User talk:Wrangler/Archives 2014

Weapon Lists[edit]

Not just to complain, but if you could be sure to have unit weapons (in the infobox) laid out as #x Weapon when you add them, that would be great. This would make life much easier for me, as I'm currently going through every unit to make sure they're consistent. Regardless, thanks for all the ground units you add to Sarna; I really appreciate it! -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (PST)

Can you show me an example of what your talking about. I'm not seen the #x Weapon thing before. Some of the infoboxes are not fully coded right. Sometimes I need to do short cuts to make work or make it look half way descent. -- Wrangler (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2014 (PST)
I don't mean it that literally, I'm talking about the weapons in the infoboxes of units (see example).

Instead of

You'd have

I know that it doesn't seem to matter all that much, but it does when there are so many different variations, some of which are very confusing or smushed together. Do you understand now? -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2014 (PST)
I will do my best to abide to your request, BobTheZombie. I don't do this all the time. Remember, some those units were added years ago. It takes me good couple hours sometimes to do one article adding all the information there on the unit. Specially the ones that have alot background info from older sources. I'm trying not to dublicate things and devalue the original source so someone will keep buying the things. So i maybe not quite seeing things straight when the article is completed. -- Wrangler (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2014 (PST)
I don't mean to accuse you of anything, I'm just stating that there is variation; I had been changing them to the way you have it, until I found out recently how it is supposed to look. Don't worry yourself with it. I'm just really OCD sometimes. And, yes, I understand that not all of them are you, I was just pointing something out. I meant only for you to watch for that when adding them; I'm currently going through and fixing them at my own pace, so don't think that you have to do this on existing articles. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2014 (PST)
No Worries, i'm just sometimes not always on the ball on doing some of these things. I'll try give you less to do. Just becareful of some of the info boxes. For some reasons, some of the newer ones act funny if you remove something from them. There reason why i have like "Weapon Systems" on top of the infobox line for weapon section. It sudden goes haywire shows them in weird order. -- Wrangler (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2014 (PST)

Security Robot[edit]

Hi, can i upload the pic or you do this?--Doneve (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2014 (PST)

No worries, i got it. Problem is, the picture doesn't match the stats for the machine. - Wrangler (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2014 (PST)

Production Years[edit]

Hi Wrangler,
I've had a look at the InfoBoxCombatVehicle template, and it looks like it's functioning correctly. So, I had a look at the edits that were causing problems, and I think I've worked out what's going on.
There are three fields associated with dates in the template; introduced, production year and year reference. The "introduced" field is the date that the vehicles first started appearing - so 3087 for the Shandra. The "production year" is the year the MUL says the vehicles entered production, so that would be 3089. The "year reference" field is just for a reference, not a date - it's where the reference goes that will be displayed against the production year. So, for the Shandra, it would just be <ref>''[ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>. That means for the fields to work correctly, they'd need to look like this:

| introduced      = [[3087]]
| production year = 3089
| year reference  = <ref>''[ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>

Does that make sense? Some of the formatting is a bit odd in the way the template is set up. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2014 (PST)

My only issue with the Production year and year of reference is when it shows up on my screen when i enter it, the two years appear side by side instead of down the listed seperately like all the other entries. -- Wrangler (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (PST)
The two fields are added together - from what I can see, the problem you've got is that you're repeating the date in both fields. Doing this:
| production year = 3089
| year reference  = <ref>''[ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>
Generates something that looks like this: 30891
Whereas if you put the date in both the production year and year reference fields, like this:
| production year = 3089
| year reference  = 3089<ref>''[ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>
What you then get is this: 308930891 - which is what seems to be happening with you, right? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2014 (PST)
Sorry take while to respond, I've been away at a convention. Yes, I'm getting the 30893089 in the infoboxes. Its happening to alot of the templates actually. -- Wrangler (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2014 (PST)
I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining it. The short version is: Don't put a year in the year reference field. At all. It isn't intended to have a date in it, just a wiki reference. If you stop putting the year in the year reference field, it'll stop getting doubled up in the article. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2014 (PST)
Its okay, BrokenMnemonic. But it needs to be explained in the info box template what heck suppose to be there, natural thing to do is someone to put a year in there. -- Wrangler (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2014 (PST)

10th Ghost/Ronin[edit]

I spotted a similar problem a while back. I also recently created a disambig page for the Shin Legion, I hope this helps a little with developing a policy for this increasingly common problem.--Dmon (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2014 (PST)

Thank you. There so many editors active these days, i don't get chance to work on unit profiles. 10th Ghosts was something i did, since it was a dead unit, but now its alive again. I'm just going split it up and trying dig around see if there any info on the Ronin. I think Era Digest: Dark Age will include them more since they were used in the clicky game. -- Wrangler (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (PST)

Medium Re-engineered Laser[edit]

I think that your version with the capitalized "Engineered" part is the real title, so you actually had it right and the old one should have become a redirect. All the mentions of the title name in the article have that, so it's safe to assume that you had the right spelling. -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (PST)

Should i reinstate my article verse the old one? -- Wrangler (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2014 (PST)
Yes; but perhaps in the process check both versions side-by-side to be sure there is no loss of info. -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2014 (PST)

11th Lyran Guards[edit]

Hi Wrangler, I saw your question on the BT forums, and did not want to break protocol. Since I am not a writer, I am responding here. Elements of the 11th helped form the core of the 1st Royal BattleMech Regiment of the 2nd Star League (Morgan's Lions), from FM: Comstar, p. 101. If I remember correctly from the novels, most of the soldiers (but not all) decided to join the nascent Star League. I hope this helps--S.gage (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2014 (PDT)

AHHH, thats what i was looking for. Thanks S.gage. They couldn't help me on offical forums. -- Wrangler (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2014 (PDT)

Titans of Steel[edit]

Hi Wrangler, the MechForce (Video Game) article was essentially an article about Titans of Steel, which is an entirely different game. I have removed the ToS content from the MechForce article because a new user said he owns the game and may write the article about it. I also restored the Titans of Steel article which had previously been deleted. From the looks of it, ToS is tangentially related to BattleTech at best and may not be notable for the purposes of Sarna BTW. However, because you mentioned it's somehow related to MechForce in Talk:MechForce (Video Game) I've kept the content for now and only moved it into its own page. Can you elaborate on the BT connection of ToS? Frabby (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2014 (PDT)

God, that was a long time ago, Frabby. I'd have look at my old stuff see if I can remember where i saw it. At the moment, only thing is this brief mentioning on the [1] that was done in same style as battletech.

BattleSpace rulebook(s)[edit]

Hi Wrangler. You said over at the BattleSpace talk page that there were distinct books, an 88 page rulebook and a 60 page sourcebook. However, to the best of my knowledge and based on the boxed set I have on my shelf, there was ever only a single 60-page book that was divided into a rulebook and a sourcebook section. I've never heard of any edition where there was a second book. Can you please look into this, as I intend to delete the BattleSpace (rulebook) article as superflous and merge its extra content into the BattleSpace article. Thanks! Frabby (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2014 (PDT)

Hi Frabby. I live United States, I believe your version may have been merged version. I do have two seperate books. I only have bad copy of both now a friend gave me. My physical books are somewhere in storage so i can't confirm physically, but my copy does show two different books. Rule book has 87 pages, while second book which contains the universe history, scenarios, and stats for various space vehicle/vessels (including the Alliance space station) is 60 pages not counting advertisements for Day of Heros, MechForce North America, MechForce UK, and Battetech: Luthien . That second book never have title on its cover, but inside cover is called BattleSpace SOURCE book. Total number of pages combined should be with advertisement and pictures is 154 pages.-- Wrangler (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2014 (PDT)
I have one (english) BattleSpace box sitting on my shelf, and a pal had the very same one back in the day. Both only had the purple 60-page book that can be seen in the infobox picture in the BattleSpace article - the content in the two boxes I saw is exactly what's depicted there (not sure about the RS booklet). To with, that 66-page book is divided into a rulebook and a sourcebook section. I'd be very interested to see what that other rulebook contained then, especially as it was supposedly yet bigger. Overall, besides the fact that only one book was in the boxes I saw and own, I believe a 60-page book plus an 88-page book plus maps, counters etc. wouldn't even have fit into the box. Do you have the US or the German BattleSpace box? Frabby (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2014 (PDT)
I can check my box set when I'm at home tonight, although my version looks like the one pictured here from what I can remember, but - just to complicate things - I think when I was putting together individual ship articles using BattleSpace as a source, I was working from my Drive-Thru RPG .pdf copy, and I'm pretty sure that was one file containing two books complete with two sets of page numbers. I've just checked and it's not on the DVD of .pdf files I refer to when I'm at work, but I'll check when I get home. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (PDT)
Sorry for the late post, I've been having computer problems. It sounds like BrokenMnemoic has the same PDF I have, two books in one. - Wrangler (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
Whoops, you just jogged my memory. I've just checked the electronic copy I have of BattleSpace, which is 177 pages long. The first page is a colour image of the front of the box. Page 2 is the cover of the purple book entitled "BattleSpace: The BattleTech Game of Space Combat". Page 3 has an image of a DropShip on it above the legend "Rulebook" and below the legend "BattleSpace", and the next page - which has a "2" for the page number is a contents page showing a listing for pages numbered 2-60, followed by page "3" which is the contents page listing pages 61-86. The "book" in the first half actually goes up to page 87, followed by a page-sized image of a satellite or station of some kind. That's followed by a page with the title "BattleSpace", an image of a WarShip and then a legend reading "Sourcebook" - although "Source" is in a larger font pitch than "Book". That's followed by another contents page that starts again as page "2", listing pages 4-31 and page "3". That book runs up to page 60, followed by a 1-page advert for Day of Heroes, a MechForce North America 1-page advert, a 1-page MechForce UK advert, a 1-page advert for the Luthien scenario pack and the the back cover of the purple book, followed by a bunch of record sheets, several counter sheets, a map and an image of the back of the box set. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
I've checked the hard copy of the BattleSpace book I've got, and the DTRPG .pdf is basically a complete scan of it - right down to the page-size image between the two halves of the book. It's definitely two books in one volume, and I'm pretty confident that the .pdf scan is based on that UK/US edition of BattleSpace based on the layout - I think if it had been scans of two books in one file, they would've included the covers of both volumes, based on how the electronic file is constructed. Why the book is sub-divided into two books I really don't know, but it's going to make writing references and citations a little trickier. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2014 (PDT)
Yep, that same thing i have electronically. I remember my box set having two physical books/booklets(?) separate from one another. Its been awhile since i dug out my BattleSpace box set from storage. -- Wrangler (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
FTR - My version was "merged" as well. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2014 (PDT)
Question now comes up. I know Battle Space is ancient history, but should the content of the two books be seperated somehow or kept as is in the current form. Since they are two seperate (originally) books, should they be listed as such? I've seen in the past confusion over this. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2014 (PDT)

Unit Description[edit]

Hi Wrangler,
Can you not add a "Unit Description" title to unit pages please? It's not consistent with the format used in the articles here, and it breaks pages that make use of the include function like the AFFS page, which presents short descriptions of units drawn from the include information. If you put format detail inside that field then it gets included as well, and suddenly the page pagination of articles that pull in the contents of that field goes completely squiffy. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2014 (PDT)

Hi BrokenMnemonic, sorry for the late response. The reason why I've done that is to keep the begining text from floating to the top and be nearly missed by the reader. I've written for years on Sarna and tried to keep it uniformed as such. Wikipedia (english one anyways) information has a buffer from being on the complete top of the page without having to do what i end up doing. I'll compely to your wishes, but i would like to see something addressed. I don't like text being on upper most top away from everything. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2014 (PDT)
I think fundamentally it's a wiki style policy - I've always simply worked by copying the format of what's already here. I don't particularly like having the floating text at the top, but I've had a lot of my articles where I didn't have such text edited by others to add a floating text paragraph at the top. I think that it's something that should probably be discussed on the Manual of Style page, because it's a fundamental style constraint of how pages are created here - and from what I can tell, it's not applied equally; unit articles always have floating text at the top, planet articles don't - and those are two examples off the top of my head that I've noticed, so there are probably more areas that follow one style or the other inconsistently. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2014 (PDT)
Hi BrokenMenomnic, I'll post my suggestion on the Manual of Style page, unless you already have done so. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

Wars of the Republic Era[edit]

Are you going work on the units in the book? I mean the Mech and DropShip? -- Wrangler (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2014 (PDT)

I have no idea. I don't think I will. I was just fixing the italics on the page. ClanWolverine101 has tagged a bunch of articles with Update Needed tags, so apparently I'm supposed to work on those first.--Mbear(talk) 11:41, 15 September 2014 (PDT)
I've not had a lot time to work on articles. I'm available for the next couple days however. Only thing is i'm not sure when that book is out of Mort. Since it was uncertain when the printed version was published. -- Wrangler (talk)
As far as I know this source ISN'T out of moratorium, so don't do anything with that source.--Mbear(talk) 11:45, 15 September 2014 (PDT)
Wasn't planning too, i didn't know if you were changing the book's status from moratorium.--Wrangler (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2014 (PDT)


Cold you answer a question of mine at Talk:Clint? -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2014 (PDT)

RS VA: Industrialmechs[edit]

No problem at all. Feel free to jump in there.--Mbear(talk) 08:50, 4 December 2014 (PST)

Did you want me to work on any of them or would you like me to leave them all to you?--Mbear(talk) 09:01, 4 December 2014 (PST)
Leave them to me. -- Wrangler (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2014 (PST)
Done! Enjoy!--Mbear(talk) 04:41, 5 December 2014 (PST)

Unit Update 3145[edit]


If you're ever looking for something, I know of several articles that are just stubs that could use some work. [[2nd Loyalty Defenders]], [[7th Andurien Rangers]], [[2nd Andurien Cavalry]], [[5th Andurien Cavalry]] are the only ones I can find now. If you're really a glutton for punishment, you can start working on the various SLDF commands that need updates from FM:SLDF. I think only the Army and Fleet entries have been updated. Most of the division and brigade entries still need updates.

Just a thought. --Mbear(talk) 06:00, 9 December 2014 (PST)

2nd Loyalty Defenders are done, moving on to the 7th Andurien Rangers. -- Wrangler (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2014 (PST)
7th Andurien Rangers - DOne - Wrangler (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2014 (PST)
2nd Andurien Cavalry - Done -- Wrangler (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2014 (PST)
5th Andurien Cavalry - DonE -- Wrangler (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2014 (PST)
Hey you don't need to report to me what you're doing. I was just making a suggestion, not handing down an order. But thank you for jumping on those units!--Mbear(talk) 03:10, 29 December 2014 (PST)
I wanted you to know what was done, i know the update template would tell you something. However, I'm old fashion. -- Wrangler (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2014 (PST)