User talk:Wrangler


Resources Pages[edit]


IndustrialMech updates[edit]

Hey, just to clarify, you're still working on the IndustrialMech updates, right?--Mbear(talk) 12:34, 6 January 2015 (PST)

Yes i am, i've been side tracked with IRL work. I'll be working on it tomorrow. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (PST)
No problem. I just didn't want to step on your toes if you were still working on them. Thanks! --Mbear(talk) 04:27, 7 January 2015 (PST)

Other FM 3085/3145 Units[edit]

Hi Mbear, I'm still going work on the industrial Mech profiles. I noticed your working on 3085/3145 regiments. I just wanted ask if there were other 3085/3145 regimental units you wanted me to tackle? their fast and easy in comparison to the mech unit ones sometimes. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (PST)

Well, if you feel like it, the Marik Protectors as a whole could use some attention. Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.--Mbear(talk) 04:27, 7 January 2015 (PST)
I've just done the Harvester Ant now, there questions left open about how the Inner Sphere got mods original introduced by the Pentagon Powers since they were completely separated and like wiped out. No way they would shared their methods of hot wiring combat systems into a industrial ArgoMech. I'll work on Marik Protectors stuff today -- Wrangler (talk)
I think the Pentagon Power versions of the 'Mechs were just where their record sheets were introduced to the players. There are rules for using Pentagon style refits in Historical: Reunification War, pp 204-205.--Mbear(talk) 05:07, 7 January 2015 (PST)
I'm tempted contact CGL about if this is considered to be errant or not. They're sometimes harsh in response so i don't want mess stuff up asking. -- Wrangler (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2015 (PST)


If you could check this talk page, that'd be great! -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2015 (PST)

Battle of Harrow's Sun[edit]

W - Was hoping you could give Battle of Harrow's Sun a look. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2015 (PDT)

Shield Page[edit]

I want to personally thank you for working on that shield page and cleaning up the related information. That has been a thorn in my side for quite some time and I'm glad someone stepped in and took care of it. Oh, and here's an award: All Purpose Award, 3rd ribbon -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2015 (PDT)

Thank you, Bob! I appreciate it. I want help out with what time i have. I'm glad i was able easy one your budden. I'm been trying find stuff i can tackle. Its frustrating sometimes when i feel like I'm in competition to help out! Thank you for the award!

Support Vehicles[edit]

Hi Wrangler,
I've done some fiddling with templates before, but I don't know a lot about support vehicles. If you can give me a list of changes/additions that're needed to the support vehicle template, I'm willing to try updating the template. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2015 (PDT)

Thanks to BrokenMnemonic for getting to this. I meant to but it got lost in the shuffle. One question: Should the Equipment and Capacities header read Equipment and Capabilities instead? (I don't understand why it has Capacities in there.)--Mbear(talk)
Yes, Equipment and Capabilities is how it's suppose to be. I sort of grammar blind at times on certain words, that unfortunately ones of them. Thanks you guys! BrokenMnemonic, that only needed (for the infobox) that's missing is the the fuel information line you find in the Aerospace Fighter template and Equipment list i suggested which is something unique for support vehicles. Example a Naval Support Vehicles lousy way to explain a Aircraft Carrier, it need Helipads, and other items, i'd like to have those listed like the weapons. -- Wrangler (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2015 (PDT)
Hey BrokenMnemonic, another thing you should look into adding is look at previous Support Vehicle articles. I've had to improvise in someone some of them due to limitations and at time editors able edit the infobox at the time. If additional feature could be added to the infobox if within your abilities to do so, can you make it so the line item listed if left blank disappears? This is done in the past for some of the infoboxes, question marks are usually left in place so the line remains so the editor may choose use it or know it's there. Some features in Support Vehicles have space capacities for or the Length of vehicle for example. I can't remember them all, but the older ones had unique features. -- Wrangler (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2015 (PDT)
I'm not overly familiar with support vehicles - can you give me an example of one of each type that I can dig out of the TROs to look at, so that I can try and make the optional fields as comprehensive as possible? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (PDT)
OK, I did some work on this today. I've updated the template documentation to include fields that had been added to the template infobox but not documented (production date, reference year, comsys, T&T). I added a number of new optional fields that I thought could be useful based on a read through of the Technical Readout: Vehicle Annex. These new fields include a power plant type (so you could put 210 Vox under Power Plant, and then Fusion under Power Plant Type, for example - or 180 under Power Plant, and the ICE under Power Plant Type, should you wish), Fire Control System (so that you can note if somehting has the Advanced Fire Control upgrade), Turret (for any turrets), Fitted Equipment (so that you can list things like Bridgelayers, Lift Hoists, Backhoes, Bulldozers, etc, just as you can currently with Armaments, directly in the infobox) and BAR, so that you can list the armour type under Armor (Standard, Heavy Commercial, Commercial, etc) and then have the BAR rating listed on a seperate line.
I've left the Speed and Top Speed fields in, but made them optional, and I've inserted Cruise Speed and Flank Speed for ground vehicles/hover vehicles/WiGE vehicles and the like, as well as adding Safe Thrust and Max Thrust for conventional aircraft, airships and the like. This means that you can make the speed categories on each page reflective of the unit type, as the TRO does, rather than having to use the generic speed fields.
I've also updated the template documentation and the help article to add in the Design Quirks section and to highlight that it's the Bibliography section that needs updating, not the References section, which should update automatically.
I did some testing of the article with the Prometheus to try and make sure everything works. Can you try using the template and let me know if it's suitable? I tried to ensure that any of the units from the TRO:VA could work with it, in the hope that if it works with that TRO, it should work with everything. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2015 (PDT)
Hey, Broken. I'll go and do article today if i have time. My work usually slow at times, but today isn't one of those slow days. I'll see i can start working on test article. -- Wrangler (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2015 (PDT)
Hi Wrangler i updated the infobox to show you the Equipment rating.--Doneve (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2015 (PDT)
Hi Doneve, hope your doing well. I'll check it out, Thanks! --- Wrangler (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2015 (PDT)

XTRO: Republic I Request[edit]

Hey Mbear , With Republic opening up soon, i want to request to-do couple vehicles articles in XTRO: Republic I. I really don't want race and compete with you or others to try put article in, do you mind me calling dibs on Castrum Pocket WarShip and Strix Stealth VTOL? -- Wrangler (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2015 (PDT)

No problem at all. I'm more interested in the 'Mechs to be honest. :) --Mbear(talk) 05:09, 11 May 2015 (PDT)
Cool, thanks! -- Wrangler (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2015 (PDT)

hi wrangler, sorry but how many ar 10 does this ship have, 16 as it written in your fluff or 8 as shown in the infobox??? thanks heinbond

It's total 16, 8 per facing. I'll fix it. Thanks for tell me. -- Wrangler (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2015 (PDT)

BA Equipment Rating[edit]

Hi again, do you want a equipment rating row in the Battle Armor Infobox?--Doneve (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2015 (PDT)

Only in ones that are Exoskeleton or Light Power Armor PAL. Regular Battle Armor doesn't get a Equipment Rating. -- Wrangler (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2015 (PDT)

Combat Vehicle Tech Base[edit]

Hi Wrangler, I saw your comment and went to have a look at the combat vehicle infobox template. It turns out the Tech Base field was already in place in the template, but it hadn't been added to the documentation, so I've updated both the template help file and the article writing help file accordingly. I also added the field to the Strix article so that you can see the formatting needed. Hope that helps! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2015 (PDT)

Thanks, i thought i was going crazy it was missing.

Neat feature of wiki linking on Sarna[edit]


I just did a couple tweaks to the Castrum page, and I wanted to let you know about something that I just found. If you have a plural that just adds an "s" to the end of a link, you can just put the "s" outside the link and Sarna will correctly add it as part of the link.

Since it's easier to show than to describe, here's an example:

[[Large Laser]]s

renders as: Large Lasers. So you don't need to write [[Large Laser|Large Lasers]]. (Unless you really want to. ;))--Mbear(talk) 07:09, 14 May 2015 (PDT)

The only thing to watch is that this won't work if you have a punctuation character in the way - so if it's a possessive, like Kai Alliard-Liao's, you can't simply add the "'s", because the apostrophe breaks the link, and you get Kai Allard-Liao's. That's the only time I've found it doesn't work, though. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2015 (PDT)
I've seen this in the past, but i noticed it doesn't do it all the time. I'm not sure why. Thats why stick the old system of doing it. Thanks for FYI. -- Wrangler (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2015 (PDT)

Present vs. Past Tense in Articles[edit]

Sorry for the long delay; I made a short survey. Tell me if you think any of the wording should be changed, otherwise go ahead and fill it out. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2015 (PDT)

I believe Past Tence is the best, unless Battletech stops moving towards the future with no years. It should be viewed if this was the past. -- Wrangler (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2015 (PDT)

XTRO List[edit]

I wasn't sure if you got this message, so I'm copying it to here to be sure

Okay, so you wanted to add an item to the list of all XTROs, right? To do that, when you are editing a page with {{XTROList}} on it, simply go to edit, then to the bottom where it says "Templates used on this page" and click on the one you want. In this case, here is where you can edit the XTROList. Things inside the {{ }} brackets are templates, so that may help you find them in the future. I fixed the history page; it's perfectly okay. Wink.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2015 (PDT)

Hi Bob. That exactly what i was looking for! I'll save the link to my resource page so i'll have in the future when next book drops! Thank you! I've been tied up with this huge article for, my works making it hard finish it. It maybe too big. -- Wrangler (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (PDT)

Second Ghost Bear War[edit]

Wrangler - regarding this article - great start! Question though - regarding unit names, i thought we were spelling them out now? Not the 4th Bear Regulars but the Fourth Bear Regulars ? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2015 (PDT)

A over sight by me. The article was very daunting to write for me, taking me weeks write up properly. I'm still tying faction military commands into the war. I'll fix that. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
Also it should be noted, i'm following what the book's use in the way they spell out the names. Anything that in like hundred bracket, like 140th Strike Cluster (Clan Ghost Bear) for instance, i keep it numbered due to book uses numbers instead of spelling it out. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
That's the right thing to do - we're trying to follow the BattleCorps writers guide (as listed in Mbear's user page) and that specifies that unit numbers below one hundred should be spelled out, but above one hundred should be written numerically. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
Gotcha. Yeah, i don't feel like spelling out the Four-Hundred Ninety-Ninth Garrison Cluster either. ;) ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
Try doing Fifty-Fifth Provisional Cluster, its just amount pain. I swear they like torching people at CGL. :P -- Wrangler (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2015 (PDT)

Warner Doles[edit]

Wrangler - So - i saw the material you removed. I hadn't known anything about it. Can you shed some light? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (PDT)

Draconis Combine Civil War[edit]

Hey, thanks for the heads up. I'll be trying to finish the page during the weekend, and will make sure to add some citataions. Thanks again! - User talk:Star Colonel James

Any time, have fun! -- Wrangler (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2015 (PDT)

Founder's Consistent Service Award[edit]

As the third-highest editor (not that anyone's counting) and a consistently guiding force, the wiki is forever in your debt for all of your help and contributions. Thank you, Wrangler! Nicjansma (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2016 (PDT)

Thank you Nick for giving us a place to pour our love for our beloved hobby game universe! - Wrangler (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2016 (PDT)

Pirate's Haven[edit]

Hi Wrangler,
I saw your comment about the Pirate's Haven cluster history, and I'm a little confused - all of the history that was in there is still there, but it's in the System History section, rather than Planetary History, because it's either about the system, or the planet isn't named, making it impossible to know which of the 50 is being referred to. I actually dug through Field Manual: Periphery and Historical: Reunification War to add more history and expand on what was there, so I'm not sure what you think is missing? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2016 (PDT)

Preceded by / Followed by in serial products[edit]

Hi Wrangler,
not sure where to start this discussion but your talk page seems like a good place. There's a point I wanted to raise regarding serial products such as the XTROs and the TTS series - namely, the infobox entries for preceding and following products. I think these are misleading, and the infobox fields should be left empty instead.
Here's my reasoning: These series do not have a fixed order; the individual entries stand side-by-side. The original intent for "Preceded by" and "Followed by" was for users to be able to easily find the preceding or next part of serialized stories. This, imho, simply isn't applicable for standalone entries in a sourcebook series like the XTROs or TTS (or Spotlight On, and all the other product series).

Similarly, I don't think the "Related TROs" section in the XTRO articles has any relevance or value, and just unneccessarily bloats the articles. We could set up a category for XTRO products (a sub-category for Technical Readouts).

Well, my opinion at least. Discuss. :) Frabby (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (PDT)

I find the "preceded by" and "followed by" entries on the TtS articles very handy - I used them when I was generating both the overall TtS article, and when I was adding the various TtS books to Goodreads. I think using them to reflect publication order in a serial product like the TtS articles is very useful. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2016 (PDT)
I agree, i think following order (1st in series of blah) the pdfs come in is best way to track them. It maybe helpful to update the Infoboxs so certain information can be disappear when it's not needed. -- Wrangler (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2016 (PDT)