Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dechan Fraser"

(response)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
Although the Handbook does mention "...rumors of a third independent battalion, operating with flying Dragoon colors...", no mention of Dechan Fraser is given.
 
Although the Handbook does mention "...rumors of a third independent battalion, operating with flying Dragoon colors...", no mention of Dechan Fraser is given.
  
What is the actual source for this reference?
+
What is the actual source for this reference?{{Unsigned|76.184.156.185 |20:57, 11 April 2014}}
: Without Dragoon colors. :p
+
 
: But yeah - This one is mine. I do feel that reference was intended to refer to Fraser and his Kappa Battalion. Obviously, the devs never followed up on this. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 19:18, 11 April 2014 (PDT)
+
: Good catch, 76.184.156.185. Because that sole statement is cited and the reference does not support it, I will mark it as 'citation needed'. That same reference should not be used again.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:02, 8 May 2014 (PDT)

Revision as of 20:02, 8 May 2014

Bio.gif This article is within the scope of the Project Characters, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of Characters. 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. Bio.gif



The article says, "It is hinted that Fraser continued to command an "Independent" Dragoon battalion after the civil war and the Dragoons' subsequent reorganization in 3054..." with the source given as Mercenary Handbook 3055.

Although the Handbook does mention "...rumors of a third independent battalion, operating with flying Dragoon colors...", no mention of Dechan Fraser is given.

What is the actual source for this reference?— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 76.184.156.185 (talkcontribs) 20:57, 11 April 2014.

Good catch, 76.184.156.185. Because that sole statement is cited and the reference does not support it, I will mark it as 'citation needed'. That same reference should not be used again.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:02, 8 May 2014 (PDT)