Difference between revisions of "User talk:Frabby"

m (Interstellar Operations)
(Development of IO)
Line 194: Line 194:
== Development of IO ==
== Development of IO ==
You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, Herb's written quite an interesting post on the recent development history of ''[[Interstellar Operations]]''. It's up on the CGL forum [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/new-and-upcoming-releases-vol-iii-what's-next/msg1087180/#msg1087180 here]. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (PDT)
You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, Herb's written quite an interesting post on the recent development history of ''[[Interstellar Operations]]''. It's up on the CGL forum [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/new-and-upcoming-releases-vol-iii-what's-next/msg1087180/#msg1087180 here]. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (PDT)
:Nothing really new in there though. I'm in the factchecker group, and as such I've seen (and participated in) some of the work process. Sarna will have to go over this tome with a very fine-toothed comb given all the hard data we're going to get. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:50, 26 June 2015 (PDT)

Revision as of 05:50, 26 June 2015

Archive 1 (created 04 January 2012)
Archive 2 (created 01 January 2013)
Archive 3 (created 03 January 2014)


I'm glad that you found the wrong co-ordinates for Gotterdammerung. I was wondering if you could take a look in your atlas of the Inner Sphere for Hunan. It's placed on the map here to the northeast of New Avalon, but it's listed as being part of the Capellan confederation and as having been part of the Terran Hegemony. I think this must be wrong, but I have no way of checking it. If it's possible, could you take a look?

Follow up: The co-ordinates are listed as: (X: 333.04 Y: 333.04)

Thanks, --Workerbee 09:41, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

It is located in the triangle formed by New Aragon, St. Andre and Foochow, fairly exactly "north" of Zaurak and Kaifeng. The Atlas gives the coordinates as X: 73,04 Y: 96,76
Btw it is a known problem that the planet's X/Y coordinates are wrong. When the entries were auto-generated, the X-coordinate were erroneously put into both the X and Y slot. Nic is aware of this and it will hopefully be corrected in a future update. (See Category talk:Planets# Major Problem with Coords). Frabby 13:10, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks again. --Workerbee 15:24, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Wouldn't that be (73.04, -96.76?), as Hunan is "south" of Terra? Since you've become the planetary coordinate guru, would you be able to check and make sure that the master file has as that data correct? I've already corrected Menkent, Blue Diamond, Gotterdammerung, and Hunan. Specifically, could you check out Sakhalin, Scituate, Cartago, and Chamdo? Thanks! --Scaletail 17:42, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Yes, you are absolutely right: Hunan is at Y -96.76, sorry! Regarding the others:

  • There are in fact two systems by the name of Sakhalin: One is a CapCon/Sarna Supremacy world at X: 62.33 Y: -142.92, the other a Lyran world at X: -24.25 Y: 153.09. The one on this wiki is the CapCon world, Sakhalin (LC) is missing as of yet. I had already noted it on the article some time ago (CC/SS world is spelled Sachalin in German material, but not in the original English sources).
  • Scituate has X: 88.67 Y: -221.94 in my Atlas. The wiki apparently used a positive Y coord, as it is erroneously shown at approximately the same altitude as Mannedorf (which is Y: 228.98).
  • Cartago placement seems to be correct (at X: 141.09 Y: -10.17)
  • Chamdo placement also seems to be correct (at X: 10.43 Y: -153.61); however, in the immediate vicinity Yunnah seems to be slightly misplaced. The correct coordinates for Yunnah are X: 27.67 Y: -124.13. It should be halfway between Corey and Second Try but here it is erroneously shown on the same altitude as Tsinghai and Chamdo, at Y: -153.61.

Checking the big file? I am honored, but it is a daunting task. It will take time. (Add the fact that some names were actually translated into German, i.e. Second Try is named Zweitversuch (lit.: Second Try) in German. That one could be guessed, but it literally took me a year to figure that Rand is meant to be The Edge...

Oh, and then there is that issue with "missing planets". It grew to quite a collection on the CBT forum, and there are other cases. This wiki, for example, has Ferris (Outworld Alliance) but there seems to be another Ferris in the Oberon Confederation which as of yet is not mentioned here. Frabby 18:17, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

The file does have Sakhalin (LC) at the correct coordinates. It has Scituate at 88.67,221.94 so that is incorrect. Yunnah is a tad off at 27.64,-154.13. Both have been corrected. It is daunting, I agree... but something does need to be done about the planets that are not represented, especially the planets of the Marian Hegemony and Circinus Federation. I also feel like Clan planets should be added, as well as those in the Deep Periphery, but that's a whole separate issue. --Scaletail 18:46, 1 June 2008 (CDT)


Frabby, please review the discussion that developed after your opposition statement in regards to doing away with coordinates. The question needs to be settled as to from where these coordinates should reliably come. It's not as clear as simply providing printed canon coordinates.--Rev (talk|contribs) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ties That Bind

Hi, The short answer is yes Smiley.gif The long answer is here. --Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2014 (PST)

Hi, I have the scan you wanted, how should I send it to you? --Dark Jaguar (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (PST)
I've sent you an email. Frabby (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (PST)
Sent, let me know that if comes through OK --Dark Jaguar (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (PST)
Got it, much appreciated. I take it the story does conclude with her walking through the door; it does seem a bit abrupt.
Now, about that MFUK stuff... ;) Frabby (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2014 (PST)
Yes that is the end of the story when she walks out. The next page is an advert and the one after is the Colossus preview. --Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (PST)

Fanon Still Here

I ran across the ER Intermediate Laser and was very confused for a moment, but then discovered it was fanon. I want to add "Not Canon" tags to all those weapons and other fanon things still here, but they are under User pages, and one had a {NoEdit} tag, which makes me wonder: can I add tags to all those, or is that trespassing on other people's personal stuff by editing it? Or should I move that stuff over to the fanon wiki and put deletion tags on it here? -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (PST)

I'd personally rather not have these pages, but they are sub-pages under the user pages and as such not part of the wiki mainspace. When we purged fanon we agreed to leave such pages alone as long as they're clearly marked non-canon, because user pages are essentially considered taboo for other editors. Frabby (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2014 (PST)
So just to clarify, I should put the "not canon" tags on there then? -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2014 (PST)
Yes, definitely. If it's not canon, it absolutely needs to be tagged as such. That's an exception I've always made for the user page taboo. Though in the example of the ER Intermediate Laser you linked above, I note the tag is already in place. Are there non-canonical articles on user-subpages that are not tagged? Frabby (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2014 (PST)
Well, if you looked at the history, I had to add the tag to it; and yes, there is a good number of them that need tags that I will get to later tonight. Oh, additionally, should those fanon weapon pages get Project Technology tags on their talk pages? -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2014 (PST)
Thanks for doing this Bob. And no, fanon articles should not be included in any wiki projects. Ignore them to death. :) Frabby (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (PST)
The user pages were a sort of compromise for editors like myself who were drawn here initially as a place for fanon but ended up contributing to the canonical portions of the wiki nonetheless. Basically it was a sort of "thanks for the help" gesture. Indeed, for the most part I was the only one speaking up for the inclusion of some fanonishal items based on quality. As the project lead on the Project Technology, I wholeheartedly concur however that these pages should NOT be included in any canonical project. I've gone and added the non-canon tags to my own little vanity user pages seen here: User:LRichardson/Essays. Thanks for tolerating them. ; ) -- LRichardson 13:05, 19 February 2015 (PST)

Corvette Weights

Hi Frabby,
I tweaked your comment about the common upper mass limit for corvettes from 300k tons to 450k tons when I was adding the Mako and Pinto to the list. All of the designs other than the Vincent are below 300k tons, that's very true - but from the few figures that are available, the Vincent seems to have been the most numerous corvette by far (500+ hulls, as compared to 100+ hulls for the Mako) and it weighs in at 412k tons. I agree that most designs fall below that weight, but it looks as if there were probably as many Vincents as there were other corvettes combined, unless the RWR was dropping Pintos like kittens, and the term "most corvettes" makes me think of hulls when I read it, rather than designs. I hope that makes sense - it may be that the article needs to be reworded to be a bit clearer? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2014 (PST)

If I understand you correctly you're saying that the Vincents are so numerous that they kinda dominate the Corvette class? I'd be okay with that and really don't have much of an issue with the upper mass limit for corvettes. I just felt the Vincent, being more than 1.7 times the size of the next smaller corvette, was the odd man out in the corvette family. It's really a light destroyer, though for some queer reason someone insisted on calling it a corvette. Perhaps to explain your point it should be mentioned that the Vincent was built in large numbers? Frabby (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2014 (PST)
That's basically my point, yes - but that was based on the article using "corvettes" rather than "corvette designs" or something to differentiate between the ships as a group and the designs as a group. Of the various designs, I don't think there are any numbers anywhere for the number of Vigilants, Nightwings, Trackers, Bonaventures and Pintos. We do know that there were a bit over a dozen Fredasas, a dozen Zechetinu, two dozen Foxes and a handful of Inazumas. In contrast, the Mako had over a hundred hulls built in 90 years, while the number of Vincents - produced over almost 350 years, longer than any of the other designs - was revised down from over a thousand to around 500 hulls. If Catalyst declared that half of all the corvettes ever made were Vincents, I wouldn't be surprised - and that would mean the number of Vigilants, Nightwings, Trackers, Bonaventures and Pintos produced would need to be in the order of 70 hulls each to balance out. Corvettes really are a designation divided into two halves - Vincents and everything else. I think I might hunt around for referneces for the article, though - I'm not convinced of where the weight limits came from, and there are some serious oddities in there. The Cruiser is officially a heavy cruiser, despite the fact that it's only 90k tons heavier than the Vincent. The Vincent was the first corvette to be introduced in canon via TRO:2750, and was 200k tons lighter than the next ship up, the Essex, with the Lola III another 60k tons heavier still. I think the Vincent is definitely at the top end of the corvette range in terms of weight, but it is effectively the definitive corvette, and the other ships introduced between 250k tons and 450k tons are all specialist carriers and transports. I think there's been a lot of class creep - cruisers occupy a huge range of weights, and overlap with some frigates and destroyers. But I'm rambling now... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (PST)


I noticed that Aldous has been re-adding info removed because it is under Moratorium, and I wondered if it mattered enough for me to remove all the info (specifically ones from FM:3145) for the two days until it is cleared. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2014 (PST)

Policy:Moratorium is a self-imposed policy, not something we're obliged to follow. Therefore I'd say leave it as it is. You might want to notify Aldous of the fact that his edits have been in violation of this policy though. I'm in a bit of a rush myself and cannot look into matters right now. Frabby (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2014 (PST)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up; I'll be sure to notify him then. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2014 (PST)

BattleSpace (Answer)

Hi Frabby, here your answer. Short version is Yes, there was two books. I think the English version maybe been lengthier than your (i believe) German version. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

Sorry for the late response. Short version, Broken's version maybe match for one i have, two documents in one electronic package. -- Wrangler (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
Just spotted this - I compared my electronic and physical copies, and the electronic copy is faithful scan of the book in the box set. The confusion arises because the book in the box set is internally subdivided into two books, complete with their own indices, with no explanatory note - meaning if you're working from an electronic copy in isolation, it's entirely reasonable to think that there are two books stuck together in the one file. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2014 (PDT)


The Reseen may have new artwork, but they still represent the same 'mech. There is no separate page for any of the Reseen 'mechs on here. As a compromise I simply deleted the line, to match the other Reseen 'mech pages. --Trifler (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2014 (PDT)

Well, yes and no. The reseen represent how one particular new variant of the 'Mech looks, and subseqently published variants conveniently used the reseen art as a baseline, to avoid the unseen problem. It's still the same 'Mech family though, and in the article we aim to present the first real-world image associated with the 'Mech which in the case of the unseen is their original unseen image from the first TROs or boxed sets. Frabby (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (PDT)
Not sure if you've seen it yet, but I wrote a reply to what you wrote on my talk page. --Trifler (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Extra Sentence

Hey Frabby, I noticed that on the Richard Humphreys page there is an extra sentence at the bottom, which causes an error because there are refs within it. Should it be moved up to a certain part of the page, or removed altogether? -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2014 (PDT)

D'oh. I copied it there because it was a reference that I didn't need for this article, but which I wanted to keep would come in handy for another article down the road (on Evelyn Humphreys). Steven and Evelyn's surnames weren't mentioned in most of the available material, so for the longest time I couldn't be sure if Steven was actually a Humphreys (and thus, a legitimate accepted son of Richard) because I didn't see it spelled out anywhere. Finding his daughter Evelyn named as a Humphreys was a crutch at first, until I found that one reference naming Steven a Humphreys directly. I didn't need Evelyn's quote anymore at that point, but figured it should be put in her (yet-to-be-written) article because it was so hard to find. Long story short, I copypasta'd it below the actual article for further reference... and forgot it there. Frabby (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
Okay I removed it. Thanks for the explanation! -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (PDT)

Mercenary's Star

I just saw that you reverted my edit to the article for the Mercenary's Star novel, and wondered why. Looking at the page, the current ref leaves a cite error, but when the info is moved to the Notes section and the ref tags removed, then it is all better. In its current state, you cannot normally tell what the ref is trying to say. I didn't put a references/ tag because those don't belong on those pages. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (PDT)

Ah, ok - I missed that there was no References section. The point is, the novel is lacking dates but its timeframe has been established through other sources. Consequentially, the correct timeframe is given in the infobox but needs to get a reference to its outside source. In such a case, I have no problem whatsoever with putting a Reference section even into product pages, when those external references provide relevant data that isn't in the product itself. Frabby (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
Okidoki. Sorry that it had to be overcomplicated. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2014 (PDT)

Les Dorscheid Portfolio

Hi Frabby,
I think you and I may have discussed this before, but I can't remember where. There are a couple of portfolios of BattleTech art by Les Dorscheid up on eBay; it's listed as Gallery Set One, with the BattleTech logo and the copyright information for FASA on it. You can see them here: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Battletech-A-Portfolio-By-Les-Dorscheid-/390740143814?pt=UK_Books_Comics_Magazines_US_Comics_ET&hash=item5af9ed6ec6 - my question is, should that be listed here as a BattlTech item? (It may be already, but I couldn't find it via the artist's bio page here, so it might just need re-tagging). I know the name "BattleTech Gallery One" is a bit vague, in that it might be the first gallery of art by Les Dorscheid for BattleTech, or it may be the first of a series of BattleTech Gallery sets by a range of artists, but it feels like something we should have listed here, given that we include things like that very dodgy fanfic novel... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (PDT)

Yes, I do remember this popping up in the past. I've seen those items on Ebay as well, plus there's individual Earl Geier artwork sold on German Ebay. The portfolio finally got a decent description in the link you posted, where it's described as a signed limited (2500 units) edition of six art pieces. You can zoom in the cover to see "Published with permission from FASA" and "published by S.Q. Productions Inc.". I reckon these are more "Les Dorscheid" products than proper "BattleTech" products, but they definitely fall under our Policy:Notability and should be included. As for canonicity, this product as such is non-canonical but does meet the criteria for meta-source. I'll see if I can find the time tonight to put together an article based on that ebay link of yours. Frabby (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2014 (PDT)
I don't know if this is odd or amusing, but there's another copy of that portfolio on sale on the US version of eBay, from a different seller, with the exact same image - right down to the number on the certificate of authenticity. The fact that they're published "with permission" from FASA would suggest that they're affiliated products, but the fact that it's clearly marked as BattleTech Gallery One makes me wonder if it was something sponsored by FASA. I wonder if it's worth me asking over on the official forum if the LD knows anything about that line of products... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2014 (PDT)
It's always worth taking that potshot at getting an answer... though I doubt anyone at CGL could tell you today if or what deal FASA had with Les Dorscheid or SQP Inc. back in the day. Or why these Portfolios spring up only now (I first saw one on Ebay in ca. 2010, but never before). Frabby (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2014 (PDT)

Hanse Davion / Infobox

Frabby - I'm really digging the new infobox you used for Hanse Davion. Over time, I think it can literally improve hundreds of articles. Have a Substantial Addition Award, 3rd ribbon on me. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (PDT)

Thanks. :) Frabby (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (PDT)

More Video Game Discussion

I continued the discussion here about what to do with those lines. Please chip in if you can. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (PDT)

Empires Aflame

Hi Frabby, I have a quick question for you. As a new product, should Empires Aflame be under a moratorium? I'm conscious that it's available for free, so there's perhaps no financial loss to CGL if we put details up here, but I'm not sure if it's status as a Hallowe'en freebie overrides the general stance on including detail from recently-published sources here on Sarna. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2014 (PST)

Policy:Moratorium doesn't apply to free products. Which makes sense, given that its purpose is to avoid spoiling products which are being sold for money. Conversely, freebie products are of a promotional nature and can thus be covered immediately on Sarna. Frabby (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2014 (PST)

MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries

Frabby, the infobox is broken.--Doneve (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2014 (PST)

Fixed. Frabby (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2014 (PST)

Planets Project

Hi Frabby,

Following on from the poll results, I'd like to get the Planets Project moving again. Rev's life has clearly kept him from being able to push the project forward, and the current state of play is that I posted up the revised proposed template here here two-and-a-half years ago, and the result was just three of us commenting. Do you still have a fundamental objection to the affiliation list with dates remaining in the article? Only since you and I had that conversation, the editing history of planets is basically Doneve/me adding more data points, me adding narrative detail when I work through books, and nobody else really doing anything specific to planets, so at the moment we're not getting the narrative you want, the narrative and data points I want or much participation beyond the normal jogging. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2014 (PST)

Good question BM. Iam in work to update the owner history, but very slow, i hope we can found a clear consensus.--Doneve (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2014 (PST)
Frabby, I've started testing the new article layout by working through the planets starting with A. I think I've managed to get half a dozen or so done this afternoon. The new article layout has the interesting side effect of turning a lot of planet articles into system articles. One of the problems I'm running into is lack of detail, though; if you look at an article like the one for Abbadiyah, you'll see that the required text for the article overview encompasses almost everything known about the system - I had to scratch around to find anything to put in the system history section. It might be worth thinking about whether the requirements for each narrative section need tweaking, given that the vast majority of the planet articles on here will probably have very little detail in them to begin with. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2014 (PST)
Turning the planet articles into system articles was the whole idea behind the exercise, wasn't it? ;) I don't mind the lack of detail at all. Changing planet articles into system articles is a huge and important change to boot, and it doesn't make much difference if the item you're lacking detail on is a planet or a system. Also, look at it this way: Unimportant, un-detailed systems are bound to be less interesting to users whereas high-profile systems tend to have a lot of detail on them available. It's really systems like Hesperus that should shape the article layout. That said, if certain text headers remain empty then you don't have to have them in the article. Think of the layout as a tool to make your life easier, not a form to make your life miserable. Ignore it where it doesn't help you. Frabby (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (PST)
It seems to be working fairly well at the moment - Doneve and I have started rolling the template out, and I've changed a few minor things as I get more practised. Where there's nothing in print about the system, I've started marking them as having one habitable world or construct rather than simply at least one habitable planet, because I don't think we can be certain that they aren't significant systems in the same way that the Gulf Breeze system is, with it's inhabited mining station, or the Periphery system where the settlement is built around a recharging station with DropShips stuck on it. I'm not entirely comfortable with having an "as at -current year-" statement in the header, but it does make it easier for casual readers to work out where the world is, particularly for those that we don't have maps for yet - although in practise, I'm using either 2750, 2765 or 3145 as the current year. One specific problem I hit is Achernar, though - there's a lot of information in the planetary info section in the current article with no citations. Some of the detail looks sort of right from what I could find in texts like Dark Age Republic Worlds (3130), but there's a lot of information I can't find a source for. I don't have a lot of the novels though (or any of the Dark Age novels) and I've only got a small percentage of the BattleCorps shorts. Could you take a look and see if you can identify the source information? I've checked and it doesn't look like it comes from BattleTechnology, which was my first thought, but I think that the Call to Arms novel might be set on Achernar, and I think there's a Decision at Achernar short that I don't have a copy of that may have supplied the detail. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2014 (PST)
The Chaos Irregulars short story is actually titled Decision at Acamar and has nothing to do with Achernar. A Call to Arms is indeed set on Achernar, but I haven't read most of the DA novels yet including this one. I suspect most information comes from this novel though. Frabby (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I checked A Call to Arms, and you are right Frabby, the most info comes from the Novel, but i know iam not a fluff writer i hope any other can step in and add some infos and references from the source.--Doneve (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I hate to say it, but I'm not going to rush out, buy A Call to Arms and read it for the sake of the article. I know my commitment is lacking, but so is money... and I'd rather buy the new Succession Wars books that are coming up ;) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I can added the info from A Call to Arms (but from the german novel), i hope anyone can check the speeling and grammers ;).--Doneve (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I can do that! I'm off out to a Christmas lunch (and have been drinking a very agreeable Cabernet Merlot blend all morning) but I'll take a look at the article tonight or tomorrow. Remind me to give you an award for assisting an admin in a time of need (and intoxication!) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I think I have the english Epub version of A Call to Arms on my HD (I got a bunch of DA novels in print and an even bigger bunch as Epub, and legit I may add but like I said I didn't read them all yet). Maybe I'll make that book my next novel project then.
BrokenMnemonic, what new Succession Wars era novels are you talking about? Did I miss anything? Frabby (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
Not novels, I'm afraid - I'm thinking of Historical: First Succession War (and hopefully others to follow). I love their Historicals series with a passion, and now we're getting ones for the Succession Wars, so it's going to be like Christmas over and over again. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2014 (PST)

Apocryphal Weapon Notice: Re-Revisited

I stumbled upon the discussion we had about the line at the tops of those weapon pages again, and I decided to go though and delete them. Retrospectively, I think it is better without them. Just wanted to let you know. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (PST)

Turning Points Article

Good idea Frabby, I agree that a single page might work better. I'll fill out a generic Turning Points article with the Historicals and add the other series over the coming week when I get time. That way anyone who's interested can find a list of all the Turning Points PDFs and what each of them deals with. Orwell84 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (PST)


As the custodian of canonicity here on Sarna, you may find a post on the Canonicity of the MUL produced by Welshman of interest - something to add to our policy on canonicity, perhaps? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2015 (PST)

Thanks for pointing me to this message. It is indeed interesting. But I don't see any noteworthy change to existant policy there that would warrant a change or addition to our article or policy concerning Canon. Frabby (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2015 (PST)
I was thinking more that it would be useful to record for clarification purposes, in case in the future we get people querying why details are "wrong" here in comparison to a particular source - I like being able to point people at direct rulings. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2015 (PST)
The general problem is that you can never be sure if an omission on the MUL is an error or an oversight. The MUL cannot in good conscience claim that it is the definitive canon source simply because that would technically de-canonize units that have not yet been entered, to say nothing of possible errors. I wouldn't consider it any more canon than any other product. Still, I'll check if the posting you linked above should be worked into the MUL article. Need to think about it. Frabby (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2015 (PST)

Speaking of Canon : Tactical Handbook

Near as I can tell the Tactical Handbook counts as canon under the definitions, even if some of the technology was not included in later publications. I have made pages for the Caseless AC/2, Caseless AC/5, Caseless AC/10 and Caseless AC/20 as the stats of a couple of those in THB were different than a standard AC with different ammo. The results of a failure were also substantially different. In the fluff I merely mentioned that they were exceedingly rare and may not have ever been produced, but it is hard to cite the absence of something. If you could take a look at these and tell me if this description fits the style and whether or not the Caseless AC's are apocryphal or not. Thanks. -- LRichardson 12:50, 19 February 2015 (PST)


Hi Frabby,
I was just reading your article on the Norseman, and I'm a little nervous about you categorising the ship as a Star Lord by implication in the absence of a definitive statement to that effect. With other ship articles where the class of a ship is implied but not confirmed, I've been leaving the class field blank but including the detail implicating a particular class of ship in the notes field, so as to avoid any suggestion of "making things up". I'm possibly being overly-sensitive after seeing a few arguments on the CGL forum about editors on Sarna presenting opinions as fact, and I think you've made a good case for the Norseman being a Star Lord, but you don't have definitive proof at the moment. Can I suggest that you pitch an "Ask The Writers" question detailing why you think the Norseman was a Star Lord and asking for confirmation, so that you can then link the question to the article and state in the article that you're presuming the ship class to be Star Lord until clarification is given? I think we'd be on safer ground then. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2015 (PDT)

You're basically correct. That said, besides the Star Lord there were only three Scouts and I think a Scout cannot be refitted with a LF battery and still have a hardpoint. For me it's established beyond reasonable doubt that the Norseman was the Star Lord in that fleet... and for "unreasonable doubts" I have included the note clarifying that there is a tiny chance that this is incorrect. If you're still uncomfortable then you're welcome to change the article and I won't object. As for "Ask the Writers", I honestly don't think they can be bothered to answer that one. Frabby (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (PDT)
I debated posing an Ask the Writers question, but after looking at the decline in the number of clarification questions I've asked that actually get answers, I decided it was probably a waste of effort. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (PDT)

System Names

Mendrugo has posted a list of system names that differ from the colony names used on maps in the books, which I've copied and pasted here:

As this is something of a passion of yours, are you able to indicate where the references detailing the system names may be? I've been doing some work on confirming uncited information as I slog through the planets updates where I've got a good idea of where the information is, but for the changes above - at least as far down the list as Boltin - I've either not noticed it or am unaware of it. I'd prefer to get the articles updated correctly, but I'm already looking at approximately 20 months of work at my current pace to update all of the planet articles to the new format, and I don't really want to start chasing down names that may only be detailed in areas like BattleCorps fiction I don't have access to. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (PDT)

Thanks for the notification. Some of these I know, some of these I dimly remember, many I haven't heard of before. I'll go and pester Mendrugo about his sources. I could have sworn that I had entered some to Sarna already, such as Weisau - it got a detailed "Worldbook" writeup in BattleTechnology (now apocryphal) naming the binary suns Orpheus and Eurydice, and the inhabited planet Brimstone; only the system as a whole is named Weisau according to that writeup. Looking over the article, however, it seems I didn't actually add the info. I definitely need to update these articles. Btw, though this should go without saying, you rock for the work on planet (harrumph, System!) articles. Hope Doneve can go help you out again soon (quite a topic of its own). Frabby (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (PDT)


There's an interesting statement here from Øystein regarding the canon status of the Falcon and the Wolf sourcebook. It's rather interesting, given the place in the timeline the book occupies between the various Clan sourcebooks, but I think we should perhaps annotate the sourcebook article as a warning to editors. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2015 (PDT)

Thanks for pointing this out. I note, though, that the thread in question was not posted in either "Ask the Writers" nor "Ask the Lead Developers" and as such merely gives Øystein's opinion on the matter, and not technically a ruling on canon. That is to say, he effectively only pointed out that The Wolf and the Falcon is a particularly error-ridden book. Herb made similar statements before about Luthien, Objective Raids and a third product that I can't remember. They remain canonical sources, even though very unreliable ones - canonical only where no other source contradicts them, so to say. Frabby (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (PDT)

Present vs. Past Tense in Articles

Sorry for the long delay; I made a short survey. Tell me if you think any of the wording should be changed, otherwise go ahead and fill it out. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2015 (PDT)

P.S. You can put the link on the minor news section of the front page if you want more editors/readers to find it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (PDT)

Good idea. I'm not entirely happy with the wording of the survey though; let me get back to you about that when I got a spare minute. Frabby (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (PDT)

Development of IO

You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, Herb's written quite an interesting post on the recent development history of Interstellar Operations. It's up on the CGL forum here. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (PDT)

Nothing really new in there though. I'm in the factchecker group, and as such I've seen (and participated in) some of the work process. Sarna will have to go over this tome with a very fine-toothed comb given all the hard data we're going to get. :) Frabby (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2015 (PDT)