Difference between revisions of "User talk:Frabby"

m (Fact checker)
(Star League commands order)
(239 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
:''[[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/Archive3|Archive 3]]'' (created 03 January 2014)
 +
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive4|Archive 4]]'' (created 04 January 2018)
  
 
== Hunan ==
 
== Hunan ==
Line 28: Line 29:
  
 
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)
 
== The Ties That Bind ==
 
 
Hi, The short answer is yes {{Emoticon| :) }} The long answer is [[User_talk:Dark_Jaguar#The_Ties_That_Bind|here]]. --[[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 14:11, 5 January 2014 (PST)
 
:: Hi, I have the scan you wanted, how should I send it to you? --[[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (PST)
 
:::I've sent you an email. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (PST)
 
::::Sent, let me know that if comes through OK --[[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (PST)
 
:::::Got it, much appreciated. I take it the story does conclude with her walking through the door; it does seem a bit abrupt.
 
:::::Now, about that MFUK stuff... ;) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:33, 20 January 2014 (PST)
 
::::::Yes that is the end of the story when she walks out. The next page is an advert and the one after is the Colossus preview. --[[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (PST)
 
 
== Fanon Still Here ==
 
I ran across the [[ER Intermediate Laser]] and was very confused for a moment, but then discovered it was fanon. I want to add "Not Canon" tags to all those weapons and other fanon things still here, but they are under User pages, and one had a {NoEdit} tag, which makes me wonder: can I add tags to all those, or is that trespassing on other people's personal stuff by editing it? Or should I move that stuff over to the fanon wiki and put deletion tags on it here? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (PST)
 
:I'd personally rather not have these pages, but they are sub-pages under the user pages and as such not part of the wiki mainspace. When we purged fanon we agreed to leave such pages alone as long as they're clearly marked non-canon, because user pages are essentially considered taboo for other editors. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 23:47, 13 January 2014 (PST)
 
::So just to clarify, I ''should'' put the "not canon" tags on there then? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:47, 14 January 2014 (PST)
 
:::Yes, definitely. If it's not canon, it absolutely needs to be tagged as such. That's an exception I've always made for the user page taboo. Though in the example of the ER Intermediate Laser you linked above, I note the tag is already in place. Are there non-canonical articles on user-subpages that are not tagged? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:42, 14 January 2014 (PST)
 
::::Well, if you looked at the history, I had to add the tag to it; and yes, there is a good number of them that need tags that I will get to later tonight. Oh, additionally, should those fanon weapon pages get Project Technology tags on their talk pages? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:01, 14 January 2014 (PST)
 
:::::Thanks for doing this Bob. And no, fanon articles should ''not'' be included in any wiki projects. Ignore them to death. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (PST)
 
::::::The user pages were a sort of compromise for editors like myself who were drawn here initially as a place for fanon but ended up contributing to the canonical portions of the wiki nonetheless. Basically it was a sort of "thanks for the help" gesture. Indeed, for the most part I was the only one speaking up for the inclusion of some fanonishal items based on quality. As the project lead on the Project Technology, I wholeheartedly concur however that these pages should NOT be included in any canonical project. I've gone and added the non-canon tags to my own little vanity user pages seen here: [[User:LRichardson/Essays]]. Thanks for tolerating them. ; ) -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 13:05, 19 February 2015 (PST)
 
 
==Corvette Weights==
 
Hi Frabby,<br>
 
I tweaked your comment about the common upper mass limit for corvettes from 300k tons to 450k tons when I was adding the ''Mako'' and ''Pinto'' to the list. All of the designs other than the ''Vincent'' are below 300k tons, that's very true - but from the few figures that are available, the ''Vincent'' seems to have been the most numerous corvette by far (500+ hulls, as compared to 100+ hulls for the ''Mako'') and it weighs in at 412k tons. I agree that most designs fall below that weight, but it looks as if there were probably as many ''Vincents'' as there were other corvettes combined, unless the RWR was dropping ''Pintos'' like kittens, and the term "most corvettes" makes me think of hulls when I read it, rather than designs. I hope that makes sense - it may be that the article needs to be reworded to be a bit clearer? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:17, 5 February 2014 (PST)
 
:If I understand you correctly you're saying that the ''Vincent''s are so numerous that they kinda dominate the Corvette class? I'd be okay with that and really don't have much of an issue with the upper mass limit for corvettes. I just felt the ''Vincent'', being more than 1.7 times the size of the next smaller corvette, was the odd man out in the corvette family. It's really a light destroyer, though for some queer reason someone insisted on calling it a corvette. Perhaps to explain your point it should be mentioned that the ''Vincent'' was built in large numbers? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:36, 5 February 2014 (PST)
 
::That's basically my point, yes - but that was based on the article using "corvettes" rather than "corvette designs" or something to differentiate between the ships as a group and the designs as a group. Of the various designs, I don't think there are any numbers anywhere for the number of ''Vigilants'', ''Nightwings'', ''Trackers'', ''Bonaventures'' and ''Pintos''. We do know that there were a bit over a dozen ''Fredasas'', a dozen ''Zechetinu'', two dozen ''Foxes'' and a handful of ''Inazumas''. In contrast, the ''Mako'' had over a hundred hulls built in 90 years, while the number of ''Vincents'' - produced over almost 350 years, longer than any of the other designs - was revised down from over a thousand to around 500 hulls. If Catalyst declared that half of all the corvettes ever made were ''Vincents'', I wouldn't be surprised - and that would mean the number of ''Vigilants'', ''Nightwings'', ''Trackers'', ''Bonaventures'' and ''Pintos'' produced would need to be in the order of 70 hulls each to balance out. Corvettes really are a designation divided into two halves - ''Vincents'' and everything else. I think I might hunt around for referneces for the article, though - I'm not convinced of where the weight limits came from, and there are some serious oddities in there. The ''Cruiser'' is officially a heavy cruiser, despite the fact that it's only 90k tons heavier than the ''Vincent''. The ''Vincent'' was the first corvette to be introduced in canon via TRO:2750, and was 200k tons lighter than the next ship up, the ''Essex'', with the ''Lola III'' another 60k tons heavier still. I think the ''Vincent'' is definitely at the top end of the corvette range in terms of weight, but it is effectively the definitive corvette, and the other ships introduced between 250k tons and 450k tons are all specialist carriers and transports. I think there's been a lot of class creep - cruisers occupy a huge range of weights, and overlap with some frigates and destroyers. But I'm rambling now... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (PST)
 
 
==FM:3145==
 
I noticed that Aldous has been re-adding info removed because it is under Moratorium, and I wondered if it mattered enough for me to remove all the info (specifically ones from FM:3145) for the two days until it is cleared. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 10:20, 16 February 2014 (PST)
 
:[[Policy:Moratorium]] is a self-imposed policy, not something we're obliged to follow. Therefore I'd say leave it as it is. You might want to notify Aldous of the fact that his edits have been in violation of this policy though. I'm in a bit of a rush myself and cannot look into matters right now. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:11, 16 February 2014 (PST)
 
::Okay, thanks for clearing that up; I'll be sure to notify him then. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:18, 16 February 2014 (PST)
 
 
==BattleSpace (Answer)==
 
Hi Frabby, here your [[User_talk:Wrangler#BattleSpace_rulebook.28s.29|answer]]. Short version is Yes, there was two books. I think the English version maybe been lengthier than your (i believe) German version. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:30, 6 July 2014 (PDT)
 
::Sorry for the late [[User_talk:Wrangler#BattleSpace_rulebook.28s.29|response]]. Short version, Broken's version maybe match for one i have, two documents in one electronic package. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
 
:::Just spotted this - I compared my electronic and physical copies, and the electronic copy is faithful scan of the book in the box set. The confusion arises because the book in the box set is internally subdivided into two books, complete with their own indices, with no explanatory note - meaning if you're working from an electronic copy in isolation, it's entirely reasonable to think that there are two books stuck together in the one file. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:11, 18 August 2014 (PDT)
 
 
==Reseen==
 
The Reseen may have new artwork, but they still represent the same 'mech. There is no separate page for any of the Reseen 'mechs on here. As a compromise I simply deleted the line, to match the other Reseen 'mech pages. --[[User:Trifler|Trifler]] ([[User talk:Trifler|talk]]) 16:01, 17 August 2014 (PDT)
 
:Well, yes and no. The reseen represent how one particular new variant of the 'Mech looks, and subseqently published variants conveniently used the reseen art as a baseline, to avoid the unseen problem. It's still the same 'Mech family though, and in the article we aim to present the first real-world image associated with the 'Mech which in the case of the unseen is their original unseen image from the first TROs or boxed sets. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (PDT)
 
 
::Not sure if you've seen it yet, but I wrote a reply to what you wrote on my talk page. --[[User:Trifler|Trifler]] ([[User talk:Trifler|talk]]) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (PDT)
 
 
==Extra Sentence==
 
Hey Frabby, I noticed that on the [[Richard Humphreys]] page there is an extra sentence at the bottom, which causes an error because there are refs within it. Should it be moved up to a certain part of the page, or removed altogether? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 10:03, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
 
:D'oh. I copied it there because it was a reference that I didn't need for this article, but which I wanted to keep would come in handy for another article down the road (on Evelyn Humphreys). Steven and Evelyn's surnames weren't mentioned in most of the available material, so for the longest time I couldn't be sure if Steven was actually a Humphreys (and thus, a legitimate accepted son of Richard) because I didn't see it spelled out anywhere. Finding his daughter Evelyn named as a Humphreys was a crutch at first, until I found that one reference naming Steven a Humphreys directly. I didn't need Evelyn's quote anymore at that point, but figured it should be put in her (yet-to-be-written) article because it was so hard to find. Long story short, I copypasta'd it below the actual article for further reference... and forgot it there. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:57, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
 
::Okay I removed it. Thanks for the explanation! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
 
 
==Mercenary's Star==
 
I just saw that you reverted my edit to the article for the Mercenary's Star novel, and wondered why. Looking at the page, the current ref leaves a cite error, but when the info is moved to the Notes section and the ref tags removed, then it is all better. In its current state, you cannot normally tell what the ref is trying to say. I didn't put a references/ tag because those don't belong on those pages. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
 
:Ah, ok - I missed that there was no References section. The point is, the novel is lacking dates but its timeframe has been established through other sources. Consequentially, the correct timeframe is given in the infobox but needs to get a reference to its outside source. In such a case, I have no problem whatsoever with putting a Reference section even into product pages, when those external references provide relevant data that isn't in the product itself. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
 
::Okidoki. Sorry that it had to be overcomplicated. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:33, 2 September 2014 (PDT)
 
 
== Les Dorscheid Portfolio ==
 
Hi Frabby,<br>
 
I think you and I may have discussed this before, but I can't remember where. There are a couple of portfolios of BattleTech art by Les Dorscheid up on eBay; it's listed as Gallery Set One, with the BattleTech logo and the copyright information for FASA on it. You can see them here: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Battletech-A-Portfolio-By-Les-Dorscheid-/390740143814?pt=UK_Books_Comics_Magazines_US_Comics_ET&hash=item5af9ed6ec6 - my question is, should that be listed here as a BattlTech item? (It may be already, but I couldn't find it via the artist's bio page here, so it might just need re-tagging). I know the name "BattleTech Gallery One" is a bit vague, in that it might be the first gallery of art by Les Dorscheid for BattleTech, or it may be the first of a series of BattleTech Gallery sets by a range of artists, but it feels like something we should have listed here, given that we include things like that very dodgy fanfic novel... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (PDT)
 
:Yes, I do remember this popping up in the past. I've seen those items on Ebay as well, plus there's individual Earl Geier artwork sold on German Ebay. The portfolio finally got a decent description in the link you posted, where it's described as a signed limited (2500 units) edition of six art pieces. You can zoom in the cover to see "Published with permission from FASA" and "published by S.Q. Productions Inc.". I reckon these are more "Les Dorscheid" products than proper "BattleTech" products, but they definitely fall under our [[Policy:Notability]] and should be included. As for canonicity, this product as such is non-canonical but does meet the criteria for [[meta-source]]. I'll see if I can find the time tonight to put together an article based on that ebay link of yours. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 23:50, 21 September 2014 (PDT)
 
::I don't know if this is odd or amusing, but there's another copy of that portfolio on sale on the US version of eBay, from a different seller, with the exact same image - right down to the number on the certificate of authenticity. The fact that they're published "with permission" from FASA would suggest that they're affiliated products, but the fact that it's clearly marked as BattleTech Gallery One makes me wonder if it was something sponsored by FASA. I wonder if it's worth me asking over on the official forum if the LD knows anything about that line of products... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:04, 22 September 2014 (PDT)
 
:::It's always worth taking that potshot at getting an answer... though I doubt anyone at CGL could tell you today if or what deal FASA had with Les Dorscheid or SQP Inc. back in the day. Or why these Portfolios spring up only now (I first saw one on Ebay in ca. 2010, but never before). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:27, 22 September 2014 (PDT)
 
 
== Hanse Davion / Infobox ==
 
 
Frabby - I'm really digging the new infobox you used for [[Hanse Davion]]. Over time, I think it can literally improve hundreds of articles. Have a [[File:SubAdd 2bol.jpg|Substantial Addition Award, 3rd ribbon]] on me. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (PDT)
 
:Thanks. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (PDT)
 
 
==More Video Game Discussion==
 
I continued the discussion [[User talk:BobTheZombie/Project Video Games|here]] about what to do with those lines. Please chip in if you can. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (PDT)
 
 
== Empires Aflame ==
 
Hi Frabby, I have a quick question for you. As a new product, should ''[[Empires Aflame]]'' be under a moratorium? I'm conscious that it's available for free, so there's perhaps no financial loss to CGL if we put details up here, but I'm not sure if it's status as a Hallowe'en freebie overrides the general stance on including detail from recently-published sources here on Sarna. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 14:35, 8 November 2014 (PST)
 
:[[Policy:Moratorium]] doesn't apply to free products. Which makes sense, given that its purpose is to avoid spoiling products which are being sold for money. Conversely, freebie products are of a promotional nature and can thus be covered immediately on Sarna. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:38, 8 November 2014 (PST)
 
::On that note, since XTRO:RF has been declared as canon, should its included 'Mech Variants be added to the associated battlemech pages?
 
::The other April Fool's Products do not have any information on Sarna aside from their summaries and tables of contents. [[User:Amaroq Dricaldari|Amaroq Dricaldari]] ([[User talk:Amaroq Dricaldari|talk]]) 08:39, 11 July 2016 (PDT)
 
:::Yes, since XTRO:RF is fully canon the 'Mechs could be mentioned as official variants. Given that they are quite unique refits I'm personally not convinced that they are notable enough, but it would certainly not be wrong. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:50, 11 July 2016 (PDT)
 
 
==MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries==
 
Frabby, the infobox is broken.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 13:16, 12 November 2014 (PST)
 
:Fixed. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:12, 13 November 2014 (PST)
 
  
 
== Planets Project ==
 
== Planets Project ==
Line 133: Line 57:
 
::::::::::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)
 
::::::::::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)
  
==Apocryphal Weapon Notice: Re-Revisited==
+
== Planet/System article names ==
I stumbled upon the discussion we had about the line at the tops of those weapon pages again, and I decided to go though and delete them. Retrospectively, I think it is better without them. Just wanted to let you know. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (PST)
+
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)
  
== Turning Points Article ==
+
== 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? -- [[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)
  
Good idea Frabby, I agree that a single page might work better. I'll fill out a generic [[Turning Points (series)|Turning Points]] article with the Historicals and add the other series over the coming week when I get time. That way anyone who's interested can find a list of all the Turning Points PDFs and what each of them deals with.
+
== 1992 Update Flyer ==
[[User:Orwell84|Orwell84]] ([[User talk:Orwell84|talk]]) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (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)
  
== Canonicity ==
+
== Vandal Cop...again ==
As the custodian of canonicity here on Sarna, you may find a post on the [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/master-unit-list-(mul)-online-database-read-the-first-post/msg1033032/#msg1033032 Canonicity of the MUL] produced by Welshman of interest - something to add to our policy on canonicity, perhaps? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:50, 18 February 2015 (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)
:Thanks for pointing me to this message. It is indeed interesting. But I don't see any noteworthy change to existant policy there that would warrant a change or addition to our article or policy concerning Canon. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:31, 18 February 2015 (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)
::I was thinking more that it would be useful to record for clarification purposes, in case in the future we get people querying why details are "wrong" here in comparison to a particular source - I like being able to point people at direct rulings. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:44, 18 February 2015 (PST)
 
:::The general problem is that you can never be sure if an omission on the MUL is an error or an oversight. The MUL cannot in good conscience claim that it is the definitive canon source simply because that would technically de-canonize units that have not yet been entered, to say nothing of possible errors. I wouldn't consider it any more canon than any other product. Still, I'll check if the posting you linked above should be worked into the MUL article. Need to think about it. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:15, 18 February 2015 (PST)
 
  
==Speaking of Canon : Tactical Handbook==
+
== Changes not correctly tracked ==
Near as I can tell the Tactical Handbook counts as canon under the definitions, even if some of the technology was not included in later publications. I have made pages for the [[Caseless AC/2]], [[Caseless AC/5]], [[Caseless AC/10]] and [[Caseless AC/20]] as the stats of a couple of those in THB were different than a standard AC with different ammo. The results of a failure were also substantially different. In the fluff I merely mentioned that they were exceedingly rare and may not have ever been produced, but it is hard to cite the absence of something. If you could take a look at these and tell me if this description fits the style and whether or not the Caseless AC's are apocryphal or not. Thanks. -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 12:50, 19 February 2015 (PST)
 
: I remember paying good money for that book, only to have all the equipment declared illegal a year or two later. Years later, most of it was brought back, though sometimes with changes.
 
: I'm not at all bitter at FASA. Nope. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 20:08, 13 August 2015 (PDT)
 
  
== Norseman ==
+
I've seen that some times the changes I do are seen only in contributions, but not in watchlist nor in Recent Changes.
Hi Frabby,<br>
+
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)
I was just reading your article on the ''Norseman'', and I'm a little nervous about you categorising the ship as a ''Star Lord'' by implication in the absence of a definitive statement to that effect. With other ship articles where the class of a ship is implied but not confirmed, I've been leaving the class field blank but including the detail implicating a particular class of ship in the notes field, so as to avoid any suggestion of "making things up". I'm possibly being overly-sensitive after seeing a few arguments on the CGL forum about editors on Sarna presenting opinions as fact, and I think you've made a good case for the ''Norseman'' being a ''Star Lord'', but you don't have definitive proof at the moment. Can I suggest that you pitch an "Ask The Writers" question detailing why you think the ''Norseman'' was a ''Star Lord'' and asking for confirmation, so that you can then link the question to the article and state in the article that you're presuming the ship class to be ''Star Lord'' until clarification is given? I think we'd be on safer ground then. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:13, 9 March 2015 (PDT)
+
: 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)
:You're basically correct. That said, besides the ''Star Lord'' there were only three ''Scout''s and I think a ''Scout'' cannot be refitted with a LF battery and still have a hardpoint. For me it's established beyond reasonable doubt that the ''Norseman'' was the ''Star Lord'' in that fleet... and for "unreasonable doubts" I have included the note clarifying that there is a tiny chance that this is incorrect. If you're still uncomfortable then you're welcome to change the article and I won't object. As for "Ask the Writers", I honestly don't think they can be bothered to answer that one. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (PDT)
+
::Any idea why this might be happening??--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
::I debated posing an Ask the Writers question, but after looking at the decline in the number of clarification questions I've asked that actually get answers, I decided it was probably a waste of effort. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (PDT)
+
:::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)
  
== System Names ==
+
== Planet Articles Template ==
Mendrugo has posted a list of system names that differ from the colony names used on maps in the books, which I've copied and pasted here:
 
* "NSC E 4-008-332" for [[Alcyone]]
 
* "Gamma 2-Sagittarius" for [[Alnasl]] ([[Alnasi]]?)
 
* "Xi Ursae Majoris" for [[Alula Australis]] (actioned)
 
* "Pan" for [[Arcadia]]
 
* "Zeta Sagittarius" for [[Ascella]]
 
* "2112-8845 A" for [[Augustine]]
 
* "EC-EY-4189" for [[Boltin]]
 
* "Helios" for [[Circe]]
 
* "Epsilon Pegasus" for [[Columbus]]
 
* "Vaj" for [[Crevidia]] ([[Crevedia]]?)
 
* "Tuath" for [[Dagda]]
 
* "Alpha Ursae Majoris" for [[Dubhe]]
 
* "Din Quan" for [[Gan Singh]]
 
* "KA-418" for [[Garrote]] ([[Garotte]]?)
 
* "Ember" for [[Ovan]]
 
* "Gamma Cygni" for [[Sador]]
 
* "Beta Pegasi" for [[Scheat]]
 
* "Delta Taurus" for [[Shiloh]]
 
* "Rodina" for [[Strana Mechty]]
 
* "Alpha Draconis" for [[Thuban]]
 
* "Orpheus/Eurydice" for [[Weisau]]
 
  
As this is something of a passion of yours, are you able to indicate where the references detailing the system names may be? I've been doing some work on confirming uncited information as I slog through the planets updates where I've got a good idea of where the information is, but for the changes above - at least as far down the list as Boltin - I've either not noticed it or am unaware of it. I'd prefer to get the articles updated correctly, but I'm already looking at approximately 20 months of work at my current pace to update all of the planet articles to the new format, and I don't really want to start chasing down names that may only be detailed in areas like BattleCorps fiction I don't have access to. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:28, 26 March 2015 (PDT)
+
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. [[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)
  
:Thanks for the notification. Some of these I know, some of these I dimly remember, many I haven't heard of before. I'll go and pester Mendrugo about his sources. I could have sworn that I had entered some to Sarna already, such as Weisau - it got a detailed "Worldbook" writeup in BattleTechnology (now apocryphal) naming the binary suns Orpheus and Eurydice, and the inhabited planet Brimstone; only the system as a whole is named Weisau according to that writeup. Looking over the article, however, it seems I didn't actually add the info. I definitely need to update these articles. Btw, though this should go without saying, you rock for the work on planet (harrumph, System!) articles. Hope Doneve can go help you out again soon (quite a topic of its own). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (PDT)
+
== 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! --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
  
== Canonicity ==
+
== Lost the quick link to actions ==
There's an interesting statement [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/aerospace-combat/canon-warship-list/msg1070280/#msg1070280 here] from Øystein regarding the canon status of the Falcon and the Wolf sourcebook. It's rather interesting, given the place in the timeline the book occupies between the various Clan sourcebooks, but I think we should perhaps annotate the sourcebook article as a warning to editors. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:33, 18 May 2015 (PDT)
 
:Thanks for pointing this out. I note, though, that the thread in question was not posted in either "Ask the Writers" nor "Ask the Lead Developers" and as such merely gives Øystein's opinion on the matter, and not technically a ruling on canon. That is to say, he effectively only pointed out that ''The Wolf and the Falcon'' is a particularly error-ridden book. Herb made similar statements before about ''Luthien'', ''Objective Raids'' and a third product that I can't remember. They remain canonical sources, even though very unreliable ones - canonical only where no other source contradicts them, so to say. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (PDT)
 
::Swell. I just wrote an article - [[Marialle Radick]] - that used ''The Wolf and the Falcon'' as a major source. :P
 
::In fairness to myself, i also noted three glaring discrepencies in my notes section of the article.
 
::With respect to the book, I would suggest we simply note that there are major errors in the article's Notes section. Calling the whole book apocryphal is several steps too far for me. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (PDT)
 
  
==Present vs. Past Tense in Articles==
+
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)
Sorry for the long delay; I made a short [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1b9mvBOCMJDOacnTujvB97VzeaJJvlo57gAVqQY52e8k/viewform survey]. Tell me if you think any of the wording should be changed, otherwise go ahead and fill it out. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 09:47, 24 May 2015 (PDT)
 
  
P.S. You can put the link on the minor news section of the front page if you want more editors/readers to find it. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (PDT)
+
: 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)
  
:Good idea. I'm not entirely happy with the wording of the survey though; let me get back to you about that when I got a spare minute. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (PDT)
+
::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)
  
::Email sent. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
+
:::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)
  
== Development of IO ==
+
== InfoBoxMercUnit Template ==
You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, Herb's written quite an interesting post on the recent development history of ''[[Interstellar Operations]]''. It's up on the CGL forum [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/new-and-upcoming-releases-vol-iii-what's-next/msg1087180/#msg1087180 here]. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (PDT)
+
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.
:Nothing really new in there though. I'm in the factchecker group, and as such I've seen (and participated in) some of the work process. Sarna will have to go over this tome with a very fine-toothed comb given all the hard data we're going to get. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:50, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
+
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)
  
== Sarna as a Writing Resource ==
+
== Magazines ==
Given how infrequently Sarna gets any praise, you might like to have a quick scan through the chat log posted up by a couple of the BattleCorps writers [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/novel-and-sourcebook-reviews/harvest-of-deception-and-a-moment-of-honesty-(yes-they're-battlecorps-stories)/msg98713/?topicseen#new here] where Sarna gets a shout-out as a non-canon but useful source. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:25, 8 July 2015 (PDT)
 
: :)  Though Craig has been using art taken from Sarna (and tagged as such) in his blog for a long time. I get feedback from a great many people using Sarna as a BT resource - my feeling is that we've achieved the status of being "the" BT wiki. It's pretty much a community fixture now. People rarely praise what they perceive as granted, but conversely we're getting better at not getting slammed, too. ;) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:16, 8 July 2015 (PDT)
 
::: It is a very nice feeling to know we are literally making the BT universe better with our work. On the note of the BattleCorps stories, do they have a moratorium period like everything else?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 07:43, 10 July 2015 (PDT)
 
:::: Hehehe sarna rules, i know sarna became some critics in the last years in the BT forum, but we are on a good way to give sarna what it is, a wiki for anyone they love BattleTech and his background, and this is great :).--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (PDT)
 
:::::This makes me happy. I want to say thank you to you guys above ^ for being awesome contributors and adding thousands of pages to the wiki. You guys built this thing up from the ground, I merely stumbled upon it. I'm truly grateful that you people have done the bulk of making this wiki prosper, and have allowed me to help out in my little ways {{emoticon|:)}}  -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 13:28, 10 July 2015 (PDT)
 
In response to Dmon, yes, the [[Policy:Moratorium]] does apply to BattleCorps publications. You can add a stub article right away, but no plot summary or other spoiler-y content yet. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:54, 11 July 2015 (PDT)
 
<br><br>
 
I'm not sure if you saw it, but [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/clan-chatterweb/clan-fire-mandrill-mechs-and-info/msg1101188/#msg1101188 Worktroll just cited us] as "a really useful resource" and "a great way to see a high-level overview of what's out there." He also pointed out that we aren't perfect, but it's always good for us to have goals! [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:11, 27 August 2015 (PDT)
 
:Well, yeah - we're the BattleTechWiki, after all. :) German author Bernd Perplies also cited Sarna as a valuable reference and factchecking tool in the acknowledgement section of his novel ''[[Die Kanonen von Thunder Rock]]''. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:44, 27 August 2015 (PDT)
 
  
==Clan Wolverine==
+
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)
Hi Frabby, i removed the plagiarized content from the page, why do you added it again and removed [[User:Cyc|Cyc]]'s content and ref.notes?--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 00:52, 9 July 2015 (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)
:I did? Oops, sorry - wasn't intentional. I only wanted to add ''Betrayal of Ideals'' to the bibliography and clicked "Edit" from the "recent changes" view. Apparently what happened is that I edited the older version with the removed content still in it. I think. I'll go back and fix it. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:58, 9 July 2015 (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)
  
== Rare BattleTech Items ==
+
==Recent Changes missing edits again==
There's a thread runing on the forum [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/what-awesome-or-rare-b-tech-products-do-you-have/ here] that I think would make for very fertile ground if you want to try and persuade people to give us details/photos/articles on some of the rare items out there. Iron Sphinx apparently has some items like pasteboards that formed the masters for some of the early maps and some of the early convention displays, for example - little bits of history I think it'd be great if we could preserve images of on here. I'd offer to do it, but people actually like you on the forums {{emoticon| ;) }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:59, 18 July 2015 (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)
 +
: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)
 +
::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)
  
== Orca Talk ==
+
== Codes and Procedures of the Warrior Caste ==
Hi Frabby, can you comment on the [[Talk:Orca‎]] for me? I just posted something there. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 13:15, 22 July 2015 (PDT)
 
  
==Hi Frabby A Question==
+
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)
Now iam stumpled accros Chris Wheeler IS Atlas. Now is the question i want to contact him, if i can to use his planet discriptions here on sarna? Any idea how i can contact him from which sources he added the description if its ok to do this or not, or when you have contact to him can you do this, your enghlish is must better, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 00:01, 26 July 2015 (PDT)
+
:That's the manual for [[MechWarrior 2]]. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
:Which atlas is it, can you provide a link? I'm traveling right now and using my smartphone which I hate. I'll be back to my computer wednesday. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:23, 26 July 2015 (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)
::Here is the link [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/planet-detail.php?planet=2075223].--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 00:30, 26 July 2015 (PDT)
+
:::Always glad to help out. :)(Thx Cyc!) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:30, 22 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Ah, that's the old TeamSpam Atlas. We can't use it, as the fluff is copied verbatim from the old Housebooks and other (mostly) FASA-era sourcebooks. A [[meta-source]] full of copyrighted yet unsourced texts. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:27, 26 July 2015 (PDT)
 
::::Okidoki, thanks for the answer.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 02:42, 26 July 2015 (PDT)
 
  
== Character Infobox ==
+
== Pick up this ball, please? ==
Frabby - Please check [[Marialle Radick]]. I decided to use the infobox i saw on the [[Hanse Davion]] entry. Should we make this standard? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 14:15, 8 August 2015 (PDT)
 
:Yes, it was initially my intention to have this infobox as standard for all characters. After all, we have established standard infoboxes for various types of vehicles including 'Mechs, for factions, for real people, and whatnot so I figured we needed something for characters as well. However, in the case of many minor characters the infobox would remain pretty empty so I reckon there are many articles where it doesn't make sense to have. That's why I was hesitant to make it standard. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:39, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
 
::That's totally fine. Look at wikipedia. RL people of particular import often get infoboxes, while others do not.
 
::So i propose we make it standard for major characters. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 06:26, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
 
:::Hy guys, i forgot totally the character infobox, i start to update some bios with the infobox, a new project is what i need, the planet overhaul suck me out.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 09:05, 9 August 2015 (PDT)07:39, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
 
::::We missed you Doneve! :D [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 09:19, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
 
:::::Yo Doneve, how're you doing? I fixed your problem on the [[Patrick Scoffins‎]] article. The problem was that you forgot to close the bracket on the year links in the infobox for birth/death, i.e. <nowiki>[[2708]</nowiki>, making the entire rest of the article one huge wiki link and never closing the infobox template.<br />It's cool if you're going to insert the infobox into suitable character articles, though I do feel a bit bad for BrokenMnemonic if the tedious system updating work falls solely on his shoulders fortwith. If and when I'm done with reworking Ship Class and Individual Ship articles and categories I'll go and help BM with the systems. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:40, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
 
:::::::Thanks Frabby to fix my tomatos ;). Oh i don't forgot the planet overhaul and BM, but a little break i must do, i dream from the coordinates spreadsheet and that's not good, in this advice cheers.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 12:27, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
 
  
==Hiatus==
+
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)
Hello Frabby, I noticed you had started with the name changes. I've been moving which has taken up an absurd amount of my time and I just now got the internet working. I was wondering if you could tell me where we are now since I've missed a week or so/exactly what I could do to help. It's nice to be back. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (PDT)
+
:Done. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:38, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
:Nice to have you back Bob! As for the name changes, I've finished (I think) all class categories and am now working through [[:Category:Individual Spacecraft]] letter by letter. I managed to finish "C" yesterday and haven't yet started on "D".
+
::Thanks!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:33, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
:The routine goes like this: Any article with a diambiguation in its title (anything with brackets really) gets renamed to "'''''Name'' (Individual ''class''-class ''type'')'''", where ''class''-class is left out if unknown, and type is either Small Craft (none yet), DropShip, JumpShip, WarShip, or "spacecraft" for those where not even the type is known or for special cases like the ''Altair'' class.
 
:To rename, I move the page & talk page with a redirect and then delete the pointless redirect from the original talk page. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (PDT)
 
  
== Individual DropShips ==
+
== New stuff in the news section! ==
Hi Frabby, I know you love a challenge, so I thought you might enjoy this one - how do you fancy doing the individual ship entry for the named DropShip depicted in the illustration on page 2 of ''[[Field Manual: Crusader Clans]]''? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:38, 16 September 2015 (PDT)
 
:You've got to be kidding me - "FASA"?! (facepalm). What class of ship is that anyways? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:53, 16 September 2015 (PDT)
 
::I've just taken a quick look through the DropShip images we have on here, and it doesn't look like any of them - that combination of short and long quadrilateral plates around the midline is distinctive, and not in any of the pictures here. The ridged areas below them might - might - be bay doors (the Seeker has something similar) but the engine pod visible at the bottom is quite distinctive too, and also doesn't match anything else I can find. I wonder if we have a FASA disambiguation page on here yet, what with the Pentagon World, and the academy on Finmark, and... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:26, 16 September 2015 (PDT)
 
  
== Spacecraft naming convention ==
+
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)
You talk this to me:
 
:When moving a mainspace article, I usually also move the talk page but I then go back and delete the Talk Page redirect from the old article, as it's not needed for anything.
 
  
But the problem is i cant delete pages only admins can do this, i found a lot of pages there can be deleted, i dont want to be come a admin, but is there any way to change this, hmm Nic must involded in this.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 04:06, 20 September 2015 (PDT)
+
== 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.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 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... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk: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. :) [[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)
  
== Monitor ==
+
== Magazine ==
Hi Frabby. I know it's not canon source, but its actually monitor except in name. The WarShip in [[Welcome to Nebula California]], the Imperial Destroyer is technically Monitor type vessel. I'm not sure if you want mention that in your Monitor article. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 13:44, 14 October 2015 (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)
:Herb expressly declared the Nebula California April Fools publication non-canonical in its entirety. Nothing in there belongs into the BT universe, and thus I don't think these ships deserve mention elsewhere on Sarna. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:04, 14 October 2015 (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)
  
==MW1 Additions==
+
== Field Manual Updates Artwork WarShips ==
Since those are from a video game, shouldn't the info you're adding to the pages be surrounded by [http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Help:Template_gallery#Article_Maintenance apocryphal tags]? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:39, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
+
Hi Frabby,<br>
:Yes... basically. I've actually done it in a few cases. But the tags cannot be used inside the infobox (frequently for planetary populations) and in some cases the MW1 writeup is basically all there is on a given system. But now that you're calling me out on it, I agree that I was just being sloppy. Thanks for keeping me honest. I'll add the tags in from now on but I'll probably not be able to go back through the list and insert them in the articles I've already done as I only have a little desk time left today. :( [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:49, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
 
::I don't mean to burden you; I can pick up the older ones too. You know how I just love to add those tags {{emoticon | ;) }} -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:01, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
 
:::Wait, I just noticed something else: shouldn't "[[MechWarrior (1989 Video Game)]]" be added to all the bibliographies? If so, I can surely do that for you. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:17, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
 
::::I made a conscious decision not to list the game under "Bibliography" because it has so little information (population, environment, one-liner). I had refrained from using this apocryphal information at all and only reconsidered following a recent forum thread about Land's End, a world with literally no other published info anywhere else. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
 
:::::If we have enough information about a planet to include a populated infobox, then I'd honestly prefer to see the MW1 information in a notes section rather than the infobox, because of the problems with adding the apocryphal tags inside an infobox.
 
:::::I notice that in some cases, articles have both the system and planet sections of the articles populated, but the MW1 information is being put in the system section - that's the wrong location in that instance, because as it's information about a specific planet within that system it should go in the section for that planet - I'd suggest under planetary history sub-section, as it's providing information about that planet at a particular point in history - rather than in the system history. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:50, 21 October 2015 (PDT)
 
::::::I think that's what I did (though I admit I was very tired yesterday and was called away a few times, so I may not have been very cosistent). The general idea was to add meaningful information from the MW1 game into planet/system articles where there was no other good information, and usually the descriptive one-liner was and environmental tag was as important as the population number. In those (not very many) cases, I copypasta'ed the "main" infoblock text with population and envinronment information, the one-liner if it held any meaningful information, and the disclaimers about the entry being apocryphal and the environment tag being only a very rough guideline. In many other cases, only the population number was relevant (planets that already had a good or better writeup for their environment etc.) and in those cases I put it into the InfoBox that was usually already present, with "(apocryphal)" and a reference to the MW1 game in place instead of the Apocryphal tags that can't be used inside the Infobox. Luckily, in many cases the game apparently took its numbers from the old housebooks and those are canonical sources for the (same) population numbers; in those cases I didn't have to include any MW1 information. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:56, 22 October 2015 (PDT)
 
:::::::So what's the final verdict on this then? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 10:04, 24 October 2015 (PDT)
 
::::::::I'll go back over those edits I did and make sure that
 
::::::::a) ApocryphalContentStart/End tags are put in place in all cases except where only an infobox was updated (in which case it's still noted within the infobox, just not with those tags);
 
::::::::b) MechWarrior is mentioned in the bibliography section except possibly where the info taken from the game is too insignificant to call the game a source. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:33, 24 October 2015 (PDT)
 
  
== Lucian Carns ==
+
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)
 +
: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)
 +
::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)
  
Frabby - For your review. [[Lucian Carns]]. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 21:19, 11 November 2015 (PST)
+
== Product Images ==
 
 
==WarDog Mike‎==
 
Hi Frabby, when you found time, please can you take a look on [[User talk:WarDog Mike‎]], you can better answer his questions, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 05:07, 28 November 2015 (PST)
 
:Thanks for the notification Doneve! I've added my two cents on his talk page. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:13, 28 November 2015 (PST)
 
 
 
== SLS ''Hermes'' ==
 
 
Hi Frabby,<br>
 
Hi Frabby,<br>
  
I just wanted to let you know that we do know what happened to the SLS ''Hermes'' - it survived in Clan service and according to Field Manual: Warden Clans was in service as the ''[[Treachery]]''. There should've been a redirect up for SLS ''Hermes'' to the ''Treachery'', but I must've missed it when generating the ''Treachery'' article. Sorry about that! [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (PST)
+
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)
:Thanks for the info. I'll go and merge the articles then (and make a redirect for the ''Hermes''...) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:37, 27 January 2016 (PST)
+
:(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)
::It looks like I remembered to set up a redirect for "SLS Hermes" but not for "Hermes". [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:40, 27 January 2016 (PST)
 
  
== Annual Awards ==
+
==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).
  
Frabby - Will Nic and the Admins be doing awards this year? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 21:20, 27 January 2016 (PST)
+
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.
  
== Apocryphal Information and the Timeline ==
+
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)
Hi Frabby,<br>
 
I ended up on the timeline page for [[2990]] via the Dormandaine page today, and I noticed that there was an interesting tidbit on the planet [[Niomede]] in there, so I went to have a look at the planet article, and it's brought up something I'm a little wary of. I had to do a bit of digging to check that all the detail in the planet info section had been added by you from the German-language novel Karma (you forgot to add a reference note in that section), and I think it predates the apocryphal tags. However, because the information is all apocryphal, I'm concerned about it being used up in the timeline pages, because we don't currently tag the timeline pages with apocryphal tags for information. So, potentially, someone who's scouting around for facts for things like writing projects or background detail via the timelines pages, without going into the source articles, could end up taking apocryphal information as canon information.<br>
 
So, as I see it, that gives us a few ways forward:<br>
 
* Do nothing and live with the risk (could cause us some embarassment)
 
* Start tagging apocryphally-sourced information with the ready-made tags in the timeline articles (which could make the timeline pages start looking a bit cluttered)
 
* Stop listing apocryphally-sourced information in the timeline pages (potentially removes interesting pieces of information for people).
 
I'm not sure that any of those is ideal, but I'm not comfortable with not having a discussion about it, so I thought I'd drop you a line here to get your thoughts. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:06, 11 February 2016 (PST)
 
:I obviously forgot to add the apocryphal tags in the Niomede article - duh. Will put them in shortly. It does say right at the beginning of the section, though, that the info comes from the apocryphal novel ''[[Karma]]''. :)
 
:As for the year pages, good catch. The tags are too unwieldy, imho, to include them in such a list (or an infobox, to give another example). But I feel the info should be presented, and it should be mentioned to be apocryphal. I think the way to go is to simply note "(apocryphal)" in the list or infobox, add a reference, and note again in the reference that the source in question is apocryphal.
 
:Finally, regarding Niomede specifically, the info about the world's rediscovery in the book is too vague to accurately point to 2990 so that entry in the year article is probably untrue. I suggest deleting it, or at least add a note to the effect that it was around but not neccessarily in that year. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:46, 11 February 2016 (PST)
 
  
== Ship Service Dates ==
+
: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.
Hi Frabby,<br>
+
: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.
I was just looking at your most recent change to the individual ships template; back when I first started working on the template, you argued about having dates relating to when a ship was in service in the infobox, because of problems with ships like the ''[[Zughoffer Weir]]'' and the other Blakist ships that had more than one period of service, including ships that had been listed as destroyed at least once, such as the ''[[Bordeaux]]''. I'm easy with either including or not including the dates, but I'm curious as to what changed your reasoning for objecting to including the dates back when the project to get all the ships onto Sarna started? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:31, 17 February 2016 (PST)
+
: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)
:I freely admit that I changed my mind here. The reason, I think, is the sheer mass of vessels we now have (over 1500 individual ship articles at this time, with way more to come) combined with the fact that we're lumping together ships like the ''[[Acari]]'', which was built between 3059 and 3066 and destroyed in 3066, with ships that were destroyed as early as sometimes in the Age of War. I found that I wanted a note in the infobox telling me at a glance when the ship in question stopped to be relevant (i.e. destroyed). And that in turn prompted me to include a construction/entering service date as well as it wouldn't make sense to include one date but not the other.<br />Note that these fields in the infobox are free text fields. Beyond a mere date, I'd like to have a brief explanation included so that there are no misunderstandings. The serviceuntil entry should thus read, for example "Destroyed 12 May 3066", or "Mothballed 2770, declared decayed beyond recovery in 2801" (I made up those examples). Obviously, more details would be in the article text. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:09, 18 February 2016 (PST)
+
::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)
::Assuming that I get some more spare time in the future, I want to start adding in more ships from some of the more recent publications, like the ''Leagues'' mentioned in Interstellar Ops. For my own peace of mind, could you tackle a few of the problem ships - like the ''Zug'' - and update the infoboxes for them, so that I can see what sort of format you're looking at using? That'll help me be consistent with future work. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:45, 18 February 2016 (PST)
+
:::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)
:::More ship articles is always good. :) I'll add a few dates to a few infoboxes shortly, but I just learned that I'll be away over the weekend and I have a lot of non-BT work to do until Tuesday. Don't expect much from me until then. Also, keep in mind that the purpose of infoboxes is to make everybody's life easier. In complicated cases, like those with convoluted service histories or arbitrary data, it may be wise to leave the infobox blank if there's no clear, concise entry that would do the situation justice. Or, if you're a completionist, you could even insert "See article" in the fields to highlight that it't not a clear-cut case. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:12, 18 February 2016 (PST)
+
::::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)
  
== Award ==
+
==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)
  
Hi I've watched you tirelessly plug away at edits over the years and wanted to show my appreciation for your hard work. I noticed you do not have this award and I really think you should. I wish I could award it at a higher level! [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 05:59, 19 March 2016 (PDT)
+
== Thanks for deleting all the typos I generate ==
  
[[File:CE.jpg|Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon]]
+
Just thanks!!--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (EST)
:Why, thank you! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:35, 19 March 2016 (PDT)
+
: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)
  
== Help ==
+
== 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. [[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]]
  
Sorry to bother you, but I was putting together a page for [['Mech (magazine)]] and adding scans of the covers. Unfortunately I added the wrong images to four files. I have now added the correct ones but I was wondering if you could delete the earlier erroneous versions on these files please - File:MechV2I2.jpg, File:MechV2I6.jpg, File:MechV2I7.jpg and File:MechV2I8.jpg
 
  
Lesson well and truly learnt about trying to upload too many at the same time!  [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 05:39, 20 March 2016 (PDT)
+
== 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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (EST)
  
:While there seems to be a function for deleting earlier versions of a file, it results in an error message for me. I'll flag this up with Nicj. Anyways, since you have uploaded the correct images now I reckon we can leave it alone for now. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:03, 20 March 2016 (PDT)
+
== Image policy inquiry ==
  
:: OKay, thanks for the assistance :[[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (PDT)
+
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)
  
== New Spammer Report ==
+
== Thanks ==
Hi Frabby , sorry me again so quickly but the following user [[User:Mxvbfdjv]] is actively spamming. Creating pages -Online USA !!1 844 655 0455 (norton t.e.c.h s.u.p.p.o.r.t p.h.o.n.e n.u.m.b.e.r norton h.e.l.p d.e.s.k n.u.m.b.e.r)- and -Outlook helpline ((I*844*655*O455))outlook technical support Phone Number outlook help desk phone number-. I deleted the content but thats all I can do.  [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 12:47, 20 March 2016 (PDT)
 
:Zap. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:26, 20 March 2016 (PDT)
 
  
== Another spammer ==
+
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.  
[[Jonathan tanner]], and there may be other junk articles. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (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)
:A Fanon article, but technically not spam. I have deleted the article and deferred to the BattleTechFanonWiki. There are no other edits from this IP. But we're dealing with a BattleTech fan here, not a spambot, so I'm not banning him. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (PDT)
+
: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)
:: I saw this last night, I think you are overly generous calling that article fanon  :) [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 14:16, 23 March 2016 (PDT)
 
::: Remember the original [[Thomas Hogarth]] article? Written in all-caps? Painful. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 18:10, 23 March 2016 (PDT)
 
  
== BattleCorps WarShips ==
+
== Fredericmora‎ ==
Hi Frabby,<br>
+
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'm snowed under with work at the moment and I keep forgetting to mail the next chunk of the planets spreadsheet to my work account to do systems work, so I've been going through the WarShip articles and generating articles for the remaining WarShips listed in the class articles without individual ship articles. I've just come across a link that took me to the BattleCorps Ship Profiles page, which lists three WarShips that don't have articles here yet - the ''Tracker''-class ''Krait'' and the ''Aegis''-class ''Repulse'' and ''Tadeo Amaris''/''Athens''. I don't have access to the BattleCorps unit pdfs - are you in a position where you could add the individual ship articles for those three ships? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:38, 13 April 2016 (PDT)
 
:"Snowed under with work"... yeah, I know exactly how you feel. Anyways, yes, I have all BC ship profiles and I'll add them in shortly. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:31, 13 April 2016 (PDT)
 
::Just to check, does the pdf on the ''Tadeo Amaris'' definitely refer to her as having been the SLS ''Athens''? The reason I ask is that if she was mothballed in 2544, she should still have been the THS ''Athens'' rather than SLS ''Athens'' - the Star League didn't form for another thirty years after that date. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:46, 13 April 2016 (PDT)
 
:::Built in 2415, served over 100 years before being mothballed. Wasn't reactivated for the Reunification War, sat in orbit around Titan until 2763 when "a number of mothballed WarShips were turned over to the Rim Worlds Republic". No affiliation prefix is given in the timeline, except that it says in the very first sentence the ''Tadeo Amaris'' "began its career" as the SLS ''Athens''. You could always argue that this was its designation not from the start, but when it was given to the RWR in 2763. I might revisit the article. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 23:51, 13 April 2016 (PDT)
 
::::As it couldn't have begun its full career as the SLS ''Athens'' in 2415, I'm guessing we could interpret that sentence to mean "began its career (with the Rim Worlds Republic) as the SLS ''Athens''..."? I've also flagged up errata on the CGL forum for FR2765:P, because the WarShip list for the RWR doesn't list any ''Aegis''-class ships, but this BattleCorps article shows that they had at least one. I'm sure errata are annoying from an editorial standpoint, but I like being able to tie bits of products together... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:29, 14 April 2016 (PDT)
 
::::I've just finished checking; every WarShip that's ever been mentioned in a WarShip class article on Sarna now has an individual ship article. From this point onwards, it's back to digging through sourcebooks. Which reminds me, I must dig out my copy of IO (Beta) and get those ''Leagues'' onto Sarna. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 02:15, 14 April 2016 (PDT)
 
:::::Same here, with a focus on BattleCorps stories. :) Btw, don't use a designated Beta product as a source - Beta implies it's not fully sanctioned as canonical. ''Combat Manual: Mercenaries'' demonstrated just how big changes can be in the final product. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:19, 14 April 2016 (PDT)
 
::::::I was planning on using the Beta IO as a source, but flag up any ships mentioned in the Beta that aren't in the full version as apocryphal. The Beta is a licensed product, after all - it's just been superseded. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:03, 14 April 2016 (PDT)
 
  
== Founder's Exceptional Ambassador of the Year Award 2015 ==
+
== Maiden names and birth names==
Frabby, you've done an amazing job helping shape the wiki to what it is today. Thank you -- always [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] ([[User talk:Nicjansma|talk]]) 06:33, 25 May 2016 (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)
:Thanks... though as you may have noted I've already retired my Awards Board wholesale. ;)
+
: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)
::And that's fine, I just wanted to extend my personal thanks! [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] ([[User talk:Nicjansma|talk]]) 10:13, 25 May 2016 (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)
 +
:::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)
  
==Tenses... Again==
+
== WarShip bombardment in BattleTech (2018) ==
I've been scratching my brain trying to remember, we did come to consensus about the tenses being used? It was past for everything but equipment? I want to get back into proofreading some more stuff here and just couldn't remember. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 19:40, 1 June 2016 (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)
:Encyclopedic approach: Present tense by default, past tense for temporary/passing things like people. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 22:59, 1 June 2016 (PDT)
+
: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. [[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)
  
==Sir Roger==
+
== Search for recent changes is Mobile platforms ==
Frabby please take a look on the [[Sir Roger]] page, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 08:33, 8 June 2016 (PDT)
+
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)
  
==Computer Games==
+
== Citations for sourcebook fiction ==
Hi Frabby, i want to uploade to the computer games the front cover images of the games, can you add the missing infoboxes to both, this was a great help.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 16:41, 10 June 2016 (PDT)
 
:Was away over the weekend and only saw this now. Will add the infoboxes later today. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 22:39, 12 June 2016 (PDT)
 
::Thanks, but please take a look on [[MechCommander (Video Game)]] the infobox looks a little bit odd.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 05:53, 13 June 2016 (PDT)
 
::: I think I fixed your infobox display Doneve, take a look [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 06:29, 13 June 2016 (PDT)
 
::::Thanks Dark Jaguar!--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 07:37, 13 June 2016 (PDT)
 
  
== Shadows of Faith ==
+
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. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Thank you, I knew you would know the answer :-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
  
Hi Frabby, I noticed you wrote the original page for [[Shadows of Faith]]. I was looking for any info on [[Tiaret Nevversan]]. Her page is flagged with an update for this story, but for some reason I only have the first 3 parts. Do you have the complete work? Would you have minutes to check if there is any mention of her in the last 3 for me please? [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 12:00, 17 June 2016 (PDT)
+
== Battletech CCG ==
:Did a quick ctrl-f text search of all seven parts, and Tiaret only briefly shows up in part 2. Which is already covered in the article. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:31, 18 June 2016 (PDT)
 
::Thanks for taking the time to look, much appreciated {{emoticon|:)}}  [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 02:18, 18 June 2016 (PDT)
 
  
== Cannon vs. Apocryphal ==
+
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)
::''Hi Frabby, ich schreib dir diesmal auf deutsch! Ich bin mittlerweile nicht mehr damit einverstanden dass wir cannon material mit apocyphal material in einer seite mixen. Es ist nur eine idee aber können wir nich einen apocryal link in die betreffende seit einführen damit der inhalt getrennt voneinander angezeigt wird? Es sind so viele 'Mech seiten damit überhäuft das wir dass layout ändern können, es ist nur ein gedanken anstoss, würde gerne deine meinung dazu hören was du darüber denkst. Bis bald--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 16:33, 24 June 2016 (PDT)''
 
:::''Also einerseits finde ich auch, daß viele Artikel mit banalen oder überflüssigen Informationen zugemüllt werden. Andererseits sind meiner Meinung nach nicht die apokryphen Inhalte das Problem. Ich denke man muß sich fragen, was ein Sarna-Artikel überhaupt abbilden soll. Für mich ist wichtig, daß alle relevanten Informationen möglichst kurzgefaßt dargestellt werden, und dazu gehören für mich eben auch die apokryphen Informationen. Ich will dafür nicht eine zusätzliche Seite anklicken müssen. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (PDT)''
 
  
Okay, so to paraphrase and translate Doneve's point for a possibel discussion, he feels 'Mech articles in particular are getting cluttered and suggests changing the structure of articles by cutting out apocryphal content to a separate page. I agree about articles being a cluttered mess but for me the remedy would have to copyedit them for a better, more concise style. I wouldn't want to put the apocryphal content on a separate page; for me it's very important that all information is accessible on one page, with one klick. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (PDT)
+
== Howdah Edits ==
: The apocryphal banners are very large and only add to the cluttered affect when used inside an article, any way of making them smaller (same for section stubs). While I agree some articles need copy-editing, too much can remove a lot of useful detail. [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 09:05, 11 July 2016 (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.
 +
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)
 +
: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)
  
== Magellan ==
+
== Despiser ==
Not sure if you are aware but the "Mageallon" misspelling for "Magellan" does not appear in all print runs for Technology of Destruction, it was later corrected. [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 07:21, 12 July 2016 (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)
:No, I wasn't aware of that. Good to know, thanks! I take it the "MkII" part remained though? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:23, 12 July 2016 (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)
::Yes it's still the MkII [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 07:25, 12 July 2016 (PDT)
+
::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)
  
== Mark 1 Omnis ==
+
== Sarna Not New User Friendly? ==
I'm not sure if you've seen this, but ColBosch has [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53485.msg1235413#msg1235413 given a debunking] of the "Mark 1 OmniMechs" associated with TRO: 3050 that I've heard odds and sods rumours about for years. Would the Mark 1 OmniMechs count as [[Vaporware]]? It would seem useful to keep a record of a BattleTech urban myth debunking on here for posterity somewhere, but I don't think we specifically have any articles on urban myths here. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:53, 13 July 2016 (PDT)
+
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)
:I've been vaguely aware of the rumors, and of repeated statements by ColBosch and/or Herb, and possibly others to the effect that such "Mk I Omnis" never existed. I feel the issue doesn't belong into the Vaporware article though because it really doesn't fall under any definition of Vaporware. I guess you could add a Notes section to the [[OmniMech]] article and (briefly) adress the situation there. A BattleTech-specific Urban Myths article, perhaps under the Essays category, might also make sense if we have enough such rumors. Right now I can't think of another false rumor though that such an article could cover. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:09, 14 July 2016 (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)
  
==New Book==
+
== Star League commands order ==
Blaine Pardoe about 4 hrs ago announced a new book for Gen Con, based on Clan Wolverine, how is this handled? Here is the info on it: https://blainepardoe.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/clan-wolverine-news/ [[User:ClanJF74017|ClanJF74017]] ([[User talk:ClanJF74017|talk]]) 23:50, 21 July 2016 (PDT)
 
:Saw it, and I'm definitely going to get it when it comes out (if I can procure a copy). Since the book is said to have additional content over the BattleCorps story, it should get the usual moratorium period after publication, and then the [[Betrayal of Ideals]] article should be updated. Although Sarna doesn't have a proper policy in place for this question (that I am aware of), we have always treated print products as the lead product in articles, even if a PDF version was previously published. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:26, 22 July 2016 (PDT)
 
  
==New user message==
+
Hi Frabby,
If I may ask, why the heck is the [http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/New_user_message New user message bot blocked]? I just noticed now and had to add a bunch of missing welcome tags to talk pages. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 10:07, 13 August 2016 (PDT)
 
: ??!! D'oh. My bad, sorry. I think I probably did this on accident while dealing with a spambot. Have Un-blocked the New User Message. Thanks for pointing this out. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:19, 13 August 2016 (PDT)
 
::It's all good, it just took me a while and a lot of head scratching to figure out why it wasn't doing its job. Thanks! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 17:18, 13 August 2016 (PDT)
 
  
== Clan expert ==
+
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?
  
Frabby, a buddy of mine is writing a short story andhas just asked me for details on the [[Second Exodus]]. Previously, he would be my go-to guy for Clan history, so I really can't help him. He'd prefer to bypass the official forums. Do you have a recommendation as to who our resident Clan expert might be? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:24, 21 August 2016 (PDT)
+
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.
:Sadly, no. And I have to explicitly exclude myself here, I'm nowhere near an expert on Clan stuff. Plus, I've increasingly falling behind with reading all those new sourcebooks CGL is churning out. That said, I'll of course still answer any questions that I can answer though. There's not much information available on the Second Exodus that I'm aware of. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:49, 22 August 2016 (PDT)
 
:: Then it sounds like maybe he'd like a sounding board, if nothing more is available. I think his question will center on the 800 and their division into the Clans. Do you mind if I give him your email address, or would you prefer I send you his? Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:43, 22 August 2016 (PDT)
 
::: He can contact me at frabbybc at googlemail.com. (I think the adress you had is the old "spacious" domain which isn't used anymore.) If it's okay with your pal I might pass a question on to Phil Lee, assistant BattleCorps editor and a Clan expert in his own right. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 22:29, 22 August 2016 (PDT)
 
:::: Nice...I'll pass that along. Thanks, Frabby!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:44, 23 August 2016 (PDT)
 
=== Preceded by / Followed by in serial products ===
 
Hi Frabby, I've responded to your inquiry.  I'm sorry it's taken little while. I'm not on as i used to be.
 
As into your thoughts. I find it still useful to hafe the Preceded / Followed in the info box. It does help people to feel things are connected.  XTROs are finally puttering out, arguably the last ones are upon us this year.  However, core novels are beginning to start up again.  Example: Is Embers of War be considered part of the main of novels verses side story / stand alone story?  I think it is side story in bigger story-line the Jihad is, however, i think there so few books published so far part of the series, that EoW is more mainline story. CGL hasn't really been doing tight job yet of string products together, however they are.  I know it sound bit confusing. However, i think keeping the Preceded /Follow links for future use will be a good thing.  It gives sense of "How Many books are there in this series?" sort thing to it. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:04, 9 September 2016 (PDT)
 
  
== Fact checker ==
+
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)
Hi Frabby,
+
: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)
I want to become a fact checker only on german products, can you help me! What for skills i need? My english is not perfet i know, but i hope you can help me! The CGL guys are very critical is there any chance to give you a mail and you can look if it works in german language! --[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 14:11, 18 October 2016 (PDT)
 
:Ich fürchte, da kann ich leider nicht wirklich helfen. Ich habe Ulisses selbst meine Hilfe als BattleTech Factchecker insbesondere für ihre neuen Romane zwei Mal angeboten, aber keine Antwort bekommen. (Mit Bernard Craw hatte ich mich mal in anderer Sache unterhalten und er hat mich persönlich als Factchecker für ''[[Gier]]'' hinzugezogen, das ging gar nicht über Ulisses.) Da bleibt Dir eigentlich nur, direkt mit ihnen Kontakt aufzunehmen, vielleicht hast Du Glück. Ich wünsche Dir jedenfalls viel Erfolg! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:26, 18 October 2016 (PDT)
 
:Hi dank dir, ich hab mitlerweile alle deutschen BT novels und finde so viele fehler...unglaublich, naja ich glaub i hab keine chance, aber danke, BT is in my heart.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 14:46, 18 October 2016 (PDT)
 

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)