User talk:Scaletail/archive 2

Thanks man ![edit]

Hi, I saw your message. Seen I'm a noob in the wiki, it's a real pleasure to see I can help the community. I noticed you completed my Warhammer IIC and Behemoth entries. I'm also a bit lost in how to talk with someone so I'm not sure it's the good way to send you a message. All in all thank you, and glad to see Clans are not dead over here !!!

Star Captain Loys "FIVE-one" Vickers 14:47, 6 December 2007 (CST)

I got another comment for you Scaletail : I noticed you added some stuffs to Marauder II entries. However I also saw someone put the Marauder IIC in the Marauder II variant but it's completely false : Marauder II and Marauder IIC are completely parallel designs : one from the Clans, the other in the Sphere. The most typical detail in the Marauderr IIC is its tonnage : 85 tons while the Marauder II weights 100 tons and has, since Phoenix Project, a totally different design and look. What do you think about it ? From my opinion, IIC needs a full entry for its own. FIVE-one 13:52, 7 December 2007 (CST)

This particular confusion strikes again. The good folks over at Catalyst Game Labs, in their infinite wisdom, decided to added a variant to the Marauder II. Since this 'Mech is a Wolf's Dragoons 'Mech, it was modified to use Clan-tech. As with all the other Dragoon Clan-tech variants, it got a "C" put at the end of it (e.g. Annihilator C). This resulted in the "Marauder II C", which is completely different from the "Marauder IIC". I didn't do it, I'm just the messenger. --Scaletail 19:08, 8 December 2007 (CST)
Would that not technically have to be the Marauder II IIC then? (No kidding!) Frabby 19:23, 8 December 2007 (CST)
By the naming conventions that CGL created for this, no. This may help.
Ok thank you for your answers guys. I'm gathering infos about the Marauder IIC (Clan's, not Wolf Dragoons'). Howether, I wanted to ask you where you found the info such as the type of weapons a 'Mech use or the producting plant of a 'Mech (just like you did with the Warhammer IIC and the Stone Rhino) and, at least, where did you found the explaination of the alternative configuration.FIVE-one 06:37, 9 December 2007 (CST)
See the "References" section at the bottom of the article. The production data comes from the Technical Readouts, while the variants usually comes from the Record Sheets (though there is usually some description of the variants in the TRO). --Scaletail 11:25, 9 December 2007 (CST)
Yeah I already knew about it, but it generally doesn't tell what is exactly the name of an equipment (such as Mk. XVII ER PPCs or the fluff text with an alt config). I own the TRO 3055 which presents the Warhammer IIC but you had some infos I haven't in it. Do you had thos infos in the Phoenix Project TRO ?FIVE-one 11:46, 9 December 2007 (CST)
The extra info came from TRO:PP and TRO:3055 Upgrade respectively. --Scaletail 11:47, 9 December 2007 (CST)
Alright ! Thank you for your explaination ;) I really need TRO:PP :p --FIVE-one 11:53, 9 December 2007 (CST)
I noticed something else : you added the II C version in the first Marauder entry. Don't you think it would be a proper solution to put this variant (II C and not IIC) in the II entry and not in first one ? --FIVE-one 15:11, 13 December 2007 (CST)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the entry for the Marauder II C is in Marauder, when it should be in Marauder'' II as it is actually a variant of the Marauder II, not the original 75-ton Marauder. If this is the case, then request fulfilled, because that is where it is (check again). In not, then please try explaining again. --Scaletail 20:57, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Indeed, it was what I mean. The Marauder II C version should be listed as a Marauder II variant, not Marauder I. --FIVE-one 03:02, 14 December 2007 (CST)
New issue : shouldn't the Marauder II C version receive a (C) rather than a single C, as it has been made for Wolfhound (C), meaning a Clan rearmament, not a refit (meant by a IIC) ? — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by FIVE-one (talkcontribs) .
That is not my decision to make. See the link to commentary by the CBT line developer above. The official name of the 'Mech, per RS:3050U is "Marauder II C". --Scaletail 14:07, 10 January 2008 (CST)
I already did in fact, but I wondered why some 'Mechs received the (C) (like Phelan Kell's Wolfhound (C) ) werehas other like the Marauder II receive only a simple C. And so, the article doesn't speak about it... -FIVE-one 14:13, 10 January 2008 (CST)

That I cannot answer for you, so maybe you could ask? My assumption would be that they stopped doing it after TRO:3050, though why I don't know. --Scaletail 14:16, 10 January 2008 (CST)

I figured you might like me saying you clean up my articles. :) --Dmzline 20:55, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Battlemech Manufacturing Center Question[edit]

Hello, pretty new to the wiki scene, and as I was cruising around looking for ways to help out, I noticed broken links in the manufacturing center links. I began fixing them, but then I came across some that you had done, and they were different. I figure we should have a standard approach. If the mech is the LCT-3D Locust, I linked the entire text "LCT-3D Locust" to the locust page. However, you linked just "Locust". Does it matter, and if so which way is proper?

Thanks Reuban 07:28, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

With no idea what was originally intended, I cannot answer which way is "proper." Nic autogenerated the manufacturing center articles before the BattleMech articles were created, so the red links were not supposed to go to anything originally. Personally, I like the way you have done it better, so if it were up to me, I'd say we should be doing it that way. Scaletail 16:42, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
Sounds good, I will edit them all to be the same. Reuban 08:59, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
Isn't this the exact same sort of situation for which redirects exist… so that no one has to manually pipe-trick every instance of a keyword that is synonymous with another keyword? --Xoid 06:29, 1 November 2007 (CDT)
I suppose, but, at the same time, most of the instances as singular. In other words, there is really no other place that "BLR-4S BattleMaster" is linked to other than the article of the manufacturing center that produces it. Besides, I think it would actually be more time-consuming to redirect every single one of those links than pipe all of them, since you can do all of the piping in one edit. Either way works, but, again, I'm not sure if one way is "right." Scaletail 10:01, 2 November 2007 (CDT)
Only singular instances? 'K, makes more sense now. --Xoid 10:07, 2 November 2007 (CDT)


Scaletail, you've been a great contributor to this wiki. I would like to bestow SysOp privileges to you, unless you object? Let me know. Nicjansma 16:15, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Sure! Thanks for your confidence. --Scaletail 16:20, 2 December 2007 (CST)
Cool! You're now a SysOp with all rights and responsibilities. Thanks for all of your help! Nicjansma 17:09, 2 December 2007 (CST)
Congrats Scaletail! Well-earned and -deserved. :) Bdevoe 18:02, 17 December 2007 (CST)
Thanks! Scaletail 18:31, 17 December 2007 (CST)

Edit toolbar[edit]

Hey, Scaletail: did something happen to the dit toolbar with the last upgrade? Do you have access to it when you edit a page? It sill pops up when I'm on Wikipedia, so i don't think I have a Hava failure. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (CST)

You know, I noticed that, but I didn't think anything of it because I don't use it. No, it's not just you. I'll leave a note on Nic's talk page. --Scaletail 11:52, 6 December 2007 (CST)
Thanks, man. I'm going to start a Counter-Vandal project and having that toolbar would be helpful. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:01, 6 December 2007 (CST)
Well, knock on wood, but it's been five days since we've been vandalized. I'm hoping that whomever set the bot to work realized it was doing nothing constructive and sent it elsewhere. Well, that's not my best case scenario, but I'll leave the graphic parts out. --Scaletail 12:04, 6 December 2007 (CST)


Im glad someone saw that, i posted that before i really got down and looked for how to create an account and whatnot. Im new to this whole online wiki thing, i have a wiki'd digital notebook that has tons of crap ive harvested so ill compare them to what is needed on the want list, so again thank you — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by MasterOfDisaster (talkcontribs) on 01:05, 7 December 2007.

Using warnings[edit]

  • Congratulations on being the first to use a warning at the frontlines. Just a bit of technical knowledge: because you want the warning to be specific to that editor and not change if the master template is changed, be sure to substitute the template. Simply type 'subst:' in front of the template name and it will 'copy' the current version of the template onto the user's talk page, rather than an always-exact version. Ex: {{subst:Vandalism-2|Neveron}} . Cheers! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Consensus policy[edit]

I think we need to talk about a consensus policy (and not just in regards to the notability policy). I've tried to research wikipedia's policy, but its not clear to me how the administrators 'close' a discussion (after the quiet period has passed) without basing it based on agree:disagree count. I think the notability policy, being unique to BTW, was important to advertise as very important, but I think a consensus policy can be rolled out and changed via the community over time. Any ideas on how to develop one? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:06, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Would we need to achieve consensus on it first? From my understanding, a straw poll is an absolute last resort. Generally, it's been my experience that admins don't have to "end" a discussion because the issue usually resolves itself. When editors assume good faith and have honest, frank discussions, a solution usually appears (as it seems to have with my "minor categories" suggestion). In fact, I think that discussion is really a model on achieving consensus (or at least it seems to be moving in that direction quite strongly). Admins only really need to step in when edit wars start. I might see what we can use from WP. --Scaletail 19:53, 10 December 2007 (CST)
I think your definition was one of the better ones I read. Should a consensus policy therefore state something along the lines that once discussion on a topic has ceased by at least..say...three days, then an admin reviews the discussion and goes with what appears to be the way the branch is bending? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (CST)
Thank you. Three days sounds reasonable, but if there is no clear consensus, then I don't think a change should be made. The idea behind consensus is sort of "as soon as is reasonable," not "ASAP." Reaching consensus may not be swift, so I don't feel like there should be an absolute time limit. At the same time, consensus can change, so it does not have to be a formal "1. Open discussion 2. Discuss 3. End discussion 4. Make changes" sort of arrangement. Perhaps, if there is bad blood because of an edit war or personal animosity, then maybe an admin needs to get involved, but I don't think that reaching consensus requires and admin if people are reasonable. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. --Scaletail 09:27, 11 December 2007 (CST)

Year Template[edit]

What is the policy regarding the year template on articles? I noticed that you deleted it from my three articles.Locis 20:28, 7 January 2008 (CST)Communibus locis— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Communibus locis (talkcontribs) 29:48, 7 January 2008 (CST).

It is for articles on years. --Scaletail 19:54, 7 January 2008 (CST)

SVG Files[edit]

How do you handle SVG files? I created a SVG of your Ace Darwins Whipits logo located here:

- Locis 20:39, 7 January 2008 (CST)communibus locis
This is basically a large image, right? It's really too large to use in the article, but it can be pared down by putting "#px" after the image for instance, "[[Image:AceDarwinsWhipits.svg|100px]]", yields: 100px, while "[[Image:AceDarwinsWhipits.svg|200px]]" gives: 200px
Feel free to experiment! --Scaletail 20:52, 7 January 2008 (CST)

SVG files are a vector format with no loss of quality no matter what resolution they are displayed at. They and PNG files are used on Wikipedia pretty extensively, so I was wondering if they were used here. Locis 06:09, 8 January 2008 (CST) - Communibus locis

I don't see any reason why we couldn't use them here. It works, so go for it. --Scaletail 20:30, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Background Links[edit]

Scaletail, I think that you should include "Timeline" under the "Background" links on the side of the wiki. What do you think? Locis 11:28, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Sounds reasonable. --Scaletail 12:01, 10 January 2008 (CST)
You rock. Locis 13:41, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Equipment Template[edit]

Scaletail, is there a template for BT equipment? I was thinking something along the lines of:

  • Description
  • History (as appropriate)
  • Notable "Users"? (Pilot, Mechwarrior, etc, similar to the Tech Readouts)
  • Game Rules (or something like that)
  • References (of course)

Is there something that exists already like this? Locis 13:40, 10 January 2008 (CST)

For weapons there is. See Template:InfoBoxWeapon. --Scaletail 13:42, 10 January 2008 (CST)


Scaletail, is there some sort of automatic mechanism that keeps the timeline updated with the year pages? For example, if you edit the timeline, will that change the year article? More appropriately, if the year article is updated, is there a way to automatically update the timeline (a special tag or something)? Locis 13:43, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Nope. --Scaletail 13:44, 10 January 2008 (CST)


I accidentally incorrectly named this image 50px hegemony instead of alliance. Can you please delete? Locis 12:06, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Done. --Scaletail 08:32, 27 January 2008 (CST)
You're a prince among men. Thank you! Locis 08:49, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Magellan Project[edit]

  • Scaletail, there was a mistake in the original timeline for the Magellan Project and I ran with it. I just caught it now. The "Magellan Project" should be called the "Magellan Program". Is there an easy way to do a massive rename of all effected items? If not, can you rename the actual article itself to be "Magellan Program" and I'll fix all the links? Sorry I didn't catch it sooner. --Locis 19:32, 11 February 2008 (CST)
Click on the "Move" button at the top. --Scaletail 19:36, 11 February 2008 (CST)
Any links to "Project" will be redirected to "Program." --Scaletail 20:00, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Battle Armor Categories[edit]

Scaletail, something appears to be wrong with the Heavy Battle Armor and Scout Battle Armor categories. This is the error message that I'm getting:

You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.
Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data.

Because this wiki has raw HTML enabled, the preview is hidden as a precaution against JavaScript attacks.
If this is a legitimate edit attempt, please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in.

The links are red but have stuff in them. --Locis 08:30, 21 February 2008 (CST)

It's just because they haven't been created yet. All you have to do is type something into them like any other article. --Scaletail 10:28, 21 February 2008 (CST)