Difference between revisions of "User talk:Frabby"

(489 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive1|Archive 1]]'' (created 04 January 2012)
 
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive1|Archive 1]]'' (created 04 January 2012)
 
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive2|Archive 2]]'' (created 01 January 2013)
 
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive2|Archive 2]]'' (created 01 January 2013)
 +
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive3|Archive 3]]'' (created 03 January 2014)
 +
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive4|Archive 4]]'' (created 04 January 2018)
  
 
== Hunan ==
 
== Hunan ==
Line 28: Line 30:
 
Frabby, please review the [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Planet_Article_Overhaul#Coordinates_.28Sidebar.29|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.--[[User:Revanche|Rev]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 
Frabby, please review the [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Planet_Article_Overhaul#Coordinates_.28Sidebar.29|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.--[[User:Revanche|Rev]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  
== Individual Ships Template ==
+
== Planets Project ==
 
Hi Frabby,
 
Hi Frabby,
  
I've put together an infobox template I think should hopefully be suitable for use with articles on individual WarShips. As soon as I can work out how to upload it/create the temple here on Sarna, I'll get it uploaded for your review. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (PST)
+
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 [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Planet_Article_Overhaul|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. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:01, 19 November 2014 (PST)
  
ETA: Ok, I think I've got it uploaded. At the moment, all of the fields bar the reference year and the ship name are optional, to make the template as flexible as possible. My intent was that the infobox could be used multiple times in a single page if needed, where we know a ship has been in service with multiple navies/organizations and commanding officers. An example of that might be something like a named ship from Historical: Liberation of Terra where we know the name of the ship, fleet and the CO in the battle to liberate Terra, and then later we know the same ship was in service with Clan Snow Raven under a particular Star Admiral within the Swift Wing Pursuit Star or something similar. Where all we know is that the ship served in different services - such as the Terran Alliance navy, Hegemony navy and Star League Defence Force navy, I'd expect that information to go in the article.
+
:Good question BM. Iam in work to update the owner history, but very slow, i hope we can found a clear consensus.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 10:06, 19 November 2014 (PST)
  
Equally, the ISD and OSD dates are intended to be flexible - they could be the date that Clan Coyote recommissioned the ship and then the date they lost it to the Snow Ravens, followed by another infobox detailing when Clan Snow Raven brought the ship into service and the date it was destroyed above Dyev. Equally, it might just be the date the ship was destroyed at Espilon Eridani during the Hegemony liberation campaign, if that's all that's known - although again, I'd expect the text of the article to provide clarity if needed.
+
::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. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:16, 16 December 2014 (PST)
  
Does the template look ok to you? I've tried placing a sample in the article on the [[TAS Dreadnought]]. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:53, 17 December 2012 (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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (PST)
  
:Ah well, might as well discuss this here.
+
::::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. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:49, 18 December 2014 (PST)
:My idea for the template was to keep it brief, and collate only "hard" information on it, i.e. factoids that aren't bound to change. Remember that some ships are around literally for centuries. History stuff (name, affiliation, CO, etc.) is poorly suited for infoboxes and should always go into the article text instead. I have always hated Infoboxes with a given reference year with a vengeance, as they will be wrong for any other time period and therefore hardly relevant.
 
:Also, I'd suggest to name it "InfoBoxIndividualVessel" so that the same infbox template can be used for individual WarShips, JumpShips, DropShips, Small Craft and Space Stations.
 
:My suggestion for the infobox would be to include (only) image, last known name, type, class, date of launch, date of destruction/decommissioning.
 
:That would mean the following should be removed from your template: refyear, CO, formation. We're missing type (e.g. WarShip, DropShip, Space Station).
 
:[[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (PST)
 
  
::I have amended the template as instructed, although I also added a few new fields to allow for tracking up to two name changes within the template. I generated the ''[[Blake's Sword]]'' article to test the template and updated the Dreadnought article to match. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:25, 18 December 2012 (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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
  
:::The in service date line seems to imply the ship "Blakes Blood" was in service with the WoB when it first launched rather than first being launch as the SLS 'Wier. You can add a template box below the info box for all named ships that served under dfferent nations and names. It can include when they served with different nations, those dates and under what name.--[[User:Seth|Seth]] ([[User talk:Seth|talk]]) 08:09, 18 December 2012 (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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (PST)
  
::::...which kinda showcases my problem with transient information in the infobox. I am of the opinion that the purpose of infobox templates should be to make our life easier, and should not be used where they don't. Given the potential complexity of a ship's history, I feel this all belongs into the article text proper and cannot adequately be crammed into an infobox. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:36, 18 December 2012 (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 ;) [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (PST)
::::The TAS Dreadnought article also shows that In-service/Out-of-service dates don't cut it, as that would be limited to a single owning faction and doesn't work well with a ship that was, say, built by the Hegemony, then operated by the Star League, mothballed, broken from mothballs, deployed again, refitted to upgraded specs, disabled, salvaged and repaired by some faction, captured by another faction, turned into a musem ship and finally destroyed by sabotage? Perhaps we could have a infobox section called "Ownership history" that gives a rundown of dates, names and affiliations. But I still think I prefer to remove this from the infobox altogether, and into the article.
 
::::As for images, I imagined this part only for images depicting the exact vessel in question. If an image of another (or an unnamed) vessel of the same class is shown then I think this must be spelled out in the image caption; if we want to do that then we need an optional image caption section in the infobox. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:00, 18 December 2012 (PST)
 
  
:::::At this point, it sounds as if it would be easier to simply not have an infobox at all. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (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 ;).--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (PST)
::::::Sorry if that sounded frustrating. I do think that having an infobox would certainly help to organize the articles, even if it's a very small or short infobox. We just need to hammer out the details. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:26, 19 December 2012 (PST)
 
:::::::I think the Individual WarShips category needs to be made a subcategory of the Individual JumpShip category, for simplicity's sake; at the moment, every single WarShip is going to end up being double-tapped, and anyone looking for JumpShips is going to have to wade through a category that contains all the JumpShips and all the WarShips, while all the WarShips will already have their own category.
 
:::::::In terms of naming conventions - which probably need to be agreed before I start rushing in and spawning lots of articles - I would suggest that we append the term (vessel) in brackets after the ship name. I'm thinking here of ships like the ''Dreadnaught''-class ''Black Lion''. Where we have two ships of the same name of different classes, I'd suggest using the name of the class in brackets, with one taking the (vessel) suffix if the class is unknown. I'm thinking here of the 31st century ''[[Conqueror]]''-class ''Ark Royal'' built by Clan Snow Raven versus the Star League era SLS ''Ark Royal'' that won the first [[Martial Olympiad]]. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:34, 21 December 2012 (PST)
 
::::::::Sounds good, though I'm undecided if we should add "(vessel)" to unique ship names. It feels like disambiguating something that doesn't require disambiguation. A similar problem is the affiliation code - "SLS ''Manassas''" vs. simply "''Manassas''". I can see a lot of redirects going up here.
 
::::::::One of the reasons why I want an infobox, and a reason I previously failed to communicate, is that the infobox can be made to include a category - "Category:Individual vessels" in this case. Saves us the trouble of adding that tag to each and every article. Still, the articles will have to categorize by type, subtype and class, e.g. a given article will be categorized into "Individual Black Lion-class ships", "Individual Cruisers", "Individual WarShips" besides being classed into "Individual vessels" through the infobox.
 
::::::::Btw, I don't think we should treat WarShips as a subcategory of JumpShips. They are very different animals, and what is only a secondary function for the former is the ''raison d'etre'' for the latter..
 
::::::::Anyone else here who wants to chime in? 12:39, 22 December 2012 (PST)
 
:::::::::To be clear, I only meant to include (vessel) in a unique ship name when there was a need for disambiguation - hence my SLS ''Black Lion'' versus Black Lion class example.
 
:::::::::I would still prefer to avoid categorising WarShips as both WarShips and JumpShips, which isn't the case at the moment; it feels like double-counting WarShips and making JumpShip category listings unnecessarily cluttered. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:33, 22 December 2012 (PST)
 
::::::::::Some questions:
 
::::::::::1. How will you handle situations where a vessel gets captured? For example several WarShips were built for the Star League, were recovered by and entered service with the FWL, but were later captured by the WoB. If you're not wedded to an infobox, you could modify the tables we use to indicate the reign of a ruler to cover that data.
 
::::::::::2. In the above situation, do you propose an article covering the career of the individual ship? Using the ships mentioned in #1 above would you have three articles (one for SLS ''Lollipop'', one for FWLS ''Sucker'', one for WoBS ''Rock Crystal'')?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 09:25, 26 December 2012 (PST)
 
:::::::::::From my point of view, I'd cover it the same way as I do planet articles where the planet changes name, and how I've tried to cover it in the [[Blake's Sword]] article. The article uses the most recent name for the ship, with redirects for the old names pointing toward it; the article itself is divided up by service, so the article for the ship you've described would be an article for the Rock Crystal, with the history section including a description of it's service as the Lollipop and Sucker, and with redirects for Lollipop/SLS Lollipop, Sucker/FWLS Sucker and WoBS/WBS Rock Crystal all pointing towards it. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (PST)
 
:::::::::::ETA: Those rulership succession boxes are a really good idea, btw. I'm trying to think what the greatest number of changes a ship has been through that we can identify. 3 is pretty common, particularly for WOB ships and maybe some of the Clan ships. Is there a ship with a name that's changed 4 times? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:36, 26 December 2012 (PST)
 
::::::::::::OK. Sounds like you've got it. Just add that to the create a warship article, please, so others can see how to do it. And to answer your question, I'm not aware of any ships that have changed hands 4 times, but that doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. Maybe you can start with 3 entries and add more as options?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 04:15, 27 December 2012 (PST)
 
:::::::::::::It would be easy enough to set up a template with ten variable fields to track up to ten different name changes, and thereby have an info box that can list all of the previous names a ship has had up to the current name, if that would be a useful thing to have in addition to the succession template? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:31, 31 December 2012 (PST)
 
::::::::::::::Honestly I have no opinion at this time. WarShips aren't my thing. If I see something that I'm not sure of, I'll let you know. :)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:19, 2 January 2013 (PST)
 
:OK, possibly tangential question; how do you want Assault DropShips categorised? For example, ''[[Mercenaries Supplemental]]'' identifies the ''[[Kicker]]'' specifically as an ''Assault Triumph''. Do you want these DropShips categorised based on the original class - so Triumph, in this case - as the variant, so Assault Triumph, or as both, with Assault Triumph-class DropShips as a defined sub-category of Triumph-class DropShips, with Assault Dropships categories as both, so checking the Triumph category would bring up all Triumphs, but checking the Assault Triumph would filter in only those specifically defined as being the Assault variants? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:07, 26 January 2013 (PST)
 
::Phew, good question. My first impulse was to treat them as a variant of the class in question, i. e. lump the ''Assault Triumph'' together wirh the ''Triumph''. But you're right that it might make sense to differentiate. I'm open to suggestions. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:36, 26 January 2013 (PST)
 
:::Whatever we agree for the Assault variants should probably also apply to the -C variants, where they're clearly differentiated... although I've not found a named -C variant, despite having been through both Field Manual: Mercenaries and the first Mercenaries Supplemental, I've not found one yet.
 
:::From my point of view, I don't think that we lose anything by taking Assault DropShips and adding both categories, Individual {DropShip}-class Vessels and Individual Assault {DropShip}-class Vessels, and making the latter a subcategory of the former. What we would gain is the ability to define subsets of the main category, which could be useful information for someone. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:07, 26 January 2013 (PST)
 
::::After a little research I've made up my mind: I vote for ''Assault''-subtype DropShips to be considered separate designs from their parent designs. They should get their own article and their own "List of named vessels" category, and should be referenced in their parent design's article (and vice versa) as a "related design". I agree with your reasoning that they're different designs in the fashion of "-C" DropShips and [[IIC]] designs (with the ''Broadsword'' being the ''Leopard-C'' in all but name, and "-C" in turn being the "IIC" of spacecraft), and no mere variants. In the case of the ''Assault Triumph'' the massively increased mass is probably the deciding factor for me that screams "re-design". [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:43, 28 January 2013 (PST)
 
:::::That makes sense, I'll swap the Assault DropShips that I've found over to use the new category.
 
:::::On a seperate but related note, I've been adding the ship names to the various ship class pages; some only have an entry or two, but some, like the Union DropShip, have a fair number of named vessels appearing. Should I continue to list the individual ships within the class articles, or would you rather see a link to the relevant individual ships category? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:28, 28 January 2013 (PST)
 
::::::I was going to suggest to simply include a "See also" link to the respective class's "List of named vessels" category. I'd do it myself, but I'm swamped with work elsewhere and am not terribly active on BTW right now. Hope it'll  be better in a week or two. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (PST)
 
::::::<s>If you can give me an example of another page that uses a "See also" section, I'll use that as an example and roll it out across the various articles.</s> ETA: Found an example! Working on it now.
 
::::::The WarShips are going to be hard work because they tend to attract a lot of attention, but I'm starting to see a healthy number of individual DropShip and JumpShip articles now. It almost feels like I'm making progress! [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (PST)
 
  
== Thanks! ==
+
::::::::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!) [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:15, 18 December 2014 (PST)
  
hey, there's nothing like one of the powers that be telling you your work is crap to suck the fun out of your day. Thanks for putting up with me. (And thank goodness Herb didn't get involved.) That'll teach me my lesson: Never try to use logic and real world examples to try to fill in gaps in a description. ;) --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:08, 7 January 2013 (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.<br />BrokenMnemonic, what new Succession Wars era novels are you talking about? Did I miss anything? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
  
==DropShip classes==
+
::::::::::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. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:48, 18 December 2014 (PST)
Hy Frabby, i notice that you revamp the various JumpShip, DropShip, WarShip categories, but i miss the [[Inner Sphere DropShip classes]] and [[Clan DropShip classes]] category.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (PST)
 
:I couldn't bring myself to re-introduce these categories. Their usefulness is arbitrary at best, but the really important problem is that Sarna BTW is an OOC source covering a fictional universe. As such, Sarna BTW needs to avoid time references relative to "now". Words like ''currently, now, recently, soon, incumbent'' are all verboten because they imply Sarna BTW to be set at a fixed point in time. I do count "extinct" among them because you can never know if those "extinct" designs won't re-appear in the future. Such things have been known to happen in BattleTech, after all. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (PST)
 
  
==Founder's Awards==
+
== Planet/System article names ==
Hy Frabby,
+
Evening, Frabby. Volt has a favor to ask. I told him about how articles will be named after the most prominent system member (such as Sol redirects to [[Terra]]). He's asking if there might be some master list you have that he could peek at, so that he could change the names in the impending SUC Kit to match. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:26, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:If there's a master list, I'd like a copy of it too - I'm going by what I find in the text of the articles as I'm updating them when it comes to renaming the articles. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:00, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:: That's great to hear, because Nic just informed me he's very willing to run a script to replace all current coordinates with the ones from the...ahem...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit. So, we'll need to make sure every entry in the...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit...lines up with an article name. I figure you and I can finish off the Phase 0s (get the coordinate templates added) and go from there.
 +
:: But, yeah, if there is a master list, that would rock.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:58, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
::: Hi guys, sorry for being off the radar - I just returned from a four-day trip to Denmark. (And I'll be travelling abroad again for the entire upcoming week.)
 +
::: Rev, nice to see you're back and bringing the band together. [Insert favorite quote here - among literally dozens, at this time it's a tie between "Fix the cigarette lighter" and "No Ma'am, we're musicians" for me.]
 +
::: About the issue at hand, sorry, there is no master list. All I ever did was jump on the bandwagon of cool projects like Volt's. But I'll gladly help compiling a list of systems with multiple names, or names different from the name of the primary inhabited world or construct. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::: Would you please? That would be excellent: one effort to update the kit and then all of the articles will benefit via script. Thanks, mate.
 +
:::: I announced the release on gruese's HBS thread. Fo you have a recommendation as to which section of CGL's forums I should do the same?
 +
:::: Enjoy Denmark!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:03, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::Denmark was great (including a short rowing and sailing trip on a viking ship at Roskilde - Yarr!) - and now I have three days to do the last two weeks' work, plus the upcoming week where I'll be traveling to Austria. So don't expect too much contribution from me until after the 21st of August.
 +
:::::That said, where shall be keep the master list and where should I add the list of alias names for systems as I work on it? [[User talk:Gruese#Coordinates]] looks like a good place to begin. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:53, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::Sounds like a plan. I know Volt is looking forward to those. After he incorporates your changes, we'll ship them off to Nic, who will run a script updating the system articles, and then Gruese will be able to scrap those to update the map. Voila! Collaboration! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:05, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
: Welcome back, Frabby. If you haven't started already, just a reminder, several of us are definitely interested in your work on this. Ill keep an eye on [[User talk:Gruese#Coordinates]]. As a reminder, Volt will take your completed report and updated the SUC Kit. From there, we'll share this with Gruese and Nic. Nic will then run a script updating all coordinates to the latest and ''then'' ("there's more!") he's going to see if he can create new local map images based on that. Additionally, Gruese is looking into possibly updating his code to enable us to create more traditional images based on 30 & 60 lys, centered on the systems in question.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:56, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
::Don't wait for me. I only find time for a few odd bits here and there at the moment, and the next week is going to be murder; don't expect me to have much time for Sarna until the week after at the earliest.
 +
::Gruese has created [https://community.battletechgame.com/forums/threads/3607/comments/180969 fantastically helpful scripts] and the results can be seen [http://www.gruese.de/innersphere/data/UCKcomparisonOutput.html here]. Looks like the Clan Homeworlds are all shifted by a dozen or so light-years. I'd like Volt to look over the data; I presume one of the two projects used an outdated set of data and Volt should easily be able to tell which data set is more up-to-date. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:16, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::The thing is, Volt needs your names, so that his list matches up with the right article names. He's going to modify his planet names from what you compile. Nic's script will require parity. However, we are also not time-dependent...when you can get it done (or make headway), Volt will progress. I will share Gruese's results with him right now. Thanks, Frabby.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:01, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
  
I noticed the news article this morning when I logged in about nominating people for the Founders' Awards, and I wanted to check if I'm eligible to nominate people - the news article says all users can nominate, but the Awards page says that only Admins can nominate people for Founders' Awards. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (PST)
+
== Pserratv Articles of Solaris Champions ==
:The Awards page says Founder's Awards "may" be nominated by Admins but also states nomination is not required. Given that nomination isn't required and that there aren't terribly many admins active right now I reckon any user may (and should) nominate. I'll update the project page accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:03, 15 January 2013 (PST)
+
Question, do we need quanity of empty articles about Champions? I know i'm as active recent years i used to be, but won't it be better unless these characters had fiction behind them or some kind write up somewhere to be just on a large list of Solaris Champions instead? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:27, 20 February 2018 (EST)
 +
:I am for the articles, they may be stubs but as with many things on this wiki, smaller details often weave together to create a greater picture over time. Previously the Solaris games section of the wiki has been left alone. Thanks to Pserratv there has been a burst of activity in the area from various authors. In addition I believe this has been well timed with MWO releasing their Solaris expansion soon, instead of deleting the stubs crack open your Solaris box, re-read those BattleCorps stories set on Solaris or even break out your MW:DA minis sets and join in the action. On the front page of this very site right now we have an interview with the man in charge of getting BattleTech things done stating the writers use our site. That stub with a one liner about some former champion could be the catalyst for the next book set on Solaris! Just my thoughts obviously. But I believe Sarna should be EVERYTHING BattleTech, your thoughts might be different. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:06, 20 February 2018 (EST)
 +
::The articles have been completed. I hope all the champions names are correct... the font of the champions has a letter type I dislike and I might have made mistakes on them. I'm only pending a small review on links to ensure they link back to the Solaris VII Champions list so they can be used to go back to that list. I know most of the articles are not giving much, indeed my original idea was to create the list and also the articles of the big champions (4 championships at least; which have at least some info on Solaris VII boxed set, plus maybe some of the ones that have some (if not much) info, but once I was in, I could not stop, and then decided to create an article for them all, regardless of information under the assumption that better a stub than nothing.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (EST)
 +
:::I tend to agree with what Dmon wrote. Stub articles aren't inherently problematic, and the Solaris Campions are certainly important in-universe even if only a handful of them ever got mentioned in another source. This wiki does track individual starships even when they were only mentioned once in a single source; I don't see why characters should be treated differently. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:42, 21 February 2018 (EST)
 +
::::For me the most enduring thing about working on the wiki is the weaving of the threads into something larger. Due to Pserratvs articles I recently discovered that the chief instructor of the Banshee Stables in 3054 was the last commanding officer of one of the planetary militias destroyed in the early stages of the Clan Invasion (Another bunch of notouriously spartan stubs). I would never think to go looking for unit commander names in a Solaris book and vice versa looking for Solaris characters in a book about the Clan Invasion. So to me that little bit of story weaving is exactly what this wiki is for and that is the value it holds above just copying out the information presented in the books. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 09:14, 21 February 2018 (EST)
 +
:::::I was told by the previous editors that unless it has content, it should only be listed.  To save space was what they were looking at.  Empty articles do look bad. I can understand Regiments or large military formations having stub articles since they will eventually do something. Then you have significant ships, like Warships, which are almost unique units in BattleTech universe, since what they do sometimes effect things even in later days.  However, you have warriors, champions who may not have anything written up on them or maybe ever. I am minority in this view, but List of Solaris Champions in chronological order in same vein as List of minor Mercenary units, would be better way show them until they're given fluff to warrant a article. If their on a list, they happen to get fluff a link can be made to the individual article. It would make bit easier to search through sarna at glance. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 07:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)
  
==TRO: Vehicle Annex (Revised)==
+
== 1992 Update Flyer ==
Hy Frabby, i see you're a little bit involed in TRO:VA Revised, when i read the credits section, congrats :), i think you become the man to update the [[Technical Readout: Vehicle Annex]] page with the new Revised version, and how many you was involved in this great update version.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (PST)
+
Any reason why there is no article on this product?? It is not even in the list... is it non cannon maybe?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 17:54, 27 February 2018 (EST)
 +
:Oh, it absolutely meets the criteria for canon. Problem is, I haven't been able to get my hands on one so far, and apparently nobody else has. So no article could be writte. If you happen to have one, feel free to create the article, using the [[1993 Update Flyer]] article as a template. As for why it's not in the product list, basically same reason - I know it supposedly existed, but without actually seeing one I wasn't going to feed the rumor mill by putting a ghost item into the lists. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:57, 28 February 2018 (EST)
 +
::Ok, I lost my original copy long time ago, but I think I still got it scanned somewhere. I understand that is valid.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:26, 28 February 2018 (EST)
 +
:::Yes indeed. And if you find that scan, I would be thankful if you could pass on a copy... :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:29, 28 February 2018 (EST)
 +
::::Of course. Back at home I'll do some checking--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (EST)
 +
:::::I would also appreciate a copy if it is not too much to ask. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:21, 28 February 2018 (EST)
 +
::::::No issue, just an e-mail address :)
 +
I'm searching for the 1991 flyer so if you get it... I'm interested :) --[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:47, 28 February 2018 (EST)
  
==The Theseus Knot==
+
== Vandal Cop...again ==
Hy Frabby, I've just added articles to the wiki for the three [[WarShip]]s mentioned in the BattleCorps short story [[The Theseus Knot]], the ''[[Lakshmi]]'', ''[[Klingenthal]]'' and ''[[Minotaur (Vessel)|Minotaur]]''. I'm working from [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,25853.msg593719.html#msg593719 Mendrugo's review], as I'm not a BC subscriber, and his review differs from your plot summary on here slightly. Can you take a quick look at the three articles when you get a spare moment, and check I've got the details right? Ta. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 08:45, 18 January 2013 (PST)
+
Frabby, I know you don't display the awards you get, but given the level of effort you've been putting in on herding the spambots, I wanted you to have this. [[File:VC.jpg|Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon]] You probably have more than a few, but wanted you to know that I appreciate the work you're doing.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:54, 2 March 2018 (EST)
::Hy again. I just read through your plot summary for Theseus Knot, and you have the Lakshmi down as an Avatar class cruiser - do you have a page reference? If you do, I'll update the description of the [[Lakshmi|SLS ''Lakshmi'']] accordingly. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (PST)
+
:Well, thanks for a pat on the back. Just tryin' to keep this place clean. Having the tools for blocking and zapping spammers is one of the perks of being an Admin. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:06, 5 March 2018 (EST)
:::It's page 94 of the print anthology (and the third page of that particular story, with a half-page image on p. 2) so it would be on page 3 or 4 of the PDF: "he still missed the elegance of the ''Lakshmi''. Fresh from the builder's slip, he had commanded the ''Avatar''-class heavy cruiser..." [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:43, 31 January 2013 (PST)
 
  
==Thanks==
+
== Changes not correctly tracked ==
Thanks Frabby, for fix my misspelt [[Friden Aerospace Park]] page, my fingerst are to fast, and the brain was to slow {{Emoticon| ;) }}.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 15:44, 20 January 2013 (PST)
 
  
== Rewritten: 4th Skye Rangers ==
+
I've seen that some times the changes I do are seen only in contributions, but not in watchlist nor in Recent Changes.
 +
Usually is when I do the changes logged but from hotel wifis. Any idea what can it be??--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 17:24, 12 March 2018 (EDT)
 +
: Just testing with an unknown user and outside the hotel wi-fi--[[Special:Contributions/155.56.68.214|155.56.68.214]] 05:42, 13 March 2018 (EDT)
 +
::Any idea why this might be happening??--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::Nope. Categories aren't updating since early February and I suppose both problems are rooted in the same software update. Nic Jansma is aware of the problem. Since he's running this site, only he can fix the software. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:10, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::Ok, I'll re-change all I've been changing these days so it is visible--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::::Nic believes the categories will update normally (including the backlog) once the error is fixed, so there is no need to undo your edits. (At least not until Nic says there is. ;) ) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:25, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
  
For your approval, I give you the [[4th Skye Rangers]]. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 21:28, 21 January 2013 (PST)
+
== Planet Articles Template ==
: Frabby - please checked the Talk pages for Heany and the Fourth. Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 11:17, 22 January 2013 (PST)
 
  
== Thehawk ==
+
Hey Frabby,
Hy Frabby,
+
I would like a little assistance, across the wiki we have several versions of the System/planet article template but I am not sure what is the most up-to-date version. I would assume the ''Project Planets'' version but even that is missing the Military deployment section. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:49, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
 +
:I'm actually somewhat out of the loop concerning this particular project. [[User:BrokenMnemonic]] should be able to help you better than I. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
  
I posted a rather lengthy couple of comments on the talk page of one of our new members, [[User:Thehawk|Thehawk]], after I spotted him or her having some trouble with references. (I know I could've just pointed them at the help page, but I thought it might seem friendlier to show more of an interest). I later realised that Thehawk was trying to add one of the unique 'Mech variants from the new MechWarrior Online new game to the ''[[Commando]]'' page here. Is it ok to incorporate those 'Mechs into the main pages? I realise that I really don't know what the policy is regarding combat units from computer games. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:33, 25 January 2013 (PST)
+
== Good catch on Liao. ==
:MWO is an official (if expressly apocryphal) BattleTech product; ergo, original material from MWO is equally official and apocryphal. Case in point, the "Blazing Inferno" Commando variant described under "Apocryphal variants" just below the Death's Knell.
+
Cheers for catching my mistake there, Saw an unknown IP change the faction loyalty, checked the change history and read it backwards.. They where changing it to the Confederation, for some reason I read it as being changed to Fed Suns and assumed it was somebody trolling! --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
:As for what goes on this wiki, everything ([[Policy:Notability]]). The only caveat being that whatever BTW covers needs to have been published elsewhere, as BTW does not seek to publish BT fan fiction. That latter part is what the Fanon Purge was about. To wit, even non-canonical fanon can be notable enough to warrant inclusion here on the wiki, if it is notable enough and was published elsewhere. See for example [[Berserkerbanden]] or [[LaCasse list]].
+
:One [[User:BradGB]] who has also registered here on Sarna pointed this out over at the Paradox forum (for the HBS BT game) in a thread about [[User:Gruese]]'s map project. I even checked the reference given in the article, and yup it's pretty much a CC system on the map on p. 40. Probably an old error that carried over from the inception of this wiki - Nic used an outdated set of data from the IS Cartography Project to set up Sarna, and we're fixing stuff to this day. Incidentally, I started fixing the position of Hunan and its nearby systems only recently... a mere ten years after it was first pointed out to me on my talk page, the very first item on the list for a decade now. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
:I don't have time now but I'll clean up the Commando article shortly. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:18, 25 January 2013 (PST)
+
::I actually checked the reference as well, I just misread what had been changed somehow! As long as it gets sorted it is all that matters.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
  
== Corrections: Fourth Skye Rangers ==
+
== Lost the quick link to actions ==
  
Frabby - So I tried this: ''[http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,26434.0.html CBT Forum Kathleen Heany Questions]'', and came up empty. Oh well. Looking over it all, I see that you were right. Regarding the [[4th Skye Rangers]], I've cleaned up and consolidated the assumptions, both in the body and the notes. I resubmit the article to you for approval, and hope that you'll find it of good quality. If you like how I handled the discrepancies and assumptions, I'll make similar changes to the [[Kathleen Heany]] article.
+
It has dissapeared. The quick link for bold, links, italics... no idea why!![[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (EST)
Please let me know what you think. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 16:18, 7 February 2013 (PST)
 
: Ready the summary comments - this is why i never wiki edit with a smart phone. ;)
 
: Let me know what you think when you have time. Thanks! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 10:33, 10 February 2013 (PST)
 
  
== Question Regarding Administration ==
+
: This happens from time-to-time. I can't tell if it's an error from the mediawiki software, or some data loss error, but it doesn't seem to hit everyone at the same time. However, it will return. (It happened to me today, on one of my earlier edits, but the buttons have returned now.) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:17, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Hi Frabby,  Sorry to bother you. I've lately had little more time on the weekends to write up couple of articles on minor characters in the Battletech universe which haven't been fleshed out yet.  I wanted touch base with you, ask who would be good person to interact make sure my articles i'm writing up are up to Sarna.net standards. I'm uncertain if your fully retired, i would classify me as part-timer who semi-retired. There been large influx of better writers than myself (I'm grammer challenged.) coming on lately, when i first came on there weren't many folks aside you and rev and couple others.  Any advice you could shoot myway, i'd glad take in. - [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 10:58, 10 February 2013 (PST)
 
:You're a valued member of the Sarna BTW community, and with a healthy number of good edits. Maybe your writing/grammar isn't always top notch, but you're not the only one in this and frankly, I can live with bad grammar much better than with wrong information. My advice, therefore, is to be bold and write/edit stuff here to your heart's desire - the more the merrier. Just mind that you get your facts right. Grammar can be cleaned up. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:19, 12 February 2013 (PST)
 
  
== Review: Perigard Zalman  ==
+
::Sorry for not getting back to you on this. I never had that issue, so I figured it was a temporary glitch when NicJ updated the software. Is it still persisting for you? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:45, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
Frabby - I'd like to nominate Rebs for a Good Article Award for his [[Perigard Zalman]] piece. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 08:41, 18 February 2013 (PST)
 
:Yes. And another one for [[Dawn Moffat]]. It's great to see articles of this quality! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (PST)
 
  
==Product Infobox==
+
:::It has been working again for the past 3 days... but from Revanche's comments, who knows... :) --[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:49, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
Hy Frabby, can you take a look on [[Record Sheets: 3075 Unabridged - Age of War]], the infobx on the top is a little bit broken.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (PST)
 
:Hmm. I can see the box framing is missing on the top, but I have no idea how to fix that. I'm really helpless regarding coding issues. Wasn't this issue raised in the past already (for the [[Template:InfoBoxCreature]] I think)? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (PST)
 
::Yes you are right, we had the promblem in the past, i talk to [[Mbear]] if he can help.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::There's a missing border-top CSS rule there. Unfortunately it's in a CSS file I can't access, I need to have Nic make the fix. I'll ping him in the Sarna wiki forum.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 09:34, 20 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::I've asked Nic to make the  change.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 09:40, 20 February 2013 (PST)
 
==Pretty Baby & MWO Canon Roll Back==
 
Hi Frabby. So what do we do about canonity of MWO? There no source for hard canon facts units being depected in the game.  I edited Canon when i removed a entry about MWO Variant of the Pretty Baby Awesome, which MWO came up with some stats for. There IS a Pretty Baby which is canon, but thats notable pilot from TRO:3025, same pilot. But the Awesome has notations of being modified. It Still shouldn't be listed as Canon unit unless we have valid source with the Stats. I read information in the Canon article to make sure me adding the MWO among other things not a valid source of canon material since its a video game.  I wasn't aware of your conversation with Herb when i did that edit. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 04:49, 22 February 2013 (PST)
 
:You're right, MWO is not canon. But even if not canonical it ''is'' an official product. This is our very definition of apocryphal. MWO is in the same boat here as ''[[BattleTechnology]]'' or the other computer games.
 
:The tricky part is to properly segregate fully canonical information from apocryphal information. We've had a very similar situation already with the ''Death's Knell'' variant of the ''[[Commando]]'' a canonical but unstatted 'Mech that was statted as a variant instead of a standard 'Mech by MWO. It should be mentioned under "Apocryphal variants" or probably just under variants, but then clearly marked as apocryphal. Add a line stating that the 'Mech as such is canon but the non-standard configuration is apocrypha from MWO. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:46, 22 February 2013 (PST)
 
::Is there way to no other way to list this variant which fall under the apocrypha? I've found that when you add apocrypha, editors tend to put apocrypha tag on the article, and it affects the entire thing. That was why i whole saled removed it.  Could we have seperate article listing all apocrypha 'Mechs instead without getting the main canon articles getting mixed up with it?. People looking up units could end up saying Sarna is listing apocrypha variants, without really reading the article (or know what apocrypha means in some cases...) -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 12:08, 22 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::This touched upon a bigger point: Apocrypha tags. Back when the tags we currently use were introduced (I did most of that and also re-wrote the [[Policy:Canon]], in co-operation with Revanche and Scaletail), there was a discussion about the apocryphal tags. My suggestion was to approach the issue much like Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki, does it: They don't mark the entire article, they just use two tags "Apocryphal information begins here" and "Apocryphal information ends here" within the article. That's a much cleaner and easier-to-understand approach, but I was voted down. The others feared the articles would look cluttered and unfinished with the tags used in mid-article in this way.
 
:::I still don't agree with this old reasoning and I still think the Apocryphal Content tags are not optimal, so I'm open to suggestions here. I might start another attempt at segregating apocryphal content by Begin/End tags. After all, we've had our Fanon Purge since then. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:43, 22 February 2013 (PST)
 
::::Well, i won't want see the apocryphal listed items abolished from the site. They do deserve their place here. I think a new code/template needs to be setup to keep them from confusing would be readers. Too many times i've seen mentioned on the offical message boards that they were thinking that listed apocryphal line item was in fact as canon as the rest of the article. Personally i'd endorse a seperation section in a main article that mentions the apocryphal variant, but Sarna's rep is getting ruined by stuff that either not cited or clearly marked as being questionable.  I think draconian method must come, where i think that there should be page dedicated list of apocryphal items put togther or be listed in its own article. I'm more lists such as: List of Apocryphal BattleMechs or List of Apocryphal BattleMech Variants.  I know it going be pain in butt, but i can't see anyway to keep it seperated without people getting confused.  A tag/flag which doesn't effect the article(which i don't think is coded) could be made be listed next to the apocryphal variant for instance. Highlight yellow or something so a read can tell there something up with it. Somewhat similar to how Rules Notes are listed for Equipment. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 12:54, 22 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::::Here's how Wookiepedia does it: [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/C-3PO#The_.22death.22_of_C-3PO Sample article section] Could this be the way forward? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:59, 22 February 2013 (PST)
 
::::::It could be.  I rather have something that was more line-item sort thing. Flag for sentence verse anything below the Warning.  Again, i'm semi-retired so i don't have much say about it! :) -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 18:18, 22 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::::::BattleTech has done a much better job about keeping information canon than Star Wars has, so, in general, I feel like we have less need to call attention to it. I'm not quite sure why we need to tag a whole article if we put an apocryphal BattleMech variant into a discreet section. If "Pretty Baby" is under a section in the Awesome article titled "Apocryphal Variants" with a link to the Canon policy and a note about where the information came from, do we need to do more than that? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] ([[User talk:Scaletail|talk]]) 05:55, 24 February 2013 (PST)
 
::::::::I agree a great deal with the idea we should get away from branding a whole article apocryphal. We have units like the Crescent Hawks and the 1st Somerset Strikers, who've been confirmed as canon, but had their origins in non-canon material. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 07:13, 24 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::::::::Articles that are entirely apocryphal (either as a source, like ''[[BattleTechnology]]'', or because the article subject is entirely derived from apocryphal sources, like [[Grig Griez]] or [[Keine Chance!]]) should still be marked as apocryphal articles right at the top. It's only those articles that mix canon and apocryphal content that are a problem. And here we have a sliding scale of sorts: Some things were developed in an apocryphal source from a canonical one-liner somewhere so that their name and existence is canon but little else (like [[Menlo Drews]]); conversely, others are almost completely apocryphal, but got a nod from the developers in the form of a brief mentioning somewhere (e.g. [[Kiudo]], [[Cameron's Legion]]); then there's the "middle ground" section where a substantial lot of info is straight canon but a lot of additional info is not, for various reasons ([[Crescent Hawks]]); and finally, there's articles on canonical subjects where only a small section or piece of information is apocryphal (either an important bit, like in the [[Shandra Noruff-Cameron]] article, or some minor aspect like in the [[Wendall Puritan]] article).
 
:::::::::I think the approach to mark specific text parts as apocryphal (by marking the text, or using begin/end templates) works well on the latter two. I am a bit unsure how to approach subjects where essentially only the name and existence of the subject are canon, and any detail information is apocryphal. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:17, 25 February 2013 (PST)
 
::Gentlemen, I'm late to the conversation and I may have missed this suggestion (and maybe my opinion has changed since it was last heavily discussed), but can we do shading? Like we do for rules? It could have a section that even bypasses the whole 'apocryphal' tagging and instead represents...I dunno..."Other Media", if not "MechWarrior Online". I'd still use the 'apocryphal' tag for an article that was solely about an aspect of MWO, but for in-canon article sections, we could use shading to make that area stand out. For example, let's say the 1st Alarion Jaegers' article was about a 'Mech instead of a company. Where the [1st_Alarion_Jaegers|game notes] are presently, the parent section could read "Other Media" and the shaded box could be labeled "MechWarrior Online".--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:50, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
 
:::I've tested my idea on [[Awesome]]. Another reason I like it is because it links to other BattleTech-related sites ''and'' allows us to link elsewhere within our own humble project. Whatcha think?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:18, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
 
::::Looks good to me, at least using the Steiner skin view. I'd like to see a disclaimer (small print or otherwise) in the box spelling out that in wiki terms we consider the 'Mechs apocryphal though, just to deflect any criticisms of us trying to pass the variants off as canonical even by implication. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
 
:::::::Sorry for late response. I've been tighted up with IRL issues.  As for Rev's experiment.  I'm not sure. I rather not have it flashy or stand out like Rules/Construction rules in articles about weapons.  I prefer to have my wrinkle to apocryphal, by just listing it as a Apocryphal Variant without entire article listed as such as commented before.  Alternately, I would like to see if possible a small ikon or small graphic/text symbol of some kind  next to the entry listing, like [Apocryphal Notice]. Stating with visual notice not overwhelming the section this is a apocryphal entry. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 13:12, 18 May 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Individual Vessels==
+
== InfoBoxMercUnit Template ==
Hi Frabby, I thought you might like to know that we just passed 250 new articles in the [[:Category:Individual WarShips|Individual WarShips category]]. If you include DropShips and JumpShips, I'm about to break through 400 articles on individual ships with my next ship article. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:10, 27 February 2013 (PST)
+
Though there are not many, some mercenary units do not have mechs... I feel we should add 'Mech as an option here in order to make this more visible. It will a huge effort amending the mercenary units afterwards, but I feel it would we worth of it.
 +
Unfortunately I have no idea on hoy to change '''infoBoxMercUnit'''.
 +
:As a counter-proposal, why not introduce a sub-category [[:Category:Non-'Mech Mercenaries]] instead and sort the few special cases into that? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:00, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::Interesting option... I think it will be a winner. Let me take some time to review this option and I think I'll buy it :)--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:50, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
  
==Canonicity of German BT Novels==
+
== Magazines ==
Hi Frabby, I just spotted your exchange with Herb over the canonicity of the German-only print novels when I was doing my daily trawl for interesting snippets in the Writers forum over on the CGL board. You may already be planning on asking this, but I think it would be well worth asking Herb to clarifiy which novels are canon and which aren't - it might even be worth listing the various novels with a spoilerific description of the main canon implications (Leonard Kurita had Ian Cameron's wife assassinated!) so that Herb could give a simple yes/no response on which are canon and which aren't. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:35, 21 March 2013 (PDT)
 
:I fear the question is moot. Much as I'd love for the German-only material to be canon, it clearly doesn't fall under Herb's definition (published in English - presumably so that all writers/factcheckers can actually read and know it). The only reason I raised the issue was that Randall, during his time as Line Developer, made a different ruling and Herb only implicitly rescinded that with his Canon definition. Now we have the potentially unclear situation cleared up; that's what I wanted to achieve.
 
:It may be noteworthy though that Randall's ruling means the German novels were fully canon for a time (technically, either until Herb posted his Canon definition or, at the latest, up until this clarification). Does raise their status on the apocryphal totem pole quite a bit, imho. Much like the BattleTechnology 'Mechs of old... [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:50, 21 March 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==New Ways==
+
Just saw you tinkering with the magazine articles and had a bit of a brainwave. Do you think it might be worth migrating the Magazine and Comic categories out of the books category placing them a bit more prominent than they currently are?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:51, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
Hello Frabby, tnx for your message. I use new ways to create the content for sarna. I recognize that you viewed the article of [[Kleinwelt]]. Can you tell me if the new way is correct in form of typos and writing style or is something missing. I find a place to create my work without to fear a conflict with the rules of sarna. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:I agree that they probably don't belong under "books" but I'm unsure what to do with them otherwise, so open to suggestions. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
:Hi Neuling, there's a couple of typos/grammar issues in the article, but overall it looks fine. It certainly is readable, and doesn't seem to be breaking any rules as far as I can see. I haven't checked the numerical data, but I trust it is correct. I'll go over the article and do some copyedits when I have some time. Thumbs up from me! :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:41, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
+
::I have decided that a bit more of a top down view of the BTU product range needs to be done. [[:Category:BattleTech Universe Products]] is my new starting point.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
  
==Monitor (spacecraft)==
+
==Recent Changes missing edits again==
Hy Frabby, great article, any idea in witch category we put the article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 15:55, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
+
On a different note, this edit of yours doesn't show in Recent Edits for me and I'd have overlooked it if not for the notification box. Looks like something is still (or again) broken. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
:Pffft. You got me. I plainly forgot. Hmm... Category:Technology, I suppose? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:This happens to me to depending on the LAN I'm in. In hotels for example any change I do does not appear in global tracker (though yes in Personal one which is also weird; I would expect and all or noting).--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
::This is ok, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
+
::I don't think it's the network environment. I get the same (incomplete) result on my smartphone and at my desk computer. And now that you've commented Pserratv it gives "2 Edits" in the Recent Changes where there should be 3 (4 after this edit). Guess I'll have to go and inform NicJ. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:02, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::I am on my Android Tablet and it appears that all work stopped on the Wiki some time this morning per the Recent Edits page--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:07, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::Poor Dmon - my system ignores you completely. To the point where your intermediate contributions to this talk page don't show up on a "compare recent edits" screen. That's a bit worrisome on the database end. :( [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:12, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
  
==Production and Years==
+
== Codes and Procedures of the Warrior Caste ==
Hello Frabby, I had only a few thoughts about the manufacturing places. At the moment all products are mentioned regardless if they produce or not. When I remember correct sarna.net show the information in a historical content. My idea is to make the sites a little more diffent. We have the information of the Objective Raids, the various House Handbooks and also the Objective series. That gives us  for the overall production 3 time frames: 3054, 3067 and 3079. What do you think about my idea because I will not change anything in that way before I ask the community. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 02:20, 3 April 2013 (PDT)
 
:Quite on the contrary, Sarna takes an universal standpoint and does ''not'' endeavour a given historical fixture. There is no "now" for Sarna, and there should be no 3054, 3067 and 3079 versions of Sarna. But of course it does make sense to note (on the manufacturing center articles) the times when they were built, expanded, damaged, etc. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:09, 3 April 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Spammers==
+
Frabby, have you ever seen/heard of [https://imgur.com/a/bYygxeM this]? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:13, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
Hi Frabby, in anticipation of you purging spammers again today, I wanted to flag up that one of the new accounts, [[User:Juvat93]], looks to be a genuine new account, not a spammer despite the odd name (he or she is currently uploading images of various invasion waves during [[Operation REVIVAL]]). [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:37, 4 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:That's the manual for [[MechWarrior 2]]. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
:Heh - if you hadn't warned me off, there ''would'' have been another accident right there. Another spambot registered right between this poor guy's registry and his first meaningful edit, and his follow-up uploads also had spambot account creations in-between. Close call. Thanks for the warning! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:22, 4 April 2013 (PDT)
+
::Thank you! That was bothering me that it was unfamiliar as a product.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:05, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
::No problem - as soon as I saw his username I thought "that looks just like a spambot", and with so many of them being registered these days it felt like an accident waiting to happen. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:58, 5 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:::Always glad to help out. :)(Thx Cyc!) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:30, 22 May 2018 (EDT)
  
==Vaporware==
+
== Pick up this ball, please? ==
I'm not sure if you've seen it yet, but Herb has posted up a plot summary of the remaining missing parts of his Forgotten Worlds story [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,28378.msg0.html here]. It may be worth asking permission to list the summary here against the relevant articles... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:58, 5 April 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Redirect==
+
Frabby, as I indicated to Will [[User_talk:Revanche#History_of_Clan_Sea_Fox|here]], I don't feel it's appropriate for me to give him the decision he seeks. Would you take the helm on this for me? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:33, 2 July 2018 (EDT)
Frabby, please delete the [[#REDIRECT[[Communications System#Poor Targeting]] its an Design Quirk redirect, I had some finger trouble and noticed i don't adding the correct redirect, thanks for doing this.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 19:19, 8 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:Done. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:38, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:33, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
  
== Ulric Kerensky ==
+
== New stuff in the news section! ==
  
Frabby - When you have time, [[Ulric Kerensky]] has been rewritten. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 12:04, 10 April 2013 (PDT)
+
Hey Frabby, any chance we could get a bullet in on the news section of the home page about the new fiction and book released last week? Just to give the first releases for our beloved universe that fractional little push ;-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
  
== Congress Page ==
+
== Congratulations! ==
Hi Frabby, you rolled back several edits on the ''[[Congress]]''-class WarShip page yesterday that I'd made over the last few months while working on the individual ship articles. Can I ask why? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:40, 12 April 2013 (PDT)
+
That's great to hear about the addition to your family. Keep developing your private lance; I'm sure your merc unit will be formidable.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
:(facepalm) Accident. The fourth of this kind, I think. :( It's a one-click button that doesn't ask for confirmation, and when I'm browsing the site via smartphone I sometimes don't even realize I hit the rollback button. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:00, 12 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:Congratulations! Make sure you set up the paperwork for your 'Mech ownership correctly, so that it passes on from you without being stolen by the government... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
::No panic, i added the content again, after Frabby's accidential rolled back.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 09:10, 12 April 2013 (PDT)
+
::Thanks guys! I'm happy to report that our baby girl is pure joy, just like her older brother. Nights aren't what they used to be be, but hey that's to be expected and will normalize in due time. My internet connection and phone lines also got fixed by now (took two days, which felt like a week). I'll still leave the message on my userpage for the time being but things are shaping up here. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 19:07, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::If you're ever stuck for present ideas for daughters, I've got four nieces aged three or younger, and a fifth arriving this month, so I have some gifting experience... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 06:43, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
Welcome back sir, we even managed to not break much whilst we where without adult supervision! Also congratulation on the baby because I forgot to congratulate you earlier. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
  
==Dark Age pdf's==
+
== Magazine ==
Frabby i feel we added the two pdf's from the BT download section to sarna as like the [[Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130)]] article to the electronic books section on the books category, i mean [[MWDA: Uniques]] and [[MWDA: Sneak Peaks]], when it is ok for you i create the main body of the product articles but need a little bit help for the writing in the description and notes section, can you help me when you have time? Thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (PDT)
+
Hi Frabby, I'm not sure where your magazine archive of BT-related is up to these days, but Noble Knight games have a copy of Ancible Magazine #1 on sale for $3.40 - less than half price. It allegedly includes house rules for Classic BattleTech. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
:Like I said, I think they need articles if they were published as individual publications. But I know next to nothing about all the MWDA stuff so I'm way out of my depth here. What I could do is go over the articles and check for grammar, spelling and style but content wise I doubt I'll be of much help. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:50, 18 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:I'm actually somewhat interested... but at a quick glance I've been unable to determine the shipping costs to Germany. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
  
==XTRO:1945==
+
== Field Manual Updates Artwork WarShips ==
Hy again, i want to stard in the next days [[XTRO:1945]] vehicle pages, i know its a semi canon source but its clarifid by Herb, and i adding at the bottom of the pages the wikipedia template, i checked the wiki and the sourcebook and some is stolen or copyid from the wikipage, i hope this make not problems, i have the GNU License in view.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (PDT)
+
Hi Frabby,<br>
:This is actually something I advise you not to do.
 
:This is not about copyright; it's about the scope of Sarna. All vehicles from XTRO:1945 are nonfictional real-world vehicles and not BattleTech vehicles. I have taken care to provide wikipedia links for them; there is nothing more BattleTech-specific that could be written about them. Therefore I think they have no place on the BattleTechWiki. Look at it this way: If you start adding WW2 vehicles, then you would have to add them all - not only those from XTRO:1945, because everything in the real world up to 1984 is part of the BattleTech canon. The question is, do we want to cover the real world up until 1984 here on BTW? I don't think so. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:50, 18 April 2013 (PDT)
 
::You are right, its not so good to mix real world thinks with BT, thanks for your answer.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 04:41, 18 April 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Bernard Craw==
+
I noticed while wandering through random pages that at some point in the past, you added in a stack of WarShips such as the ''[[Linsenmayer]]'' from a conversation on the CGL forum about WarShips that had appeared in artwork. I did a little digging; while the electronic PDF edition of ''Field Manual: Updates'' has a truncated version of the picture, the original FanPro edition of ''Field Manual Updates'', with the serial number 10976, has what looks like a full version of the artwork in. I'm sitting here with my hard copy and a magnifying glass, and I can see all of the detail cited in your notes on the individual ship articles. I thought you might like to know, because it gives us a concrete canon version of the detail. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 06:15, 22 September 2018 (EDT)
Hi Frabby, given your interest in the German novels (and in case you haven't seen it yet) the author Bernard Craw has started an account over on the CGL forum: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=15566 - based on what he's said so far, I think you may want to strike up a conversation or two with him! [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:21, 24 April 2013 (PDT)
+
:I wrote the articles based off the FanPro book - wasn't even aware that the PDF has the picture truncated. Just looked it up and ayup, the image is significantly smaller (omitting the entire left row on the screen in the background). Funny enough, it's the PDF scan of the FanPro edition of the book. Not sure what happened there. In any case, were there any specific omissions you found that I hadn't covered in the articles? (Sidenote: re-reading the articles I noticed I wrote the picutre was without "capture" when I meant "caption". D'oh.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:39, 22 September 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks for pointing it out, but we were discussing stuff in the same thread back in 2011 already. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:00, 24 April 2013 (PDT)
+
::Sorry, I forgot to reply to this at the time - work stuff eating my brain. I didn't spot anything you'd missed, although it seems a shame that the artist no longer appears on the CGL forums, so we can't ask for a full version of the image. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)
  
== For Your Review - Battle of Twycross  ==
+
== Product Images ==
 +
Hi Frabby,<br>
  
[[Battle of Twycross]] is up. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 08:54, 1 May 2013 (PDT)
+
As I've not been able to concentrate much lately because of work, I've been fiddling through some admin stuff. I'm currently trying to hack down the number of things showing up as either articles without categories or files without categories, and there are a lot of pictures of BattleTech products without categories. I think it would be useful to group them together, but I thought I should check with you first, as you tend to have clear opinions about such things. A lot of the products don't have a listed artist, and I think it'd be useful to have a category for such things beyond just the artist category. I thought what might work is a master category, called something like "BattleTech Product Images", with subcategories for e-books/non-physical images, sourcebooks with physical versions, and physical items that aren't sourcebooks (like lance packs, box sets, etc). What do you think? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)
 +
:(Traveling and very limited internet access so just a quick reply) Since you asked for my opinion (which is really only that, my opinion - and let's be honest, you're the heavyweight lifter on Sarna these days), here goes: I approve of the idea and your suggestion. I don't have a better solution or suggestion at this time, and what you wrote seem solid. ;) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:13, 14 October 2018 (EDT)
  
 +
==Reaching out==
 +
Hey Frabby... I am going to formally ask you to put your Admin Hat on. The BattleMech articles due to the nature of what BT is, are our premier series of articles so I believe they need much tighter quality control than other parts of the wiki. [[User talk:Fredericmora]], [[User talk:92.59.239.85]], [[User:80.30.69.51]] and at least one other I can't currently find are all the same person as far as I can tell based on the nature and common format of their edits. (almost all notable pilot updates and no references).
  
==Congratulations==
+
The general quality of the content is good but the lack of references is an issue. I have reached out to this user a couple of times about their updates to no response.  
Unacceptably late, but I do owe you your full round of good will for your achievement. Your Outstanding Member of the Year Award shows community consensus works! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:35, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
 
  
 +
I have a further concern, way back in 2010 Notable Pilots was a [[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/NotablePilots|hot issue]], with some of the notable pilots not being very notable this user has added not being very notable or more confusingly, whilst a notable pilot, they are strongly associated with a different 'Mech. Although I feel "minor characters" is bad for the wiki, I still believe that some characters deserve to be considered "Notable". I do not want to reignite this issue nor potentially start an [[Revision history of "Highlander"|edit war]], however I feel we need to find a way to reach out and get this person on side. Maybe encourage them to create character articles or reference their work at a very minimum.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 18:21, 21 November 2018 (EST)
  
==Good catch==
+
:Article bloat is becoming a problem in a number of fields on Sarna, 'Mech articles being one of them. From my perspective the problem is that there is no formal framework for the articles, so any user can add anything he/she feels is relevant. The "Notable Pilots" section in the 'Mech articles is a sub-problem of that overarching problem. But on the other hand I am decidedly unsure if it is even desirable to limit articles in such a way.
Despite it being the top news article, I didn't put two and two together, as you did in regards to [[User talk:Crduemling|Crduemling]]. Glad you did. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:34, 4 May 2013 (PDT)
+
:Perhaps we need to install either a full-blown obligatory article template with guidelines for using it, or at least formulate a proper policy for "Notable Pilot" sections. Then we could expect users to follow that formal policy.
:Well, yeah... given I was the one to delete him... ;) I'm just glad he re-registered. That's the first of the seven or so accidential deletes I made so far. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:17, 4 May 2013 (PDT)
+
:Regarding the issue at hand, I'll try to explain the problem to the user(s) in question. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:57, 24 November 2018 (EST)
 +
::Hey Frabby did you have any luck reaching out to 92.59.239.85? They have been adding some very large additions to articles and still not a single reference.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:53, 31 December 2018 (EST)
 +
:::Hey Frabby, I'm unsure who this user is, but so far all they've done is deleted stuff from the Notable Pilot sections. [[User:162.235.196.29]] there's been no reasons mentioned as to why they were removed either. I'm not sure whether to revert their 3 edits or not. It could be 92.59.239.85 if he has a rotating IP. (In fact, I'm almost positive. Looks like he removed one of his old edits, but then subsequently removed another from another 'Mech and a preexisting pilot.) So far he's erased 3 pilots, 2 from the [[Devastator]] and one from the [[Cerberus]]. [[User:Admiral Obvious|Admiral Obvious]] ([[User talk:Admiral Obvious|talk]]) 22:54, 13 January 2019 (EST)
 +
::::I've seen it, and [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] even raised the issues on the Administrators page. Yes, I've been remiss of my admin duties and haven't properly adressed the issue yet, for which I apologize. I'm just so busy that I find it hard to meet my goal of making at least one Sarna edit per day right now. You're right in that the additions are too wordy, lack references, occasionally stray too far from factual wiki style and generally probably need to be reverted for the most part. On the other hand, this user certainly does seem to be a dedicated person and I'd prefer to offer some guidance over reverting his edits, so as to not scare him/her off. Of course, in order to help the editor needs to accept help in the first place... [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:47, 14 January 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::Sorry if I jumped the shark a bit when I raised it on the Admin page in the hopes one of the other admins would possibly pick it up. I guessed you where busy with RL. I agree that the person seems dedicated, and have made a point of saying the content for the most part does seem correct (I remember having read parts) it just needs a lot of polish. I believe this person can be an asset to the wiki with some guidence, but currently is not hence me pulling the disruptive editing card in the hopes that the issue is taken more seriously.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:40, 14 January 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::A potential route to solving the issue is speaking to Pserratv, All the IPs are based in Spain so it might be somebody active in that community.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:46, 14 January 2019 (EST)
 +
::::::Do we have more than just an IP? I can ask to the spanish group I know and from there maybe we can get more. Not sure thoubh, but I can give a try?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:31, 15 January 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::::Ah, good, you already saw this discussion. :) Yeah, we'd be grateful if you could do that. No harm in trying. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:35, 15 January 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::::: Question raised. Let's see if I can reach him.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:55, 15 January 2019 (EST)
  
== Apocryphal/Semi-Apocryphal Products ==
+
==Notable Pilots==
 +
Since four of the most active users as of right now are partaking in the discussion above: Should be create a Policy for notable pilots? It's a recurring issue here on Sarna BTW thanks to the prominent and popular section in the TROs. And since it's a very BattleTech-y thing I'd like to keep a Notable Pilots section on general principle, but I realize we need to establish some rules as to what counts as notable and draw a line somewhere. We may also need to draw up rules on the length of individual entries in a 'Mech article (I'm thinking of the rules we have for the year pages here - one-liners only, with typically only a single link to the article about the pilot). Thoughts? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:41, 15 January 2019 (EST)
 +
:I am very much in favour of keeping the notable pilots section as it brings some flavour to a series of articles that tend to be quite stat focused. Maybe a two line limit and a single link to a character article. Also maybe a limit on how many can be included. This serves the purpose of attempting to prevent bloat but also forcing out the not so notable pilots. (This is an odd one for me as I am of the line of though that one day I would like every BT character ever mentioned to be on the wiki but notability still is a thing).--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 07:30, 15 January 2019 (EST)
  
Frabby - How should we handle using Apocryphal Products as legitimate references? The source in question are the BattleTechnology magazines. Yes, some of the material is obviously contradicted by other sources. But as I understand it, much of it is not, and some of it was written by the same writers as the novels and early sourcebooks. Understand, I'm not talking about writing an article about a Apocryphal 'Mech that never appeared in another product. I'm talking about using the magazines as a supplemental source for events, characters and units. What do you think? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 06:24, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
+
== Thanks for deleting all the typos I generate ==
:That's exactly what the "Apocryphal Content" tags are supposed to cover (see above: [[User talk:Frabby#Pretty Baby & MWO Canon Roll Back]]). In a nutshell, yes please go ahead and include any and all information from apocryphal sources - but make sure the apocryphal content is marked (as in easily identifiable) as such, and properly referenced.
 
:As example articles that combine a lot of apocryphal content with a minimum of canonical content, check out [[Kiudo]] or [[Jimmy Lee]]. Conversely, an example where most of the article is from canon sources but one small but important detail is apocryphal, see [[Shandra Noruff-Cameron]].
 
:Hope this answers your question. If not, I'll try to explain it better. :) Btw, there are no "semi-apocryphal" products. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:28, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
 
::Thanks for the response!
 
::If I may, for articles that are primarily canon with a small amount of potential apocryphal material, I kinda dislike the banner at the top. Wouldn't it work better if we had a smaller "section apocryphal" banner? It feels wrong to stain an entire article with the dreaded "Apocryphal Content" tag.
 
::As for my "semi-apocryphal" description, it may not be official, but it seems apt for many works. Take the BTechnology magazines: A lot of the material from them is verbatim what you'll find elsewhere. In other instances, there have been other sources that have indirectly referenced something from the magazine. Likewise, there are things that are completely contradicted by the canon material, and other elements (like some 'Mechs put in production) seem highly implausible.
 
::The current developers have been clear that the new material takes precedence over older material, and thus, some of the older material may no longer be canon. These are actual line products, not fan magazines. If there's a precedent there, then we can certainly accept that there are varying "grades" or "levels" of canonicity. That's my point.
 
::Should we resume this convo in another place?
 
::Thanks! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 10:56, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
 
:::Didn't Rev suggest something along the lines of putting apocryphal sub-sections of articles inside a bordered box, akin to the way the Rules section is currently handled in unit articles? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:16, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
 
::Re: Apocryphal/Semi-apocryphal - a given source is either canonical, or it is not. "Apocrypha" is a word Herb Beas himself has been avoiding, but it fits the bill for a plethora of "official but not outright canonical" material including de-canonized material. This is a complicated and sometimes convoluted issue. To pick BattleTechnology as an example, it was plain full canon in its day. Herb ruled it was not among the sources against which new fiction had to be checked, effectively downgrading it to non-canon. However, there's that disclaimer that says (to paraphrase) any officially published BT material that makes sense (whatever that means) can be considered (whatever that means) to be part of the shared universe. And that's where the Apocrypha definition kicks in - not 100% canon but way further up the totem pole than fan fiction. I don't see much room for "semi-apocryphal" in this, but let's not split hairs here.
 
::Newer taking precedence over older has always been the case, and is only relevant for fully canonical products. Though when you look closely, there are only a small handful cases ever. Even BattleTechnology was written from an in-universe standpoint and can thus be proven wrong in-universe without a retcon.
 
::As for highlighting fanon, as written above I'd prefer the Apocryphal warning tag to go away too and somehow mark the text. I'm not fond of Rev's suggestion and still like the wookiepedia approach better. Though that's better discussed in [[Template talk:ApocryphalContent]]. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
 
::::Perfect! Taking this there! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 14:59, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==issue with thumbnails==
+
Just thanks!!--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (EST)
Hello Frabby,
+
:Heh. Thanks for the nice words. Just to be clear, all I'm doing is come cleanup here and there. There is no master plan involving you and your typos. :) Keep up adding good info to Sarna. (Oftentimes, a new edit makes me revisit an older article and that in turn often makes me give said article a polishing workover.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:57, 27 November 2018 (EST)
I hope you can help me in some way. I'm updating the maps on Sarna step by step but have an issue with the following file [[File:Is-map-2596.png|150px]]. Sarna didn't create a thumbnail picture of it but the image is uploaded correctly. Know you a solution for that kind of problem. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 09:53, 19 May 2013 (PDT)
 
  
== InfoboxCommand ==
+
== Reasons for additional sub categories==
Could you please have a look at [[User:Mbear/Davion Assault Guards]] when you have a minute? Let me know if I'm missing anything you wanted. Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 09:27, 24 May 2013 (PDT)
+
Hello Frappy, I'm a little surprised by the deletion of the Capellan Hussars category. My reason for the addition of the category to the different unit entries was to get a better understanding which unit belongs to the different brigades. At the moment most brigade articles contains to much information in my opinion and with the sub-categories it would be easier to create articles for the different time frames. For example: Take the Syrtis Fusilier at the start of the First Succession War and the shape after nearly 300 hundred years of constant fighting. What is your opinion about it? [[neuling]]
:I see the same basic problem here that I always seem to have with infoboxes: time-specific information. Only very little information isn't dependent on the "current" time. When you're covering hundreds and hundreds of years then it doesn't make sense to cite items like commanding officer or deployment in the infobox. These items change so often and are outdated so quickly that they really belong into article sections instead. Otherwise, the infobox is either always outdated or cluttered to the point of not being clear and informative anymore, and ultimately, useless. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (PDT)
+
:Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the reasoning. The Capellan Hussars article lists (and links to) all regiments belonging to this brigade, just like a category would. Only, it even offers sorting by timeframe, so it this respect it is superior to a category. Conversely, every individual regiment has (or at least should have) a notion stating that it is part of the Capellan Hussars, providing a link back. There is also a field "Parent Unit" in the InfoBoxMilitaryUnit for exactly this purpose. As such, I don't understand what information the category provides that isn't already there in the articles? It's not like there are so many regiments in this category that they bloat the article. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:26, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 +
::My intention was to provide a way for better understanding the different composition of the brigade during the different time frames. I accept that my idea is not the best solution. I will think about that topic and perhaps we can find a solution that is widely accepted. [[neuling]]
  
== Re: 1st Somerset Strikers Sourcebook ==
 
If the sourcebook is canon, it begs the question of why it is not listed as a source of canon on the [[1st Somerset Strikers]] page, since that's where I got that info from. [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] ([[User talk:Mattiator|talk]]) 11:32, 25 May 2013 (PDT)
 
:Aha. See what you mean. Well, to make it short, the canonicity section in that article got it plainly wrong. Catalyst Game Labs never declared this sourcebook to be non-canon. This is a misunderstanding based on a quote from the Line Developer who said that (paraphrased) certain products including the 1st Somerset Strikers sourcebook, Objective Raids, and the Luthien scenario pack were riddled with errors. They were not de-canonized, although many people got that notion. I'll go and correct the entry in the 1st Somerset Strikers article. Thanks for pointing this out. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:45, 25 May 2013 (PDT)
 
  
== Moratorium violations/Plagarized content ==
+
== Request about layout for military articles ==
Frabby, do I need to remove Muso-ka's content completely? I haven't looked at every page to see if he just did a data dump, but I can remove them quickly if we need to.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:46, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
+
Hello Frabby, I compare the different articles for the major military organisation like DCMS and AFFS. They don't follow a standard layout concept. I will not change the existing structure. My intention is how we can make it better without a huge rework of the existing material. I will create an example for the brigades at my user page. Feel free to take a look and your opinion is welcome. With best regards [[neuling]]
:Actually just to be safe I deleted the pages.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:51, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
+
:I am working on an overhaul of our [[Policy:Notability]], and as currently intended this will include a paragraph or two about military units/formations. It basically goes like this: The BT universe notably uses the Regiment as the basic formation (whereas in the real world, Battalion is the typical unit size), that's why Sarna has articles about Regiments and only covers smaller formations (Battalions, Companies) if they have a specific unit identity. Larger formations (Brigades and larger) are rare and usually administrative formations. They get short articles, with links to their individual sub-regiments. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (EST)
  
:The articles as such, with just an image and the infobox (and bare of fluff text) could remain. They'll be recreated eventually anyways. Keeping them could possibly be a violation of our [[Policy:Moratorium]] but then again maybe not, as the units as such have been around for a long time already. In any case, it wouldn't be legal trouble for Sarna BTW.
+
== Image policy inquiry ==
:The plagiarized content, on the other hand, is a big problem and needs to be removed immediately. I don't quite understand why he's doing it after my earlier warning (and he's apparently really copypasta'ing content from the TRO PDF, judging from the odd line breaks), but if he doesn't stop I'll have to play admin with him. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:03, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
 
::Yeah, but I figured better safe than sorry, you know? It's not like the affected pages had 5000 characters in them so recreating them should be simple.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:38, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Inconsistencies==
+
Moved the discussion to [[Policy_Talk:Images#.22edit_or_modification_to_an_image.22|here]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:32, 7 February 2019 (EST)
I was recommended to ask you about this; in the variants section for 'Mechs and on timelines, should it be in the present or past tense? It seems to switch around a lot depending on the page. [[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:30, 26 June 2013 (PDT)
 
:I am honestly not sure if Sarna BTW has reached a consensus on the issue. Personally, I hold that Sarna BTW is an out-of-character resource and not set in any year within the BT timeline. Accordingly, all content here should be presented in present tense. The exception would be items that definitively are past as in over (concluded events). A ''[[Locust]] is'' a 20-ton 'Mech (because it still is, and will always be); but [[Mercer Ravannion]] ''was'' a DCMS officer, because we have a death date for him. And I've said elsewhere already that time-relative terms such as now, present, incumbent etc. should be avoided. Try to write in an encyclopedic style.<br />By the way, I'm impressed and very happy with the copyediting work you're doing. Keep it up! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:49, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
 
::If the Locust goes out of production and becomes an extinct design in 3250, will it still be correct to say that the Locus is a 20-ton 'Mech, or would it be more accurate to state that the design was a 20-ton 'Mech?
 
::I'm possibly a little blinkered on this because the vast share of the work I do on here is historical information, so I'm almost always working in the past tense, but it seems odd that I should perhaps be refering to extinct units, designs and ships in the present tense even if they've not been in service for hundreds of years....[[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:04, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
 
:::In my opinion (and mind you, it's just that!), the ''Locust'' can never be extinct because it's a design, an immaterial idea, a concept. A bunch of stats that exists for all time.
 
:::And I hate the guts of the "extinct" concept. Within the universe, only very few (I really want to say none) of all designs/items ever become truly extinct. After all, you just need somebody in a Solaris VII garage to dig out the specs and hand-build a new specimen a year, decade, century or millenium later. The "Obsolete" quirk is as much extinction as you can actually get in the BT universe, as far as designs go. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:24, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
 
  
== Apocryphal content, part 2 ==
+
== Thanks ==
  
Frabby, could you drop by [[Template talk:ApocryphalContent]] please? I've made a couple templates and I'd like your feedback. Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:22, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
+
Just want to say thanks for making the [[Thelos Auburn]] worth something, Currently doing lots of overtime at work and my contributions to the wiki are way down on what they should be.
:Yeah, that talk page is an open tab on my browser right now. I'm a tad bit busy with other stuff right now, but I'll chime in as soon as I find the time. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:42, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
+
I appreciate you picking up where I am dropping the ball.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 07:42, 14 February 2019 (EST)
 +
:I could say the same the literally same things to you, so thanks - and keep up the good work! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:38, 14 February 2019 (EST)
  
==Umm...==
+
== Fredericmora‎ ==
I've never seen this before - [[Chinese Unit Names]]; there is mainly only [[User talk:MrKiasu|one person]] working on it. What should be done? [[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 07:58, 3 July 2013 (PDT)
+
Hi Frabby, thanks for the citation for my DropShuttle Article. We may have issue with new editor. Fredericmora‎, he doesn't seem known how to do ref to stuff he posting, he doing other things Dom has mentioned to him. I'm not sure if he knows how to respond on the the wiki. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (EDT)
:I was a bit unsure about this myself, but I concede that the page content seems well-informed and even fairly informative. I'd say it falls into Sarna's (barely used) Essays category. For now I'm willing to let it be, especially as it is linked from the official BT forum in a thread picking up steam, thereby advertising Sarna BTW on the sidelines. I'm still unsure if the page should perhaps be moved into a subpage of MrKiasu's userpage eventually. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:14, 3 July 2013 (PDT)
 
  
== Camo Specs pics ==
+
== Maiden names and birth names==
Frabby - Are we allowed to use graphics from the Camo Specs website? Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 00:30, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
+
Hey frabby, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to reverse the change you made to the Candent Sortek/Septarian article because I use the character maiden/birth names as article names in order to make family trees easier to handle.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:10, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
:I take it you're talking about [http://www.camospecs.com Camo Specs (the website)], and not [[Camo Specs]], the sourcebook? My first suggestion would be to straightforward ask them. In my experience, most people and firms will allow you to upload images from their site to a wiki if you cite their origin (i. e. proper attribution) do not modify the files. Beyond that, there's always the "fair use" doctrine, but make no mistake - for this to work the file needs to be integral to the article. Fair use is no carte blanche, and a bit more restrictive than some people seem to think. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:54, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
+
:Now you've got me confused. There's a redirect in place, so either name can be linked just fine. Can you elaborate on the problem? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:45, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
:: My example is this: Say I'm writing/editing a unit's article. I'd like to use a photograph of sculpted & painted minis within the body of the article, just to add flavor. Does that work? Would I need permission from the artist/photo uploader, or from an admin at Camo Specs? Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 12:48, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
+
::There was a redirect in place anyway so I am equally confused as to why you changed it in the first place. Simple answer is I just find it easier to work on the family trees if wives have their own name rather than their married name. Most of the time a wife with the same surname becomes a dead end unless we are explicitly told who she is, I lucked out on discovering Candent this morning.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:30, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
:::If you want to go with existing legal precedent in the US (and I think that Sarna's servers are based in the US, so that's where the case law is from) and play safe, include thumbnails of the images only in your article, linked back directly to the original images on Camo Specs so that readers can only view high-res versions of the image by going to the original. That's if you're worried about either not contacting the painter/modeller/artist to obtain permission to reproduce the image.[[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:15, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
+
:::I moved it because I thought we covered subjects with different successice names (WarShips, merc units, systems, and also people as showcased by the [[Anastasius Focht]] article) under their last/latest name and use redirects for older names. But it's not a policy or a hard rule, and I don't feel strongly about the subject. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:03, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
::::Thank you for that. I'm thinking the thumbnail alone wouldn't add much to the article. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 14:36, 7 July 2013 (PDT)
 
:::::It sounds as if the best way to go is to contact the artist and get their permission to display the image or artwork in question - and to future-proof Sarna, I'd stick a copy of that grant of use in the talk page for each article. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 09:09, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
 
::::::Just make sure the images are more relevant than being just eye candy, and have some informative value such as showcasing a paint scheme. Sarna BTW doesn't want to be an image repository (see [[Policy:Images]]). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:02, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
 
:::::::Oh, yes. Showing off the paint scheme is the main point. Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 18:27, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Les Dorscheid==
+
== WarShip bombardment in BattleTech (2018) ==
As the expert on obscure BattleTech publications, what do you think of this? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Battletech-Gallery-Set-One-Portfolio-SQP-1994-NM-9-4-/310692091813?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item4856b117a5 - I don't think it's an official BattleTech product, although I'm not sure because it uses the BattleTech logo and trademark. The fact that it's described as "Gallery Set One" makes me wonder if that's one of a set of gallery packs released by Les Dorscheid, or if it's one of a set of gallery packs released by FASA. I can't see a product number on it, so I'm thinking the former, but I thought if nothing else you might find it interesting. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (PDT)
+
Here is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4cFFLPeOwo a video] from the mission. The mission summary refers to a WarShip, and the bombardment has the appearance of a vertical laser beam at least a hundred times more powerful than a BattleMech's PPC. It seems to have been added with the Flashpoint DLC. [[User:Omeganian|Omeganian]] ([[User talk:Omeganian|talk]]) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
:I've seen this a few times on German Ebay and was thinking the same as you (and I think it's a Dorscheid publication, not a BattleTech publication). But I wasn't prepared to pay the price they asked and haven't held one in my hands yet so I cannot be sure.
+
:Thanks for posting the video. I can now see where you're coming from.
:Hmm. Now that you brought it up, perhaps a stub or placeholder article can be created. Perhaps someone actually owns this item and can fill in the blanks. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (PDT)
+
:But I still contend that there are no active WarShips in the 3025 era. WarShips are a big deal. And in CapCon hands a WarShip would have made all the difference in the world in the 4th Succession War. The matter seems to be treated pretty casually in the video clip, when in-universe it would have been an absolutely groundbreaking thing. To me, this is another case of sloppy factchecking on behalf of HBS, or maybe a deliberate taking of liberties with the main BT canon as they're free to make up stuff as they please for their game. The video game license is distinct from the boardgame/sourcebook/novel license, though I regard the latter as the authoritative (canon) universe wherever computer games deviate.
 +
:In the good old tradition of the "FASA Two-Step" approach, a possibe way to reconcile this video game event with canon could be to assume "WarShip" doesn't refer to the usual definition of a multimillion ton (well, at least 100,000 ton) combat JumpShip with a compact KF drive, but instead simply means "combat spaceship". You could then reinterpret the purported orbital bombardment as a ground attack by a DropShip such as the ''[[Avenger]]'', a class incidentally known for being used in such attacks. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:13, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::By the way, this video says Artillery Bombardment, but I've played the game and sometimes it says a more global bombardemnt, by I agree with Frabby that this must be a Dropship thing and not a fully functional warship, as only Comstar has them in this era (and very well hidden.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 16:06, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::: The problem is that it destroys a 5000 HP structure in a single attack, in a game where a PPC gives 50. Not many vessels can perform such an attack. [[User:Omeganian|Omeganian]] ([[User talk:Omeganian|talk]]) 13:04, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Since HBS heavily fudged the armor and weapon damage stats anyways (not to mention the construction and modification rules), this comparison isn't worth much though. I do agree with you that HBS apparently tried to evoke the concept of WarShips and orbital bombardment for this mission; but at the same time, in the game's timeframe these concepts are so outrageously anachronistic that I consider it an error, and would try to explain it away with a less canon-breaking explanation. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
  
== For Your Review - Beta Regiment ==
+
== Search for recent changes is Mobile platforms ==
 +
Any idea on how to do that Frabby? PSERRATV (I don't know either how to add the tag on user.
 +
:Not sure if it is any help but I tend to find the mobile interface virtually unusable for editing so if you scroll down to the bottom of any page there is a tab that says "Use Desktop site" or something to that effect. (just checked, it is just the work "Desktop" highlighted in blue like a wikilink)--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::And I have just checked on how to do it on the mobile version, again right at the bottom of the page you want to look at, just above the GNU.FDL stuff is a grey strip that says "Last edited x days ago by x" click on it and it brings up the edit history.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::I agree it is useless to edit. But what I need is the list or Recent Changes, like in PC... I have Contributions and Watchlist... but not Recent Changes. PSERRATV 25 - 15:38
 +
::::My second comment tells you how I found it on my Android mobile.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
I guess Dmon has already answered your question. Personally, I never use the mobile interface because I hate it; it's useless for editing. When you go to the bottom of any page there's a "Desktop version" button. One possibly useful tip that I can add is that I have bookmarked the "Recent Changes" page and am using it as my main Sarna page whenever I call up the site. That works, even when the system for some arcane reason decides to switch to mobile version between sessions (happened several times). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
  
[[Beta Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons)]] has been posted. Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 00:07, 25 July 2013 (PDT)
+
== Citations for sourcebook fiction ==
  
==Possible Bogus Article==
+
Morning Frabby,
Hi Frabby, i'm not sure who keeping out for rogue editors these days. However, new user named Redstonizer produced this [[Time swapping theory‎]] article. Some weird 21st Century article about time travel. He also changed [[Timeline]] to accomdiate his writing.  Can you refer someone to look into this, there not much about the early canon. I know they didn't really get into time theory in that kind of detail. I left him warning about getting battletech references. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (PDT)
+
I have something I am not sure how we handle, as the title says Citations for sourcebook fiction, Do we have an official stance on how we handle them? I want to create some articles that treat them as short stories rather than just part of a sourcebook as they are an oft forgotten source of lore, the catch however is I want to treat such stories as fully fledged short stories in terms of Citations and Bibliography as well but feel this might confuse people. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:28, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
:There is also a character page presumably linked to it: [[Daniel Martin]]. Should that also be in question of deletion? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 20:46, 5 August 2013 (PDT)
+
:There is no "official stance" but plenty of precendent. If the story was ever made into a product of its own (i.e. published standalone via BattleCorps or as an EPUB) then the article should use the [[Template:InfoBoxProduct]]. If it's a story within a larger product, e.g. individual stories from an anthology or sourcebook fiction, then use the [[Template:InfoBoxStory]]. Case in point: [[Think like a Liao]], from the [[Shrapnel]] anthology.
::This is fanon, and we remove some content imidiatly, oh i added also a deletion template to the Daniel Martin article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (PDT)
+
:As for citations, this is the format I've used in the past: Threat the short story as its own product, and include it in the bibliography section under its name, appending "in: (source)"; also, put the source product into the Bibliography section. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
:::Thanks guys. I have deleted the articles and notified the user in question. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:19, 6 August 2013 (PDT)
+
::Thank you, I knew you would know the answer :-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
  
Hey, I just stumbled upon [[Spidermech|this]] today; I'd like to know if it is fanon or not and if action should be taken. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 22:25, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
+
== Battletech CCG ==
:The article is horrible and badly in need of a rewrite, but (according to the talk page) the Spidermech may actually feature in an official if apocryphal source, the MechAssault 2 - Lone Wolf computer game. Unfortunately, I don't own this game and know nothing about it. I wouldn't want to delete the entry before checking out this possible source, though; it may not be a bogus article after all. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:08, 15 August 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==reasons of concern==
+
Hi Dmon. Want you have by any chance the Battletech CCG cards? I'm just in my last phase of the "project" which includes uploading the missing images, and I'm missing a lot.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 06:18, 14 June 2019 (EDT)
Should there be a problem with the maps, I will not upload any new maps and ask to delete all others at the server to protect sarna.net from any legal trouble. I await your anwser and don't upload anything new until we get a solution. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 04:48, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
 
:The maps are certainly nice to have - if we're allowed to have them. I suggest you contact Øystein and simply ask him (via email or a BT forum PM) if copying the maps was okay or if you should delete them. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
 
::The question is send to Mr. Øystein and I inform you immedatly about his reponse. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 08:43, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
 
:::I send him a message but getting no response . At the moment  I thinking about it to continue the map work and should their are any problems I will delete them immedatly. What do you think about it? [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 14:44, 31 August 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==BattleCorps Story writing==
+
== Howdah Edits ==
Hy Frabby, i read your well writen BattleCorps storys, how long you need to datamine and write the story, iam very interested in this, i have a buddy they write very well stories (ok it's an english teacher) but he comes to BattleTech after i give him some novels. I say register on the BattleCorps page, to sarna and the BT forum and talk, he has fully access to my biblio and is very interested to write some stuff, but he is a newbi in the BattleTech universe and i want to support him, any thoughts.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
+
Hi Frabby, why did you remove the notes section from the article?  The information about the records sheets only being only found in once source book was valid.
:Thanks for the flowers! :) I was surprised to find that I'm an extremely slow writer, and so I'm only aiming for one publication per year. (A new story of mine has been accepted and is being factchecked and edited right now, and can be expected to be published this year.) There is no step-by-step guide to story writing, it's a creative process. You need to have a good, interesting story to tell, and you need to know the BT universe enough to not violate its feeling, aesthetics and established canon. I cannot offer help for the former, but regarding the latter there's a self-help group of established and aspiring BattleCorps writers called the Writer's Workshop. It is a Google group run by either Craig "Trbotrtle" Reed or Phil "joechummer" Lee. Contacting either of them should allow your friend to join the group. In this closed group you can post story drafts and get feedback from (semi-)professional authors on your writing, with tips for improvement and also some preliminary factchecking. The Workshop essentially seeks to help authors improve and polish their story enough that it will have a chance to be accepted for publication by BattleCorps. Hope this helps; any further questions, just ask. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:48, 17 August 2013 (PDT)
+
Also, i'm unclear why a category was created for ships named for the Howdah, while currently there are NO canon named ships right now. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 10:15, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
::Thanks so much for the Google group info, i tell this to my friend, he is a monster in reading in this time some BattleTech stuff to have a overview of the universe and some thinks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 08:08, 17 August 2013 (PDT)
+
:While the information about the record sheets being in only one book is accurate as far as I can tell, I feel it's simply not notable. After all, one official record sheet is plenty enough, isn't it? I could understand if the note said there was ''no'' official record sheet for the unit... but there is one. So what's noteworthy about that?
 +
:The category is presumably superflous, and I did consider deleting it. But it's currently standard procedure to create such a category for every spacecraft class, even in cases where there's only one or even none entry in the category. It's kind of expected from the article structure that such a categoy be in place. And it's always possible that the name of a ''Howdah''-class vessel gets published somewhere, somehow.
 +
:I don't have strong feelings about either aspect though. Feel free to revert or change as you see fit. ;) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:58, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
  
==Manufacturing Center policy==
+
== Despiser ==
Hy Frabby when you have time please look on this talk [[User talk:BrokenMnemonic#Award]], about our issus, and i hope you can help us, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 16:22, 18 August 2013 (PDT)
+
Hey Frabby, I was still editing that article including an extensive explanation of why I changed the name of the Despiser article, but got an edit conflict and you had removed my work. I believe the name is an error but if you want to remove my work without speaking to me first, thank you for having some trust.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:53, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
:Sorry, I'm afraid I can't add anything useful to the discussion. My understanding of the semantic wiki expansion is poor. I hope Mbear can help out. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:04, 19 August 2013 (PDT)
+
:Sorry for the editing conflict, wasn't aware of this. I just saw that you had been the latest editor, and your work normally doesn't require any corrections. I hadn't checked the recent changes and didn't realize you had just moved the article and were working on it. When I saw the ''[[Despiser]]'' article links to a WarShip not a DropShip, I looked the name up in my BC edition of the novel and found it to be a ''Fury'' and always to be spelled as two italicized words, with only one instance of it being names simply "Despiser" - the chapter 19 epigraph. So I figured there had been an oversight on the part of the initial autor. So, again, apologies - no disrespect intended. But now I am curious to see your reasoning why the two-word name might be in error? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I have cooled off now, sorry for having a go, I was out of order. Having a very rough day in work so doing some wiki edits on my break was meant to be something chill and you just got the back end. I based the name off the initial epigraph giving the ships formal designation coupled with naval naming traditions pretty much never including "The" as a singular article within a name. I assumed the "The" being italicised was likely a mistake in editing.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:30, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Normally I would agree with the naval naming traditions approach, but in six out of the seven cases where its name is spelled out it is called "''The Despiser''", fully italicized and with a capital "T". The epigraph is clearly the odd one out here, and I thus surmised it's the epigraph that is in error. Btw, I pulled out my ROC print edition to double-check, and the difference is still there between the epigraph and the rest of the chapter so it wasn't altered (I previously used the "prefinal" text provided via BattleCorps). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:47, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
  
==Unusual FASA Products==
+
== Sarna Not New User Friendly? ==
Hi Frabby,<br>
+
Hi, Frabber. I don't know if you saw this post in thread titled "Very disappointed with new Kickstart",  i wasn't sure where to post this.  So i'm kicking it to you for direction. In course of the user's concerns, they felt Sarna.net was NOT user friendly.  Do you think there could be a special page for new users or ask for someone schooled in doing it. I work on wikis, (noticed it's sort of fading thing) i've seen that newer users aren't using wiki as much due design issues.  [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65972.msg1519757#msg1519757 Here the link] to what person was saying. {{quote|''As for sarna.net, as a new player that page is literally anti-user. The design of that page instantly removes the desire to find out about the lore that everyone says is so good, so it keeps me away from Battletech. Things should be attractive for new and old people, a page that looks like 1995 where I have to look for lore among tons of text and links is not a good idea to attract a player.''}} -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 12:01, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
Is [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,32923.msg765455.html#msg765455 this] another candidate for your ongoing list of obscure FASA BattleTech products? I know I've never seen that map before, but now I want one... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:40, 6 September 2013 (PDT)
+
:I saw that too (thanks for bringing it up though). Outsider opinions are always interesting. But this one here wasn't terribly helpful. The argument boils down to complaining about a wiki being a wiki. Sarna is a specialist tool for people who have at least a basic understanding of the BT universe. It is not meant or designed to serve as an intro source. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:33, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
:Yeah, never saw that before either. Nor do I know anything about the French BT community or the Casus Belli magazine, so I'm at a total loss for information here. Luckily we got a file of the map that I can put into the [[Map Pack]] article; but beyond that, there's not much information yet to put on the wiki. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:11, 6 September 2013 (PDT)
 
  
== Award Precedence ==
+
== Star League commands order ==
  
Afternoon, Frabby. I hope you don't mind but I updated your awards board to reflect the [[BattleTechWiki:Awards#Precedence|precedence]] of each award. It's not a site policy, so please feel free to tell me to back off if it bugs ya! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 09:20, 21 September 2013 (PDT)
+
Hi Frabby,
 
 
==Vessel Categories==
 
Hi Frabby,<br>
 
Are you reorganizing the vessel categories? Only I've seen you're going around adding categories like "Individual Aegis-Class WarShips" and "Individual Overlord-class DropShips" where categories like "Individual Aegis-Class Vessels" and "Individual Overlord-class Vessels" already exist within the Individual WarShips/DropShips/JumpShips category tree and are in use. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:16, 29 September 2013 (PDT)
 
:Yep, I found I didn't like the generic word "vessel" when a more informative word like DropShip, WarShip or JumpShip could be used, and I decided to go ahead and implement the change while the number of articles is still manageable. You're welcome to help out. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:48, 29 September 2013 (PDT)
 
::OK, when I get some spare time I'll start working through categories. I wish you'd mentioned it before I wrote the first 750 or so, though {{Emoticon| :P }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:35, 30 September 2013 (PDT)
 
::I've finished up the outstanding DropShips, JumpShips and WarShips. You missed the Sovetskii Soyuz, Winchster and Yamato categories in the individual WarShips section when you were clearing up, btw. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:21, 1 October 2013 (PDT)
 
 
 
== Ship categories ==
 
 
 
These are incredible lists of articles you're putting together. I'm enjoying going thru the ship articles.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:11, 29 September 2013 (PDT)
 
  
== Checking Nyx ==
+
I've seen that the Star League commands order is different from the rest. Units assigned in sub-level commands do appear also in the root (something that does not happen in other Military Commands Categories. Am I right if I consider this Category incorrectly done?
Hi Frabby, since your very active and pretty good at seperating canon from non canon.  Can you look at the [[Nyx#WizKid.27s_MechWarrior_Dark_Age_Variants|Nyx]] article? I wrote it originally with info from TRO:3085, however someone discovered a PDF that was up loaded on the main website which called MWDA: Unique Mechs and Pilot Cards.  They added a mentioning of a WizKids variant called the NX-23. I asked writers about it, they told me if its not in the MUL, its not canon.  So i seperated the variant from rest of the article and put a '''<nowiki>{{ApocryphalContentStart}}</nowiki>''' on the MWDA Variant section.  I personally want remove NX-23 reference all together since it was judged to be non-canon. Alot those data cards made for the later expansions were didn't quite keep to canon.  Can you look at this and NX-23 reference should be removed from canon listing?  Thanks -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 16:53, 1 October 2013 (PDT)
 
:Hy Wrangler, i jump in, the source is cannon, it comes from CGL dowload section sources, and it is not stated that the products is apocryphal. It is not a statement when the variant is not listed in the MUL page, i see a lot of lacks on the Mul page they have no states for units descripted in [[Historical: Liberation]] vol. 1 and 2. But this is my point of view.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (PDT)
 
::This is a tricky one. The baseline is that all MWDA material from WizKids is fully canon, and the NX-23 should thus also be canon. And I don't mean to belittle the MUL one bit, but saying that "if it's not in the MUL then it's not canon" is a goal, not a fact. The MUL still has missing units and cannot negatively define canon in this way.
 
::Bottom line, it's an official MWDA product and so it's canon even if there's no record sheet and no MUL mentioning (yet). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:41, 2 October 2013 (PDT)
 
:::Hi Guys, sorry take while to respond.  If you look at my reference in moving the NX-23, the Ask the Writes forums response was part my citing.  They had out right said that their considering the MUL (not 100% done yet) more canon than the product in the download page. Shouldn't it be considered apocryphal if writers themselves say it isn't rock solid? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (PDT)
 
::::Well, Paul explicitly admitted that if something that fulfills all criteria for canon otherwise isn't in the MUL then it is either not canonical after all, or an error in the MUL (or simply not input yet). This "either non-canonical or an error" ruling means omission by the MUL doesn't automatically make canonical designs less canonical. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:53, 5 October 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Pluralisations==
+
I also think there are categories missing that should help reorganize this a bit better? The level of sub commands can be huge, and I do not even know which is the best way to order them.
Hi Frabby, I have a question I think you may have the answer for. I've been updating some WarShip entries, and found myself needing to use the plural of ''Sovetskii Soyuz''. At the moment, I'm using the English pluralization, which I think is ''Sovetskii Soyuzes''; however, ''Sovetskii Soyuz'' is a Russian name - it means "Soviet Union" - and I think in Russian, the plural of ''Sovetskii Soyuz'' would be ''Sovetskii Soyuzij'', although I'm checking with a Russian friend of mine to make sure. Given that ''Sovetskii Soyuz'' is a proper Russian name, should I be using the Russian pluralization? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:05, 10 October 2013 (PDT)
 
:No idea. That's definitely something you should "Ask the Writers" over on the BT Forum. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:09, 10 October 2013 (PDT)
 
  
==Canon or not==
+
I tried to make this a general query, but have no idea on how to do it.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 10:31, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
Hy Frabby, please take a look to this forum talk [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,34399.msg803078.html#new], i think MechWarrior 4 is Apocryphal, but why Herb say its canon?--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 23:05, 27 October 2013 (PDT)
+
:The SLDF is a tad bit bigger than other armies. It is an outlier, so I reckon it's not strictly neccessary to give it exactly the same category strutcure as other militaries. Use your own best judgement on how it should be sorted. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:24, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 06:24, 19 July 2019

Archive 1 (created 04 January 2012)
Archive 2 (created 01 January 2013)
Archive 3 (created 03 January 2014)
Archive 4 (created 04 January 2018)

Hunan

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)

Coordinates

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)

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)

Planet/System article names

Evening, Frabby. Volt has a favor to ask. I told him about how articles will be named after the most prominent system member (such as Sol redirects to Terra). He's asking if there might be some master list you have that he could peek at, so that he could change the names in the impending SUC Kit to match. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2017 (EDT)

If there's a master list, I'd like a copy of it too - I'm going by what I find in the text of the articles as I'm updating them when it comes to renaming the articles. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
That's great to hear, because Nic just informed me he's very willing to run a script to replace all current coordinates with the ones from the...ahem...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit. So, we'll need to make sure every entry in the...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit...lines up with an article name. I figure you and I can finish off the Phase 0s (get the coordinate templates added) and go from there.
But, yeah, if there is a master list, that would rock.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
Hi guys, sorry for being off the radar - I just returned from a four-day trip to Denmark. (And I'll be travelling abroad again for the entire upcoming week.)
Rev, nice to see you're back and bringing the band together. [Insert favorite quote here - among literally dozens, at this time it's a tie between "Fix the cigarette lighter" and "No Ma'am, we're musicians" for me.]
About the issue at hand, sorry, there is no master list. All I ever did was jump on the bandwagon of cool projects like Volt's. But I'll gladly help compiling a list of systems with multiple names, or names different from the name of the primary inhabited world or construct. Frabby (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
Would you please? That would be excellent: one effort to update the kit and then all of the articles will benefit via script. Thanks, mate.
I announced the release on gruese's HBS thread. Fo you have a recommendation as to which section of CGL's forums I should do the same?
Enjoy Denmark!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:03, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
Denmark was great (including a short rowing and sailing trip on a viking ship at Roskilde - Yarr!) - and now I have three days to do the last two weeks' work, plus the upcoming week where I'll be traveling to Austria. So don't expect too much contribution from me until after the 21st of August.
That said, where shall be keep the master list and where should I add the list of alias names for systems as I work on it? User talk:Gruese#Coordinates looks like a good place to begin. Frabby (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Sounds like a plan. I know Volt is looking forward to those. After he incorporates your changes, we'll ship them off to Nic, who will run a script updating the system articles, and then Gruese will be able to scrap those to update the map. Voila! Collaboration! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:05, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Welcome back, Frabby. If you haven't started already, just a reminder, several of us are definitely interested in your work on this. Ill keep an eye on User talk:Gruese#Coordinates. As a reminder, Volt will take your completed report and updated the SUC Kit. From there, we'll share this with Gruese and Nic. Nic will then run a script updating all coordinates to the latest and then ("there's more!") he's going to see if he can create new local map images based on that. Additionally, Gruese is looking into possibly updating his code to enable us to create more traditional images based on 30 & 60 lys, centered on the systems in question.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
Don't wait for me. I only find time for a few odd bits here and there at the moment, and the next week is going to be murder; don't expect me to have much time for Sarna until the week after at the earliest.
Gruese has created fantastically helpful scripts and the results can be seen here. Looks like the Clan Homeworlds are all shifted by a dozen or so light-years. I'd like Volt to look over the data; I presume one of the two projects used an outdated set of data and Volt should easily be able to tell which data set is more up-to-date. Frabby (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
The thing is, Volt needs your names, so that his list matches up with the right article names. He's going to modify his planet names from what you compile. Nic's script will require parity. However, we are also not time-dependent...when you can get it done (or make headway), Volt will progress. I will share Gruese's results with him right now. Thanks, Frabby.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:01, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Pserratv Articles of Solaris Champions

Question, do we need quanity of empty articles about Champions? I know i'm as active recent years i used to be, but won't it be better unless these characters had fiction behind them or some kind write up somewhere to be just on a large list of Solaris Champions instead? -- Wrangler (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2018 (EST)

I am for the articles, they may be stubs but as with many things on this wiki, smaller details often weave together to create a greater picture over time. Previously the Solaris games section of the wiki has been left alone. Thanks to Pserratv there has been a burst of activity in the area from various authors. In addition I believe this has been well timed with MWO releasing their Solaris expansion soon, instead of deleting the stubs crack open your Solaris box, re-read those BattleCorps stories set on Solaris or even break out your MW:DA minis sets and join in the action. On the front page of this very site right now we have an interview with the man in charge of getting BattleTech things done stating the writers use our site. That stub with a one liner about some former champion could be the catalyst for the next book set on Solaris! Just my thoughts obviously. But I believe Sarna should be EVERYTHING BattleTech, your thoughts might be different. Dmon (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2018 (EST)
The articles have been completed. I hope all the champions names are correct... the font of the champions has a letter type I dislike and I might have made mistakes on them. I'm only pending a small review on links to ensure they link back to the Solaris VII Champions list so they can be used to go back to that list. I know most of the articles are not giving much, indeed my original idea was to create the list and also the articles of the big champions (4 championships at least; which have at least some info on Solaris VII boxed set, plus maybe some of the ones that have some (if not much) info, but once I was in, I could not stop, and then decided to create an article for them all, regardless of information under the assumption that better a stub than nothing.--Pserratv (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (EST)
I tend to agree with what Dmon wrote. Stub articles aren't inherently problematic, and the Solaris Campions are certainly important in-universe even if only a handful of them ever got mentioned in another source. This wiki does track individual starships even when they were only mentioned once in a single source; I don't see why characters should be treated differently. Frabby (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2018 (EST)
For me the most enduring thing about working on the wiki is the weaving of the threads into something larger. Due to Pserratvs articles I recently discovered that the chief instructor of the Banshee Stables in 3054 was the last commanding officer of one of the planetary militias destroyed in the early stages of the Clan Invasion (Another bunch of notouriously spartan stubs). I would never think to go looking for unit commander names in a Solaris book and vice versa looking for Solaris characters in a book about the Clan Invasion. So to me that little bit of story weaving is exactly what this wiki is for and that is the value it holds above just copying out the information presented in the books. Dmon (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2018 (EST)
I was told by the previous editors that unless it has content, it should only be listed. To save space was what they were looking at. Empty articles do look bad. I can understand Regiments or large military formations having stub articles since they will eventually do something. Then you have significant ships, like Warships, which are almost unique units in BattleTech universe, since what they do sometimes effect things even in later days. However, you have warriors, champions who may not have anything written up on them or maybe ever. I am minority in this view, but List of Solaris Champions in chronological order in same vein as List of minor Mercenary units, would be better way show them until they're given fluff to warrant a article. If their on a list, they happen to get fluff a link can be made to the individual article. It would make bit easier to search through sarna at glance. -- Wrangler (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

1992 Update Flyer

Any reason why there is no article on this product?? It is not even in the list... is it non cannon maybe?--Pserratv (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Oh, it absolutely meets the criteria for canon. Problem is, I haven't been able to get my hands on one so far, and apparently nobody else has. So no article could be writte. If you happen to have one, feel free to create the article, using the 1993 Update Flyer article as a template. As for why it's not in the product list, basically same reason - I know it supposedly existed, but without actually seeing one I wasn't going to feed the rumor mill by putting a ghost item into the lists. Frabby (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Ok, I lost my original copy long time ago, but I think I still got it scanned somewhere. I understand that is valid.--Pserratv (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Yes indeed. And if you find that scan, I would be thankful if you could pass on a copy... :) Frabby (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Of course. Back at home I'll do some checking--Pserratv (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (EST)
I would also appreciate a copy if it is not too much to ask. Dmon (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2018 (EST)
No issue, just an e-mail address :)

I'm searching for the 1991 flyer so if you get it... I'm interested :) --Pserratv (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Vandal Cop...again

Frabby, I know you don't display the awards you get, but given the level of effort you've been putting in on herding the spambots, I wanted you to have this. Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon You probably have more than a few, but wanted you to know that I appreciate the work you're doing.--Mbear(talk) 07:54, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Well, thanks for a pat on the back. Just tryin' to keep this place clean. Having the tools for blocking and zapping spammers is one of the perks of being an Admin. Frabby (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2018 (EST)

Changes not correctly tracked

I've seen that some times the changes I do are seen only in contributions, but not in watchlist nor in Recent Changes. Usually is when I do the changes logged but from hotel wifis. Any idea what can it be??--Pserratv (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

Just testing with an unknown user and outside the hotel wi-fi--155.56.68.214 05:42, 13 March 2018 (EDT)
Any idea why this might be happening??--Pserratv (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
Nope. Categories aren't updating since early February and I suppose both problems are rooted in the same software update. Nic Jansma is aware of the problem. Since he's running this site, only he can fix the software. Frabby (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
Ok, I'll re-change all I've been changing these days so it is visible--Pserratv (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
Nic believes the categories will update normally (including the backlog) once the error is fixed, so there is no need to undo your edits. (At least not until Nic says there is. ;) ) Frabby (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Planet Articles Template

Hey Frabby, I would like a little assistance, across the wiki we have several versions of the System/planet article template but I am not sure what is the most up-to-date version. I would assume the Project Planets version but even that is missing the Military deployment section. Dmon (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

I'm actually somewhat out of the loop concerning this particular project. User:BrokenMnemonic should be able to help you better than I. Frabby (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Good catch on Liao.

Cheers for catching my mistake there, Saw an unknown IP change the faction loyalty, checked the change history and read it backwards.. They where changing it to the Confederation, for some reason I read it as being changed to Fed Suns and assumed it was somebody trolling! --Dmon (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

One User:BradGB who has also registered here on Sarna pointed this out over at the Paradox forum (for the HBS BT game) in a thread about User:Gruese's map project. I even checked the reference given in the article, and yup it's pretty much a CC system on the map on p. 40. Probably an old error that carried over from the inception of this wiki - Nic used an outdated set of data from the IS Cartography Project to set up Sarna, and we're fixing stuff to this day. Incidentally, I started fixing the position of Hunan and its nearby systems only recently... a mere ten years after it was first pointed out to me on my talk page, the very first item on the list for a decade now. Frabby (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I actually checked the reference as well, I just misread what had been changed somehow! As long as it gets sorted it is all that matters.--Dmon (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Lost the quick link to actions

It has dissapeared. The quick link for bold, links, italics... no idea why!!Pserratv (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (EST)

This happens from time-to-time. I can't tell if it's an error from the mediawiki software, or some data loss error, but it doesn't seem to hit everyone at the same time. However, it will return. (It happened to me today, on one of my earlier edits, but the buttons have returned now.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:17, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Sorry for not getting back to you on this. I never had that issue, so I figured it was a temporary glitch when NicJ updated the software. Is it still persisting for you? Frabby (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
It has been working again for the past 3 days... but from Revanche's comments, who knows... :) --Pserratv (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

InfoBoxMercUnit Template

Though there are not many, some mercenary units do not have mechs... I feel we should add 'Mech as an option here in order to make this more visible. It will a huge effort amending the mercenary units afterwards, but I feel it would we worth of it. Unfortunately I have no idea on hoy to change infoBoxMercUnit.

As a counter-proposal, why not introduce a sub-category Category:Non-'Mech Mercenaries instead and sort the few special cases into that? Frabby (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
Interesting option... I think it will be a winner. Let me take some time to review this option and I think I'll buy it :)--Pserratv (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

Magazines

Just saw you tinkering with the magazine articles and had a bit of a brainwave. Do you think it might be worth migrating the Magazine and Comic categories out of the books category placing them a bit more prominent than they currently are?--Dmon (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

I agree that they probably don't belong under "books" but I'm unsure what to do with them otherwise, so open to suggestions. Frabby (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
I have decided that a bit more of a top down view of the BTU product range needs to be done. Category:BattleTech Universe Products is my new starting point.--Dmon (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

Recent Changes missing edits again

On a different note, this edit of yours doesn't show in Recent Edits for me and I'd have overlooked it if not for the notification box. Looks like something is still (or again) broken. Frabby (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

This happens to me to depending on the LAN I'm in. In hotels for example any change I do does not appear in global tracker (though yes in Personal one which is also weird; I would expect and all or noting).--Pserratv (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
I don't think it's the network environment. I get the same (incomplete) result on my smartphone and at my desk computer. And now that you've commented Pserratv it gives "2 Edits" in the Recent Changes where there should be 3 (4 after this edit). Guess I'll have to go and inform NicJ. Frabby (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
I am on my Android Tablet and it appears that all work stopped on the Wiki some time this morning per the Recent Edits page--Dmon (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
Poor Dmon - my system ignores you completely. To the point where your intermediate contributions to this talk page don't show up on a "compare recent edits" screen. That's a bit worrisome on the database end. :( Frabby (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

Codes and Procedures of the Warrior Caste

Frabby, have you ever seen/heard of this? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:13, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

That's the manual for MechWarrior 2. Cyc (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
Thank you! That was bothering me that it was unfamiliar as a product.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
Always glad to help out. :)(Thx Cyc!) Frabby (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

Pick up this ball, please?

Frabby, as I indicated to Will here, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to give him the decision he seeks. Would you take the helm on this for me? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:33, 2 July 2018 (EDT)

Done. :) Frabby (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
Thanks!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:33, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

New stuff in the news section!

Hey Frabby, any chance we could get a bullet in on the news section of the home page about the new fiction and book released last week? Just to give the first releases for our beloved universe that fractional little push ;-) --Dmon (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (EDT)

Congratulations!

That's great to hear about the addition to your family. Keep developing your private lance; I'm sure your merc unit will be formidable.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)

Congratulations! Make sure you set up the paperwork for your 'Mech ownership correctly, so that it passes on from you without being stolen by the government... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
Thanks guys! I'm happy to report that our baby girl is pure joy, just like her older brother. Nights aren't what they used to be be, but hey that's to be expected and will normalize in due time. My internet connection and phone lines also got fixed by now (took two days, which felt like a week). I'll still leave the message on my userpage for the time being but things are shaping up here. :) Frabby (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
If you're ever stuck for present ideas for daughters, I've got four nieces aged three or younger, and a fifth arriving this month, so I have some gifting experience... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

Welcome back sir, we even managed to not break much whilst we where without adult supervision! Also congratulation on the baby because I forgot to congratulate you earlier. --Dmon (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Magazine

Hi Frabby, I'm not sure where your magazine archive of BT-related is up to these days, but Noble Knight games have a copy of Ancible Magazine #1 on sale for $3.40 - less than half price. It allegedly includes house rules for Classic BattleTech. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

I'm actually somewhat interested... but at a quick glance I've been unable to determine the shipping costs to Germany. Frabby (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Field Manual Updates Artwork WarShips

Hi Frabby,

I noticed while wandering through random pages that at some point in the past, you added in a stack of WarShips such as the Linsenmayer from a conversation on the CGL forum about WarShips that had appeared in artwork. I did a little digging; while the electronic PDF edition of Field Manual: Updates has a truncated version of the picture, the original FanPro edition of Field Manual Updates, with the serial number 10976, has what looks like a full version of the artwork in. I'm sitting here with my hard copy and a magnifying glass, and I can see all of the detail cited in your notes on the individual ship articles. I thought you might like to know, because it gives us a concrete canon version of the detail. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2018 (EDT)

I wrote the articles based off the FanPro book - wasn't even aware that the PDF has the picture truncated. Just looked it up and ayup, the image is significantly smaller (omitting the entire left row on the screen in the background). Funny enough, it's the PDF scan of the FanPro edition of the book. Not sure what happened there. In any case, were there any specific omissions you found that I hadn't covered in the articles? (Sidenote: re-reading the articles I noticed I wrote the picutre was without "capture" when I meant "caption". D'oh.) Frabby (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2018 (EDT)
Sorry, I forgot to reply to this at the time - work stuff eating my brain. I didn't spot anything you'd missed, although it seems a shame that the artist no longer appears on the CGL forums, so we can't ask for a full version of the image. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

Product Images

Hi Frabby,

As I've not been able to concentrate much lately because of work, I've been fiddling through some admin stuff. I'm currently trying to hack down the number of things showing up as either articles without categories or files without categories, and there are a lot of pictures of BattleTech products without categories. I think it would be useful to group them together, but I thought I should check with you first, as you tend to have clear opinions about such things. A lot of the products don't have a listed artist, and I think it'd be useful to have a category for such things beyond just the artist category. I thought what might work is a master category, called something like "BattleTech Product Images", with subcategories for e-books/non-physical images, sourcebooks with physical versions, and physical items that aren't sourcebooks (like lance packs, box sets, etc). What do you think? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

(Traveling and very limited internet access so just a quick reply) Since you asked for my opinion (which is really only that, my opinion - and let's be honest, you're the heavyweight lifter on Sarna these days), here goes: I approve of the idea and your suggestion. I don't have a better solution or suggestion at this time, and what you wrote seem solid. ;) Frabby (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2018 (EDT)

Reaching out

Hey Frabby... I am going to formally ask you to put your Admin Hat on. The BattleMech articles due to the nature of what BT is, are our premier series of articles so I believe they need much tighter quality control than other parts of the wiki. User talk:Fredericmora, User talk:92.59.239.85, User:80.30.69.51 and at least one other I can't currently find are all the same person as far as I can tell based on the nature and common format of their edits. (almost all notable pilot updates and no references).

The general quality of the content is good but the lack of references is an issue. I have reached out to this user a couple of times about their updates to no response.

I have a further concern, way back in 2010 Notable Pilots was a hot issue, with some of the notable pilots not being very notable this user has added not being very notable or more confusingly, whilst a notable pilot, they are strongly associated with a different 'Mech. Although I feel "minor characters" is bad for the wiki, I still believe that some characters deserve to be considered "Notable". I do not want to reignite this issue nor potentially start an edit war, however I feel we need to find a way to reach out and get this person on side. Maybe encourage them to create character articles or reference their work at a very minimum.--Dmon (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2018 (EST)

Article bloat is becoming a problem in a number of fields on Sarna, 'Mech articles being one of them. From my perspective the problem is that there is no formal framework for the articles, so any user can add anything he/she feels is relevant. The "Notable Pilots" section in the 'Mech articles is a sub-problem of that overarching problem. But on the other hand I am decidedly unsure if it is even desirable to limit articles in such a way.
Perhaps we need to install either a full-blown obligatory article template with guidelines for using it, or at least formulate a proper policy for "Notable Pilot" sections. Then we could expect users to follow that formal policy.
Regarding the issue at hand, I'll try to explain the problem to the user(s) in question. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Frabby (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2018 (EST)
Hey Frabby did you have any luck reaching out to 92.59.239.85? They have been adding some very large additions to articles and still not a single reference.--Dmon (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2018 (EST)
Hey Frabby, I'm unsure who this user is, but so far all they've done is deleted stuff from the Notable Pilot sections. User:162.235.196.29 there's been no reasons mentioned as to why they were removed either. I'm not sure whether to revert their 3 edits or not. It could be 92.59.239.85 if he has a rotating IP. (In fact, I'm almost positive. Looks like he removed one of his old edits, but then subsequently removed another from another 'Mech and a preexisting pilot.) So far he's erased 3 pilots, 2 from the Devastator and one from the Cerberus. Admiral Obvious (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2019 (EST)
I've seen it, and Dmon even raised the issues on the Administrators page. Yes, I've been remiss of my admin duties and haven't properly adressed the issue yet, for which I apologize. I'm just so busy that I find it hard to meet my goal of making at least one Sarna edit per day right now. You're right in that the additions are too wordy, lack references, occasionally stray too far from factual wiki style and generally probably need to be reverted for the most part. On the other hand, this user certainly does seem to be a dedicated person and I'd prefer to offer some guidance over reverting his edits, so as to not scare him/her off. Of course, in order to help the editor needs to accept help in the first place... Frabby (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Sorry if I jumped the shark a bit when I raised it on the Admin page in the hopes one of the other admins would possibly pick it up. I guessed you where busy with RL. I agree that the person seems dedicated, and have made a point of saying the content for the most part does seem correct (I remember having read parts) it just needs a lot of polish. I believe this person can be an asset to the wiki with some guidence, but currently is not hence me pulling the disruptive editing card in the hopes that the issue is taken more seriously.--Dmon (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2019 (EST)
A potential route to solving the issue is speaking to Pserratv, All the IPs are based in Spain so it might be somebody active in that community.--Dmon (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Do we have more than just an IP? I can ask to the spanish group I know and from there maybe we can get more. Not sure thoubh, but I can give a try?--Pserratv (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Ah, good, you already saw this discussion. :) Yeah, we'd be grateful if you could do that. No harm in trying. Frabby (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Question raised. Let's see if I can reach him.--Pserratv (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Notable Pilots

Since four of the most active users as of right now are partaking in the discussion above: Should be create a Policy for notable pilots? It's a recurring issue here on Sarna BTW thanks to the prominent and popular section in the TROs. And since it's a very BattleTech-y thing I'd like to keep a Notable Pilots section on general principle, but I realize we need to establish some rules as to what counts as notable and draw a line somewhere. We may also need to draw up rules on the length of individual entries in a 'Mech article (I'm thinking of the rules we have for the year pages here - one-liners only, with typically only a single link to the article about the pilot). Thoughts? Frabby (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2019 (EST)

I am very much in favour of keeping the notable pilots section as it brings some flavour to a series of articles that tend to be quite stat focused. Maybe a two line limit and a single link to a character article. Also maybe a limit on how many can be included. This serves the purpose of attempting to prevent bloat but also forcing out the not so notable pilots. (This is an odd one for me as I am of the line of though that one day I would like every BT character ever mentioned to be on the wiki but notability still is a thing).--Dmon (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Thanks for deleting all the typos I generate

Just thanks!!--Pserratv (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (EST)

Heh. Thanks for the nice words. Just to be clear, all I'm doing is come cleanup here and there. There is no master plan involving you and your typos. :) Keep up adding good info to Sarna. (Oftentimes, a new edit makes me revisit an older article and that in turn often makes me give said article a polishing workover.) Frabby (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2018 (EST)

Reasons for additional sub categories

Hello Frappy, I'm a little surprised by the deletion of the Capellan Hussars category. My reason for the addition of the category to the different unit entries was to get a better understanding which unit belongs to the different brigades. At the moment most brigade articles contains to much information in my opinion and with the sub-categories it would be easier to create articles for the different time frames. For example: Take the Syrtis Fusilier at the start of the First Succession War and the shape after nearly 300 hundred years of constant fighting. What is your opinion about it? neuling

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the reasoning. The Capellan Hussars article lists (and links to) all regiments belonging to this brigade, just like a category would. Only, it even offers sorting by timeframe, so it this respect it is superior to a category. Conversely, every individual regiment has (or at least should have) a notion stating that it is part of the Capellan Hussars, providing a link back. There is also a field "Parent Unit" in the InfoBoxMilitaryUnit for exactly this purpose. As such, I don't understand what information the category provides that isn't already there in the articles? It's not like there are so many regiments in this category that they bloat the article. Frabby (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2019 (EST)
My intention was to provide a way for better understanding the different composition of the brigade during the different time frames. I accept that my idea is not the best solution. I will think about that topic and perhaps we can find a solution that is widely accepted. neuling


Request about layout for military articles

Hello Frabby, I compare the different articles for the major military organisation like DCMS and AFFS. They don't follow a standard layout concept. I will not change the existing structure. My intention is how we can make it better without a huge rework of the existing material. I will create an example for the brigades at my user page. Feel free to take a look and your opinion is welcome. With best regards neuling

I am working on an overhaul of our Policy:Notability, and as currently intended this will include a paragraph or two about military units/formations. It basically goes like this: The BT universe notably uses the Regiment as the basic formation (whereas in the real world, Battalion is the typical unit size), that's why Sarna has articles about Regiments and only covers smaller formations (Battalions, Companies) if they have a specific unit identity. Larger formations (Brigades and larger) are rare and usually administrative formations. They get short articles, with links to their individual sub-regiments. Frabby (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (EST)

Image policy inquiry

Moved the discussion to here. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:32, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Thanks

Just want to say thanks for making the Thelos Auburn worth something, Currently doing lots of overtime at work and my contributions to the wiki are way down on what they should be. I appreciate you picking up where I am dropping the ball.--Dmon (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2019 (EST)

I could say the same the literally same things to you, so thanks - and keep up the good work! Frabby (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2019 (EST)

Fredericmora‎

Hi Frabby, thanks for the citation for my DropShuttle Article. We may have issue with new editor. Fredericmora‎, he doesn't seem known how to do ref to stuff he posting, he doing other things Dom has mentioned to him. I'm not sure if he knows how to respond on the the wiki. -- Wrangler (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (EDT)

Maiden names and birth names

Hey frabby, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to reverse the change you made to the Candent Sortek/Septarian article because I use the character maiden/birth names as article names in order to make family trees easier to handle.--Dmon (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Now you've got me confused. There's a redirect in place, so either name can be linked just fine. Can you elaborate on the problem? Frabby (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
There was a redirect in place anyway so I am equally confused as to why you changed it in the first place. Simple answer is I just find it easier to work on the family trees if wives have their own name rather than their married name. Most of the time a wife with the same surname becomes a dead end unless we are explicitly told who she is, I lucked out on discovering Candent this morning.--Dmon (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
I moved it because I thought we covered subjects with different successice names (WarShips, merc units, systems, and also people as showcased by the Anastasius Focht article) under their last/latest name and use redirects for older names. But it's not a policy or a hard rule, and I don't feel strongly about the subject. Frabby (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

WarShip bombardment in BattleTech (2018)

Here is a video from the mission. The mission summary refers to a WarShip, and the bombardment has the appearance of a vertical laser beam at least a hundred times more powerful than a BattleMech's PPC. It seems to have been added with the Flashpoint DLC. Omeganian (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for posting the video. I can now see where you're coming from.
But I still contend that there are no active WarShips in the 3025 era. WarShips are a big deal. And in CapCon hands a WarShip would have made all the difference in the world in the 4th Succession War. The matter seems to be treated pretty casually in the video clip, when in-universe it would have been an absolutely groundbreaking thing. To me, this is another case of sloppy factchecking on behalf of HBS, or maybe a deliberate taking of liberties with the main BT canon as they're free to make up stuff as they please for their game. The video game license is distinct from the boardgame/sourcebook/novel license, though I regard the latter as the authoritative (canon) universe wherever computer games deviate.
In the good old tradition of the "FASA Two-Step" approach, a possibe way to reconcile this video game event with canon could be to assume "WarShip" doesn't refer to the usual definition of a multimillion ton (well, at least 100,000 ton) combat JumpShip with a compact KF drive, but instead simply means "combat spaceship". You could then reinterpret the purported orbital bombardment as a ground attack by a DropShip such as the Avenger, a class incidentally known for being used in such attacks. Frabby (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
By the way, this video says Artillery Bombardment, but I've played the game and sometimes it says a more global bombardemnt, by I agree with Frabby that this must be a Dropship thing and not a fully functional warship, as only Comstar has them in this era (and very well hidden.--Pserratv (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
The problem is that it destroys a 5000 HP structure in a single attack, in a game where a PPC gives 50. Not many vessels can perform such an attack. Omeganian (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
Since HBS heavily fudged the armor and weapon damage stats anyways (not to mention the construction and modification rules), this comparison isn't worth much though. I do agree with you that HBS apparently tried to evoke the concept of WarShips and orbital bombardment for this mission; but at the same time, in the game's timeframe these concepts are so outrageously anachronistic that I consider it an error, and would try to explain it away with a less canon-breaking explanation. Frabby (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Search for recent changes is Mobile platforms

Any idea on how to do that Frabby? PSERRATV (I don't know either how to add the tag on user.

Not sure if it is any help but I tend to find the mobile interface virtually unusable for editing so if you scroll down to the bottom of any page there is a tab that says "Use Desktop site" or something to that effect. (just checked, it is just the work "Desktop" highlighted in blue like a wikilink)--Dmon (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
And I have just checked on how to do it on the mobile version, again right at the bottom of the page you want to look at, just above the GNU.FDL stuff is a grey strip that says "Last edited x days ago by x" click on it and it brings up the edit history.--Dmon (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
I agree it is useless to edit. But what I need is the list or Recent Changes, like in PC... I have Contributions and Watchlist... but not Recent Changes. PSERRATV 25 - 15:38
My second comment tells you how I found it on my Android mobile.--Dmon (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

I guess Dmon has already answered your question. Personally, I never use the mobile interface because I hate it; it's useless for editing. When you go to the bottom of any page there's a "Desktop version" button. One possibly useful tip that I can add is that I have bookmarked the "Recent Changes" page and am using it as my main Sarna page whenever I call up the site. That works, even when the system for some arcane reason decides to switch to mobile version between sessions (happened several times). Frabby (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Citations for sourcebook fiction

Morning Frabby, I have something I am not sure how we handle, as the title says Citations for sourcebook fiction, Do we have an official stance on how we handle them? I want to create some articles that treat them as short stories rather than just part of a sourcebook as they are an oft forgotten source of lore, the catch however is I want to treat such stories as fully fledged short stories in terms of Citations and Bibliography as well but feel this might confuse people. --Dmon (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

There is no "official stance" but plenty of precendent. If the story was ever made into a product of its own (i.e. published standalone via BattleCorps or as an EPUB) then the article should use the Template:InfoBoxProduct. If it's a story within a larger product, e.g. individual stories from an anthology or sourcebook fiction, then use the Template:InfoBoxStory. Case in point: Think like a Liao, from the Shrapnel anthology.
As for citations, this is the format I've used in the past: Threat the short story as its own product, and include it in the bibliography section under its name, appending "in: (source)"; also, put the source product into the Bibliography section. Frabby (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
Thank you, I knew you would know the answer :-) --Dmon (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

Battletech CCG

Hi Dmon. Want you have by any chance the Battletech CCG cards? I'm just in my last phase of the "project" which includes uploading the missing images, and I'm missing a lot.--Pserratv (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2019 (EDT)

Howdah Edits

Hi Frabby, why did you remove the notes section from the article? The information about the records sheets only being only found in once source book was valid. Also, i'm unclear why a category was created for ships named for the Howdah, while currently there are NO canon named ships right now. -- Wrangler (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

While the information about the record sheets being in only one book is accurate as far as I can tell, I feel it's simply not notable. After all, one official record sheet is plenty enough, isn't it? I could understand if the note said there was no official record sheet for the unit... but there is one. So what's noteworthy about that?
The category is presumably superflous, and I did consider deleting it. But it's currently standard procedure to create such a category for every spacecraft class, even in cases where there's only one or even none entry in the category. It's kind of expected from the article structure that such a categoy be in place. And it's always possible that the name of a Howdah-class vessel gets published somewhere, somehow.
I don't have strong feelings about either aspect though. Feel free to revert or change as you see fit. ;) Frabby (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

Despiser

Hey Frabby, I was still editing that article including an extensive explanation of why I changed the name of the Despiser article, but got an edit conflict and you had removed my work. I believe the name is an error but if you want to remove my work without speaking to me first, thank you for having some trust.--Dmon (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Sorry for the editing conflict, wasn't aware of this. I just saw that you had been the latest editor, and your work normally doesn't require any corrections. I hadn't checked the recent changes and didn't realize you had just moved the article and were working on it. When I saw the Despiser article links to a WarShip not a DropShip, I looked the name up in my BC edition of the novel and found it to be a Fury and always to be spelled as two italicized words, with only one instance of it being names simply "Despiser" - the chapter 19 epigraph. So I figured there had been an oversight on the part of the initial autor. So, again, apologies - no disrespect intended. But now I am curious to see your reasoning why the two-word name might be in error? Frabby (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
I have cooled off now, sorry for having a go, I was out of order. Having a very rough day in work so doing some wiki edits on my break was meant to be something chill and you just got the back end. I based the name off the initial epigraph giving the ships formal designation coupled with naval naming traditions pretty much never including "The" as a singular article within a name. I assumed the "The" being italicised was likely a mistake in editing.--Dmon (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
Normally I would agree with the naval naming traditions approach, but in six out of the seven cases where its name is spelled out it is called "The Despiser", fully italicized and with a capital "T". The epigraph is clearly the odd one out here, and I thus surmised it's the epigraph that is in error. Btw, I pulled out my ROC print edition to double-check, and the difference is still there between the epigraph and the rest of the chapter so it wasn't altered (I previously used the "prefinal" text provided via BattleCorps). Frabby (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Sarna Not New User Friendly?

Hi, Frabber. I don't know if you saw this post in thread titled "Very disappointed with new Kickstart", i wasn't sure where to post this. So i'm kicking it to you for direction. In course of the user's concerns, they felt Sarna.net was NOT user friendly. Do you think there could be a special page for new users or ask for someone schooled in doing it. I work on wikis, (noticed it's sort of fading thing) i've seen that newer users aren't using wiki as much due design issues. Here the link to what person was saying.

As for sarna.net, as a new player that page is literally anti-user. The design of that page instantly removes the desire to find out about the lore that everyone says is so good, so it keeps me away from Battletech. Things should be attractive for new and old people, a page that looks like 1995 where I have to look for lore among tons of text and links is not a good idea to attract a player.

-- Wrangler (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

I saw that too (thanks for bringing it up though). Outsider opinions are always interesting. But this one here wasn't terribly helpful. The argument boils down to complaining about a wiki being a wiki. Sarna is a specialist tool for people who have at least a basic understanding of the BT universe. It is not meant or designed to serve as an intro source. Frabby (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

Star League commands order

Hi Frabby,

I've seen that the Star League commands order is different from the rest. Units assigned in sub-level commands do appear also in the root (something that does not happen in other Military Commands Categories. Am I right if I consider this Category incorrectly done?

I also think there are categories missing that should help reorganize this a bit better? The level of sub commands can be huge, and I do not even know which is the best way to order them.

I tried to make this a general query, but have no idea on how to do it.--Pserratv (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

The SLDF is a tad bit bigger than other armies. It is an outlier, so I reckon it's not strictly neccessary to give it exactly the same category strutcure as other militaries. Use your own best judgement on how it should be sorted. Frabby (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2019 (EDT)