Talk:Erinyes (Individual WarShip)

Bombardment of Taurus

Has anyone got a reference for the Erinyes being blamed for the bombing of Taurus, as mentioned in the article? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

Ask, and ye shall receive. Though I must say I was a bit surprised, as earlier sources suggested the asteroids were equipped with thrust drives and not fired from a mass driver. Well, I guess we can canonically say the Erinyes is blamed for Taurus although the veracity of that claim is questionable. Frabby (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

Thanks for the reference - Rev's always told me to cite a reference for any facts in an article, and given the tone of some of the conversations over on the CGL forum whenever Sarna's mentioned, I'm a little sensitive towards making sure that any detail we add here has a link straight back to a canon source. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

I can feel ya, BM (I always giggle when I call you 'BM'): I am a little sensitive too about that. I really do feel the majority of the group does a good job referencing canon; what creeps in is usually some IP editor's presumption as to what is correct, and it usually is a change to something that is referenced! Not to say IP editors by-and-large aren't doing a great job themselves. Plus, there's also the hive-mind regarding wikis in general that has to be overcome.

I do feel better, tho, when I travel around the internet and find a corner of the BT world I hadn't seen before, yet they link to a Sarna article to assist their posts. Can't say I see that done back to official information, which says a lot about the trust the general BT fandom has (and not just CGL fans) for Sarna.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:17, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

It doesn't help that I don't find the CGL forums to be a particularly friendly or welcoming set of forums, which possibly jaundices my view a little as it's one of only two BattleTech forums I read. I gather that the MWO forums are big fans of Sarna - I wonder if Sarna's popularity is down to the amount of information available here, compared to other sites? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

BM, you found the right words, when some guys from the BT forum have some problems with sarna, why they not come to sarna, talk to the contributors or make edits, when they think some must changed or have problems with the content? This is what Bad Syntax pointed out on his Engineer blog and other problems the forum had, and the result was, he was banned on the forum, but Syntax is a fox in sheep cloathes, i have some sympathics to him.--Doneve (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

Bad Syntax (or do you mean BrokenMnemonic?) was banned on the CGL forum? Seems like I missed that part.

Anyways, while I do understand your frustration, I can also see how people are frustrated when they need to look something up and find a bad (or worse, wrong) Sarna article, believe what they read here, and later learn that the Sarna info they relied on was incomplete, outdated or plain incorrect. If we want to be taken seriously as a resource, we need to cater to exactly those people who, for whatever reason, don't want to contribute but come here looking for accurate info.

Finally, keep in mind that CGL freelancers with a lot of knowledge (typically the ones pointing out errors on Sarna) might be legally obliged to stay clear of Sarna, at least under their known names. Sarna is not and does not want to be an official site, so you can't expect the "official" people contributing much. It might cause legal troubles for them (NDAs) and CGL (unseen). Frabby (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

Frabby, Bad Syntax was banned.--Doneve (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

But the other question is! At first. The BT forum members look to sarna and found a bad writen article (ok we have some grammers and typos), but our editors, linked almost to canon sources, and there is the problem, some was fixed by talk to the Ask the Writers etc. sections on the forum, but not yet posted to sarna. Now i kick the ball back, why are so many sources must become errated, or have so many typos, wrong Maps, details etc., i know the CGL writers do a hell of job, but i don't understand the process to bring up some canonical sources with so many datamine errors, when i want to publish a product i datamine and fix some errors before the product was published, this make sense, i think so.--Doneve (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (PDT)