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 disagree with Dmon's latest edit. 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)

No offense taken, and bad wording fixed in the initial text. Yet I still disagree with the Regiment sub-articles. They are more or less empty and should all be merged into this "brigade" article (a misnomer; we're really dealing with a merc unit article). Frabby 16:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed we should move everything to the main article. The same rationale applies to Wolf's Dragoons with their 5+ regiments (Black Widow/Wolf Spiders are an exception). Heck - look at most of the House unit pages. Most of them just have a little biographical information and that's it. In many cases, we just don't have a lot of info to go on. For the Super-sized Merc units (WD, MAC, ELH) best to keep it altogether. ClanWolverine101 18:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I have been trying to say. Frabby 18:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't use the mercenary argument since the Big MAC has become a CC house unit. --Neufeld 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should really be in Policy and not hidden in a unit talk page. --Neufeld 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

6th Regiment

Hey - was this "6th Regiment" both canon and current? ClanWolverine101 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the blame of not referencing stuff. :) Yeah, it's canon in the sense of being mentioned in a canonical source (the MAC sourcebook), but little to noting is known about it or its history. Frabby 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. I'd like to check the CC Field Manual later, and see if its referenced there. IIRC, there's a lot of material in the MAC book that's not referenced elsewhere. ClanWolverine101 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay - I checked the Field Manual, and it says 5 regiments. Suggestions? ClanWolverine101 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask TPTB at CBT forums? --Neufeld 14:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Until the 6th reg is removed from history, there is simply an untold (or one we missed) story as to its...demise? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine with that. I'm just saying that as of the "semi-modern era" (just before Jihad) we should not consider the 6th Regiment to be in existence. Kosher? ClanWolverine101 23:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm not sure how to address that. If modern books only mention 5 regiments without mentioning the 6th...you can't really imply the 6th is still in existance, nor that it has been destroyed. Seems as if a ==Notes== section (allowing the Editors to step out-of-character) would be appropriate:

"*The Sixth Regiment has not been mentioned in any official product since McCarron's Armored Cavalry (scenario pack)."

It could even get a citation saying the same thing. I prefer Notes, but both are acceptable.

--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone just said on the CBT forums that the 6th was destroyed during the War of 3039. --Neufeld 13:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A developer? ClanWolverine101 16:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but someone who has Historical: War of 3039. The relevant thread: Why didn't the CCAF & FWLM attack in the war of '39? --Neufeld 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical: War of 3039 has info. I added it to the article. --Scaletail 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you guys just love this 'job'? One small fact that will answer many questions is now easy to find. Good job, all.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

But again 103rd Division pays the price for me being so easy to side-track... Cyc 21:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)