Talk:McCarron's Armored Cavalry

This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. 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.

"Primary Mechs" from Liao Housebook

I am a bit unhappy with Dmon's latest edit, when he deleted the following part from the article:

An overview from the House Liao Housebook suggests the following "primary 'Mechs" among the individual regiments around 3025; it should, however, be regarded as just a very broad estimate, and may just refer to single notable 'Mechs or pilots within the given regiment:

which was followed by the regiments and their alleged "primary" 'Mechs; this part is now found under "Units of the McCarron's Armored Cavalry". I have two distinct problems with this:
1) I feel the deleted information is important as-is, including the disclaimer, and should thus be included in the article; 2) I feel it is nonsensical to create articles for the individual regiments given that the MAC is one rather coherent merc unit; all regimental information belongs into this one article about the "brigade" imho, and should not be split over several smaller articles. This latter point is a problem that I have with many brigade formations that received a similar treatment, i.e. articles broken down into single regiments for no apparent reason. Frabby 18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The breakdown of larger units into regimental sized pages might be a response to comments made on the Armed Forces of the Federated Suns page, where there were so many images that the page took too long to download. One suggestion I made was to put the brigade sized forces (Brigade of Guards, Avalon Hussars, etc.) into their own pages because there was too much detail in the main article.

I don't know that this is what Dmon was doing, but it's possible.--Mbear 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Military_Commands#Brigade articles might shed some light. --Scaletail 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I feel the gun might have been jumped with simply deleting that information, I must confess that every time I read it, it made me wince a little. The info is from another era, is flippantly presented without context, and I feel is contradicted elsewhere. I would propose either its removal or a change in the presentation would go into effect. ClanWolverine101 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to upset you Frabby, I was wrong to delete the information outright is undeniable but I also feel that the information should be written into the text of the individual regiment articles rather than restored back to the brigade page. The Brigade articles are finally starting to improve--Dmon 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)