BattleTechWiki talk:Project Factions

This article is within the scope of the Project Factions, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of Factions. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

• Talk Archive

FWL Successor States

A discussion at Talk:Regulan Fiefs#Recommendation was started last year, but no consensus was reached on the subject of how many articles to have for Free Worlds League member states that also became nations following the dissolution of the FWL. The issue is the following: a few of these provinces became nations and changed their names to reflect their growth, so does BTW have one article for each province/nation or one article for the province and one for the nation. Each nation clearly has a continuity with the province, including territorial boundaries and ruling family. Right now, I'm leaning towards having one article, but I am not yet decisive in my opinion.

I think combining the articles together make the most sense because of the continuity; in essence, the successor states are the provinces that existed before the FWL balkanized, which are themselves (at least for three of them) the nations that joined to form the FWL. For clarity, the names in question are:

• Republic of Marik -> Marik Commonwealth -> Marik-Stewart Commonwealth
• Federation of Oriente -> Duchy of Oriente -> Oriente Protectorate
• Regulan Principality -> Principality of Regulus -> Regulan Fiefs
• Duchy of Tamarind -> Duchy of Tamarind-Abbey

Another issue is that of nations that retained their names from their time as provinces. Here I am referring to the Duchy of Andurien and the Rim Commonality. They both kept their provincial names when they became independent nations. If there must be a separate article for each province and one for each nation, then these two would also need two articles, would they not?

Again, I can see difficulties and complexities arising because of this, so I am curious about other folks' thoughts on the subject. --Scaletail 18:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I agree in principle to keep the individual FWL-faction nations/provincial histories in single Article. About the problem of what your going to call these articles? I would lean to keep most recent name for these nations as the article's main name, have redirect for older names, such as the Regulan Fiefs would be the current name of that nation until its renamed in canon and use the Principality names as redirect. That nation's earlier history would be broken sub-section by nation's name and major events during its existence. -- Wrangler 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion about what to name the articles, if that is the consensus, would be for a subsequent discussion. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. --Scaletail 23:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully, the same name should be used (with redirects). I've wondered about this for quite some time with regions all around the Inner Sphere (Tamar Pact, Sarna Supremacy, UHC, etc...)--S.gage 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarna Supremacy UHC did not have enough write up as regional provience to have their own write up. UHC and Supremacy shoud have their own write up as more info for them than their own individual article. -- Wrangler 03:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like there is a consensus, then. I will update the project guidelines accordingly. --Scaletail 00:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

per era faction ownership of known worlds

ok that was a long title... Hey guys, I'm working from a list of about 2954 identified worlds in the Inner Sphere, Periphery and Clan Homeworlds. I'm trying to identify what faction owns the systems/planets based on available maps and literature. Do you guys think we could work together? I'm currently working with about 19 unique years in the CBT timeline (20 including MWDA). Let me know if you're interested. Thanks! -Volt 03:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Volt, I'm definitely willing to help. The planetary articles were the first to populate the BTW when Nic created it and they currently make up about 16% of all articles. If I understand you right, you wish to use canon maps to establish who owned what when. Is that correct?

The value I see in this project, other than bringing accuracy to those articles, is to establish an Owner's History format that isn't predicated on eras, but on times of actual change-overs. The maps will go a long way (not all the way) towards correcting that generalization. How do you wish to proceed?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rev, so sorry for the super-late reply, I had not noticed I didn't tag the page to update me. Well, as of this time I have 3,004 identified systems from the various Canon maps, and I've identified for the most part which faction owned what system at a "major" year [2571, 2596, 2750, 2786, 2822, 2830, 2864, 2866, 3025, 3028, 3030, 3039, 3040, 3050, 3052, 3057, 3058, 3063, 3067, 3075, 3079, 3085, 3130] Eventually I plan to include the house founding years and 2821 (from Operation Klondike) but are minor goals at this time. Fact checking would be my priority, then I'll go on to checking Bad_Syntax's coordinates one at a time.

The catch is some maps do not show all these systems so there are some that were interpolated based on who owned them before and after that particular year [ex. System A belonged to LC in the 2596 and 2786/2822 maps, so I assumed it was also LC in 2750.

A lot of my problems came from absence of data (fluff or map) such as 2750 and the IS in 3085 (hoping for that to change IF a 3085 map is released in the upcoming Field Report:3085).

I will need help in verifying if the faction assignments I put in match canon in this order a) Oystein says so in the CBT forums b) unequivocally stated in canon fluff and then c) shown on map. I am considering map as the last source of canon instead of first because I understand fluff trumps art and official statement trumps fluff.

I have an excel file with all my faction data available if you would like to give it a go. Thanks --Volt 14:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Duchy of Tamarind

So! I was going to produce a Duchy of Tamarind article, but it seems decisions have been made on that front. I do not disagree philosophically. However, the Duchy of Tamarind-Abbey article is currently focused on Dark Age era material, something of which I have no access to. (And frankly little interest in.) Should I keep it one article, and create two different sections, one for pre-Jihad, Jihad and post-Jihad stuff, and the second the current Dark Age material? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If I understand it right, a decision was to prevent unnecessary forking, which you'll support. Got it. So, in that case, yes, create a chronogically first section for the pre-DA period. Any references to the previous era would need to be made in the DA side, but not necessarily by you (for your stated reasons). Thanks for asking, CW, and I hope that helps.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It does. Once I'm done with that, I will set up the appropriate redirect. ClanWolverine101 16:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look...

Does this work? Duchy of Tamarind-Abbey ClanWolverine101 03:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing Help

If there are any pages that need a particularly high amount of grammatical help, just notify me, otherwise, I'll just freely edit. Thanks. EDIT- forgot to sign, sorry... BobTheZombie (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2013 (PDT)