User talk:BrokenMnemonic

Welcome

Welcome, BrokenMnemonic, to BattleTechWiki!

We look forward to your contributions and want to help you get off to a good strong start. Hopefully you will soon join the army of BattleTech Editors! If you need help formatting the pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions go to the Help section or the FAQ. If you can't find your answer there, please ask an Admin.

---

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the wiki:

• For policies and guidelines, see The Five Core Policies of BattleTechWiki and the BTW Policies. Another good place to check out is our market of Projects, to see how the smaller communities within BTW do things in their particular niche areas.
• Each and every page (articles, policies, projects, images, etc.) has its very own discussion/talk page, found on the tab line at the top of the page. This is a great place to find out what the community is discussing along that subject and what previous issues have already been solved.
• If you want to play around with your new wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you. Don't worry: you won't break anything. A great resource for printing out is the Wiki Cheat Sheet.
• If you're not registered, then please consider doing so. At the very least, you'll have a UserPage that you own, rather than sharing one with the community.
• Also consider writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as "BrokenMnemonic" at the top of the page, though only do this if you're registered). You'll go from being a 'redshirt' to a 'blueshirt,' with the respect of a more permanent member.
  • This is really helpful for the admins, as it gives your account that touch of "humanity" that assists us in our never-ending battle with spambots.
• For your first few edits on the wiki, please do not add any URLs (which can be an indicator of SPAM).
• Consider introducing yourself on our Discord server.
• In your Preferences, under the edit tab, consider checking Add pages I create to my watchlist and Add pages I edit to my watchlist, so that you can see how your efforts have affected the community. Check back on following visits by clicking on watchlist.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random button in the sidebar, or check out the List of Wanted Pages. Or even go to Special Pages to see what weird stuff is actually tracked by this wiki.
• Please sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the circled button in this image; this will automatically produce your name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date.

Again, welcome to Sarna's BattleTechWiki!

*******Be Bold*******

Hy

Hy BrokenMnemonic, welcome to sarna.net, you can move your most of your New User Log discription to your own User page, and leave a minor description on the New User Log page.--Doneve 12:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, BrokenMnemonic

I just read your New User log entry and it seems you're a great example of our target audience. I really appreciate that you want to 'give back' to the community what it provides and using what ever skills interest you do just that. Trust me: minor edits are no small added value to a wiki. In fact, I'd say that's probably how many people get there start, as they learn how a wiki works.

Additionally, registering (vice editing as an IP) is more than us getting our grips around you, much more. Now you get credit for your deeds, as well as the opportunity for award ribbons and more open discussions with the other members of the community here. We're glad to put a name to a face. Welcome!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Substantial Addition award

Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. Still way too early for you to get your Time-In-Service (TIS) and Edit Count (EC) ribbons, but I did see the value you added to Always Faithful‎, which definitely deserves recognition:

I don't give these out too often, but this is the 2nd one today. I added an awards board to your user page as well, so be sure to add your TIS and EC ribbons, when the time comes. Good job. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you :) I've not finished editing the Always Faithful page though, because there's detail from the 20 Year Update and I think the Field Manual: Free Worlds League that needs incorporating, and I've not checked my 4th Succession War Atlases to confirm what they were up to then - should the award wait until I've finished the main edit? I'd not want to step on any toes. I'm delighted to be able to help! BrokenMnemonic 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to wait! Editor Awards can be given out by anyone seeing something positive being done (or just completed) and should be given out then. No nomination process is necessary (and you can give them out, too). Now, if someone else awards you for the same effort, you have the option of declining the award; just let them know why.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw your summary note: it's more than ok. Both the TIS and EC ribbons are automatic awards, as there is no real way for other editors to ensure people get them; its left up to you, the individual. Good job.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Year Pages

Hy, please take a look on Policy:Year Pages, great work on Crater Cobras.--Doneve 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, my apologies for breaching the policy on year pages - I've read through the policy and will stick to it in future.BrokenMnemonic 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Casual Edit award

I'm well impressed and quite happy with the work you're doing here. As an incentive to continue to improve articles, have a Casual Edit award:
Frabby 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very cool :) I saw a few of your posts on the CBT forum regarding editing on the wiki, which is one of the things that persuaded me to wander over and start poking things... BrokenMnemonic 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hy

Hy please dont delete added references and infoboxes, when you have not the sourcebooks, leave a note on the target page, i double check the references and talk then to you, thanks.--Doneve 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a complete mistake, I'm afraid; I was editing just the History section, and between previews the wiki announced that the session data had been lost and I should refresh the revision. I did that, saved it, and discovered that I'd somehow gone from editing just the History section to apparently editing the entire page! I undid the revision ASAP, and replaced it with the correct version. I'm still not sure exactly what happened, but it's made me a little paranoid. BrokenMnemonic 10:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a big think, keep cool, the data is saved.--Doneve 10:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unknown Planet

Okay, let's talk thru this, to see if we understand things the same way. On Tyrrhenia, you provided cites for the Unknown Planet entries. In your own words, what information did you provide there? What does that source information tell you about the planet?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The citations show that according to the maps of the region cited at that date in time, the planets didn't exist as colonies, so that if in the future someone searches for planets in the Taurian Concordat, they can be excluded when refining the search by date. It also shows for those looking to try and work out when planets were likely to be settled (where we don't have precise dates) which sources at least confirm the planet wasn't settled at that point in time. BrokenMnemonic 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that was roughly what I thought, too. Do you think "Unknown Planet" is the best term to put there? I don't know what "unknown planet" means. Let's see if I can keep from being too confusing here:

We can definitely presume that a planet's absence from the maps indicates it was as yet unsettled (or not officially known to be settled, by the map's creators, in this case ComStar Cartographic Corps). What we absolutely know for a fact is that it is not on the map.

We have four paths to choose from: ignore the map since it doesn't mention the planet, indicate it was not settled (which may not be the case), indicate it was not reported to be settled or indicate it was not represented on the map. I think the fact we have a source (the map) available that covers the area of concern (to include the area around Tyrrhenia) is something we need to use, so I vote 'no' on option 1. CGL may very well release a map anytime in the future that represents a period of time before the current map that does depict the planet, which means this map simply didn't have the planet, not that it was or was not unsettled (though I find that unlikely).

What we really want to say here is not that the planet was undiscovered, or even unsettled, but that no records of it exist at the times of the map's depictions. Is that right?

Note: the page number for the first entry appears to be wrong. I see maps for 3040 & 3067, not the three that are currently indicated.

The first citation is wrong; sorry about that, I changed the text, but forgot to change the page number in the description (although I did change it in the reference code, which is odd). Slip of the brain, I think.

I grabbed the phrase "Uknown Planet" from the existing entries from worlds up in the Rim Collection, and I'll admit I hadn't thought about it much beyond checking to see what was already in use. I asked about planets not appearing on maps on the CBT forum as a part of a question on the missing OA Star League-era worlds, and the answer Cray sent me was this:

According to MW3 RPG, the OA lost 3/4 of its worlds during the Succession Wars. That was the driver behind the OA's losses in the HB:MPS. Oystein's total estimates (and I might be misremembering a very old discussion) for Succession War losses are 750: 250 Inner Sphere, 500 Periphery.

However, there's a difference between the two regions: Inner Sphere maps show inhabited planets. If it ain't inhabited, it ain't listed. So when a planet leaves the map, it's dead. The Inner Sphere blew 10% of its planets off the map (or let them die through failed technology.) Periphery maps, OTOH, mostly show the noteworthy planets. Humanity's population doesn't stop at a rigid wall of the Inner Sphere - it diffused across it and there's no particular dearth of habitable planets in the Periphery - so there should be many inhabited planets along the Inner Sphere's flanks that never earned a mention in any maps.

But for planets that left Periphery maps that could mean either they simply left a major faction, or it could mean they died. In the case of the hostile planets settled by the Star League in the Rim Worlds (nominally Rim Worlds, they were pretty much Hegemony planets, per JHS:Terra) those mostly died without advanced technology. What happened to the OA "lost worlds" has not been published.

So, CGL have already established that Periphery worlds can "drop off the map" through no longer being significant/noteworthy, and in theory then reappear later. Cray also said this about realms appearing out of the blue that hadn't been in past publications:

The Magistracy also represents a grand-scale "poof! there it is!" nation. It was formed in the 2500s out of existing colonies that banded together against Inner Sphere aggression. You won't see those planets on earlier maps.

So, in the Periphery we have: genuinely uninhabited/undiscovered worlds, worlds not noteworthy enough to appear on the map, worlds that willingly drop off the map, worlds ComStar discovered but chose not to reveal... basically, one huge mess. I've already hit conflicts with the Calderon Protectorate worlds, because there are worlds like Belle Isle that I can't find on any of the maps in sourcebooks I have, but which have been added to the wiki and which have co-ordinates - and in some cases, are even mentioned in the text in HB:MPS, which is seriously frustrating.

We need something that says "either no records exist at the time of this maps compilation, or the world was not considered noteworthy enough to be recorded." Although we also probably need a "dead world" category, for those worlds confirmed as haivng been wiped out.

Maybe we need a Wiki-specific setting rather than an in-universe one - something like "undefined" or "absent"? BrokenMnemonic 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, great read above. I'll be re-reading what you've provided when I get home tonight.

Second, I didn't mean to imply you chose 'Unknown Planet'. I should have been more clear that I was seeking conversation (which resulted, in any case) on ways to improve the entry, so that it actually means something.

So, it looks like we have a near-match for a conclusion as to defining the problem with the way Owner History is currently established. 'Unknown Planet' doesn't provide any information, while "undefined" or "absent" might be a better fit. How about "No Record"? Even when cited (as you've done with their absence from the cited maps), you're providing historical data to a specific date, indicating "no record" existed at that time. What do you think? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't mean to sound defensive :) I'm just used to citing sources and references when I'm compiling information. I'm more than happy to go with "No Record" - that leaves us with wiggle room to play with if CGL add more worlds in. I asked Herb on the CBT forum about whether or not any of the missing Outworlds Alliance worlds from 2750 might still exist as independent worlds and simply not show up on the map, and he said that the majority of the worlds in the Periphery that vanished simply died out, but that some will still be inhabited, even if they're bleak hell-holes with low population - you can see his response here: [1]

As an aside, if the main purpose of the planetary reference pages isn't going to be the breakdown of nearby neighbours and jump distances, would it be ok for me to start adding in dead/absent worlds from the Star League era? They'll mainly be isolated entries because they don't have co-ordinates, so they won't show up on mini-maps, but it does mean they'll have entries if needed for future use, and if someone's looking for a particular world they will at least find an entry. BrokenMnemonic 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, add away. And the citations for 'No Record' entries will be valuable. Thanks for taking cites so seriously. (Off for a few hours.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Award

Hy, have your first , for your great efforts in the planets section, keep up your good work.--Doneve 14:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very cool :) It looks like I've hit 500 edits today as well - a good day on several accounts. I've just finished updating all of the Outworlds Alliance worlds, so I should probably do some housework before I start on the next Periphery realm! BrokenMnemonic 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Research Gallery

As mentioned in my latest response on BattleTechWiki talk:Planet Article Overhaul/Archive‎‎ : what if we had a series of galleries (on one page) of maps in chronological order? A person researching a planet's owner history for the overhaul could open the relevant maps in order, and record the changes, much as you've done. It differs from your experience, in that you've looked at a map and made the changes to the relevant planets, while a project member in this case will choose a planet (say Sarna) and then go to the appropriate region gallery (say Capellan Confederation) on the maps page and open up each map listed chonologically there, recording when Sarna fell in (or out) of the CapCom's dominion.
I found Category:Maps Gallery, with 153 maps already, bit it is a category and not a gallery page. I could start using these to show you what I mean, and then as you upload your mini-maps and other complete maps, we could add them to the gallery page.
I'll start building a demo for you. "I'll be back."--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Demo Gallery: great timing on Doneve's part (he uploaded these only 4 days ago). Now, they aren't high enough resolution for this project, but it demonstrates well what I'm envisioning; you're editing the article on Ling, so you identify its location on the 2366 image, but notice it's missing from the 2571 image. So, you scroll down to the Free Worlds League gallery and look for an image dated after 2366 to see when it was depicted as being acquired by the FWL.

It means you and I have a lot of hi-res maps to upload, but I think its critical to fixing Owner History. Thoughts?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's entirely doable (although I'm having some trouble with my copy of HB:HD). One of the advantages the PDF housebooks have is that they're searchable, and as the planet names are a text layer over an image, they stay readable at a lot of resolutions. Static images won't be text searchable here, but they will give those without access to the maps themselves a way of helping.

How heavily modified does an image/map taken from a sourcebook have to be to qualify for fair use? There are good reasons for uploading complete maps in some cases; the example I'm thinking of is that HB:MPS has no maps for the end of the 1st/2nd Succession Wars, whereas HB:HD and HB:HL do - so I've been updating the Concordat worlds using the information from the edges of the FedSuns/Capellan maps.

I'll have a play tonight and see what I can do from home. Thanks for the notes on uploading images, btw! I'll get some images resized and uploaded imminently. --BrokenMnemonic 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From Policy:Images, 'fair use' is met when the image is relevant to an article. My first take on that was the image must be used in the article, meaning your mini-maps, however modified, would be covered by their use in the article's infobox. On second thought, that should also apply to the ones that exist in the Research gallery. We may have to delete the maps that are not used in any articles following the project's conclusion, but I don't foresee any issues, as long as the source is out of moratorium.

Also, reading thru the image policy, those notes I provided on uploading files should also mention that anytime an image is modified from the original (i.e., you crop it or add to it), the summary line should mention that it has been modified. You could even add "(modified)" after the source material: "Handbook: Liao, p. 47, "Beer Run Raid!" (modified)"--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a play around and put together the following image. Is it at sufficient quality for the idea you had envisioned? I can make them at higher quality but the file size goes up dramatically, and I have a couple of concerns about moving the files around at that size. I can reduce the file dimensions, but the text starts to "fuzz up" as the image size reduces. I'm not sure how to embed thumbnails so I've gone for a file embed, I hope that's ok.

Direct link: File:MarHeg_3055.jpg -- BrokenMnemonic 10:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Three ways to test it: 1) within an infobox (the eventual primary place it will be seen) (ex: Asgard), 2) clicking the file page & 3) clicking on the file.

Now, ignoring the fact that Asgard is apparently in the quadrant diagonal from the representative image, the dots are clearly too small to determine where Asgard is on this map. However, the map is far enough out to know exactly what part of space it lies in. So, suvvess on that note.

Now, on the file page, it is just within reading tolerance by my contact-assisted eyes, a standard distance from the screen. Obviously, not ideal for some readers but if I were expected to find it on the map, I think I could. I'm presuming I'm average, in that respect.

Clicking on the file itself...whoa!!! (Like this play-by-play perspective?) That is huge. If the screen resizes, the words are way too fuzzy to read, strangely enough since the image is actually large than the file page's view, but the original graphic is way too large to be informative, especially since I have no idea where on the image the target graphic resides.

So, if I understand you correctly, if you import a smaller file, the text gets too fuzzy to read. If we accept that limitation at the article page's thumbnail, is it also true on the file page?

(Note: take a look at the code I used here to create a thumbnail (with hover caption)):

(Another Note: please revert Asgard's image, when you're done with the demo.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that the wiki doesn't resize the images particularly well when creating the thumbnails, although I don't know enough to have any idea how to change that. The problem with the coloured files is that they're created from the .pdf maps in the Handbook series in the main, and those files have multiple layers - the planets and boundaries are one layer, the text is another layer, and the floating boxes with the caption and like are another layer. Every time you zoom in or out, it resizes the image layer, and then re-smoothes the font on the text to a size appropriate to the current viewing resolution. Once you cap the picture to colour it, you're stuck with the text at that resolution, and shrinking the image actually deforms the smoothing effect slightly, causing minor variations in colour that provide definition at the size the cap was taken to distort as it's size is altered. Keeping the files at hi-res reduces that problem, but makes the files pretty big. Re-colouring the files works better the further you zoom in on the original, but that also increases the distortion when the images are resized.

I've taken the original file on the wiki and created a new version at a smaller size, but as close as I can get to the original file resolution, which you can see here:

I think this is at a manageable resolution when viewed full-size, but I'm not convinced by it's readability in the map gallery. What do you think? I've reverted the Asgard map, by the way. Thank you for the demonstration - I've copied the code into my working file! BrokenMnemonic 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this newer image you loaded is great. I'm not sure what you mean by map gallery; should I presume you mean either in the infobox's thumbnail or on its own file page? Or did you mean within gallery code or on a gallery page? If you mean the file page (File:Marian_Hegemony_3055.png), yeah, it's just about outside the scope of easy viewing, but by leaning in, I feel I could find a planet. However, at that displayed resolution, I'd also try clicking on the file itself ([2]) and since it isn't too large, I'd stick there to find my planet. Does that make sense?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still learning my way around the Wiki lexicon; I did mean the image on it's own file page before it's clicked on. I'm going to see what I can do about sharpening up the image a little more but I'm hitting the limits of what I can get done during a lunch break at work and still email home. I think I might be able to update the quality just a little more, but I'm reassured that the system I'm using now is good enough - I should be able to turn out a few maps each day, with any luck. One thing I did think of is that it would be relatively easy to produce cropped versions of the larger maps for use with each planet, and to colour individual planets in, giving each planet it's own map... but doing so could seriously jack up the amount of bandwidth people visiting the site use, and the size of the wiki itself, and I'm not sure where Nic stands with the service provider for that.

The map I used for the Marian Hegemony currently occupies about a quarter of a page in HB:MPS. One of the problems we're going to have is that the bigger realms have substantially bigger maps; producing a map of somewhere like the Lyran Commonwealth at the same quality as the map here that's still readable is going to be something of a challenge. I shall have to play around and see what I can come up with... BrokenMnemonic 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, despite your lackluster wiki-language skills, I think we're on the same metaphorical page now. Curious as to why you're concerned about uploading at work: if you're emailing home, it's not a bandwidth issue, right?

I have the same concerns as you regarding the large faction maps. I think we'll have to limit them to regions, but then we have an issue with possibly 'loosing' the region, since those shapes are not as familiar to us. I really do like the idea of creating custom images for each planet, but am very aware of the enormity of that task inititally. It almost merits a project in itself.

I've been kicking over how Wikipedia uses subsets to identify locations for their article infoboxes. I hust don't have a firm grasp of the graphic arts to be creative enough with possible solutions.

I'm not really concerned about Sarna's bandwidth, as we'd be replacing single-article images, though granted with much larger images. I'll ask Nic, though; I'm awaiting a response from him on other issues.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much a bandwidth issue as a net-logging issue. If I'm uploading large quantities of data to a website, it'll attract attention, and runs the risk of the site being added to the banned list and me being sumarrily sacked for abusing the net access at work. On the other hand, emails don't attract as much attention and aren't site specific. I did originally think I'd have to email the very large sourcefiles home and then compress them at home, but a little research at work has let me compress some maps I made there today into what looks like a good size and format... but I promptly forgot to email them home because I got distracted by all those Taurian worlds that need citations.

Creating individual world maps is time consuming, but not hugely so, provided that four or five planets are roughly centred and can use the same map. What'll take the time is uploading them all I suspect... but I can sit down and do a few test runs. What I'd probably do is use locally stored huge source files, and cap/crop/colour individual maps from them. The elephant int he room is how many maps would be needed for each planet; would we want one, one for each era, one for each major era? Planets that died off in the 1st-3rd Succession Wars are likely to only be on a small number of maps, but whatever era we go for the map is only relevant for a given period of time. Unless we create a gallery of maps for each world to reflect changes in ownership over time?

I have no idea how wikipedia managed to do that - compared to anyone with a modicum of training, I'm a gorilla with a set of colouring crayons, but at least what I do is simple! In theory, with a big enough map, some co-ordinates and a dose of javascript, it should be possible to do all sorts of things, but it's way above my level of competence.

Having created some maps at work for the Taurian Concordat from 2571 to 3067, it's amazing how densely populated the Star League era was compared to the recent age. Adding in all those dead planets is really going to up the planet count here... I had to change the default colour for the Concordat from that used in the official 3130 map though, because the colour is basically a nightmare to work with and keep text legible against. I'm hoping no-one will really notice, though! BrokenMnemonic 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, no one cares about the Taurian Concordat.  ::ducks:: --Scaletail 22:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[wincing] Oooh...that's gonna leave a mark.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of maps: which ever one is best at 'locating' the subject planet. Clearly, the subject planet'll have to be on the map uploaded, but as long as there's enough of the image to locate where in the IS (or wherever) the region is, the actual date of the map is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template: PlanetOverhaul

Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. You may have noticed Mbear has created, and I've begin unveiling, a new template for the upcoming overhaul. I know you haven't yet, but because I know you're so passionate about the overhaul, I thought I'd ask you to refrain from posting the new template on the articles just yet. Doneve and I still need to finish up the faction categorizations and the overhaul effort still needs to be defined. Thanks, man. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, not a problem - I'm happy to stick to updating owner histories at the moment, and I'll wait until the all-clear before using the new template. Does this mean at some point I should actually join the planets project team? ;) BrokenMnemonic 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually hesitated from putting you on there. Doneve was already on there and since he's assisting me with the pre-overhaul stuff, he 'survived' the membership refresh. Feel free to join in, and that includes in the overall discussion, too.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Surreal Award

I've never given one of these before, but I think the chasing summary lines have brought a wry sense of humor to that oft-overlooked bit of virtual paperwork.

Congrats. ;)--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, a new ribbon! Very cool. I'm a huge fan of shiny things! (One reason why I live in a house full of toys, books, films and games.) Although if I'm being awarded a surreal award, you should have one as well; after all, for surreal humour to work, two people at least have to be involved and aware that it's actually surreal humour in the first place... BrokenMnemonic 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)