Talk:Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth

Year

Is the year of founding correct? How can the AFFC have been founded in 3041 when according to the Federated Commonwealth article that didn't form until years later? 83.170.106.56 16:09, 16 December 2011 (PST)

According to the Historical : War of 3039 book, the AFFC was formally formed in 3042. According to the 20 Year Update, the AFFC High Command took command of both militaries in 3041. ClanWolverine101 16:21, 16 December 2011 (PST)

It is noteworthy that the FedCom formally formed only when Victor Steiner-Davion inherited both thrones, and united the rule over the Lyran and FedSuns halves in one person. You could argue that the AFFC properly formed only at that point. But in reality, it had formed as early as the 4th Succession War (the AFFS and LCAF were still separate militaries at the time, but already in the process of merging). Frabby 16:40, 16 December 2011 (PST)

Certainly, which is why the "formal" dates, while not telling the whole story, are most important.

FYI - Official date - April 1st, 3042. Never form your military on April Fool's Day. :P ClanWolverine101 17:13, 16 December 2011 (PST)

I am actually doing some work on this article. More to come, later. ClanWolverine101 17:13, 16 December 2011 (PST)

Redone with citations. ClanWolverine101 17:20, 26 December 2011 (PST)

Revision Discussion

Okay, so I didn't print it out afterall: 30 pages is too much to ask of the taxpayer! I'll also admit to not reading the whole thing, but that's because I knew didn't have to, after I read the fourth House unit section.

• superior organization: again, a standard setter. It's logical and consistent and clear to the user of the ToC
• excellent use of 'main articles': while an argument could be made that a separate article called "House Units of the AFFC" and "March Militias of the AFFC" would be justified, the fact that most BT readers are familiar with long sections of reference material supports their full presence here. Plus, the reader comes to expect a summary of each unit/militia, with a link to the main article as he reads through.
• standardized use of graphics: my positive comment would be regarding their standardized use within the unit boxes; my suggestion would have the other graphics bounce back and forth (where appropriate) between the left and right sides, to make it more graphically appealing.
• good balance of redlinks: I'm never a supporter of leaving non-existent articles unlinked, as linking encourages new articles. However, reliance on too many redlinks discourages the reader, as he's subconsciously forming an opinion that the article is missing information. This is probably more appropriately attributed to the whole of the BTW editing staff, but your article strikes a great balance.
• first note: I don't agree with your conclusion regarding the 24 Arcturan Guards RCT. I don't think it belongs to us to suggest they never existed, as they clearly did (according to Technical Readout: 3050). However, you have a theory their presence is a typo. Get a PTB to state their agreement and link to that in the notes section, and you're opinion becomes fact. Otherwise, include them and suggest your theory in the notes.
• Bibliographies: again, along with the stellar expansion of the citations section (heck, let's call creation), these two critical (but often overlooked) areas are vital to assuring our readers we know about which we write. My changes were minor: not using 'The' in the alphabetical ordering of the titles and removing the use of words such as 'novel' and 'sourcebook' when those are not a part of the proper title (Jade Falcon Sourcebook being the exception, rather than the rule). The reader only has to click on the link to see that D.R.T and The Dragon Roars are a novel and scenario pack, respectively.

ClanWolverine101, I'll admit I feel a bit inadequate in your continuing requests to critique your stellar works here. I honestly feel like I could not achieve the overall excellence you regularly score with your articles, though I'm skilled enough to recognize how great they are. Policy on BTW is not written by the admins; it comes from the editorial staff. I seriously urge you to give some thought to your writing/expanding of policies or creating 'how to' articles that lead others to standardizing similar articles that you've undertaken to improve. The Be Bold policy should inspire you take charge and tell the rest of us how it should be done. You've earned that right to be the trendsetter and, at worst, if I disagree with an idea of your's, we discuss it from a standpoint of equals. I know you have your own ideas on how you'd do things differently. Follow that thought.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:38, 21 January 2012 (PST)

Rev - As always, thank you for the kind comments.

Regarding the 24th Arcturan, you are completely correct. I let a minor typo in the original TRO3050 throw me off. I have removed the note, as it is addressed elsewhere.

I understand your point about the bibliographies. I think I was trying to conform to what I've seen elsewhere on Sarna. Perhaps you should start a discussion to streamline bibliographies? Just a thought.

I do appreciate everything you bring up. The reason why I bring this to the attention of yourself and Frabby is because I knew I was doing something new, here. I knew there would be discussion on it, whether positive (see Frabby below) or negative (see Neuling's comments on the project page) and I wanted to handle that directly. I appreciate also what you said about standardization, but that is not necessarily my goal here. (See below).

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Great statement, the "note" of the policy there comms not from the admins, but the admins follow the editors contributions and talks is great but i feel in last time, some contributors don't follow this, oh CW greate AFFC article.--Doneve 15:42, 21 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks, Doneve! And absolutely, some don't follow this. That's why I wanted to bring it forward. ClanWolverine101 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST)

I've finally found time to review the article as requested by CW, and to be perfectly honest, I can't honestly say I am totally happy with it.

While research and referencing are exemplary, I feel the article as such is too long, and not formatted well for readability. It might also suffer from information overload in the sense of information that isn't really relevant to the issue; for example, I feel the unit roster is far too detailed. I supposed it comes down to what you expect from a wikia article. CW essentially wrote a thorough report on the AFFC, which comes out as 117 kilobytes of (mostly) text. I would have preferred a shorter, more concise overview with all the relevant data easily at hand; in case I need to read more about something specific, I can follow a link to another article on a wiki, after all.

I appreciate that, Frabby, and perhaps the screws could be tightened. Really what I wanted to do was establish the identity of the AFFC. That is why I included so much in the brigade sections. The normal brigade pages, and the LCAF article, have to concern themselves with the entire history of those commands. I concerned myself (primarily) with what they did as part of the AFFC. (Though I admit some more trimming may be needed.) ClanWolverine101 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Finally, the formatting strikes me as a wall of text, with page-long paragraphs. I find that very hard to read, and have gone over the article cutting overly long sentences, inserting paragraphs, and rewording some convoluted parts.

Interesting. I was hoping the graphics, etc. would avoid that feel. I am entirely open to making changes to reconcile that, and I appreciate changes you've made. ClanWolverine101 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Mind that I still think CW's work is very good. The above may sound as if I didn't like the article, which definitely isn't the case. Just some copyedits were required. Frabby 01:09, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Add-on about formatting: I think there should be no space between a full stop and a reference. Frabby 01:25, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Yeah, that's something I used when I put together the articles. I have no problem with dropping those for the final edition, and I will try to clean that up in the future. ClanWolverine101 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST)