User talk:Mbear/archive2013

Cruise Missile 120[edit]

'nuff said. Consider yourself flogged and thoroughly publicly humiliated. :) Good Conduct Award, 1st ribbon

On a more serious note, I am somewhat disappointed with myself over the "apocryphal" tags on the Objective Raids, Luthien, and 1st Ed. Periphery sourcebooks. I did notice them being added and knew it was wrong, but then it somehow dropped off my radar. Fixed now. Frabby (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2013 (PST)

It may be because you and I had a conversation over how the wording in the apocryphal template doesn't match the intent you had for it, after I argued that the wording on the apocryphal content template matched what Herb had said about the three books. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2013 (PST)
Bing! That was it! Thanks for the reminder, I'll add it to my to-do list. Frabby (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (PST)
No problem. I am publicly humiliated. I guess that'll teach me to try to use logic and real world systems to try to fill in the gaps in a weapon system's history. ;) --Mbear(talk) 04:37, 7 January 2013 (PST)
Oh, and while I'm at it, what a way to start the week. Having someone tell you your work is complete crap is a great way to suck the wind out of your sails.--Mbear(talk) 05:12, 7 January 2013 (PST)
Don't let it eat at you - Paul may have told you off, but when a bollocking's done, it's done. Mistakes are bound to happen here; there are only, what, half a dozen of us regularly editing? And from what I've seen, we're all running around with our collective hair on fire trying to get information uploaded, rather than busily checking each other's homework. You do good work - don't let this get to you, ok? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (PST)
I'm also sure Mbear wasn't offended. (Then again, I wasn't at the receiving end of all that... constructive criticism. Mbear certainly showed exemplary handling of the situation.) Just for the sake of clarity, I think Paul wasn't condescending at all - he just pointed out mistakes in a very matter-of-fact way and even said he likes and still uses Sarna. I regard the whole issue as something of a tongue-in-cheek PR show for Sarna. See the bright side: Sarna got off much better than in previous threads complaining about article quality. We're definitely improving. :) Although I certainly felt the sting myself of having failed to correct/remove the apocryphal tags on those three sourcebook articles. The overall lesson here is that quality is waaay more important than quantity if Sarna wants to be taken seriously - not something we didn't already know, of course. Frabby (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (PST)
It wasn't too bad until some other folks started to jump in and rip me a new one. That was irritating. But when all's said and done I screwed up and then fixed it. So it's done now.--Mbear(talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (PST)

Planet InfoBox[edit]

Mbear, as the resident expert on infobox construction, is there any way to amend the Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard template so that if the image is already less than 225 pixels in width, it isn't increased automatically to a width of 225 pixels? Some of the info boxes (like Denbar) are suffering from image bloat because the long, think planetary flags are being scaled up dramatically... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2013 (PST)

I don't know off the top of my head. Let me look into it.--Mbear(talk) 04:17, 10 January 2013 (PST)
Updated the InfoboxPlanetStandard to include a new paramater: imagewidth. If you have an image less than 225px, you can enter the width in pixels on this line to show image w/o scaling. Leaving line blank will assume width of 225px.--Mbear(talk) 04:30, 10 January 2013 (PST)
That's great, I'll go back and revise the entries with issues now. Thank you kindly - please accept this Assistance Appreciated award as thanks: Assistance Appreciated Award, 3rd ribbon BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2013 (PST)

Rewritten: 4th Skye Rangers[edit]

For your approval, I give you the 4th Skye Rangers. You've understandably questioned my use of the "Update Needed" tags in the past. I'm hoping this will show you how I intend to use them. (Not that I intend to rewrite all those articles - just saying I want to write more than a footnote. :P ) ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2013 (PST)

Looks good! My question about your use of Update Needed was motivated by their use for things like TRO:3058 on pages like the 4th Skye Rangers. A couple of those TROs mentioned the unit in one sentence. It just struck me as odd that you'd put that update needed tag in place instead of just making the update. But from what I see here, it makes a lot of sense.--Mbear(talk) 03:08, 22 January 2013 (PST)
Its a contextual thing. Most of the Update Needed tags I put up are done when I'm doing something else. I can either stop what I'm doing and spend 20 minutes putting up a sentence, or I can put on the Update Needed tag. I connect the two in my 4SR article because I want you to know that I do go back and make the changes, it sometimes just take me awhile. :) By the way, do people on the CBT forums complain about the update needed tags? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2013 (PST)
I haven't heard any complaints on the forums. And if I did I'd just invite them to come on over and lend a hand!--Mbear(talk) 12:07, 22 January 2013 (PST)
Okay, just checking. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2013 (PST)


(Psst... You've got your dates mixed up on Viborg. You're looking at a 2581 map, but the Commonwealth/Republic war was in the 2770s, end of the Star League era.)
As an aside, are you working through Historical: Reunification War chapter by chapter, or are you whacking away at the Updates Needed tags? I worked through the chapters on UNION HOLD and the Magistracy campaign whose name escapes me last year, and I was debating tackling the Rim Worlds campaign as one of my big projects for this year, but I don't want to step on your toes if you're already working on it. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2013 (PST)

cough Ahem. I knew that. I was just testing you to see if you were paying attention. Congratulations! You passed the test. ;)
I'm just looking at update needed tags. I'm not going to dive into any of the big things, so feel free to take on the Rim Worlds campaign.--Mbear(talk) 10:55, 22 January 2013 (PST)


Saw you deleted Harira, with a note that it was a misspelling for Hahira. Where did that notion come from? Because I'm working on a BC story set partly on Harira, where it is spelled thusly. Frabby (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2013 (PST)

You'd have to ask BrokenMnemonic. He put it up for deletion originally. I just hit the delete button.
(diff) 03:29, March 21, 2012 . . BrokenMnemonic (Talk | contribs | block) (5,132 bytes) (Added deletion request template - entry is a duplicate, based on the mis-spelling of Hahira as Harira)
Sorry!--Mbear(talk) 04:04, 7 February 2013 (PST)


Hello Mbear. I know you are easing back for a sit, but if you were ever interested in something different, would you ever feel like writing/expanding some of your somewhat-namesake Clan characters? The Ghost Bears, of course. I'm on a track that will not be in the IS Clans for a while. Khans Like Bjorn Jorgensson and Aletha Kabrinski could really use some work. Only if you felt like a change. They will be sitting for a while if you wanted to. It definitely would not be working an obscure red link, for certain. And everyone loves Ghost Bears for some reason. Win win, when you think about it. Wink.gif

Also, and I hope you don't mind my saying this, Paul almost got me when I asked the Writers if it was safe to assume Royce Chapman was an Elemental. Just enough to remind me of what I had read silently and did not comment on before, and reminding me that assumptions are not safe. I have an eye toward making sure everything I've done is in-line now, and I'm not afraid to edit, we all know that. I don't want to tread into their territory and I'm pretty aware of that line now and it was mostly because of that thread. We're documenting and commenting in the manner of non-biased articles whenever possible. And yes I agree that the infuriating thing for me to read was the third, fourth fifth users in mentality that exhibited in Paul's wake. I'm sure he was displeased by that as well, I would be, and you would too if you were in Paul's position, I imagine. I think he wanted to help and took it for granted that he would have the floor in that setting. Sorry to bring up old stuff, but just wanted you to know that that was something that helped at least me to take a good look at what I am writing. His addressing me about Royce did not feel like happenstance, so I think he just wants to help Sarna in the direction we're supposed to have relative to that of TPTB. Just an observation. I was most thankful that I was not flayed publicly, while I was reminded that you took that for us. Thank you for that at least. --Rebs (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2013 (PST)

Combat Vehicle Infobox[edit]

Hy Mbear, please can you add a heat sinks row to the combat vehicle infobox, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2013 (PST)

Done!--Mbear(talk) 12:46, 26 February 2013 (PST)

ProtoMech Infobox[edit]

Hy, can you add a comsys and T&T row to the infobox, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2013 (PST)

done.--Mbear(talk) 05:54, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

Design Quirks[edit]

Hy Mbear, is it ok when i add a design quirks section to the variants you added from XTRO: Boondoggles?--Doneve (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Sure. I don't know that we need a section though. maybe just a sentence.--Mbear(talk) 05:48, 15 March 2013 (PDT)
I want to create a Design Quirks page, and i need your support, i know you favor a sentence, but i want to list all quirks in a article, can you help me a little bit, to do this, there is a interesting discussion from FedCom Girl to Herb on the BT forum, and i want to bring this idea to sarna.--Doneve (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2013 (PDT)
Well, one place to start might be the Force Specific Rules page, since that's basically what we're talking about. (Force Specific Rules strike me as Design Quirks for units.) There's a general introduction about the Force Specific Rules, and then a section that lists the effects of the various FSRs. Sounds a lot like the Design Quirks page you're looking to create.--Mbear(talk) 07:00, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I forgot to give you this link Design Quirks.--Doneve (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't understand how that link relates to the proposed Design Quirks page.--Mbear(talk) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
You understand me fals, i want to liste the various quirks i can found in cannon sources where ther used on which types and so on, like Technical Readout: Prototypes, XTRO: Boondoggles etc., i start a talk with FedComGirl and Habeas as next, and want to bring this up to sarna what FedComGirl datamined, with a ok from her and his permission to use this on sarna in next time, is the Rules Level or Force Specific Rules article better to add the quirks link, please take a look on Technical Readout: Prototypes, p. 5.--Doneve (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't have any problem with this. Go for it. My suggestion for using the Force Specific Rules article as your model is still valid. Just put the info underneath each Quirk.--Mbear(talk) 17:03, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't put all quirks in the Force Specific Rules page, i add a description and rule thinks from Strategic Operations but with a link to the Quirks page.--Doneve (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that you should use the Force Specific Rules page as a model for the Design Quirks page. So at the top you have the general design quirks info, and below you have each individual design quirk.--Mbear(talk) 17:15, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
Ah ok, this is clear, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2013 (PDT)

Take a view[edit]

Hy Mbear. Can you take a look on the Design Quirks page, i built up at this time the main body of the page, but any support or critism is welcome, to change some parts.--Doneve (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2013 (PDT)

CGL forum[edit]

Mbear, iam a little bit dissapointed about the CGL forum, i add a question, no response comes or some stupid answers, iam cince 2011 on it but not under my sarna name, i don't know why so many BV (2.0) differences are in the sources, as example take a look on the Lumberjack iam updated today, i know there is some errata, but not to the changed bv in so many sources, Technical Readout: 3075, Record Sheets: 3075 Unabridged vs. Record Sheets: 3075 Unabridged - Age of War, now i have a feeling why Bad Syntax stopped his work on so many projects look on this Older posts on the bottom, but the best way you read id from the start topic. You are longer on the forum as I, but I become a critical point of view to the forum.--Doneve (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2013 (PDT)

Herb can come across a bit snarky. In defense of TPTB, there are things in BT that are unknown even to them. And some of these things they don't even want to know. Take BV for example, Herb confirmed that the system is broken and is giving even the CGL experts bad headaches - in many cases they will simply be unable to answer questions about BV even if they wanted to. On the other end of the spectrum is FASAnomics and production details where it is stated CGL policy to deliberately give out as little hard info as possible because the existing canon information is a bitch to keep track of already. Somewhere in the middle are cases which are considered too inconsequential to bother about errata'ing them when inconsistencies pop up; I had that happen with a BattleCorps story.
Can you point me to a specific thread on the forum? Frabby (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2013 (PDT)
Doneve, I certainly relate to your frustration. I don't know what to say. For the BV stuff, please just use the latest sources: If TPTB aren't worried about getting it right why should we?--Mbear(talk) 04:10, 15 April 2013 (PDT)

Question extension[edit]

Hey, Mbear: do you recall the name of the extension we're using to quiz new registrants? I don't think its ConfirmEdit, but I don't see any other descriptions that would match. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:55, 20 April 2013 (PDT)

Sorry, but I don't remember. (And if I did, I'd tell you in teh forums rather than out here where a damn dirty spammer could find out.)--Mbear(talk) 03:30, 22 April 2013 (PDT)
Point. I'll reach out to Nic. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:43, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

Battle of Twycross[edit]

Mbear - You helped make this possible: Battle of Twycross. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2013 (PDT)

Question: Unit Infoboxes[edit]

Mbear - Did you make the current versions of these? I'm specifically looking at infoBoxMercUnit and infoBoxStateUnit. I was wondering how hard it would be to create a new box combining the fields of both. The purpose of doing so: in the case of house units, it would help designate what commands have their own jumpships/dropships, as well as the non-Mech assets. I don't necessarily think we should make the new box the standard, but I feel it would help for RCTs. Can you help? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2013 (PDT)

I didn't make those infoboxes. You have a point about them, but we may want to consider opening it up for discussion.--Mbear(talk) 12:14, 16 May 2013 (PDT)
KK - any ideas? I ask you because I have no experience with changing infoboxes. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (PDT)
It makes sense. It shouldn't be too tough to create a new InfoBox (InfoBoxCommand?) for military commands. It'll just use a bunch of "if" statements to make sure there are no extra rows. --Scaletail (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (PDT)
And you can use redirects for infoboxes too, which means you don't have to change all the old articles and can easily roll back the whole thing if it somehow doesn't work out. ClanWolverine, can you provide a rundown of what you want in a InfoBoxCommand? Frabby (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (PDT)
It shouldn't be that hard. I'd just need to combine the content of the two previous infoboxes into one infobox. But I can't find any information about why we have two infoboxes. Is there some reason I'm not aware of? (I don't want to do this if an earlier decision had reasons for separating the two.)--Mbear(talk) 07:33, 17 May 2013 (PDT)
I haven't seen a discussion, no.
I'd like to try it with one house unit, and just see how people react. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2013 (PDT)
I'll get to work on the new infobox.--Mbear(talk) 09:05, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

OK. Have a look at User:Mbear/Davion Assault Guards. Let me know what you think.--Mbear(talk) 09:25, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

(Copied over this reply from my own talk page) 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)
That said, technically, the infobox looks like a good substitute for the others. What level(s) of units do we seek to cover, companies and up? Frabby (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2013 (PDT)
I really like what you've done, Mbear. But I concur with Frabby's point about eras/year. Also - I'm having a difficult time making changes to the "subunit" sections. Are they all based on 3062? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2013 (PDT)
CW: I don't really know. I think they are, but the original infobox wasn't made by me so I don't know. I assume they are but can't say with 100% certainty.
Frabby: I agree that the information you refer to should be in the article itself. I'll try pulling out the date-specific stuff.--Mbear(talk) 06:15, 28 May 2013 (PDT)

I've just created a second infobox that removes the CO and Date related information. That way the infobox just deals with the information that relates to the unit as a whole (and for the whole of its existence). I've added a "Re-formed" line too, so if a unit is disbanded and then reconstituted (like the LyrCom's 4th Royal Guards) that can be indicated in the infobox.--Mbear(talk) 06:20, 28 May 2013 (PDT) This 2nd infobox's lack of dates has the side effect of removing the smaller unit formations (found in the infantry section) from the box. So the focus of the infobox is now on the unit as a whole, rather than a battalion/company/platoon inside the unit.--Mbear(talk) 06:22, 28 May 2013 (PDT)

Image Delete Request[edit]

Good evening, Mbear.

After doing my first update of an image, I've left 2 completely useless revisions that are of no use and are a result of trial and error approach I took with it. I asked hwo to remove them and got redirected to you, so I'd like to post a request on the deletion of 2 new, but not current revisions of created by me to not waste space on the wiki.

Thank you very much for the help. Adridos (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2013 (PDT)

Done! Sorry it took so long but I was at ORIGINS game fair.--Mbear(talk) 03:39, 17 June 2013 (PDT)

SLDF Minor Characters[edit]

Hello, please can you delete SLDF Minor Characters redirect, i do a litte bit mess, please take a look, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2013 (PDT)

Done!--Mbear(talk) 03:40, 17 June 2013 (PDT)

TRO:3145 Merc Discusion[edit]

Hi MBear, i've commented on what you had to say about the Moratorium issue i raised on when it should expired. Essentially, in the past when we had a dual PDF & Printed versions, such as TRO: Prototypes, we waited 3 months after PRINTED version of the TRO was published to drop the Moratorium. It safe guards us at the same time, gives publisher ability lure people to buy the product. Since these PDFs are directly linked to the unified TRO:3145 later this year. I think moratorium should stay on those PDFs until main book out for 3 months. -- Wrangler (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2013 (PDT)

sarna page size[edit]

Hy Mbear, did Nic any changes on the sarna page size. I have the feeling the size or font size is changed.--Doneve (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2013 (PDT)

It looks like he may have adjusted the width of the pages.--Mbear(talk) 10:05, 25 June 2013 (PDT)
Looks a little bit bad to me, when i look on planet and other pages.--Doneve (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2013 (PDT)

Minor news[edit]

Hy Mbear, there is a wrong date for HTP: New Dallas.--Doneve (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2013 (PDT)

Thanks! Fixed it.--Mbear(talk) 08:16, 5 July 2013 (PDT)

Amazon image[edit]

Hy Mbear, can you take a look please on the Amazon page, i uploaded the image, but i don't know where my failur is, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2013 (PDT)

Military Ranks[edit]

Hy i fixed the missing military ranks references you don't do and added to some the refimprove template. I would to help a little bit, i think all ref. notes are cleand up.--Doneve (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2013 (PDT)


Hello again, i have a feeling the faction infobox must become a update, if you wound time take a look on the Capellan Confederation page, there is some info we can move to the faction infobox, to move some availible data to it. What do you think?--Doneve (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2013 (PDT)

For Your Review - Beta Regiment[edit]

Beta Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) has been posted. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2013 (PDT)

Manufacturing Center policy[edit]

Hy Mber 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)

Vehicles Timetable and Aerospace Fighter Timetable[edit]

Hy Mbear, i have a question to you! Have you any experience in semantic wiki codeing. I want to create a Vehicles Timetable and Aerospace Fighter Timetable with the same layout and functions like the BattleMech Timetable, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2013 (PDT)

Doneve, I don't have any experience with the semantic wiki stuff. It's on my "someday" list, but I just haven't found the time. If I remember correctly, Seth was the driving force behind the semantic wiki extension. You may have better luck speaking to him. If that doesn't work, you could try the Semantic MediaWiki User Manual--Mbear(talk) 05:46, 21 August 2013 (PDT)
Hy Mbear please take a look on my first semantic timetable Combat Vehicle Timetable, now i know what is to do to create it Smiley.gif.--Doneve (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2013 (PDT)


Hy Mbear can you update the news section, moratorium for Technical Readout: 3145 Free Worlds League has expired, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2013 (PDT)


Hy Mbear, can you take a look on Nics talk page, i descriped the problem and uploaded a screenshot, i hope you can help me, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2013 (PDT)

Dude, Seriously?[edit]

I don't know how you manage to keep up the tempo that you do, plowing through all the updates needed tags and updating articles, but I think you're due another award. It was hard finding one you didn't already have though - I'm worried the weight of that medals rack might make you list to one side!
Random Act of Appreciation Award, 3rd ribbon
BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

Don't worry, I wear the medals rack on my long side so it actually evens me out when I walk. ;)
And to be fair, most of the time I just plow through for one day a week and then relax.--Mbear(talk) 03:29, 28 August 2013 (PDT)

New 3145 Record Sheets[edit]

Hy Mbear, how we handle the new two 3145 record sheet pdfs, iam to tired to add to every unit the update needed template.--Doneve (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

Sorry to Jump In. I've been making doing the Update notices as well. I just can't every single one in same nite, like Super Doneve can. ;) -- Wrangler (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
Why not Wrangler Wink.gif?--Doneve (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
Oh, I don't know. I would be wasted/burned out by the time i got finished. I AM semi-Retired ya know. ;) -- Wrangler (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2013 (PDT)
I honestly have no idea. I'll probably just put the update needed tags on the articles when I have time, but that won't be today. :(--Mbear(talk) 08:33, 21 October 2013 (PDT)
Do we need the tags? They'll be out of moratorium in a couple of months - it seems a bit redundant to add the tags to all those articles now, if someone keen like Wrangler will be updating all the articles as soon as the moratorium's over anyway Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2013 (PDT)
Well, it is policy to put the Update needed tags on any page that needs it. There's also no way of knowing if Doneve or Wrangler are going to be available to update every article. If not, then having those articles tagged as Update Needed is a good way to bring in more contributors. It's relatively easy to put in a new variant. Then once they get hooked, they keep coming back.

Now that I have some more time, I'll add the update needed tag to the relevant pages.--Mbear(talk) 03:57, 24 October 2013 (PDT)

MUL Reference Links[edit]

Hi MBear, i realize your busy these days. I have a request. I noticed that when you put the reference for MUL on the introduction dates. See what i did with the Sarath‎. The text is getting little messed up the way its is. You remember to put a space between the web address and the text. When the blah_address\MUL blah profile Template:Blank, the text next to the backslash is being cut off. Just do it like blah_address\ MUL blah profile Template:Blank -- Wrangler (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2013 (PDT)

OK. I'll be sure to do that in the future. Thanks for letting me know!--Mbear(talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (PDT)
Np. Also, becareful of the MUL. I've been finding alot of conflicting errants popping up for units. Example the Kodiak II, the 'Mech intro date was included in the fluff with events that point to the write up being the correct date instead of the MUL. I've been posting notes please don't necessary use MUL as final answer until each of the individual unit's errants can be addressed. Take care! -- Wrangler (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2013 (PDT)
Ah, thanks for the info, there is so many mess on the MUL page and other CGL sources, i dont know why? There profis on this genre, grml. I look what Bad Syntax has in his MUL list.--Doneve (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2013 (PDT)
I think I'll stop using the MUL and just use the TRO's for the dates.--Mbear(talk) 10:29, 28 October 2013 (PDT)
Well, Welshman made a...unexpected and i guess unpleasant (to me) announcement. Which basicly stated that the MUL is canon, even over the fluff published. Even if its wrong. That annoys me bit, what can we do? *sigh* If we stop using the MUL, we'll be less ironclade accurate. I've been only mentioning the Date, if there no date mentioned at all in the entry of the unit in TRO write up. The Clans version for instance has more than most of them TRO suppliments. -- Wrangler (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2013 (PDT)
I think the same as Wrangler, we curious statement of Welshman.--Doneve (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (PDT)


Hi Mbear, can you take a look on the Heimdall (Combat Vehicle) page i changed the headers a little bit, my feeling is it looks much better and has a cleaner overview as our standard formating, what do you think? Ok iam be bold the new layout looks great, if it not become acceptance i revert me changes.--Doneve (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2013 (PDT)

I for one don't like the new layout, because it makes the headings as big as the title, which just looks wrong to me. Additionally, Wikipedia uses the two == layout and it works quite well. That's just my opinion; we need more people to chime in. -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (PDT)
There is no problem, we can change the headings size for the new layout, but a admin must do this, oh Bob the arcticle name size and the new heading size is the same, or iam wrong? I think not.--Doneve (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2013 (PDT)
I talk to Nic.--Doneve (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (PDT)
The test article has the headings at the same size as the page headings. I'm not sure I like it. If you want to change the sizes Doneve, we can add it to your CSS file so it lays out like this, but I'm not sure forcing it on everyone is a good idea.--Mbear(talk) 03:14, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
Can you give me a example how i can change this in my CSS file, i like the new layout with the seperated headings it looks cleaner, but you are right the headings must become smaller but in the new format.--Doneve (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
Just so I'm sure I understand, you want to put an underline beneath each header, right?--Mbear(talk) 03:43, 31 October 2013 (PDT)
Thanks for the CSS code, but i found one problem, i dont want a line in the year pages, if you want i give you a screen shot.--Doneve (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2013 (PDT)


Hello, I was wondering if you'd help me fix the table on the Operation Guerrero Unit Deployment Tables page; I want the planets' names centered, but can't figure it out. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2013 (PDT)


Ugh, sorry sorry, i forgot that the hardcopy was not out.--Doneve (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2013 (PST)

Armour Types[edit]

Hi Mbear,
I could be wrong, but I suspect that what was planned to happen with the armour types is that pages would be written for the company presumably responsible for the design or manufacture of each brand - Lexington, Valliant, Durallex, etc - with sub-sections for the different product lines. That's what currently seems to be the case with fusion engine brands for engines, for example. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2013 (PST)

Yep, BM hit the nail, i agree.--Doneve (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2013 (PST)
Ah. Well then. I'll just set up a redirect to the Armor - BattleMechs & Vehicles page.--Mbear(talk) 08:24, 4 December 2013 (PST)

Opinion sought[edit]

Hello, Mbear. Can you pop over to here? I'm trying get official opinion of this. Thanks -- Wrangler (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2013 (PST)