Editing User talk:Csdavis715
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 1:
Line 1: − == Awards == − − I have decided that I am going to start bringing back the awards to the wiki, I feel people deserve to know their work is appreciated. So as one of my first awards in what might be about to years, I would like to award you the Substantial Addition Award for your MechWarrior 5 content and grant you a Act of Appreciation Award for how well you are expanding your interests into other aspects of the wiki. [[File:SubAdd.jpg|Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon]] [[File:RAA.jpg|Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon]] --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 18:09, 18 June 2023 (EDT) − ==MW5 High Reward Quests - Campaign vs Career== ==MW5 High Reward Quests - Campaign vs Career== I wondered the same thing but didn't have time to check my old saves, but yes there are often extreme differences between Campaign and Career Mode in reward values and even location and reputation level required. Campaign values I guess would be the prefered as everybody who owns the game has campaign and not everybody has DLC and career (though IMO they should). [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (EDT) I wondered the same thing but didn't have time to check my old saves, but yes there are often extreme differences between Campaign and Career Mode in reward values and even location and reputation level required. Campaign values I guess would be the prefered as everybody who owns the game has campaign and not everybody has DLC and career (though IMO they should). [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (EDT) Line 53:
Line 49: ::Much as I want to be open about this and much as I respect you personally, I fear the core point of your argument as I understand it doesn’t hold water. There is an official ruling on what official products are canon. Computer games, although official, are expressly not canon. The word "apocryphal" isn’t used by the BattleTech IP holders; it is the word we on Sarna use to describe this special group of official-but-expressly-not-canonical publications and their content. And to reverse your argument about dismissing these products, I would argue we’re actually lifting them up from non-canon status by establishing the apocryphal status as an intermediate status. ::Much as I want to be open about this and much as I respect you personally, I fear the core point of your argument as I understand it doesn’t hold water. There is an official ruling on what official products are canon. Computer games, although official, are expressly not canon. The word "apocryphal" isn’t used by the BattleTech IP holders; it is the word we on Sarna use to describe this special group of official-but-expressly-not-canonical publications and their content. And to reverse your argument about dismissing these products, I would argue we’re actually lifting them up from non-canon status by establishing the apocryphal status as an intermediate status. ::The official rulings this is based on are quoted verbatim in our article on [[Canon]]. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (EDT) ::The official rulings this is based on are quoted verbatim in our article on [[Canon]]. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (EDT) − :What I think you are trying to say is that canon is determined based on source, not content (I've read the Canon link before, but your references to IP didn't resonate with me initially). Through that lens I can understand the tag policy. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 04:57, 7 May 2023 (EDT) + :::What I think you are trying to say is that canon is determined based on source, not content (I've read the Canon link before, but your references to IP didn't resonate with me initially). Through that lens I can understand the tag policy. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 04:57, 7 May 2023 (EDT) − ::Cool. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve or clarify the policy? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:29, 7 May 2023 (EDT) + ::::Cool. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve or clarify the policy? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:29, 7 May 2023 (EDT) − :::I think my hangup was the part I mentioned. IMO the [[Canon]] article explains it much clearer than [[Policy:Canon]], though it's entirely possible I was just out of sorts that day... --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 14:15, 13 May 2023 (EDT) == Periphery citations == == Periphery citations == Line 62:
Line 57: I've run across some Periphery citations that were actually for the second edition but weren't marked as such, so I find it useful to mark it when the edition is definite. I ain't checkin' 'em all, though. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 10:58, 13 May 2023 (EDT) I've run across some Periphery citations that were actually for the second edition but weren't marked as such, so I find it useful to mark it when the edition is definite. I ain't checkin' 'em all, though. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 10:58, 13 May 2023 (EDT) − :According to CMoS, we only need to indicate when it's the 2nd edition Periphery book. Curious readers who want to learn more should be able to find out it's the Periphery 1st edition by clicking on the bibliography link at the bottom. I think it's better that we simply correct the wrong citations when we come across them. I see where you're coming from, though. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 11:09, 13 May 2023 (EDT) − :I'll add that if I'm not already editing an article and my brain isn't on autopilot, I'll try to leave them in for you. Not a problem. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 13:57, 13 May 2023 (EDT) − ::All right. Thanks. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 15:15, 13 May 2023 (EDT) − :::I must have missed the CMoS on that one. Not the first time. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 15:18, 13 May 2023 (EDT) − − ==Disambiguations== − Hiya, I'm a bit confused about your recent edits with an eye to handling disambiguations. I am a bit behind on current developments so please bear with me here when I raise two points:<br/>1) For many years, we used to disambiguate disambiguation pages. If no "primary" article could be found, the non-disambiguated name would redirect to "Name (disambiguation)". I thought that made sense.<br/>2) Also, whenever there was a disambiguation, I made sure every last article had an otheruses tag link back to the disambiguation page (which would itself be disambiguated as such for maximum clarity, as per above). I see you have kept the tag in some cases but removed it in others, and was wondering why? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:29, 25 August 2023 (EDT) − − :Good day to you sir! I was under the impression we worked it out in our lengthy group conversation in the Discord channel but I'm happy continue that chat here. I can tell from the edit history of many articles I've updated that you did a lot of leg work on getting these setup, so I appreciate you for making it easier for me! − − :I'll start with the point we agree on, that some pages are primary articles and typing in a name should go directly there, like [[Union]] or [[Grendel]]. For these pages and any others that can't be moved like the system pages, I've been doing the disambig as "Name (disambiguation)". I will admit, though, this is more out of necessity than preference; if you take a look at how the original wiki does it, Wikipedia, they do not use that moniker in their disambig pages unless there is a clear cut primary article (like "Rice"), and this is likely grounded in the reasonable belief that if a user is searching for something, they won't type in or click on an article with "disambiguation" unless they are having a hard time finding it elsewhere. And further, countless dozens (hundreds?) of our disambigs have been redirecting "Name (disambiguation)" --> "Name" where the disambig was already set up (like the [[Gorgon]] article I just edited before you commented). A redirect to a redirect comes across either as an error or worse yet the impression of disorganization which I'm hoping to help our wiki avoid. − − :If it weren't for all those darned single-name Clanners, maybe we wouldn't even need to have a disambig format! Admittedly, I'm glad we're having this conversation, as it would probably come up eventually, and better to do it now while we're under 50,000 pages than after we're over 100,000! − − :Regarding the disambig tag on some articles and not others, I'm using my best judgement based on reasonable searchability. Someone who is looking at [[Gorgon (Individual Excalibur-class DropShip)]] or [[Shawn (2nd Falcon Jaegers)]] either got there through the disambig page, or clicked on it from the pulldown list of the Search box. So they were clearly going for that page, rather than coming across it from another bigger page/category (like a 'Mech, system, etc). So with an eye toward the presentation of these pages, I felt it was unnecessary to tag every one, which by the way if we did would potentially account for a very large percentage of the database. − − :Lastly, I try to work closely with our senior editors and for projects as big as this one, I would never attempt to make such large-scale changes without being given some sort of green light. While I take responsibility for my editing choices, I'll just say that I wouldn't do anything that wasn't considered acceptable. Let me know if I can tweak my disambig format moving forward, or if there are any questions. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (EDT) − − ::First off, please consider me "just another fellow editor" in this. Your opinion is as valid as mine here. (Also, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Discord isn't a suitable medium for such discussion. Maybe that's just me getting old. :) ) I'll try to explain my concerns; based on the examples you give I think we have different ideas of the "otheruses" tag and the whole disambiguation concept and I would like Sarna to follow a unified approach there. − ::The [[Grendel]] redirect is perfect as it is. But this is not a disambiguation issue, as the name clearly refers to one specific design that has a different proper name which is why the main article has a different name. − ::The [[Union]] example already raised my eyebrow. Do we consider that name ambiguous or not, in the sense of requiring disambiguation? If yes, then we seem to agree the name should redirect to (or be) a disambiguation page. Of course, "Union" is an example of the special case where there is a particularly prominent item going by that name and we agree that in such a case, the redirect can go to that article instead of a disambiguation page. But it would then be absolutely mandatory for the article to have a link to the disambiguation page (typically, through the "otheruses" tag) and "Union (DropShip class)" doesn't have that. Otherwise, if we feel the name doesn't need a disambiguation, then why does the redirect even exist and why isn't the "Union (DropShip class)" article simply named "Union"? − ::As for why I prefer to invariably put disambig tags on every disambiguated article, think of this scenario: User John Doe somehow comes across the "Gorgon (Individual Pinto-class WarShip)" article. It doesn't have an otheruses tag to indicate there are other things out there named Gorgon, so he might think "Oh I thought this was a Wagon Wheel or an Excalibur DropShip but apparently not". I feel it amounts to withholding information from a user if you don't link to an existent disambiguation page in each and every case where an article name was disambiguated. Even if it's not positively needed it certainly doesn't hurt to have the reference. − ::As for disambiguated disambiguation pages (eg. "Gorgon (disambiguation)"), I prefer to have them even if they should only be a redirect to the prime article. If everything gets disambiguated, then the disambiguation page too should get disambiguated. But maybe that's just my personal OCD. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:40, 25 August 2023 (EDT) − :::Hello fellow editor! − :::1) Regarding [[Union]], maybe that editor did it to differentiate it from the other Union classes, or it was part of a project to eventually give all classes that moniker, I don't know. Anyway, I agree it should have an otheruses tag on it and I just added one. I've only been focusing on articles that I come across while combing through the Clan character pages, so it hadn't crossed my mind until now. − :::2) Regarding [[Gorgon (Individual Pinto-class WarShip)]], again how does user John Doe stumble upon this article? If not the aforementioned disambig page or search bar, then it was through an internal link or category page which provides some context, right? As Dmon said, I think we can give our readers some credit for being able to read and figure things out. − :::3) Regarding the otheruses tag on every article within a disambiguated page, let me put the sheer volume of this in perspective. According to my history, I've done close to 5,000 edits since I started focusing on the disambigs (let's say 1,000 were for other things). This whole time I've been focusing on the Clanners and I'm not done, which means maybe 10% of our wiki would be saturated with the tag. This is a huge undertaking with the 200 or so hours I've spent being just a drop in the bucket to go through them all and update them. And for the record, I've only hacked the tag off at most 50 articles... the vast majority of them never had it. − :::4) Disambiguating the disambiguation page? Even if they only redirect back to the primary article? Maybe OCD, but also a time investment above what I said in #3. We are all volunteers... − − :::Is there anything we can agree on or accept at this time? Perhaps we have the default disambig page the one without the moniker? When I finish going through the Clan characters, I'll take a break from this and get back to other interests. After it settles a little we'll be able to see if any adjustments should be considered. While I've done an occasional disambig for a vehicle/DropShip/Mech/etc, I've avoided going to those specific categories knowing full well it will draw interest from more editors. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 06:14, 25 August 2023 (EDT) − ::I have found another issue. Apparently, [[User:MahiMahi]] decided to move articles with non-ambiguous names to disambiguated names without need, eg. moving [[Leopard CV]] to [[Leopard CV (DropShip class)]]. He cited our [[Policy:Article Naming]] as reason, but the policy in fact states that article names should only be ambiguated if they have to. Unfortunately I've only realized now what he did.<br/>Fixing all the article links that suddenly became redirects isn’t necessary. Instead, if and when I find the time, I'll move the articles back to their proper names. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:36, 27 August 2023 (EDT) − − :For the Leopard CV example, I don't mind that there is the additional moniker to avoid potential confusion with the original Leopard. I see what you mean with many non-ambiguous names not needing to be moved, but I think now that they are there, we might as well leave them. I can see the other argument that all things equal, maybe they all should have a moniker for the sake of following a unified approach as you mentioned before. Just too much effort to move them all at once, and the ones that have already been moved aren't negatively affecting anything. Plus, we're still expanding our database and maybe many of them will need to be disambiguated later on. So if I had a vote in the matter, I would leave them. I've also spent a lot of time updating the links while in the process of doing other fixes, and it doesn't feel good to have time and work needlessly undone. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 03:05, 27 August 2023 (EDT) − ::To be clear, what you're doing is not wrong. It's just different from how I would have done it (or did it a couple years back). At this point, I have just two requests to make: − ::1) Don't delete "... (disambiguation)" pages. Just redirect them, or make sure you have "create redirect" checked when you move them. − ::2) Mention the disambiguation in every disambiguated article, for completeness's sake. Intellectually I do understand your reasoning above why it might not be needed in some cases but it still feels like witholding information or providing incomplete information when there is no one-click link to the disambiguation page. − ::Also, you're welcome to move needlessly ambiguated articles back to their proper names instead of correcting oodles of links to what shouldn't be a redirect page in the first place. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:47, 28 August 2023 (EDT) − ::: I have formalized how we do these a bit more [[Help:Disambiguation|with a help page]], [[BattleTechWiki:Disambiguation dos and don'ts|an information page]], and general changes to both [[Template:Disambiguation|the template]] and [[:Category:Disambiguation|it's main category]]. I will be making in the near future a Manual of Style page for it, that way all of this is in a way that will surpass us all. --[[User:Deadfire|Deadfire]] ([[User talk:Deadfire|talk]]) 13:38, 28 August 2023 (EDT) − ::Hi Deadfire: thanks for creating those documents. I think the help and information pages are super clear. − ::Hi Frabby: I'll respond to your points in reverse order- − ::1) I think there's a misconception of what I'm doing when updating links, so let me explain. Unlike Wikipedia, which when you use the search box pulls up potential pages where that term is used (ordered by visit frequency and other algorithms which account for spelling errors), the Sarna box brings up a list based on exactly what was typed in, and then ordered alphabetically. It shows every possible page and redirect, so you end up seeing something messy like [[https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mbkslyvvge9pnjw5ys6oj/Search-box-messy.jpg?rlkey=vlc1ddj0i8nzohtl3t1lsf3yf&dl=0| this]]. Of those 10 on the list, only 3 are actual pages plus a disambig. The other 6 are redirects, none of which need to be there. By fixing the links and deleting old redirects from the list, it looks much cleaner now when you type in "Vulcan." Of course this is a massive amount of effort to go through the whole wiki, and I'm not saying I'm going to do that. But in the past month while I was combing through Clan names I cleaned out a few of the easier ones along the way, and every little bit helps, right? Also when I move an article to create a disambig page, I update the pages with the new link. Often there are a lot of balls in the air so it might be hard to understand what I'm doing from looking at the wiki-updates feed. − − ::But again I think it's a good idea to just leave articles where they are because once we've added another 50,000 pages to the wiki, some of them that don't need disambiguation now might need it later. ''[[Raven's Wing]]'' could very well be the name of a short story one day. It doesn't hurt to leave it now and "tidy up" in ten years when the database is more complete. − − ::2) Are we still "fellow editors" or are you putting on your senior admin hat making requests? We are currently at almost 1,000 disambig pages in the category with likely a few hundred still needed, and with a conservative average of 3 entries each, that means you want ~4,000 pages to have the otheruses tag. I'm sorry, but I'm a volunteer and we don't see eye-to-eye on this point. If you feel strongly about it, you're welcome to do it yourself. What I'll do is agree to stop hacking them off the ones they're currently on, and you should also realize that I've added the tag to just as many pages that didn't have them before, so there's been no net loss. − − ::3) Your first request baffles me a bit, and you've given no explanation except to say that your personal OCD wants to see literally every page get disambiguated. What practical use would it be to have a "name (disambig)" page redirect back to the "name"? So that it shows up in the search bar? So that you see a "disambig" link in the otheruses tab? Atlas, Orion, or Dragon don't have to have "(BattleMech)" in the title but all disambig pages need their moniker? Would it help to think of these disambig pages as the de facto primary article? − − ::At this point I'm not only following the community's general concensus on diambig page naming (the ones who spoke up, anyway), but also the format page Deadfire (and you?) created which is also consistent with Wikipedia's method. I realize you started building the disambigs many years ago a certain way and I acknowledge the great foundation; at the same time, I'm trying to help the wiki and you said what I'm doing is "not wrong." Still, these are my volunteer hours, and if there is a risk that some of the work I've done will be deliberately reverted, I'd rather suspend my time with this and you can do it your own way. − − ::Respectfully, [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 03:48, 29 August 2023 (EDT) − :Yes, we're still "fellow editors" and my requests are literally that. :) Feel free to ignore if you feel strongly about it; like I said, what you're doing is different but not wrong. − :In fact, yes, you are right about the misconception. I never thought of the autocomplete box. It hardly registers with me as I tend to use the search function instead. So I learned something new here, and I admit that from your viewpoint it makes a lot of sense. So thank you for explaining. I'll have to think about it a bit more then to see if you swayed me. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:55, 1 September 2023 (EDT) − − ::Hi Frabby, thanks for your message. As you probably know, Deadfire has helped a lot these past few days with his text replacement tool. We've just been doing the stuff that was jumbled in the various title formatting changes like you saw in the Vulcan screenshot, and when we finish should cut out up to 1000 redirects from the autocomplete box. The vast majority of them are ambiguous terms, so this serves multiple purposes simultaneously. I'm also realizing how much this sidetracked me and prevented me from building the wiki in other ways. − ::To clarify and elaborate a little more on the otheruses tag: while we may not agree on how often to apply them (perhaps one day we can create a Discord consensus post for this), part of my apprehension is just at the sheer amount of pages and time it would take to complete that project. It seems easy enough as a one-liner copy/paste, but locating and applying it to all the thousands of pages is more than I can do right now. But in theory it should be an easy addition to make if we can complete the disambig pages wiki-wide first. As there are plenty of other ongoing projects right now, maybe we can come back to this at a better time? − ::If your disambig formatting preferences change, let me know. I'm fairly close to finishing the Clan pages and I like finishing what I start. [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 13:36, 2 September 2023 (EDT) − ::Addendum- Here's a thought: what if we decide to put the otheruses tag in all disambiguated articles ''except'' for phonebook characters and CCG cards? Since that's where the majority of the absent ones are, this would make the rest a reasonable task, and I wouldn't mind doing them. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 03:37, 7 September 2023 (EDT) − :::Sorry, yeah, didn’t see your addendum earlier. It certainly looks like a very good idea to me! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:20, 23 September 2023 (EDT) − − ==Award== − [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]] − <br>You figured out and are following the format I use for image naming and filling out image summary templates. Much appreciated!--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 18:02, 17 October 2023 (EDT) − − ==BattleTech context== − Re: [[Viper]] disambiguation page - you’re certainly right hhat everything here is obviously in a BT context. But not exclusively. A viper is a (nonfictional) type of terran snake first and foremost, and as such also part of the BT universe. But in a BT universe context, it is *also*, and perhaps more prominently, one of the things in the disambiguation page. I could perhaps have worded that better; I wanted to make it clear that a viper in BT is of course also a viper, not something different. Um. Hope that makes sense. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:25, 28 October 2023 (EDT) − : I understand where you're coming from and I suppose it depends on context. Most pages like [[Irmgard]] really don't need that disclaimer as this is the wiki of a fictional game and I don't think anyone's going to say "It's also Irmgard Furchner!" IMO, "viper" is one of those words that's already widely associated with the snake/serpent and doesn't require explanation. On pages like [[Cygnus]] or [[Ryu]], I can see how that makes sense, as you are clearly explaining how BT is different from real-world astronomical information. In situations like this, I pledge to leave the wording in the page. :) [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 03:37, 30 October 2023 (EDT) − − ==Awards== − [[File:AP 1bol.jpg|All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon]] − [[File:DA.jpg|Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon]] − Thanks for all your help with getting me into the flow of editing (and the wiki as a whole) and for directly handling all those Elizabeth Ryan edits! [[User:Fish|Fish]]([[User talk:Fish|talk]]) 23:44 31 October 2023 (PST) − − :Glad I could help! I think you got excited with the awards so I removed one, but very much appreciated! In the future you can just pin them here to the talk page and let the user add it to their user page if they want. I did it on yours this time just to set it up for you. Look forward to working more with you. [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 02:52, 1 November 2023 (EDT) − − [[File:AP 2bol.jpg|All Purpose Award, 3rd ribbon]] − ::Thanks for all your help with Field Manual: Free Worlds League and Field Manual: Federated Suns (ESPECIALLY the assistance with the larger FedCom Civil War articles). It's been good working with you these past few weeks! [[User:Fish|Fish]] ([[User talk:Fish|talk]]) 21:06 10 November 2023 (PST) − − [[File:AP 3bol.jpg|All Purpose Award, 4th ribbon]] − ::: Thanks for all of the back-up edits these last few months, the advice about citation formatting, the help with learning how to create disambiguations and redirects, and a couple of dozen other things! Your help has been invaluable! [[User:Fish|Fish]] ([[User talk:Fish|talk]]) 07:08 26 April (EST) − − == Individual vehicle categories == − You have set up categories for individual named naval vessels (Tritons and Monitors). But because of the much-reduced relevance of vehicles compared to 'Mechs or spacecraft of DropShip size and upwards, we don’t usually track individual vehicles (or aerospace fighters). − − Small Craft fall somewhere in between as there are articles for individual hulls and there is also a summary [[:Category:Individual Small Craft]] but the category isn’t subdivided into classes of Small Craft. I guess we can handle articles for individual (largish) naval vessels in the same fashion and would suggest to also keep them in a single summary category [[:Category:Individual Naval Vessels]] just like Small Craft. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:30, 24 January 2024 (EST) − − :Good morning, Frabby. Thanks for the background on existing formats. The first category for individual named Naval Vessels was created almost three years ago, after CungrVanck [[User talk:Dmon/Archive 2021#New Template for Naval Vessels|asked Dmon about it]] and got the green light. − − :I agree since there aren’t many named Naval Vessels within each class (so far 2-3 at most), we don’t need those subcategories. I’ll remove them shortly. − − :I’ll just add that saw the need to clean up the whole section on Naval Vessels, which was a mess, and tried to lay the framework for future development for when the time and interest comes to do that. I've done all I planned to do (and more), hopefully you can appreciate it for the potential it has. [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 03:23, 24 January 2024 (EST) − − ::Cool, and thank you. Since you were working on this and I was not, I felt I should ping you about it first and not simply derail what you were doing. Since we established that we agree to treat naval vessels in a similar fashion to Small Craft, I'll start with removing the type subcategories. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (EST) − ::Ok, you beat me to it. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:07, 24 January 2024 (EST) − − == RE: Template == − − Much appreciated, friend! Thanks! [[File:DA.jpg|Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon]] [[User:Mage|Mage]] ([[User talk:Mage|talk]]) 01:04, 3 February 2024 (EST) − : You are very welcome. We don't have anyone currently updating those infoboxes, so every bit that you do is noticeably appreciated. [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 03:21, 3 February 2024 (EST) − − == Dawn == − I really think we need a proper disambiguation page for [[Dawn]]. Technically, [[Dawn Moffat]] doesn't have the same name as the non-bloodnamed character or the system; but she got the Moffat bloodname only in a much later product and during her time in the limelight was also simply known as "Dawn" of Clan Steel Viper. When I read "Dawn", the Dawn Moffat character is the first one I think of and it certainly is the most notable character associated with the name. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:05, 6 February 2024 (EST) − :A prudent idea, thanks for the heads up. [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 03:38, 7 February 2024 (EST)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==MW5 High Reward Quests - Campaign vs Career== | ==MW5 High Reward Quests - Campaign vs Career== | ||
I wondered the same thing but didn't have time to check my old saves, but yes there are often extreme differences between Campaign and Career Mode in reward values and even location and reputation level required. Campaign values I guess would be the prefered as everybody who owns the game has campaign and not everybody has DLC and career (though IMO they should). [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (EDT) | I wondered the same thing but didn't have time to check my old saves, but yes there are often extreme differences between Campaign and Career Mode in reward values and even location and reputation level required. Campaign values I guess would be the prefered as everybody who owns the game has campaign and not everybody has DLC and career (though IMO they should). [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (EDT) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 49: | ||
::Much as I want to be open about this and much as I respect you personally, I fear the core point of your argument as I understand it doesn’t hold water. There is an official ruling on what official products are canon. Computer games, although official, are expressly not canon. The word "apocryphal" isn’t used by the BattleTech IP holders; it is the word we on Sarna use to describe this special group of official-but-expressly-not-canonical publications and their content. And to reverse your argument about dismissing these products, I would argue we’re actually lifting them up from non-canon status by establishing the apocryphal status as an intermediate status. | ::Much as I want to be open about this and much as I respect you personally, I fear the core point of your argument as I understand it doesn’t hold water. There is an official ruling on what official products are canon. Computer games, although official, are expressly not canon. The word "apocryphal" isn’t used by the BattleTech IP holders; it is the word we on Sarna use to describe this special group of official-but-expressly-not-canonical publications and their content. And to reverse your argument about dismissing these products, I would argue we’re actually lifting them up from non-canon status by establishing the apocryphal status as an intermediate status. | ||
::The official rulings this is based on are quoted verbatim in our article on [[Canon]]. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (EDT) | ::The official rulings this is based on are quoted verbatim in our article on [[Canon]]. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (EDT) | ||
| − | :What I think you are trying to say is that canon is determined based on source, not content (I've read the Canon link before, but your references to IP didn't resonate with me initially). Through that lens I can understand the tag policy. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 04:57, 7 May 2023 (EDT) | + | :::What I think you are trying to say is that canon is determined based on source, not content (I've read the Canon link before, but your references to IP didn't resonate with me initially). Through that lens I can understand the tag policy. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 04:57, 7 May 2023 (EDT) |
| − | ::Cool. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve or clarify the policy? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:29, 7 | + | ::::Cool. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve or clarify the policy? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:29, 7 May 2023 (EDT) |
| − | |||
== Periphery citations == | == Periphery citations == | ||
| Line 62: | Line 57: | ||
I've run across some Periphery citations that were actually for the second edition but weren't marked as such, so I find it useful to mark it when the edition is definite. I ain't checkin' 'em all, though. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 10:58, 13 May 2023 (EDT) | I've run across some Periphery citations that were actually for the second edition but weren't marked as such, so I find it useful to mark it when the edition is definite. I ain't checkin' 'em all, though. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 10:58, 13 May 2023 (EDT) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||