User talk:Csdavis715

Awards

I have decided that I am going to start bringing back the awards to the wiki, I feel people deserve to know their work is appreciated. So as one of my first awards in what might be about to years, I would like to award you the Substantial Addition Award for your MechWarrior 5 content and grant you a Act of Appreciation Award for how well you are expanding your interests into other aspects of the wiki. --Dmon (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2023 (EDT)

MW5 High Reward Quests - Campaign vs Career

I wondered the same thing but didn't have time to check my old saves, but yes there are often extreme differences between Campaign and Career Mode in reward values and even location and reputation level required. Campaign values I guess would be the prefered as everybody who owns the game has campaign and not everybody has DLC and career (though IMO they should). Cyc (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (EDT)

Hey thank you for your message and sorry, I don't know how to message you properly, so I hope you're seeing this. Anyway just let me know if I can do/not do something. I'm only trying to be helpful. -csdavis715 8/27/21

Signing

Hey CS, though it best to bring this over here instead. Yes you are right signing is easy once you know how but pretty much everybody takes a while to catch on. Policy:Sign your posts on talk pages.--Dmon (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2021 (EST)

Wow, super easy. And thank you for your contributions to the Sarna site. I wish this community was around back when MW2 came out. Csdavis715 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2021 (EST)

Haha, yes I could not agree more, I spent hours creating a massive xl spreadsheet with all the 'Mech stats for MW2 and MW2M. So glad we can turn stuff into community efforts now.--Dmon (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2021 (EST)

MW5 "Orphans"

Hello! I'm Talvin, the guy who started Project Orphanage, which just went official today. I have noticed you doing work on the Mechwarrior 5 pages, and I wanted to let you know about BattleTechWiki:Project Orphanage/Video Game Orphans. All of these are pages that were found in Special:LonelyPages, and they got sorted into a "parking lot" until a proper home could be found for them. Can you suggest good places to link all those jump-points? I am only familiar with MW2 (and that has been many years) and the HBS Battletech game, so I am pretty lost when dealing with MW5. Talvin (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2022 (EST)

Hi Talvin, thanks for creating this project. At present, the only systems identified in the MW5 pages (as you may already know) are the ones used in Conflict Zones or featured in scripted missions. And to be honest, I assumed every system on the map was taken from existing BattleTech info. So these systems like JP-A-109 were created just for MW5? I'm not sure what to suggest off the top of my head; this will require some thought. --Csdavis715 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2022 (EST)

That is how it appears to me. JP-G-657 is a good example to look at, there. Talvin (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2022 (EST)

Also, feel free to join us on Discord! Talvin (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2022 (EST)

This came up in Discord, and the Sarna Cartographer said, quote: "I propose that the "gameplay" section in the MW5 page be expanded to include how it is to navigate in-game, then post the JPs according to where players may expect to find them". Talvin (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2022 (EST)

Interesting! I'm not sure yet how a "Gameplay" page of MW5 might look, since it's my understanding that information has to stay neutral. But yes, that would be one option we can do if you don't mind being patient for a month or two. My next vision is to create a "Factions" page that would be a comprehensive list of all Employers/Factions, their subsidiaries, links to all the scripted missions that are associated with them, and the mechs that are used by them. Maybe I could join Discord at some point and have a conversation with you guys about how might be the best way to do the "Gameplay" page. Thanks for keeping me updated. --Csdavis715 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2022 (EST)

I am arguing (I think successfully) that with so many people coming to Sarna because of their love for the Video Games, we need to figure out how to support those folk better without mixing the Canon and Apocryphal stuff in ways that will confuse readers. For example, I have suggested Portal pages for the games. Definitely consider jumping into the Discord, it's a friendly bunch. --Talvin (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2022 (EST)

Hi Talvan! I think I've done all that I feel compelled to do with the MW5 pages at this point (before learning what the upcoming DLC will bring). If you'd still like my input, I'll be happy to join Discord in the coming days so we can chat about your ideas. I've never used it, so I just have to get set up first. --Csdavis715 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (EDT)

Hey, CSDavis. I have left the Sarna Discord server to focus more on editing in the Wiki, but I am still active on the Discord platform, you can find my username on my Userpage. Also definitely consider the server, you will find others to chat with there as well.--Talvin (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2022 (EDT)

Maybe I'm not seeing it among the awards people are piling on you... what is your Discord page? Or you can send me an invite, my username is the same as it is here. --Csdavis715 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2022 (EDT)

Probably looking at the talk page rather than the user page. Quote: "If you want to chat on Discord, send a friend request to my username here with #3561 tacked on the end. (Obfuscating that a bit so bots can't just grab it.)" From User:Talvin#Discord--Talvin (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2022 (EDT)

Voice actors

Hi, a request: When you’re mentioning voice actors for characters, please make sure to insert them as links as they will get their real person article eventually. Frabby (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2022 (EST)

Sure thing. Yea, I was thinking about that earlier and just thought we'd be going down a rabbit hole if we did end up giving them their own pages. Because it wouldn't be fair to only give voice actors their own page... in that sense literally anyone who worked on a BT product should qualify, and that's hundreds of people for just MW5 alone. But I suppose it's also a nice thing to do and if there are people to do the articles, then why not. Csdavis715 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2022 (EST)

Citation trimming

Hi, Cs.

First, thanks for fixing some of the world articles up. There will never be a lack of work to do on those.

Preëmptively, I'd like it if you left the world names in the Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) citations; with at least two different copies floating around, page numbers alone aren't enough. I'm working backward through the proper copy of the document and it makes it easier to find all the off-by-three entries. Thanks. Madness Divine (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

Will do! Not sure if or how many of that source I've run across so far. By the way, I decided to play it safe and leave the text on citations of front matter pages (or in cases where there is no page number provided- usually a foldout), but feel free to axe them later if you want. --Csdavis715 (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

What's a front matter page? Madness Divine (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

Almost forgot to mention that the original housebooks have both print and unnumbered PDF versions; the numbering offset is two on most of them. If you feel like driving yourself mad checking all those references to see which the original editor chose... Madness Divine (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

Front matter pages: the roman numerals pages. There might be another name for them. Csdavis715 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

It's a good day when you learn something new. Thanks. Madness Divine (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

Apocrypha warnings

Hey. I've noticed you removing the apocryphal product template from some of the video game articles, letting the canonicity section bear the weight of denoting their status. Not sure this is a good idea - the templates autopopulate the apocryphal product category, the template is designed to work with that section, and they're the strongest and most immediate notice for something that absolutely has to be made clear to all readers. I worry that their removal makes it easier for skimmers to miss the video games' status. You sure this is the right approach? --Tumult&Travail (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2023 (EDT)

That's for bringing this to my attention! The way I view this, and hopefully I'm not the only one, is that the video games themselves are official products. The games aren't apocryphal—the content within the games is what's considered apocryphal. The mention of canonicity is the first section of all these game pages, and even skimming they should see it (actually, I have a [chat] of someone thinking something was canon despite the apocrypha tag at the top of the page, so nothing is 100% idiot-proof...) And I'm willing to venture the lay reader who comes to the Sarna website will not be searching through categories, so that's more an internal thing. We can put the tag back on if you or someone else feels strongly, though I only started doing this because not all games had the tag to begin with. --Csdavis715 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

The very definition of "apocryphal" is "official but not canon", see Canon. In fact, the video games IP is a distinct IP from mainline BattleTech. So yes, these products absolutely are apocrypha. And by our Policy:Canon it is mandatory that they are tagged as such through the appropriate Apocrypha tags which in turn refer the reader to the equally mandatory Canonicity section within the article where the situation regarding the specific article or product is supposed to be explained in detail.

You are right that it’s technically a double warning. But for over a decade Sarna has had established procedures how to treat apocrypha and I see no reason to change it. Frabby (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

Addendum: If the tag was missing on any video games then that needs to be remedied too, of course. I'll look into it. Frabby (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

Of course, you guys are the admins, so it's your call. The more I think about it, the more I feel placing the apocrypha tag on these game pages, while understandable, is misdirected. After all, they are official BT products. It just looks dismissive of these products and their value in the BT community when the tag is placed there, and I'm willing to bet at least half of our readership (and wiki editors, like myself) came here originally because of one of those game. It's the contents within that are noncanon and all of them should require the tag. If there's a discussion to be had in the future, I'd like to be part of it. --Csdavis715 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

Much as I want to be open about this and much as I respect you personally, I fear the core point of your argument as I understand it doesn’t hold water. There is an official ruling on what official products are canon. Computer games, although official, are expressly not canon. The word "apocryphal" isn’t used by the BattleTech IP holders; it is the word we on Sarna use to describe this special group of official-but-expressly-not-canonical publications and their content. And to reverse your argument about dismissing these products, I would argue we’re actually lifting them up from non-canon status by establishing the apocryphal status as an intermediate status.

The official rulings this is based on are quoted verbatim in our article on Canon. Frabby (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

What I think you are trying to say is that canon is determined based on source, not content (I've read the Canon link before, but your references to IP didn't resonate with me initially). Through that lens I can understand the tag policy. --Csdavis715 (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

Cool. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve or clarify the policy? Frabby (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

I think my hangup was the part I mentioned. IMO the Canon article explains it much clearer than Policy:Canon, though it's entirely possible I was just out of sorts that day... --Csdavis715 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

Periphery citations

Hi cs.

I've run across some Periphery citations that were actually for the second edition but weren't marked as such, so I find it useful to mark it when the edition is definite. I ain't checkin' 'em all, though. Madness Divine (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

According to CMoS, we only need to indicate when it's the 2nd edition Periphery book. Curious readers who want to learn more should be able to find out it's the Periphery 1st edition by clicking on the bibliography link at the bottom. I think it's better that we simply correct the wrong citations when we come across them. I see where you're coming from, though. --Csdavis715 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

I'll add that if I'm not already editing an article and my brain isn't on autopilot, I'll try to leave them in for you. Not a problem. --Csdavis715 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

All right. Thanks. Madness Divine (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

I must have missed the CMoS on that one. Not the first time. Madness Divine (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

Disambiguations

Hiya, I'm a bit confused about your recent edits with an eye to handling disambiguations. I am a bit behind on current developments so please bear with me here when I raise two points:
1) For many years, we used to disambiguate disambiguation pages. If no "primary" article could be found, the non-disambiguated name would redirect to "Name (disambiguation)". I thought that made sense.
2) Also, whenever there was a disambiguation, I made sure every last article had an otheruses tag link back to the disambiguation page (which would itself be disambiguated as such for maximum clarity, as per above). I see you have kept the tag in some cases but removed it in others, and was wondering why? Frabby (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2023 (EDT)

Good day to you sir! I was under the impression we worked it out in our lengthy group conversation in the Discord channel but I'm happy continue that chat here. I can tell from the edit history of many articles I've updated that you did a lot of leg work on getting these setup, so I appreciate you for making it easier for me!

I'll start with the point we agree on, that some pages are primary articles and typing in a name should go directly there, like Union or Grendel. For these pages and any others that can't be moved like the system pages, I've been doing the disambig as "Name (disambiguation)". I will admit, though, this is more out of necessity than preference; if you take a look at how the original wiki does it, Wikipedia, they do not use that monikor in their disambig pages unless there is a clear cut primary article (like "Rice"), and this is likely grounded in the reasonable belief that if a user is searching for something, they won't type in or click on an article with "disambiguation" unless they are having a hard time finding it elsewhere. And further, countless dozens (hundreds?) of our disambigs have been redirecting "Name (disambiguation)" --> "Name" where the disambig was already set up (like the Gorgon article I just edited before you commented). A redirect to a redirect comes across either as an error or worse yet the impression of disorganization which I'm hoping to help our wiki avoid.

If it weren't for all those darned single-name Clanners, maybe we wouldn't even need to have a disambig format! Admittedly, I'm glad we're having this conversation, as it would probably come up eventually, and better to do it now while we're under 50,000 pages than after we're over 100,000!

Regarding the disambig tag on some articles and not others, I'm using my best judgement based on reasonable searchability. Someone who is looking at Gorgon (Individual Excalibur-class DropShip) or Shawn (2nd Falcon Jaegers) either got there through the disambig page, or clicked on it from the pulldown list of the Search box. So they were clearly going for that page, rather than coming across it from another bigger page/category (like a 'Mech, system, etc). So with an eye toward the presentation of these pages, I felt it was unnecessary to tag every one, which by the way if we did would potentially account for a very large percentage of the database.

Lastly, I try to work closely with our senior editors and for projects as big as this one, I would never attempt to make such large-scale changes without being given some sort of green light. While I take responsibility for my editing choices, I'll just say that I wouldn't do anything that wasn't considered acceptable. Let me know if I can tweak my disambig format moving forward, or if there are any questions. --Csdavis715 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (EDT)

First off, please consider me "just another fellow editor" in this. Your opinion is as valid as mine here. (Also, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Discord isn't a suitable medium for such discussion. Maybe that's just me getting old. :) ) I'll try to explain my concerns; based on the examples you give I think we have different ideas of the "otheruses" tag and the whole disambiguation concept and I would like Sarna to follow a unified approach there.

The Grendel redirect is perfect as it is. But this is not a disambiguation issue, as the name clearly refers to one specific design that has a different proper name which is why the main article has a different name.

The Union example already raised my eyebrow. Do we consider that name ambiguous or not, in the sense of requiring disambiguation? If yes, then we seem to agree the name should redirect to (or be) a disambiguation page. Of course, "Union" is an example of the special case where there is a particularly prominent item going by that name as we agree that in such a case, the redirect can go to that article instead of a disambiguation page. But it would then be absolutely mandatory for the article to have a link to the disambiguation page (typically, through the "otheruses" tage) and "Union (DropShip class)" doesn't have that. Otherwise, if we feel the name doesn't need a disambiguation, then why does the redirect even exist and why isn't the "Union (DropShip class)" article simply named "Union"?

As for why I prefer to invariably put disambig tags on every disambiguated article, think of this scenario: User John Doe somehow comes across the "Gorgon (Individual Pinto-class WarShip)" article. It doesn't have an otheruses tag to indicate there are other things out there named Gorgon, so he might think "Oh I thought this was a Wagon Wheel or an Excalibur DropShip but apparently not". I feel it amounts to witholding information from a user if you don't link to an existant disambiguation page in each and every case where an article name was disambiguated. Even if it's not positively needed it certainly doesn't hurt to have the reference.

As for disambiguated disambiguation pages (eg. "Gorgon (disambiguation)"), I prefer to have them even if they should only be a redirect to the prime article. If everything gets disambiguated, then the disambiguation page too should get disambiguated. But maybe that's just my personal OCD. Frabby (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2023 (EDT)