User talk:Wrangler/Archives 2012-2013

Image request[edit]

Hy Wrangler nice to have you back, i have at the moment not the chance to rename or move the pic, i have some problems since Nic updated the MediaWiki code, i miss some buttons on the wiki bar and other thinks, i hope Nic fix this little problems in next time, please talk to Revanche or Frabby, thanks.--Doneve 14:47, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Hi Doneve. No problem, i wasn't sure if you were full administrator yet. Thank you for welcoming me back. I still don't have alot time to do full articles at speed you work. ;) I can only do little things. -- Wrangler 15:02, 5 February 2012 (PST)
Thanks, i have a lot of time, i stay on hospital, i think you go to college or some thinks change in your life, and you have spare of time, best wishes.--Doneve 15:13, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Individual Warship articles: Categories[edit]

(copy from BrokenMnemonic's talk page)

Hi BrokenMnemonic, finally got some time to look into your articles and there's two points I'd like to raise with you:
1. WarShips aren't JumpShips as far as categorization is concerned. The five major categories for individual hulls are WarShip, JumpShip, DropShip, Small Craft, and Installation. In this sense, JumpShips are (only) civilian JumpShip designs with a standard KF core; WarShips don't fall into the JumpShip category.
2. Please add the appropriate category (e.g. [[Category:Individual Destroyers]]) to articles where the ship's type is known. Similarly and on top of this, please add the appropriate category (e.g. [[Category:Individual Suffren-class vessels]]) to articles where the class is known. In this way, I'd like to mirror the categories tree established for classes. Frabby (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (PST)

1 - Done.
2 - Done.
A couple of things came out of my categorisation spree earlier that you may wish to take a view on.
  • Not all WarShip types are categorised - the Volga, Potemkin and Faslane were all missing classes. I used the definitions within the WarShip classifications page to categorise them as a transport, a cruiser and a Yard-Ship respectively, but you may wish to correct that if I got it wrong.
  • You may wish to choose to have light and heavy cruiser become subcategories of the cruiser category; looking at the classifications page, some of the lightest cruisers are described as heavy cruisers, while some cruisers such as the Potemkin are either simply described as "cruiser" or a weird subdivision such as "transport cruiser." When it comes to describing vessels narratively, the writers often seem to simply use "cruiser" - the SLS Havana is an example of that. This might require tagging a lot of vessels as both a cruiser and a subdivision, or you could take the view that cruiser is used when that's the only description and is a less accurate category to be improved if information is available.
You've not commented on whether the names of the Minotaur and Lakshmi are correct or not, so I've assumed for now that they are, and added the Minotaur to the Aegis page as the SLS Minotaur, rather than as the THS Minotaur quoted on the CGL forum review. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2013 (PST)
You rule, man! Thanks! The Cruiser designation is sort of a catch-all designation really, and WarShip classification is wonky anyways. I wouldn't want to categorize beyond Cruiser, especially given that the Cruiser sub-classes typically have only a handful classes in them and thus aren't worth differentiating anyways (heavy, light, battle, troop, pursuit cruisers and maybe a couple more; not aware of any particular class referred to as "transport cruiser" though - the Potemkin is called a "troop cruiser"). Similarly, I feel we don't need categories for YardShips or transport WarShips. But it doesn't hurt either. Nothing to "correct" here.
As for The Theseus Knot, I have the print edition of the Weapons Free anthology before me and am working it down story by story. Theseus Knot is upcoming. Reading it over, I gather the SLS Minotaur is a refitted Aegis and the FSS Klingenthal a new Congress. No quick ID of the Lakshmi beyond that it was the former command of the Minotaur's CO, i.e. apparently a SLS ship. Frabby (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2013 (PST)
OK, the system is working so far. Davion and Lola class vessels are going to be a pain, because they consist of discrete blocks (I and II for the Davion, I, II and III for the Lola) in article terms, but the texts often don't specify which block a ship came from - that's a problem with ships like the FSS Charles Davion.
The system is allowing for ships that we weren't previously tracking to be loaded into the wiki, though. A case in point is the FSS Lucien Davion, which couldn't be easily recorded before because it had no class information - the same goes for the SLS Havana and the SLS Dularam. It's a little bit of a pain to have to pipe the ship names so that they show up in the correct format, but considerably less of a pain now than it used to be, where I was having to pipe in the name of the class and the sub-link to the Named Vessels section to link to a ship name accurately.
It's also making the WarShip class articles look a little tidier, in my opinion - you can see the difference if you look at something like the Com Guard subsection of the Essex page compared to the other subsections. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2013 (PST)
I think this helps for your question on my talk page.--Doneve (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (PST)
Thanks, Doneve. I still not convinced its needed. -- Wrangler (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (PST)
No problem,i hope we have you back in next time, for some missing 'mech and vehicle articles :).--Doneve (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (PST)


The Wrangler's back! Good to see you back and so prolific. I know you were missed. (You've probably been back a long time.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Hi Revanche, thank you for dropping by say hi. I've been lurking about, but i've not been able to really apply myself due to time restrains i have to be online. After seeing alot skilled editors coming on and editing things, i thought wasn't quite needed. They're so fast these days. I heard you were gone for while, i hope your life is gotten better. I'm still going limit myself small unpopular subject articles since i don't think i'm encrouching on anyone's turf. I'm not so crazy about individual Warship articles, i think their getting bit sprawling since there not many individual ships need full write in my opinion. Anyways, I hope try contribute more, but i can't say for certain. Maybe as weekend thing. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Canon rollback[edit]

Hi Wrangler, I rolled back your edit to Canon. You're actually correct in that MWO is not a canonical source (Herb expressly confirmed that in a chat when I asked him), but the quote on the Canon article is, well, a quote. Herb didn't mention MWO there because it didn't exist yet. Your edit read like putting words into his mouth. I think the (non-)canonicity of MWO in particular is made sufficiently clear in the game's own article, in the Canonicity section. Frabby (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2013 (PST)

So what do we do? There no source for hard canon facts to Pretty Baby's stats. There IS a Pretty Baby which is canon, but that notable pilot from TRO:3025, same pilot. But the Awesome has notations of being modified. It Still shouldn't be listed as Canon unit unless we have valid source with the Stats. I wasn't aware of your conversation with Herb when i did that edit. -- Wrangler (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2013 (PST)
Answered on my talk page. Frabby (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2013 (PST)

Thank you sir![edit]


Thanks for adding the three Clan vehicles from TRO:Prototypes. I've been poking around and doing some of that myself, but you just lightened the load a lot. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2013 (PST)

Hi MBear, I'm glad there still something for me to do! You guys are getting too efficient these days. I'm Glad i was able to help out. :) -- Wrangler (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2013 (PST)

Objectives: Clans[edit]

Hy Wrangler, great you have you back, but keep in mind, Objectives: Clans fall under moratorium at this time.--Doneve (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

Crap, I'm sorry Doneve, i missed that. However, on the bright side there only 4 days to go.. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2013 (PDT)
No problem man, :).--Doneve (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2013 (PDT)
Unfortunately yes. However I've got a solution. I've overridden your changes with Doneve's last edit. When the Moratorium expires, we can roll back to your last changes and all the updates you made should be restored.--Mbear(talk) 06:20, 11 March 2013 (PDT)
Thank you. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (PDT)

Beowulf IIC[edit]

Hy Wrangler, i give you this award All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon, for your dillegent work, i appriciate your work, you make some red links from TRO:Proto to blue links, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (PDT)

Thank you, Doneve. There no need for that. I'm hear help out, I don't think i should be reward for my less-than-stellar writting skills. I do apperiate it thou! -- Wrangler (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2013 (PDT)
In my opinion you deserve the award, i know you had a wiki beak, but your writing skills become much better as my fluff writing skills in the last year.--Doneve (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2013 (PDT)


Hy Wrangler, where you so cool and add the last missing article from TRO:Proto its the Persepolis, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

Whoops! I'll take care that. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

MWO discussion[edit]

Wrangler, please take a look at my comments on Frabby's talkpage.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:22, 2 May 2013 (PDT)

TRO: 3145 Mercenaries[edit]

Question: Since the TRO 3145 is going be a printed product, can the Mortorium really be lifted for the PDF Suppliment?? -- Wrangler (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2013 (PDT)

Hy Wrangler, this is a good question, i don't understand the CGL politic in some cases, ok we have the published TRO: 3145 Mercs as example, etc., i know not all faction TROs where published at this time, but the published pdf's match the moratorium. But the other question is why seperate CGL the TRO's in faction TRO's, i have a felling TRO: 3145 match all factions units, this confuse me a little bit, oh and the faction TROs are only published as pdf and not as prints.--Doneve (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
Yes (the moratorium can be lifted). Each product released by CGL is considered a standalone product. When they print the TRO 3145 we'll treat that as a separate product, because it is.--Mbear(talk) 03:31, 11 June 2013 (PDT)
This is no different from how we treated the XTROs and TRO:Prototypes products.--Mbear(talk) 06:16, 11 June 2013 (PDT)
The only problem with that is, that when the PDF version of the Printed version of the TRO was put out. We held out removing the Moratorium until period after the PRINTED version had been released. TRO:3145 series should be treated the same. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2013 (PDT)

This is from the latest battleChat:

<Nova_Dew>: Will the print TRO 3145 be mostly things from the pdf's or will the pdf stuff be in the minority?

<Habeas2>: Nova_Dew - At present, the goal is that at least one fourth of the print TRO 3145 will cover units for the Republic of the Sphere faction, with some additional new content, and a mix of units from the PDFs.

<Nova_Dew>: so 1/4th will be TRO 3145 Republic with the other 3/4's being made up of new things for other people and machines from the PDF's... sorry im having a derp day

<Habeas2>: Nova_Dew - 3/4 will be highlights from the PDF TROs, with some added new features. A straight repetition of those units would be cheating, after all.

<Mgun>: How many of the TRO3145 PDF faction units will make it into the print product (rough percentage)?

<Habeas2>: Mgun - About 40% of each faction's units will be represented in the print TRO 3145

That's straight from Herb. We're using the same policy here that we're using for the XTROs and TRO:Prototypes. As PDF only products are released, we'll add them with their own expiration dates. When TRO3145 print edition is released, we'll follow the moratorium policy you describe above, waiting two months after printing.--Mbear(talk) 08:35, 17 June 2013 (PDT)

3145 TROs[edit]

Hi Wrangler,
I'd like to give you an award for your hard work on the TRO:3145 entries and for what you do generally here, but a lot of the awards seem a bit mundane or either too specific or too broad. So, based on what I've seen on the CGL forums, particularly when it comes to continuing good cheer and your dedication to motivational posters, I'd like to award you this good humour award:
Good Humor Award, 1st ribbon
Thanks not just for your hard work, but for keeping my spirits up while I work. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

Why, thank you! I don't expect rewards for just helping out and trying cheer people up. You like the game as much I do, you deserve one too. Thanks you!! -- Wrangler (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (PDT)


Hy Wrangler, i updated the production data with MUL info then it works on the Combat Vehicle Timetable.--Doneve (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2013 (PDT)

Hi Doneve, understood. I'm not clear how enter information like that. Do you want me to put information into the Combat Vehicle Timetable when I add a vehicle article to Sarna? -- Wrangler (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2013 (PDT)
Yep, i do. I update at this time the BattleMech Timetable.--Doneve (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2013 (PDT)
By the way. Do you know someone who can fix the templates? The Dropship template's time intro is broken. Who would fix this? -- Wrangler (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2013 (PDT)

Combat Vehicle Infobox Template[edit]

Hi Wrangler, I noticed your request to have the Crew field on the Combat Vehicle infobox template made an optional field, so I've done that - if there's nothing in the field, it should now vanish (and it certainly looks like that's working). I've left the BattleMech Jump Jets field alone though - I've put an explanation over on Rev's talk page, but the short version is that it's been hardcoded to either display the entered field information from the article or "None", and as I'm not a member of the BattleMechs project team and have no idea what the thinking was behind that, I thought I'd better leave it alone. It may be that someone's made the call that it's important to explicitly state if a 'Mech has no jump jets, but either way I'll leave that for a grown-up to adjudicate on... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2013 (PDT)

Hi BrokenMnemonic. Thanks for looking into it. I wasn't sure who to ask since i'm not so frequent on the site on who hardcoring the templates. Rev was hour before and I'd hope he respond to it. Thanks again. Hopefully something will transpire. Do you think i should leave message on the BattleMechs project main page? I'm not sure who actually active. -- Wrangler (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2013 (PDT)

TRO:3145 RoTS[edit]

Hy Wrangler, work you on the TRO:3145 ROTS article, let me know when yes.--Doneve (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2013 (PDT)

Hi Doneve. I'll let you know when I'm done with it. I don't have alot time tonight. Likely within 12 hours. -- Wrangler (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2013 (PDT)
Ok, i let you your fun and dont add a article.--Doneve (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2013 (PDT)

Paul Moon[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in your reason to mark the section as Apocryphal? Surely a novel reference is canon? -- Dark Jaguar (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

Hi, thanks for the link. Smiley.gif I have not been to the forums there in quite some time (even longer since I posted anything) and had not seen that post. Its a shame I actually liked that ending. I'll be interested to see how this pans out, looks like I need to start saving for another source book. Smiley.gif - Dark Jaguar (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

Partisan AA Vehicle[edit]

Wrangler, when you found time, can you update the Partisan AA Vehicle with info from Technical Readout: 3145 Free Worlds League, this were very cool.--Doneve (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

Okay, I'll get to work on it now. -- Wrangler (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
Thanks dude.--Doneve (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
Its done -- Wrangler (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2013 (PDT)


Hi, I am a long time user (viewer) of this site for information that I can not get elsewhere. I have noticed you are one of the few to actively add useful information to the site. I particularly like your recent articles on new Mechs. This is exactly the sort of material I use this site for. I would like to nominate you for an award as a thank you from an appreciative user. Substantial Addition Award, 2nd ribbon --Insidiator (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2013 (PST)