Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cease to Hope"
Sarna News
(→InfoBoxIndMech: resp) |
(Munin LAM) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::Ok, fair enough. I hadn't realized that the BAR field wasn't used. And you're tight in that it makes no sense to keep separate infoboxes if they aren't used any differently. | ::Ok, fair enough. I hadn't realized that the BAR field wasn't used. And you're tight in that it makes no sense to keep separate infoboxes if they aren't used any differently. | ||
::About renaming the InfoBoxBattleMech, while it may not be the most important thing under the sun, the concern remains that it is a misleading misnomer. I'll probably move the infobox template to the new name at some point (with a redirect in place of course). No worries. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 17:57, 15 September 2017 (EDT) | ::About renaming the InfoBoxBattleMech, while it may not be the most important thing under the sun, the concern remains that it is a misleading misnomer. I'll probably move the infobox template to the new name at some point (with a redirect in place of course). No worries. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 17:57, 15 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Munin LAM== | ||
| + | Hi again, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Saw your deletion template on the ''[[Munin LAM]]'' article. And yes, it's poorly written and basically needs a rewrite. But the subject matter is a [[BattleTechnology]] design and thus falls squarely into our [[:Policy:Notability]]. As such, I've removed your deletion tag again. But thanks for reminding me of this trainwreck article. I'll make it my next project here to whip it into shape. ;) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:16, 16 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:16, 16 September 2017
All Purpose Award
I appreciate the numerous edits you've made to learn the template system and then upgrade those 30+ 'Mech articles with the missing fields. For this, I award you the Editors' All Purpose Award. 
(I'd put it in an awards board for you, but since you directed your user page to here, I don't want to mess up your intent.) Again, thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:01, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
InfoBoxIndMech
Hiya,
why did you redirect the IndustrialMech infobox to the BattleMech infobox? I'm not sure if I agree though not totally opposed either. BattleMechs and IndustrialMechs are treated as distinct unit types by the construction rules, and the infoboxes, while similar, aren't identical (c.f. BAR). And if we're really lumping things together, shouldn't it then be the InfoBoxMech? Frabby (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
- Reducing the number of templates (and standardizing the parameter names) makes it easier to add new features to them. Redirecting IndMech meant I didn't have to remake all of the automatic categorization, for example.
- As for the indmech-specific parameters, no articles actually used BAR. It would be easy to add to InfoBoxBattleMech if it's important to you. I did add support for other industrialmech-specific fields, like Use, Equipment, and Equipment Rating.
- I don't especially care what the template is named. As long as you fix the double-redirects, you can rename it to whatever you'd like. Cease to Hope (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
- Ok, fair enough. I hadn't realized that the BAR field wasn't used. And you're tight in that it makes no sense to keep separate infoboxes if they aren't used any differently.
- About renaming the InfoBoxBattleMech, while it may not be the most important thing under the sun, the concern remains that it is a misleading misnomer. I'll probably move the infobox template to the new name at some point (with a redirect in place of course). No worries. Frabby (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
Munin LAM
Hi again,
Saw your deletion template on the Munin LAM article. And yes, it's poorly written and basically needs a rewrite. But the subject matter is a BattleTechnology design and thus falls squarely into our Policy:Notability. As such, I've removed your deletion tag again. But thanks for reminding me of this trainwreck article. I'll make it my next project here to whip it into shape. ;) Frabby (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2017 (EDT)