I noticed that you seem to be having a few problems with formatting reference tags here on Sarna. I'm a big fan of reference tags myself - the more here, the better, as far as I'm concerned - so I thought I'd give you a couple of tips, in the hope that they might prove useful.
Generally, there are two kinds of references here - the ones only used once in an article, and the ones that get used repeatedly. Something like a single 'Mech variant from a record sheet on the BattleMech page will probably only have a single-use reference tag because it's just a single paragraph, where something like a unit article on a major unit will use the multiple-use tags much more, because often there'll be lots of information going in from the same source.
The text part of a reference tag should normally contain three parameters - the name of the source, the page(s) from which the information is drawn, and the title of the specific section on those pages from which the information comes, if appropriate.
So, if I wanted to quote a 'Mech variant from a particular section within the "Variants" section of the Phoenix Hawk 'Mech entry in Technical Readout: 3025, the three parameters of my reference would be:
- ''Technical Readout: 3025'', p. 50, "Variants"
That tells someone that if they want to check the source I've quoted, they want the paragraphs under the subtitle "Variants" on page 50 of Technical Readout: 3025.
Where the single use and multiple use parts of a reference come in is how the wiki code around those parameters is written. If a reference is only going to be used once, then it can just go inside basic ref tags:
- <ref>''Technical Readout: 3025'', p. 50, "Variants"</ref>
If I wanted to use that reference more than once, it's more efficient to make it a multiple use tag, like a variable in computer programming terms. I need to create a name for that reference, so that Sarna picks up that I'm repeating the same reference tag. What format that name takes is up to you, but I generally try and make my references fairly intuitive, so that it's clearly linked to the source I'm quoting - that way, if I'm doing an edit that involves quoting several different sources repeatedly, I can keep track of all the tags. For something like the reference above, I'd use this kind of tag:
- <ref name="TRO:3025p50">''Technical Readout: 3025'', p. 50, "Variants"</ref>
Then, when I want to reuse that tag, all I need to do is insert the following shorthand tag to repeat the entire reference at the appropriate points in the article:
- <ref name="TRO:3025p50"/>
The shorthand inside the tag - the "TRO:3025p50" bit tells me that it's Technical Readout: 3025 page 50; the fact that I put it inside quotation marks is an old computer programming hangup of mine - quote marks inside a tag typically mean "the bit inside the quotes is all one string".
Commando: Death's Knell
I just went back to check and noticed that you've been working on the Commando unique variant from MechWarrior Online. Unfortunately, the reference you've added isn't appropriate - it states that the Death's Knell is a variant detailed within the Technical Readout: 3025, which I don't think it is. That doesn't mean that a reference can't be added for it, though; I don't play MWO, so I'm not familiar with what the user documentation is like for the game, but there are various ways we could add a reference citation for it. Is the Commando variant detailed in a user guide for the game, or on one of the official web pages hosted by the company running MWO? If you can give me a link to where the information on it is recorded, I can show you how to create an appropriate reference for it here on Sarna. Drop me a line here or on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2013 (PST)
- Yes, If you have an e-mail I can show you a scan of BT 3025 pg. 14, under the "notable mechs/pilot section," that talks about Bono Duganmare (this is in the section titled Commando-2D). Bono Duganmare and the "Death's Knell" are also described in the TRO 3050 book. The MWO developers included "The Death's Knell" based on the TRO description, but since a record sheet was never made for it, they completely made up its loadout making it aprocryphal 'canon'-influenced. I have a lot of the TRO's so I go through them carefully to make sure I'm editing only correct information. I was hesitant to edit, since I messed up tagging, but I understand it now. The MWO, unfortunately, do not display detailed Mech information or history on anything in the game on their website, but instead point to links on Sarna for people to read. Its unfortunate that most people that play MWO have no idea that the Death's Knell wasn't just made up by MWO.
- Thehawk (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2013 (PST)
- Also if there is a suggestion to word it better, please let me, otherwise I can remove if its too confusing.
- Thehawk (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2013 (PST)
- OK, I dug out my copies of TRO:3025, and from what I can tell, Bono Duganmare isn't mentioned in the FASA Revised edition, but he is in my 3rd printing of the 1st edition. While it confirms that he piloted a 'Mech named "The Death's Knell" it doesn't give any mention of it being configured differently to the stock COM-2D Commando. Is it the same in your edition? If it is, then we should probably clarify in the variant entry that the MWO design is a homage to the pilot and a named 'Mech, rather than an interpretation of a partially-described design. That should be easy enough, I think... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2013 (PST)
- I am going to reword the entry, as you say, to being a homeage of a named 'Mech. I am not entirely sure what version of TRO3025, I have, because it is, itself a scanned copy I acquired from someone. I did take this screenshot though: http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3993/bonodugamare.png Thehawk (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2013 (PST)
- Definitely looking better, I think. I had a look at the screenshot, and it superficially looks like the 1st Edition to me, although I'm not sure which Printing (there were a lot of printings, as FASA fixed various issues with the different versions, although I don't think any are completely bug-free).
- I think the entry could do with a bit more information, though. From what you've said, the armament of the Death's Knell is 4 medium lasers - where are they located? And, given that the standard COM-2D mounts an SRM-6, SRM-4 and a medium laser, with a ton of ammo for each SRM... that's 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 tons of weapons, for a total of 8 tons. 4 medium lasers on the Death's Knell is just 4 tons of weapons - what's been done with the extra 4 tons? This version of the Commando would generate 13-14 points of heat a turn if it's walking/running and firing all weapons. How many heat sinks does it have? I'm thinking the most likely place (if I was building that variant) to put the extra weightwould be to have the missing 4 tons go on at least 3 additional heat sinks. Or maybe a bigger engine, but I'd need to check engine weights, as I can't remember how much a 175-rated engine weighs - somewhere between 6.5 and 7 tons, I think.
- If you can work out what the differences are, it'd be nice to be able to say something like "Removing the weapons loadout of the COM-2D and replacing it instead with 4 medium lasers, one located in each arm and one in the left and right, torsos, the Death's Knell also mounts three extra heat sinks and a ton of additional armour spread evenly over the 'Mech..." or something similar.
- I notice someone's adding what looks like a unique MWO variant of the Dragon, too - it'd be nice to have all of the official limited 'Mechs from MWO on Sarna. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2013 (PST)
- I can take a look at what they added. Only the Yen-Lo-Wang is purely from cannon, and the Death's Knell (canon-influenced), while the two Dragons and Ilya Muromets are completely made up for MWO. Basically they have 3 types of Hero Mechs, ones that are true canon, some that are influenced, and some are there own creation. Thehawk (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2013 (PST)
- I edited the Death's Knell entry slightly so that the information referenced from TRO:3025 was a little more clearly marked, and to hopefully clarify where the 'Mech falls between the TRO source and the MWO design. Hopefully, it's still consistent with what you wanted to say - let me know if it's ok? If you can provide details on the other Hero 'Mechs MWO has available, it should hopefully be relatively easy to add in those as well. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2013 (PST)
Finally founds some time to look into this. Thehawk, thanks for adding the COM-TDK! Just to clear this up, the MWO Hero Mechs definitely belong on Sarna BTW (see Ilja Muromets and all the others) even though MWO as such isn't a canon source. MWO is official in any case, which makes its original content apocryphal (as opposed to mere fan-fiction). See Policy:Notability and Policy:Canon for more info.
That said, yes, a Commando named the Death's Knell is fully canonical by virtue of its old TRO3025 entry. I can confirm as much (and thanks for uploading the scan). What MWO made out of this, however, is apocryphal - the COM-TDK designation and the custom configuration. I haven't been able to discern a configuration from the MWO website, but since I'm not playing MWO perhaps I am just overlooking something here. Can you provide a link? Or was the configuration discerned from in-game performance? Frabby (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2013 (PST)
Sign talk posts
As a courtesy for other editors, it is a BattleTechWiki guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.
Moratorium on TRO:SW
Good morning, Thehawk. I just wanted to let you know that Technical Readout: Succession Wars is under a moratorium until 17 October 2017, meaning we cannot use it as a source until that date. No edits you have made need to be deleted, but you may find others will temporarily disable those edits when they come across them, as a means of both protecting the wiki and CGL. I wanted to personally let you know of this, so that you don't feel individually targeted. Thanks! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:27, 26 July 2017 (EDT)
- I understand, I was looking through pages with moratorium and decided I may as well go through my source books for Primitives Volume 5 since the page needs updated information on the Trooper. I figured since the new TROSW came out to start writing up information contained in there as well. Sorry about that, got excited last night when I bought it and forgot about 2 month rule. Are we cleared to update information regarding Primitives Volume 5 for now since the two month period has passed? I've added a discussion on the Flea page as well for feedback on how to best approach updating the Flea page with information from the two latest sources.Thehawk (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2017 (EDT)
- The Moratorium is a self-imposed policy on Sarna. Since CGL is selling these products for money, we figure they should have a certain time to sell their product before information from that product pops up here for free, possibly removing the impetus for people to purchase it.
- For cases where important information is found in a new source (like for example a new Flea variant), we have the Update notice template, though my personal opinion is that this template is abused to the point of being useless, flagging basically whenever something from an article is as much as mentioned in a new source under moratorium. But that's a different matter... Frabby (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2017 (EDT)
- Hello Frabby, can you provide a link to the update notice template. For now, I can temporarily disable FLE-16 information and concentrate on TP-1R as it is beyond the Moratorium period. Let me know if we are in agreement.Thehawk (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2017 (EDT)
- I just realized something: you're suggesting the edits you made came from Primitives, right? If so, yes, you're in the clear. Just be sure to credit Primitives as the source, rather than TRO:SW. And feel free to remove any temporary code that is disabling your previous edits, as long as you change the cites to non-TRO:SW sources; mentioning the reason why in the summary would help too. Glad we had this discussion!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:42, 26 July 2017 (EDT)
- Right - there are updates needed from both the Primitives (released last year) and the FLE-16 for the recent TRO release. The new FLE-16 information should probably be temporarily disabled, which I am in agreement with.Thehawk (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2017 (EDT)
Hey, Thehawk: letting you know, on 2581, I removed the link to Toddlette Industries, not because it was a red link (red links are good; they inspire growth) but because of the policy regarding the subject of the line item on a Year article. In order to help readers find the information they seek, the one link should take them to the article best suited to expand on the event that is the subject of the post. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks, --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (EDT)
Substantial Addition Award
Awards around here tend to be almost random and chaotic, so don't think this award () is only for your substantial additional to Krauss-Liemann Incorporated, but in (almost) silent recognition to the improvements you've made in data-mining Experimental Technical Readout: Primitives, Volume 5. However, specifically, not only have you added considerable value to that article, but you also reduced the Sources Needing Updates category by one. Thanks for your good work.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:04, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
BattleTech Manual Quirks
I like what you're doing with updating the 'Mech quirks to match the published first edition of the BattleTech Manual, but I think it'd be useful to keep a historical note in the article about the change in quirks between the beta edition and the published addition, as one of those little quirks of BattleTech history that might otherwise go unnoticed. 220.127.116.11 17:41, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
- This is a good point and good idea. There are two ways to go about it, which I could put forth. 1. Add the changes in the Notes section of each Mech that changed between the Beta and Final version. 2. Add a table to the BattleMech Manual page detailing the changes between each.Thehawk (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2018 (EDT)