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What am I looking for?--Mbear 14:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the content of the Infantry Infobox ok, or must i change some things, i dont can see the infobox in the Heavy Jump Infantry article, what is my failur, can you give some tips?--Doneve 14:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem appears to be that you've got the part Editors will fill out, but you don't actually have any code MediaWiki understands in the infobox template. Setting up the human-readable part isn't enough: you need to tell MediaWiki what to insert when it sees the infobox entries. If you go to Template:InfoBoxBattleMech and hit the Edit link, you'll see what I mean. I've also added some stuff for you.--Mbear 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, great, and i give you this award Problem Solver Award, 3rd ribbon, for your support, thanks a lot.--Doneve 16:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hy Mbear, please can you remove the Equipment row, she is not used, and we dont needed, we have the Primary Weapon row, Secondary Weapon row, please change it, thanks.--Doneve 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Equipment row from InfantryInfobox template.--Mbear 20:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Platoon Creation Rules[edit]

Have started working on Formula Worksheet for Infantry Platoon Creation Rules Based on last published in [[[Combat Operations]]. Cribbed from BV worksheet and editing as i go. Follow-on would be creating the Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet.--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet[edit]

Suggestion: try the Game Rules type div tag from MASC to get the cauthionary note to stand out.--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The 100 listed for Armor points and Internal Structure points, and the 14 listed for Heat Points, are placeholders. They don't contribute anything to the formula and should be replaced with the information from the TRO.
--Cameron 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Experimental Equipment[edit]

Hey Mbear, I'm working to update all avaible equipment with the technical availibility and think to my self, that few expeerimental tech is on sarna.net. My offer to you: I will create all necessary pages and put the information in it. Can you watch my work please. My english ins't always well written, because I'm a native german speaker. What do you think... Neuling 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There's already a category for some experimental items: Category:Experimental Technology. And yes, I can spell- and grammar-check your work.--Mbear 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor News[edit]

Hy Mbear, the moratorium for A Time of War has expired, can you updated the minor news, thanks.--Doneve 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for 2010[edit]

Mbear, you've had another stellar year of contributions to BTW. Your fellow members nominated you for both Outstanding Member of the Year and a Superior Editor! All of us appreciate your contributions! I've awarded you another Founders Award for your excellence Nicjansma 05:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder's Honorable Mention Award

Torso Cockpit[edit]

MBear, I noticed you put in the official Torso Cockpit rules from the Tactical Handbook. I was wondering if you felt there was any value in listing the original rules for the Torso cockpit from Unbound as well. It's a lighter and much more dangerous design overall. But considering the Tactical Handbook rules technically displace the older rules do you think the original rules shouldn't be acknowledged? — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by ManDrake (talkcontribs) .

I have no strong feelings about it either way. You might want to check out Cockpit Command Console to see how it was handled. (The CCC also had an older version that was superseded in the Tactical Handbook.)
P.S. It's considered polite to sign postings to another user's talk page. All you have to do is put four tildes (~) at the end of your post.--Mbear 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll check it out. Sorry for the breech of protocol, I was unaware of how to produce that message, won't happen again. ManDrake 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Image Question[edit]

Hy Mbear, i have a question about new uploaded versions of images, can any of the admins delete the old versions of the new uploaded versions, i have not he permission to do this, Neuling uploaded a lot of it, and i and...and .Greetings--Doneve 17:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have time....[edit]

Mbear - Please give Talk:Isle of Skye when you have some time... as well as its accompanying article. It was an absolute beast to write. But more relevantly, there are some things I'd like to do with respect to redirects that I wanted your advice on. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dragau[edit]

Hy Mbear, please take a look on the Dragau II article, i think he merged with your created Dragau page. Greetings--Doneve 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Dragau II is esbalished new vehicle, and the Dragau is short lived forerunner. -- Wrangler 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Casper II Ground Elements[edit]

Hi Mbear, the Rattler and the Wyrm SDS Mobile Fortresses have nothing in their fluff that state they elements of Casper II. Their components of the SDS system, why are they being listed as ground elements of the CASPER II? -- Wrangler 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

They were listed as part of the Caspar II systems in JHS: Terra.--Mbear 22:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
is the entire SDS system being called Caspar II or is it just the Capital Class Drones? The Caspars were part of the SDS System, not vice versa.--Cameron 13:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not just the capital class drones, as the Hive AeroSpace fighter family are all drones. Caspar II was the name given to the drone system used on the Dragau, Tiamat, etc., but it was also used as a generic term for all the WoB-related SDS efforts IIRC.--Mbear 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tables[edit]

Hey Mbear, what do you think about my table formats and have you any thoughts for improvement. Neuling 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an example I can see?--Mbear 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Examples: DCMS or Vindicator or Operation Bulldog or New Avalon Neuling 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of any of them. This is just a return to the same issue we had with the Operation Guerrero page: You're just taking existing information and using a table to format it into columns. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve by doing this.
In particular, the Vindicator modification adds absolutely nothing to the page, and I would argue that the formatting choice you've made (borders etc.) actually makes it more confusing.
Operation Bulldog- The tables at the top are just used for formatting content into multiple columns. Again, I don't see the point. As for the planetary battles, we were better served by using paragraphs. This is a combination of a deployment table and a historical overview, unfortunately it doesn't do either well.
New Avalon - I don't mind it on the Nearby Worlds since that's already a table, but the garrisoning military force and Owner history shouldn't be tables. Owner history is a single column list, so why put that in a table? It worked perfectly well as a list.
DCMS - Maybe, but I think we might be better able to get your multi-column content into a list format and re-style it using CSS rather than hardcoding a table in there.
So to sum up, I'm not a fan of most of these changes. I think the data you're displaying as a table was better displayed as a list in most cases. I don't actually understand what you're trying to achieve by converting the lists to tables. Several of these changes actually reduce the functionality of the page instead of enhancing it. Further, I think that converting a list to a table artificially inflates the page size, which will mean higher bandwidth costs (in particular I'm thinking of the Owner History on New Avalon page and the planetary battles in Operation Bulldog).--Mbear 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have received many positive responses and get also awards from other Users. My intention was to give the sites a cleaner look. I think in such cases the user like tables or dislike them. In retrospect I count most users like them. Can you explanin me please why the table fomart increase the bandwich use. That is unclear to me... Neuling 18:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Redone accomplished.Neuling 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tables[edit]

Hey Mbear, what do you think about my table formats and have you any thoughts for improvement. Neuling 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an example I can see?--Mbear 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Examples: DCMS or Vindicator or Operation Bulldog or New Avalon Neuling 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of any of them. This is just a return to the same issue we had with the Operation Guerrero page: You're just taking existing information and using a table to format it into columns. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve by doing this.
In particular, the Vindicator modification adds absolutely nothing to the page, and I would argue that the formatting choice you've made (borders etc.) actually makes it more confusing.
Operation Bulldog- The tables at the top are just used for formatting content into multiple columns. Again, I don't see the point. As for the planetary battles, we were better served by using paragraphs. This is a combination of a deployment table and a historical overview, unfortunately it doesn't do either well.
New Avalon - I don't mind it on the Nearby Worlds since that's already a table, but the garrisoning military force and Owner history shouldn't be tables. Owner history is a single column list, so why put that in a table? It worked perfectly well as a list.
DCMS - Maybe, but I think we might be better able to get your multi-column content into a list format and re-style it using CSS rather than hardcoding a table in there.
So to sum up, I'm not a fan of most of these changes. I think the data you're displaying as a table was better displayed as a list in most cases. I don't actually understand what you're trying to achieve by converting the lists to tables. Several of these changes actually reduce the functionality of the page instead of enhancing it. Further, I think that converting a list to a table artificially inflates the page size, which will mean higher bandwidth costs (in particular I'm thinking of the Owner History on New Avalon page and the planetary battles in Operation Bulldog).--Mbear 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have received many positive responses and get also awards from other Users. My intention was to give the sites a cleaner look. I think in such cases the user like tables or dislike them. In retrospect I count most users like them. Can you explanin me please why the table fomart increase the bandwich use. That is unclear to me... Neuling 18:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I know you've received many awards from other users. In fact I've given you some. Smiley.gif The thing is that I think your application of tables is simply unnecessary in most situations.

The concrete example of the table taking more bandwidth[edit]

(I'm referring to the New Avalon page here.) I've just pulled the HTML source code of your Garrison Military Force and saved it to my desktop. (See NA-Table below.) The original list based format is listed below it as NA-List.

When I saved these snippets to my computer, the Table code you provided weighs in at 3kb. The list version weighs in at 2.6kb. Your first instinct is to say "Mbear 0.3kb isn't a lot, get over it." You're correct: 0.3KB isn't a lot. But as your lists/tables get longer, you have to add more markup to support them. Imagine that instead of the five lines you have here, you have ten lines. Now your table version will take up 6kb, and the list version will take up 5.4kb. For worlds that have an even longer history of various garrison units, that difference in file size is going to grow even larger.

Another example: The Vindicator page. I've saved the Variant section for the list version and your proposed table version. The list version is 5kB in size, while your table version is 6kB in size. So you've added about 20% to that section just for formatting. Now imagine doing that to a Wasp or Warhammer with all the variants they have. See what I mean?--Mbear 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

NA-Table[edit]

Garrisoning Military Force

<tbody></tbody>
Year Unit
3050 <a href="/wiki/322nd_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="322nd Division (ComStar)">322nd Division (ComStar)</a><a href="#cite_note-20YU70-2" title="">[3]</a>
3054<a href="#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a> <a href="/wiki/Team_Banzai" title="Team Banzai">Team Banzai</a> (1 <a href="/wiki/Battalion" title="Battalion" class="mw-redirect">Battalion</a> in rotary duty)
<a href="/wiki/1st_Davion_Guards" title="1st Davion Guards">1st Davion Guards</a> (RCT)
<a href="/wiki/Davion_Heavy_Guards" title="Davion Heavy Guards">Davion Heavy Guards</a> (RCT)
3055 to 3062 <a href="/wiki/299th_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="299th Division (ComStar)">299th Division (ComStar)</a><a href="#cite_note-CS84-4" title="">[5]</a><a href="#cite_note-FMCS126-5" title="">[6]</a>
3067 <a href="/wiki/New_Avalon_Cavaliers" title="New Avalon Cavaliers">New Avalon Cavaliers</a><a href="#cite_note-MS67-6" title="">[7]</a>
<a href="/wiki/2nd_NAIS_Cadet_Cadre" title="2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre">2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre</a><a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>
1st Davion Guards RCT<a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>
<a href="/wiki/5th_Donegal_Guards" title="5th Donegal Guards">5th Donegal Guards RCT</a><a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>
<a href="/wiki/10th_Lyran_Guards" title="10th Lyran Guards">10th Lyran Guards</a><a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>
3071 to 3071 <a href="/wiki/Bronson%27s_Horde" title="Bronson's Horde">Bronson's Horde</a><a href="#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a>

NA-List[edit]

Garrisoning Military Force

<a name="3050" id="3050"></a>

3050

  • <a href="/wiki/322nd_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="322nd Division (ComStar)">322nd Division (ComStar)</a><a href="#cite_note-20YU70-2" title="">[3]</a>
<a name="3054.5B4.5D" id="3054.5B4.5D"></a>

3054<a href="#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

  • <a href="/wiki/Team_Banzai" title="Team Banzai">Team Banzai</a> (1 <a href="/wiki/Battalion" title="Battalion" class="mw-redirect">Battalion</a> in rotary duty)
  • <a href="/wiki/1st_Davion_Guards" title="1st Davion Guards">1st Davion Guards</a> (RCT)
  • <a href="/wiki/Davion_Heavy_Guards" title="Davion Heavy Guards">Davion Heavy Guards</a> (RCT)
<a name="3055_to_3062" id="3055_to_3062"></a>

3055 to 3062

  • <a href="/wiki/299th_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="299th Division (ComStar)">299th Division (ComStar)</a><a href="#cite_note-CS84-4" title="">[5]</a><a href="#cite_note-FMCS126-5" title="">[6]</a>
<a name="3067_2" id="3067_2"></a>

3067

  • <a href="/wiki/New_Avalon_Cavaliers" title="New Avalon Cavaliers">New Avalon Cavaliers</a><a href="#cite_note-MS67-6" title="">[7]</a>
  • <a href="/wiki/2nd_NAIS_Cadet_Cadre" title="2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre">2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre</a><a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>
  • 1st Davion Guards RCT<a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>
  • <a href="/wiki/5th_Donegal_Guards" title="5th Donegal Guards">5th Donegal Guards RCT</a><a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>
  • <a href="/wiki/10th_Lyran_Guards" title="10th Lyran Guards">10th Lyran Guards</a><a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>
<a name="3071_to_3071" id="3071_to_3071"></a>

3071 to 3071

  • <a href="/wiki/Bronson%27s_Horde" title="Bronson's Horde">Bronson's Horde</a><a href="#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a>

    Thanks[edit]

    Hy again, i give you this award Problem Solver Award, 5th ribbon, for your CSS help, thanks.--Doneve 13:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Hello Mbear, i will think about it to include the css formating in my side. And about the tables. I will include tables in articles which are created by me and when I think it looks better. I understand that by larger pages it could increase the bandwitch a little bit. Tables are also a personal taste. The user like it or not. I will always listen to the other users and will think about their arguments. But I reserve the freedom to me to act on creation and will find a solution when problems arise by cooperative works. Sometimes my behavior is unsual, but I have put a lot of information in articles and categories which were orphans before. Neuling 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

    Its me again. I understand your position to. I have redone my changes by the variant articles. When you would change the army sites back, make it. I think we are a open community and will argue about issues. When I think some chnages look great I will change first only an exmple and ask then the others. I know you dislike tables or other changes that I make in some cases. I will not makes problems but also will have the freedom to cooperate in away which is accepted. You write to me use hole sentences or becare when you change something. I'm grateful for your advice. I think sometimes new style/looks can change a article to the better. To be true many army sites for example looks like a mess and are dis organized. Its funny when I think to create a site for a special issue is helpful and some thin it is unnessary. (I mean not the gallery page).Neuling 16:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

    CSS[edit]

    Tnx for your work and I will think about it to put the CSS in my preferences. Abot tables, which is the best way to find a solution which is widely accepted. My Thoughts, many sites are disorganized or have a structure were the diffferents are not cleary worked out. In the last days a have put only two or three new tables up. Some times tables are a good solution in a common way, for example when larger lists are integrated or content can be better sortet. Neuling 06:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

    Agreed, tables are a good way to sort content when you have several related columns. In some cases however, like the owner history of planets and other single columns of information, a table isn't a good way to go. A list is. (I have to deal with the abuse of tables for non-table content every day at work and it gets tiresome.)
    I guess our definition of content that can be sorted differ.--Mbear 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

    Moratorium Period for RS:3085 Record Sheets[edit]

    Hello MBear, it i believe a goof happened the actual dates to end their Moratorium periods for these articles are missing. Talk:Record Sheets: 3085 Unabridged — Project Phoenix. Would you weigh in to see what should be done? I have rough idea when they came out, since i am a vivid purchaser of the PDFs. So mine download date are within the day of their release. I asked Rev, he felt you would be better at resolving this issue. I'm only but a averge editor, not administor. -- Wrangler 13:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

    It looks like these are PDF exclusives, so you're correct. I thought they were going to be published, but now that I think about it that would be a big task. So I'll go ahead and remove the Moratoriums from the relevant files. (We still have three days until The Cutting Edge is available.) Thanks for asking!--Mbear 14:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

    Request for factions[edit]

    Hey Mbear, I have a questions about the different factions an their unique equipment availability. I think it is useful to mark every variant with icons or something this way to know how has access to the machines. And could we expande the space between the variant to see where the beginning is and where the end. Neuling 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

    Neuling, I think that's what the categories are for at the bottom of the unit pages. If a faction is listed, it has access to the 'Mech. A 'Mech with no factions listed is available to everyone.
    Wait, I just re-read what you wrote. OK. So an example of your proposal would be putting a small Federated Suns logo in front of those variants listed as being a Federated Suns unit? Ummm...adding an icon to every variant is going to be a big task, and possibly discourage contributions from new editors.--Mbear 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    Hy Mbear, i read this and i like the idea of Neuling, i would do this (give me the icons), and the hughe task can started.--Doneve 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    Well, there are two problems with your request Doneve:
    1. Consensus has not been reached (as far as I know). Neuling, please make your suggestion on the Project BattleMechs Talk page so others can contribute.
    2. I don't have icon images yet. Until consensus is reached, I'm not going to make them. (I'll wait until I know the project has accepted the idea before making them.)--Mbear 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    Hy Mbear, i know, but it was a little goal to kick up this new idea, i would to weight in, and the Consensus can started, it is a very good idead, but hmm, how we can bring up this issu to acceptance to others, i want to go to bed, and give you a new goal to next day.--Doneve 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

    Variant formatting (again)[edit]

    Split this to track separately from issue above. And could we expand the space between the variant to see where the beginning is and where the end. Neuling 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

    One thing that was mentioned on the BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Variant_format section was a proposal to put the variants in as a definition list. Basically all you need to do is change the stars (*) and dashes we're using now to ; and : (colon). (I just haven't been doing it because I've been trying to get info into the list.)
    Using the definition list makes the variant designations boldfaced and appear on their own line. This increases the space between teh variants as you ask. (And if you want to modify the CSS rules to make the list items on the star lists appear further apart, you can add this to your custom CSS file: ul + ul {margin-top:25px;} It will only work in Firefox, Chrome, and IE8+ though.)--Mbear 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

    Test[edit]

    Hey Mbear, please take a look at the Banshee site and give me a short response about the modification I make about the variants. I doesn't uses tables only the simpliest formating and with a short overview variant - year - faction - modification/manufacturer - planet. Please give me a short response. Tnx Neuling 20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

    Hy Neuling, I Jump in at the moment. I think the data you provided, must placed in the difference entieres of the manufacturing centers section, and please add your ^^referencea^^ ;).--Doneve 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    At second, the variants data you would provided, give it a entyre to the own mech page, and linked to to manufacturer page with ^^refs^^.--Doneve 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    And on the last, Neuling, we need references to your contributions, the Banshee example is good but we need some....ref. notes.--Doneve 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    I have no problems with the format at all. I do think the work you show here could probably go up in the Variants section near each variant though. (See the Banshee 8S for an example.) I don't see anything wrong with it.--Mbear 15:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    Agree to with the variant idea, with a working link to the manufacturing entires, thoughts.--Doneve 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

    Question[edit]

    Hy Mbear, you have any knowhow about the technology category, i'am a little bit tired for fixing Neuling's new creations on the technology pages, he added ref. notes but not all of our users know what is TRO: 3067, Milspec etc., and we have the CAPS problem in some articles etc. etc, i hope you can find a way to talk to him for this, he is entusiastic and make great contributions, but i think not in a sarne policy sheme, this example is only for the Technology category, thanks.--Doneve 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    I'd encourage you to leave a note on the page first. Maybe he'll see your point. (Plus he speaks German natively, so you could probably talk to him more effectively than I could.)--Mbear 16:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    Ok i contact him, and talke about the Manual of Style and other problems, thanks.--Doneve 16:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    Creature Infobox[edit]

    Hy Mbear, when you have time, please take a look on this Template:InfoBoxCreature, fix somethings if you want, and give me a little feedback. Greetings--Doneve 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

    Plagiarism[edit]

    Hy Mbear, i note the most contributions of (Autor: BattleTech Muse 3056) are always plagarized material, in the major Inner Sphere factions section, i dont want to remove content, but can we found a way to correct this, you know i am not the fluff writer, i hope any can overwrite, correct this missere, thanks--Doneve 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

    Operation Revival[edit]

    Hy Mbear, please take alook of Operation Revival and give my a short respone about my writing style. What do you think it is enough... Neuling 18:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

    Creature Infobox[edit]

    Hy Mbear, i hope you can help by this problem, the discussion is copyed from Frabby's talk page.--Doneve 21:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

    Hy Frabby, you fix the Creature Infobox, when i added a species image, ok it is shown in it, but i found after the save a broken infobox, take a look on the Ghost Bear (species) page, thanks. --Doneve 00:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

    The InfoBox doesn't look broken to me - can you specify the problem? Frabby 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    The horizontal closing line in the top of the infobox, i don't see it.--Doneve 09:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, now I see what you mean. Problem is, this is the same for all new infoboxes we have (and I think it was always like this). Only, on most of them you don't see it because very few images are pure white, most have a dark background. The frame is there on the (old-style) BattleMech infoboxes though so it is possible to have hone. I have no idea how to arrange a frame atop the image, perhaps ask Nic or Mbear? Frabby 20:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    It looks like the top border of the infobox is missing. To confirm or disprove Frabby's theory, I substituted an award image for the ghost bear image and saw the same problem. The borders to either side of the image appeared, but the top didn't. Still investigating.--Mbear 11:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    The creature infobox is using the infoBoxNew CSS class, while the battlemech infobox is using the infobox CSS class. infoBoxNew has explicitly set the border-top property to 0px, which makes it disappear. When I changed the creature infobox to use infobox the border appeared. (It was in the wrong color, but it was progress.) So it looks like the infoBoxNew class needs to be updated to remove the 0px top border. I don't know what infobox templates are using that class however, so I haven't made the change or requested it.--Mbear 11:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Welcome template[edit]

    Mbear, would you please show me how to update the Welcome template to best make use of the skins? I'd appreciate it. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    I forgot all about the welcome template, so there's nothing in the skins right now to use them. That said, I'd make a couple of small changes to the HTML in the template and update the skin CSS files. There's a sample at User:Mbear/welcome, with the updated welcome message up top and the existing one below.
    The updated welcome message gets an ID attribute of welcomemessage. I've also replaced two DIV tags that were being used for formatting with H2 tags. That's pretty much it for the HTML.
    For the CSS I've created a sample at User:Mbear/sarnasteiner.css. I don't know if you can see that or not. Just in case, here's the code:
    div#welcomemessage /*sets up colored border*/
    {
    	border:3px solid #000;
    	padding:1em;
    }
    
    div#welcomemessage h2 /* "Welcome" and "Be Bold" */
    {
    	text-decoration:none;
    	font-weight:bold;
    	font-style:normal;
    	text-align:center;
    	font-size:18px;
    }
    div#welcomemessage div /*the white background part*/
    {
    	border:3px solid #000;
    	padding: 0 1em 0 1em;
    	background-color:#fff;
    }
    div#welcomemessage span.editsection {display:none;}
    
    /* This will go into faction-specific stylesheets to set appropriate color background. */
    div#welcomemessage {background-color:#C7CFD9;}
    
    Basically everything from div#welcomemessage on down will have to go into the main (global) CSS file. This will set the welcomemessage to the correct size, font size, padding, etc. That doesn't change from one skin to the next.
    Faction specific colors can be set by using the last line. I'd just need to add the appropriate color to the faction CSS file.
    Nic will need to update/upload those files though. I don't know how MediaWiki sets up the stylesheets.
    Does that help or am I just confusing the issue?--Mbear 16:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Man, I just stumbled across this. Sorry for sending you off on all that work and then not responding.
    I 'get' about 60% of what you're providing here, but its that missing 40% that gives me pause. I'm sure i'm misunderstanding, but when you say the "Faction specific colors can be set by using the last line," does that mean the user will need to do that or that a variable incorporating the colors you selected for the skins will work? Lastly, should I point Nic to this conversation now? That is, is it ready for primetime? Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

    Question[edit]

    Hi Mbear, i hope your doing good. I had question, recently you edited XTRO: RetroTech, i saw something i thought was little confusing. You listed the series in the infobox as being series = Electronic Books, why? Won't that say every single PDF book ever made is a series? I would think that it was part of the Experimental Technical Readout series. -- Wrangler 22:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    Wrangler, my edits only occurred on the contents not the infobox. I think Frabby wrote that when he put the new infobox in place. But I agree with you, I think it should be part of the Experimental Technical Readout series.--Mbear 10:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    Spam[edit]

    Hi Mbear, a question about spammers, why block the most of the other admins the spammers only for 1 year, why not for a unlimited time.--Doneve 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    If your question is why do the other admins block spammers for a year and why did I put an infinite block on that guy, it's because I forgot that I was only supposed to ban him for a year. Oops!
    If your question is why don't we just automatically ban them forever, it's because an IP address could be used by a nonspammer who's trying to add something to Sarna. Then they get blocked and have no idea why. In other words, we don't punish the spammer, we punish an innocent party.--Mbear 15:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    Fanon Notice[edit]

    Template:FanonNotice

    Screwed up template?[edit]

    Hey, Mbear: would you mind take a look at the page for Template:InfoBoxBattleMechCustom? I'm using IE6 right now, but the leftside column (sidebar) is all but gone, except for the search box. It does that for a large number (but not all) of the pages utilizing the template, as well. I can't see what it is. (It may just be a IE6 issue.). Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    InfoBoxBattleMech, too? HawkWolf. Something isn't right, here. Sad.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm convinced it's an IE6 thing. All those pages show fine on my mobile Safari browser.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    You're using IE6? Don't. Even Microsoft says "Don't use it." When I visit the site in IE6 via Virtual PC I don't see the errors you're reporting.--Mbear 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    Only at work. That's all the money the DOD has to use for browsing. In the Real World, I'm up on the latest and greatest.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ummm. You know IE7 and IE8 are free downloads, right? So it wouldn't cost anything to upgrade. Plus the "IE6 Compatibility Mode" will let you use that antique website with the IE6 specific features. But there I go, applying logic to the situation. Oh well. "Mine is not to reason why, mine is but to point and laugh."--Mbear 12:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    Department of Defense's acquisition rules for the Navy's controlled intranet. IE7 is being rolled out, taking awhile for some machines. That means, of course, I can't install it myself (I can't even clear out the browsing history, which sucks since I have www.sarna..net -two dots- at the top of the list). Back on the carrier, I was able to use a thumbdrive-installed browser to give me tabs, but USB access has been removed for all users since well before the whole Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks thing blew up, probaby because of Chinese intrusion via 'found' thumbdrives.
    Trust me: I'm not beholden to IE6 at work; I'm enslaved.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

    Variable template needed[edit]

    Mbear, I'm hoping you might be able to help us out on the upcoming Planet overhaul. I want to have a template built that will allow us to monitor and double-check where any particular planet might be in the overhaul, using a conditional 'phase' to quickly describe what has been done with it.
    The intent is that when a Project Member (PM) has completed the necessary work in that phase, he'll change the conditional numeral so that the tag (at the top of the article) shows that the article has now completed that phase and automatically re-categorizes the article into the appropriately named category. That way, if a planet gets over looked in, say, Phase 1, it'll remain behind in the Phase 1 category.
    For example, the tag will be titled something like: "Project:Planet Overhaul In Progress". The body text would provide a short description to the reader of the project's intent and will conclude with a note to the PMs: "Project Members: this particular article is in Phase 1." When the assigned PM finishes Phase 1 work on that article, he'll change the conditional numeral to '2'. That would remove that planet page from the Phase 1 category, and display it in the Phase 2 category.
    At this time, we haven't nailed down how many phases we'll have just yet, so if it could support up to 6, that would be grand (starting with Phase 0, which all planets will be tagged with before beginning...so Phases 0 thru 5). Additionally, if you could use the world icon already associated with the project to the left of the tag, that would be helpful. The current beige-ish color for the tag would be fine, too.
    Is this something you could do? I'll build the category pages shortly. Let me know, thanks!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not really sure how the templates work. Let me do some investigating and get back to you. I'll leave a message here. (I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work, but I don't want to say "No problem" w/o understanding if it will be a problem, you know? Under-promise and over-deliver instead of having a Leviathan Publisher situation.)--Mbear 12:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    That article you linked to (Ars Technica) was a fascinating read this morning. While it doesn't really depict a trend per se back to US manufacturing, it opened my eyes to what American brands have to contend with and puts Bills' predicament in a more 'common' (but new for me) perspective. I felt I really learned something relevant on the boards this time. Thanks for that.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    You're welcome. And I have news, I think I've got what you want. Have a look at User_talk:Mbear/PlanetPageTest. By adding the PlanetOverhaul|phase=(0,1,2,3,4,5) template to the page, you should see different categories appear at the bottom of the page. I can rewrite the content of the message and category to be whatever you like. This is just a demo.--Mbear 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    Yep, it's categorizing like it should. Good job! My next step is to get those categories to you; I had two of them done but got...distracted. I'll have them to you shortly. Next: can you get it to display the current phase in the banner itself (in bold)? That'll be important for PMs reviewing an individual article.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    The six category names are here. Thank you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    You just want everything, don't you? ;) Seriously, the phase is now in the banner. The Category links have been updated as well.--Mbear 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    Dude, that works exactly as I described. I must be a brilliant writer!
    Nah, seriously, thanks. I was surprised how quickly you turned that around and the code is interesting. It's clean, easy to follow and I'll have to experiment a bit with it, to learn how to use it for other things (such as infoboxes). I've never worked with #switch before.
    I may work with the wording a bit, as the project becomes better defined, but it does exactly as I needed it to perform. Thanks, Mbear!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    #Switch is actually an easy concept. Instead of having a lot of nested #if else if statements you just pass a value (parameter) to the switch statement and it looks for a match. When it finds a match, it adds the appropriate text/code/whatever. If it doesn't find a match, it will use the text specified in default.
    using it in an infobox may present more of a challenge however. I haven't investigated that. What were you going to do?--Mbear 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, no intentions just yet; just exploring the possibilities.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    Erm...could you take a look at Sarna? It is not changing the phases nor the categories, like it did in the test.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I'm an idiot; I didn't realize "phase=" had to be a part of it, just relied on the post-pipe conditional. Sorry!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

    Problem Solver Award[edit]

    You're racking these Admin awards right up!

    PS.jpg

    Thanks for helping the Planet Overhaul effort get off the ground by creating a custom tag for us.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

    Historical: Reunification War[edit]

    Evening, Mbear: why did you change the moratorium for Historical: Reunification War from 28 September (2 months after it hit the streets) to the open-ended "2 months"? As discussed on the talk page, I had it in my hands, via mail, on July 28th.--Rev (talk|contribs) 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

    I didn't know it was out. When I checked the BattleShop, it hadn't been released. I'll alter it back.--Mbear 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    Aaah, ok. I thought there was the possibility you knew something I didn't. I've started commenting on discussion pages of product articles when I think something should be released, so that we can review them if they are marked as "two months following". Thanks, Mbear.--Rev (talk|contribs) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

    Infobox thumbnails[edit]

    Mbear, I'm trying to understand something. I created two infoboxes (InfoBoxSystem, InfoBoxPlanetStandard) which both use images. Back in 2007, Bdevoe created InfoBoxPlanet which makes use of thumbnails. My infoboxes blow up the images to 285 pixels (IIRC), while his appear to be about 225, which is a much better fit. His uses infobox class, while mine uses the infoboxnew class which utilizes the skins (and is preferred). How can I get in 'there' to create a more reasonably-sized graphic? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

    Rev, your Template:InfoBoxSystem page had this line for images:
    {{!}} colspan="2" style="padding:0px" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|280px]]
    
    My first suspect was the 280px at the end of the line. I changed it to 225px and saved the infobox. Then I added an image to the Sarna page in the appropriate location. (It's the wrong image, but it's what I could find fast.) Now when I look at the image, it comes up as 225px by 225px.
    To verify that I was on the right track, I edited the infobox again, this time removing the |225px from the line. Saved it and reloaded the Sarna page. The image was HUGE. So I rolled back to the previous version with the correct width specified and all was well again.
    So it looks like you just need to specify the width you want on the image line.
    {{!}} colspan="2" style="padding:0px" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|Your desired width]]
    
    I've left the Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard alone so you can try correcting it yourself. Should be exactly the same thing.--Mbear 12:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    Several apologies, as well as gratitude. First, apologies for not wikilinking to those templates. I'm not sure why I wasn't thinking. Second, apologies for wasting your time. I was so certain the answer was complex, I couldn't see the easy answer right in front of me. Thanks for clearing that up.
    Second, with two parts: do you know of a way to allow for a conditional caption to be included? We'd like to be able to indicate the specific year each map image represents. Additionally (and minor in concern), the infobox doesn't appear to wrap around the image at the top. Is that something that can be addressed with either the template or the css?
    Two final things: answered your question here regarding signatures and thought I'd point out that Neufeld, you and I all received recognition in the DTF format of TRO: Prototypes. Not bad representation for BTW editors, since we made up about 30% of those thanked.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    No problem. I've had plenty of days where I can't see the forest for the trees. Sometimes you need that exterior view to get the answer. ;)
    Conditional Captioning: I'll need to do some research.
    Infobox not wrapping around the image: I'm not sure I understand. Is it the borders that aren't wrapping?--Mbear(talk) 17:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    Exactly that. It looks like you're already working the problem.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

    Infobox Updates[edit]

    "Second, with two parts: do you know of a way to allow for a conditional caption to be included? We'd like to be able to indicate the specific year each map image represents. Additionally (and minor in concern), the infobox doesn't appear to wrap around the image at the top. Is that something that can be addressed with either the template or the css?" Questions from Revanche.

    1. Yes, I have a solution in place now. Basically I had to add a caption parameter to your infobox. Now it comes up as expected.
    2. The infobox wasn't wrapping because the template you used as the basis for your infoboxes wasn't using the updated CSS classes that are used on BattleMech pages. I added those classes and now it's pulling in the correct formatting.
    You can see all the changes at User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest, which is a copy of the Sarna page (without categories/update needed tags).
    I also tweaked the Planetary Update infobox a bit. I assumed that "Planetary Update" would always be present, but year would be optional. If the editor puts a year value in place, the year will be listed as part of the "planetary Update" heading. This means less typing in the other rows as the default year is now present. (Of course the existing year in parenthesis is still available.)
    Again, have a look at User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest to see all combinations.--Mbear(talk) 18:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks very much, for both.
    Actually, I removed year so that it would not be used. We've decided that instead of a separate Update box for each year, changing data would be represented in one box, followed by the year and broken apart by <br>.
    Again, thanks for the quick turn around. You make it look easy.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


    Mjolnir 'Mech Infobox[edit]

    Hy Mbear, can you take a look on the Mjolnir (BattleMech) page, i added the Luxor 2/Q to the infobox, but i don't can show this when i save the page, thanks.--Doneve 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

    "jump jets" is incorrect. You need to have jumpjets (one word) for the entry to show up correctly.--Mbear(talk) 16:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


    Master Unit List[edit]

    Hy Mbear, is the master unit list version 0.66 canon material or semi official? Tnx Neuling 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

    I think it was semi-offical. It was superceded by http://www.masterunitlist.info/ though.--Mbear(talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    It was never official released as a finished, official product; it was always only a beta-release. As such, it does not qualify as fully canon and must be considered apocryphal. It does, however, meet our critera for meta-source. Frabby 21:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    So there you have it Neuling: The version 0.66 list cannot be used directly as a source, but it can be used to find links to other primary sources.--Mbear(talk) 11:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

    Moratorium[edit]

    Hy Mbear, the moratorium for Field Report: Periphery has also expired.--Doneve 10:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

    Main page updated. Thanks for the reminder!--Mbear(talk) 12:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

    Hy, i see you added infos from Objectives: Draconis Combine at this time the source is under moratorium, expired on 16th November 2011.--Doneve 18:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

    Hy again, it was not my intention, that you revert your edits, i want only to say the moratorium expire on 16th November.--Doneve 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yeah, well. I can revert them again. No big deal.--Mbear(talk) 19:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

    BattleMech Infobox[edit]

    Hy Mbear, please take a look on the BM infobox, i added a communications system and targeting tracking system row, but when i update a mech article page i can show the two rows, but when i fill it in by data, i can see it, thanks for help.--Doneve 17:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

    DC Military Districts[edit]

    Hy Mbear, please can you take a look on Benjamin Military District, i add no fluff in my sense, but want your mention to my update, thanks.--Doneve 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

    Looks OK to me. I made a couple of tweaks to the content, but nothing major. You might want to add a list of the smaller administrative areas that compose the District at some point. (just a thought.)--Mbear(talk) 16:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    You're right, some districts change their name, and other thinks, thanks.--Doneve 16:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

    Spam[edit]

    Hy again, please block Johnny42Robinson, thanks.--Doneve 16:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

    Blocked.--Mbear(talk) 16:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    Please block User:EarlMclean723‎, spambot attack.--Doneve 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Updates[edit]

    WOW, have your All Purpose Award, 5th ribbon award, for updating so many pages by new canon material in this short time :).--Doneve 15:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

    Combat Vehicles Infobox[edit]

    Hy, please can you add to the Combat Vehicles infobox a comsys and T&T section, thanks.--Doneve 20:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

    Done! And I updated the DropShip, Industrial Mech, Conventional Fighters, Small Craft, and Support vehicle infoboxes as well.--Mbear(talk) 12:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

    Spambot attacks[edit]

    Hy Mbear, i think we must talk with Nic, how we handle in the last weeks, month the spambot attacks, i am really pissed of this attacks.--Doneve 18:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

    Field Report: Clans[edit]

    Hy Mbear, the moratorium for Field Report: Clans has expired.--Doneve 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

    Combat Vehicle infobox[edit]

    Hy Mbear i added a introdution row to the combat vehicle infobox, but don't work, can you take a look thanks.

    Doneve, I found the problem and it's fixed.--Mbear(talk) 12:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)