Editing Talk:Ferro-fibrous armor

{{WikiProject Technology|tr=new}}

Can someone tell me exactly why the title is so long and unhelpful? As far as I know, standard/ferro-fibrous armor can ''only'' be applied to BattleMechs and vehicles, since aerospace fighters use ferro-aluminum and spaceships ferro-carbide (not expecting anyone to actually look at the talk page). [[User:Cipher42|Cipher42]] 20:05, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
:Since Nic was the one who created the page, you would have to ask him. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 12:43, 11 July 2007 (CDT)
::It looks like this was a goofy attempt at redirection -- I can't see any reason you'd want the title for the main article for a tech to not include the tech's name. --[[Special:Contributions/71.199.233.118|71.199.233.118]] 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:::You are right. "Ferro-Fibrous" redirected here. I have since switched the redirect around. Thank you for pointing out the mistake. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
::::There's similar goofiness for ''Armor - LFF'' and ''HFF'' and ''FA'', check out [[:Category:Technology]] --[[Special:Contributions/71.199.233.118|71.199.233.118]] 09:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::71, feel free to make the moves yourself. All Editors have the authority to do so, and that way each of us can work on areas we have identified need improvement. I don't mean to sound like I'm blowing your idea off; I mean to empower you to [[Policy:Be bold|Be Bold]]. If its the method of doing so that keeps you from doing it, let us know; we'll be glad to talk you through it.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

==Placeholder==
===Clan Armor Types===
*Compound G5 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	56	
*Compound JF Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	146	
*Compound JX2 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	36	
*Compound K4 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	46	
*Compound RSH5 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	158	
*Compound VH30 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	64	
*Compound VM20 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	54	
*Compound Zeta Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	68	
*Compound E91 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	62	
*Compound FM3 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	140	
*Compound H17 Ferro-Fibrous with CASE		TRO 3060 p.	152	
*“Magnum” Ferro-Fibrous Composite		TRO 3060 p.	58	
*Airframe Pattern 2841 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	44	
*Arcadia Compound Delta VII Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	184	
*Composite A-4 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	176	
*Compound 3092/3 Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	60	
*Compound A2F Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	160	
*Compound Alpha Ferro-Fibrous		TRO 3060 p.	162	

==Merge==
I recommend this be merged with [[Armor (BattleMechs & Combat Vehicles)]].  There is already some duplication I think, and as the tech levels have progressed and merged in-universe, keeping this separate makes less sense.  Too, many of these entries lack citations.  Keeping these maintained is a huge challenge with the legacy import of fanon from the early days of the wiki: putting them all under one roof will make that easier.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 09:12, 28 May 2022 (EDT)
:I kinda agree but don't. I think this page should be kept and  [[Armor (BattleMechs & Combat Vehicles)]] split back into this one or one featuring the regular military grade battleplate but (dropping the BattleMech & Combat Vehicle suffix) and then following the same process and merge [[Armor (Aerospace Fighters & Conventional Aircraft)]]. As much as I want us to get away from rules, the different types of armor are still different technologies in universe. I think we just need to find a good way to express that without falling into the rules trap. The problem is the second you start using the term "standard" you are basically playing back into the rules side of things!--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:02, 28 May 2022 (EDT)
::Trying to put this back at the bottom (not sure how it wound up in the middle of that list).  
::I...sort of see what you are after. I think.  There is a technical (in-universe) issue with merging the Aerospace stuff in: "Ferro-Fibrous" and "Ferro-Aluminum" are, last I knew, canonically related-but-distinct materials.  A lot of handwaving does go on to justify the science, I believe, to the extent the science is justified.  I am not as clear if "standard" aerospace armor is similarly related-but-distinct.  Or why VTOLs use combat vehicle armor and not Aerospace.  These Are The Greater Mysteries.  
::As for the Rules Problem, I think if we de-emphasize the hard numbers (just remove the Rules Level stuff and the point values) and narratively describe that Clan and Inner Sphere are different technologies, with one bulkier than the other, but that gap is closing, we are OK.  
::I am not dead-set on merging this with Armor, but a lot of stuff already on the Armor page ''is'' FF.  So it's half-done.  For now, I am focusing on getting the citations for what is already there up to date, and clearing anything I cannot find a citation for.  A lot of fanon crept in from that site back in the early days, and it has sadly spread through the Wiki.  At some point, someone who collects the Technical Readouts and related material may have to go through and Fact-Check the whole thing.  Basically?  I want '''something''' done to make more sense of this mess and make it easier to maintain.  I am doing what part of that I can, and merging this page and that makes sense to me, but I am open to other possibilities.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 10:53, 28 May 2022 (EDT)

I still feel this is a possible candidate for merge, but I am also willing to discuss/debate other options.  Counterintuitively, I just got done mining the other page for stuff that belongs here, and I am working on getting it incorporated.  My view is starting to tilt toward "OK, some ''other'' option may be best," but I still don't see that what we have is serving us very well.  (That can be said about a lot of these Technology pages, tbh.)--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 11:04, 30 June 2022 (EDT)
:As the sole person who has spoken up in favor of Merge, I am removing that tag.  Exploring other solutions.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (EDT)
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 I still feel this is a possible candidate for merge, but I am also willing to discuss/debate other options.  Counterintuitively, I just got done mining the other page for stuff that belongs here, and I am working on getting it incorporated.  My view is starting to tilt toward "OK, some ''other'' option may be best," but I still don't see that what we have is serving us very well.  (That can be said about a lot of these Technology pages, tbh.)--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 11:04, 30 June 2022 (EDT)
 :As the sole person who has spoken up in favor of Merge, I am removing that tag.  Exploring other solutions.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (EDT)
-== Changing the way we handle the table. ==
-When I realized that dealing with the multi-line "rows" in the tables was much less fun than the update of the Tetsuhara Family Tree (you'll see it on July 6) that I did, indeed noticeably more difficult, I decided it was time for a change.  I found this as a sortable table, I can see how it being a sortable table would be useful, but having multiple lines of info in a row ''defeats'' the purpose and uses of a sortable table.  So before I do any more work on citing and removing the uncitable, I am going to get it to one line per table row.  That is easier to maintain than having HTML linebreaks you have to match up (get seven planets for one item and it can drive you insane), allows for better sorting, and honestly looks better IMHO.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 20:25, 30 June 2022 (EDT)