BattleTechWiki talk:Project Factions/Archive

I've come up with a standardized main layout for all faction articles, but I think that we need a consensus before I put it on the main project page due to possible required variations per article. Please note that this does not mean that the title names have to be the ones in the layout! Here it is:

Basic Info (in template box like on Marian Hegemony page.)

Founding

History (can be further subdivided into subheadings for various periods in history, e.g. "Clan Invasion Period" or "FedCom Civil War Period")

Dissolution (if applicable)

Military (with a subsection for ranks of the military)

Foreign Relations (divided into sections not subheadings for each power)

References

Please comment, as this is far from perfect! --Workerbee 18:41, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for taking the initiative on this! I think "founding" can be incorporated into "history," as can "dissolution." The military ranks should really be in the appropriate page (e.g. AFFS for the FS). I still dislike "foreign relations," as that changes. This should be covered in "history" as it is too complex to provide 'at a glance.' Perhaps a couple of sentences in the intro can suffice? We also need to have a section for "government," and possibly one on "religion." I think that both Federated Suns and Lyran Alliance are good examples of a good faction article (though neither are perfect). --Scaletail 20:32, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the input! How about this layout?

Basic Info

Introduction (with geographical location and short history overview, etc.)

History (again with subheadings for various time periods; foreign relations added into this section)

Military (no ranks, but possibly a small section on basic structure as well as size and composition)

Political and Social Structure I feel that a section for "religion" would be hard to complete for most articles (especially religion for Periphery nations), so the "Political and Social Structure" section would encompass all of the political, religious, and social aspects known about each nation in various subsections.

Rulers (where applicable and/or known)

References

Let me know what you think! --Workerbee 21:33, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

It works for me. --Scaletail 21:13, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

Military unit articles

Should military unit articles be created with the number is numerical format, or spelled out? For example, 20th Avalon Hussars or Twentieth Avalon Hussars? I am a fan of the former, as that is the way it usually is in the official books. Anybody else with a preference before we start creating them? --Scaletail 20:20, 20 August 2008 (CDT)

I'm with you. Grammatically-speaking, I believe it should be spelled out, but in this case it is more familiar in numbered format. I think re-directs will be required, however, as they will often be spelled out in articles, especially when opening a sentence. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:42, 20 August 2008 (CDT)

Fanmade Factions/units?

Would it be an idea to make a catagory for fanmade factions/units? — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Onisuzume (talk • contribs) on 4 November 2008.

Sure! I don't think we have any right now because there are no articles to populate them. Following the standard that has already been created, I propose "FactionsCustom" and "UnitsCustom". --Scaletail 16:39, 4 November 2008 (PST)

Clan Articles / Cluster Numbers

So I've seen most of the Clan Articles seem to list a number of active clusters. The problem is, they don't seem to indicate a year "as of", nor is there a clear citation for that info. I use Clan Jade Falcon as an example. (This problem may exist for other factions as well...) Anyone have any insight/thoughts on this? ClanWolverine101 01:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Clan Wolf, Clan Ghost Bear Dominion, Clan Sea Fox/Diamond SharK & Lyran Commonwealth/Alliance

So, how do we deal with factions that changed names? Clan Ghost Bear->Ghost Bear Dominion->Rasalhague Dominion, Clan Sea Fox->Clan Diamond Shark->Clan Sea Fox, Lyran Commonwealth->Lyran Alliance->Lyran Commonwealth? Having two articles seems too much like a bother. I would prefer to use the name most recent and have the other names link to it.

Second, Clan Wolf. Should this article both cover original Clan Wolf and Vlad's Wolves, or just original Clan Wolf or original and Wolf-in-Exile? --Neufeld 08:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here my take on this. You have factions that change somewhat, with partial name change to radical change. I think the ones that fall under "radical" or most changed from original. Should warrant its own article page, they should be linked with the old one. These articles are getting lengthy, having separate ones for changes of status do. Look at House Steiner; the Lyran Commonwealth goes to FedCom, then to Lyran Alliance and as of 3084ish, back to Commonwealth. Its persona as the Alliance only lasted about 15-20 years, FedCom lasted even less so, but retained its name as Lyran Commonwealth as a sub-state. In that case it shouldn't go through a article change name, it should remain Lyran Commonwealth. Lyran Alliance name should have sub-section in the article itself states what was going on in its history, era related data, etc. However, they are still same people. Clan Sea Fox is bit different. The foxes changed their name in late 30th century. Events of the Jihad and its being kicked out of the Clan Space changed them radically. Yes their still merchants, but Clan's structure was completely changed. They have few worlds, most their population lives on radically altered exWarships, they have no military (formal ones like everyone else does) they wander Inner Sphere (possibly Periphery) in fleets of JumpShips looking for profit. They're very differient, in my humble opinion warrant their own article name. I think also is how much information is available on the subject. Take the old Clan Wolf's Omega Galaxy. They were originally, Provisional Garrison Galaxy (PGC), with unique smaller clusters attached to them. I've yet find what happened other than they got wiped out by Refusal war. I'm still looking. Khan Vlad Ward created "new" Omega, used as a meat-grinder to take out his political foes. Which is gone and now part of completely different Clan, with same galaxy name. I separated article only when it became another clan's force. As for Clan Wolf, its generally held that Vlad's Clan Wolf took over for old Clan Wolf. Only small percentage of old Clan Wolf became Clan Wolf In Exile. Vlad's Clan Wolf took up all old Wolves terroritory, in Inner Sphere and Clan space. No need to make separate one, Exiles are effectively its own Clan, with its own history. Bottom line I'm trying to make is this. I feel you need take it from case to case basis. I think rule thumb should be, if there is enough information that suggests that subject of article (Clan Wolf's Omega Galaxy as example) suggest the their related. They should keep info together. If subject is so different from source, like Omega became different faction's property, Like Hell's Horses. Its now a different unit. Similarly, Clan Wolf & Clan Wolf In Exile, Clan WiE has led a completely differient history and partipated in differient events, that it is effectively its own faction. While Clan Wolf under Vlad Ward, was "main body" of the Clan, differient rulership, same clan, but meaner and daresay evilier. We have other examples of this happening else where. Sorry if this sound confusing or complicated. However, it is. Would like see things kept to canon as possible, without making mess of things. -- Wrangler 11:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

For the Ghost Bear/FRR merger, I'd be in favor of creating a Rasalhague Dominion article to cover events from 3067(?) to present. Then on the Clan Ghost Bear and FRR pages I'd end the History section by saying something like "In 3067 Clan Ghost Bear merged with the Free Rasalhague Republic to form a new nation called the Rasalhague Dominion." I would also recommend we not add any new (post-merger) history to the CGB or FRR pages.

For Clan Sea Fox and Clan Diamond Shark I'd put the Sea fox history up until the renaming of the clan. Then say "In 2900 Clan Sea Fox took the unusual step of renaming itself Clan Diamond Shark and operated with that totem until 3070. After the Jihad however, the Diamond Sharks returned to their previous totem to show that their relocation to the Inner Sphere was a rebirth of their previous traditions." Then pick up with the post-Jihad information for the Sea Foxes.

Dates that I used in these examples are purely arbitrary. Hopefully I haven't confused the issue too much.--Mbear 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am letting someone else handle the Sea Fox/Diamond Shark and Ghost Bear/Rasalhague Dominion pages then. --Neufeld 16:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

"History of"

Is there any guidance on "History of (Faction)" articles that exist separately from the main Faction article? I ask because there seems to be inconsistency and I'm not sure what the preference is. For example, the "History" section of Clan Ghost Bear has received many more updates and is now much more comprehensive than the History of Clan Ghost Bear article. Tosta Dojen (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2020 (EDT)