Difference between revisions of "User talk:Frabby"

(→‎MW1 Additions: Yes. Sigh.)
 
(511 intermediate revisions by 31 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)
 +
:''[[User talk:Frabby/Archive5|Archive 5]]'' (created 07 January 2021)
  
−
== Hunan ==
+
Feel free to leave a message. :)
−
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)
+
As of 07 Jan 2021, I archived all content on my talk page because I reckon there were no pending issues.
  
−
Thanks, --[[User:Workerbee|Workerbee]] 09:41, 30 May 2008 (CDT)
+
== The Nellus Academy Incident ==
−
: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]]). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:10, 30 May 2008 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Thanks again. --[[User:Workerbee|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 [http://cf.sarna.net/data/planets/iscs/planall.zip 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! --[[User:Scaletail|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. [[User:Frabby|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. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:46, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Coordinates ==
 
−
 
 
−
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>
 
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)
+
Have you read ''[[The Nellus Academy Incident]]''? I've just finished reading it, and there are a few details in it that are making the canon-processing part of my brain itch a little. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 16:49, 9 January 2021 (EST)
−
: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)
+
:Read it via BattleCorps; I also have the PoD standing on my shelf. Was going to produce a proper article, but since it ultimately seems like a side story of little relevance it got pushed back. I think I know what itches your brain though. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (EST)
−
::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)
+
::I'm going to keep reading the author's books - it was a good YA SF read - but I singled out three things that felt anachronistic to me: sending messages to and from Nestor via the jump point of somewhere near Gienah without an HPG, the presence of a COM-2Dr ''Commando'' which is a Jihad-era refit according to TRO-3085 in a novel set in 3067 (with it being a well-known enough variant for FWL cadets to recognise) and the ending section where the four-hundred thousand tonne ''Monolith'' class JumpShip was accompanied by WarShips "more than twice its mass" which at the time, can only be the ''Fylgia'' and ''Yggdrasil'', which seemed a bit of a stretch... I'd been thinking of trying to write up the summary for the webpage, but I'm not sure how to reconcile novels being the highest level of canon with these odd details. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:13, 10 January 2021 (EST)
−
 
 
−
==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)==
+
== Fortune Charlie ==
−
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)
+
Hi Frabby, I have not re-read the books, but from what you say, I nevertheless thing temporarily we should keep the information there and link to Operation CERBERUS once done, otherwise this piece of lore would be easily forgotten (at least for me).--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 07:21, 12 January 2021 (EST)
−
::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)
+
:Cerberus and its sub-commands is covered in quite some depth in the novella ''[[A Splinter of Hope]]''. If and when I get around to doing an article on Cerberus, Task Force Styx and Fortune Charlie within it will likely feature rather prominently. But I firmly believe Fortune Charlie should only be a redirect to the proper operation that it was a small part of. Calling Fortune Charlie a unit is at least misleading if not outright false, and as such I felt I couldn't just leave it there. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:57, 13 January 2021 (EST)
−
:::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)
+
::I read it yesterday, and it is true what you say. As members of "Fortune Charlie", only one unit is spoken by name, the others are considered an assorted mix of units, like Jihad era conglomerate of small mercenary commands by Devlin Stone.
  
−
==Reseen==
+
::Once you have full article though, we should redirect this page to the section that specifically explains what "Fortune Charlie" represents.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:22, 13 January 2021 (EST)
−
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)
+
==Emblematic Mech==
 +
Hello
 +
I finally take the time to write the [[Essay: Emblematic 'Mechs]] like you advise me to do almost a month ago (I had a lot of works before :(). I don't really feel like it's a true essay. I just extracted and centralized information dispersed in other articles, without putting thought or arguments. After, I have no idea if there is a better way to categorize it and you have far more knowledge on that than I. I would be very grateful if you can look at it and tell me what you think of it.
 +
[[User:Dermenore|Dermenore]] ([[User talk:Dermenore|talk]]) 16:48, 21 January 2021 (EST)
  
−
==Extra Sentence==
+
==Images for individual starships==
−
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)
+
Hiya, I wanted to ask you to refrain from putting generic ship class images into articles about individual vessels, like in the ''[[Full Moon]]'' article. There is a less than 1% chance that this image is actually showing the ''Full Moon'' out of the 106 ''Potemkin''s ever built. Please only use images that are confirmed, or at least reasonably likely, to depict the specific vessel in question. I feel using generic images is like putting a regular ''Centurion'' image into the infobox of the ''Yen-Lo-Wang'' article just because ''Yen-Lo-Wang'' is a ''Centurion''. If there is no picture for a specific starship then so be it. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (EST)
−
: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)
+
::Frappy, do you know the long ODDS of individual Warship picture to be created? Likelness is 1% it will ever be made. That's crazy Frabby. Unless something special is made, i think that sort policy is bit going too far. --[[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:36, 4 February 2021 (EST)
−
::Okay I removed it. Thanks for the explanation! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:32, 1 September 2014 (PDT)
+
:::::I'm afraid this where we have to '''"Agree, to disagree"'''.  This a Warship, not a person with thinking mind or a unique one-off vessel. You can't capture EVERYTHING. I think your being too specific. This my personal view. Specially with BattleTech, Warships are least love units aside from ProtoMechs by some element of our fandom/gamedom.  Warship is a Warship unless it's a variant.  Frabby, the thing is that Full Moon, is a Clan 3057 version. Technical Readout: 3057 Revised spells it out that Clans changed their ships in this specific case. Mk39 looks like old Vincent from 2750. That's been established. Yet there now 2 kinds of McKennas. Completely different, like much of 2750 ships such as with Aegis specially, but again. 3057 Revised  spell out which one is which when it happened. I think your going too far with this. Mjolnir for instance looks same as the sister ship.  There no individual pictures of now destroyed second ship. As again, i think your being too picky.  I say again, "Agree, to disagree". Your one main editors now here, i'm just some body who helps out since i can't complete in editing and my work isn't as close to people who those who here daily. What you say goes, i personally thing your going too far on dead end subject. I will do as you say, i think your in wrong this. I don't want be banned. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (EST)
  
−
==Mercenary's Star==
+
==Developer Insights==
−
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)
+
I read a [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/recognition-guide-ilclan-discussion-part-2/msg1698319/#msg1698319 post on the official forum] that had great insight into the changes to the Tukayyid "C" 'Mech record sheets. I feel like that would be great information to archive here in some way, but I'm not sure how. A link in the 'Mech article notes might work, but the BT forum are far from permanent. Any ideas or opinions?--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (EST)
−
: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)
+
:It's probably gonna be important when trying to explain that, and why, the "C" configurations were retconned to what was now established. As a first thought, perhaps copy that post into an Essay type article and link to that in the 'Mech articles whenever a "C" variant is discussed.
−
::Okidoki. Sorry that it had to be overcomplicated. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:33, 2 September 2014 (PDT)
+
:In the past I used to archive such information on the pertinent talk page; but this is different as it is not exactly a ruling, and also much longer. So I think it needs to be treated differently. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:46, 18 February 2021 (EST)
 +
::I like the "essay" idea. I have PM'd the author for permission to copy.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (EST)
  
−
== Les Dorscheid Portfolio ==
+
==Sam Lewis in Wolves on the Border==
−
Hi Frabby,<br>
+
Hey Frabby,  
−
I think you and I may have discussed this before, but I can't remember where. There are a couple of portfolios of BattleTech art by Les Dorscheid up on eBay; it's listed as Gallery Set One, with the BattleTech logo and the copyright information for FASA on it. You can see them here: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Battletech-A-Portfolio-By-Les-Dorscheid-/390740143814?pt=UK_Books_Comics_Magazines_US_Comics_ET&hash=item5af9ed6ec6 - my question is, should that be listed here as a BattlTech item? (It may be already, but I couldn't find it via the artist's bio page here, so it might just need re-tagging). I know the name "BattleTech Gallery One" is a bit vague, in that it might be the first gallery of art by Les Dorscheid for BattleTech, or it may be the first of a series of BattleTech Gallery sets by a range of artists, but it feels like something we should have listed here, given that we include things like that very dodgy fanfic novel... [[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 ==
+
I have just done a search in my ebook copy of [[Wolves on the Border]] for [[Sam Lewis (Scientist)|Sam Lewis]]. I can't find any mention of him in the book.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 09:18, 4 March 2021 (EST)
  
−
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)
+
:Checked my print books, and ayup, you're right: It's one Prof. McGuffin (!!) who was mentioned along Dr. Banzai for the Jump Stabilizer. Seems I plainly misremembered. The reference to Professor-General Sam Lewis was in [[Warrior: Coupe]] instead, according to his article here. Might as well have looked there first. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:00, 4 March 2021 (EST)
−
:Thanks. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (PDT)
 
  
−
==More Video Game Discussion==
+
== Image Categories ==
−
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)
 
−
 
−
==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 ==
 
 
Hi Frabby,
 
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 [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Planet_Article_Overhaul|here]] two-and-a-half years ago, and the result was just three of us commenting. Do you still have a fundamental objection to the affiliation list with dates remaining in the article? Only since you and I had that conversation, the editing history of planets is basically Doneve/me adding more data points, me adding narrative detail when I work through books, and nobody else really doing anything specific to planets, so at the moment we're not getting the narrative you want, the narrative and data points I want or much participation beyond the normal jogging. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:01, 19 November 2014 (PST)
+
Do you know how the system maps are generated? All those images don't have a category and this makes the [https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Special:UncategorizedFiles Uncategorized files] not very useful as from the first 1000 thousand maybe 95% images as these ones. And I do not want to put them in a category as this might affect the "program" that generates them. Do you know who can help? Maybe when the image is generated it can be put in a category like "System Images". I'm asking more people, but do you have any idea?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:22, 8 March 2021 (EST)
−
 
 
−
:Good question BM. Iam in work to update the owner history, but very slow, i hope we can found a clear consensus.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 10:06, 19 November 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
::Frabby, I've started testing the new article layout by working through the planets starting with A. I think I've managed to get half a dozen or so done this afternoon. The new article layout has the interesting side effect of turning a lot of planet articles into system articles. One of the problems I'm running into is lack of detail, though; if you look at an article like the one for [[Abbadiyah]], you'll see that the required text for the article overview encompasses almost everything known about the system - I had to scratch around to find anything to put in the system history section. It might be worth thinking about whether the requirements for each narrative section need tweaking, given that the vast majority of the planet articles on here will probably have very little detail in them to begin with. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:16, 16 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Turning the planet articles into system articles was the whole idea behind the exercise, wasn't it? ;) I don't mind the lack of detail at all. Changing planet articles into system articles is a huge and important change to boot, and it doesn't make much difference if the item you're lacking detail on is a planet or a system. Also, look at it this way: Unimportant, un-detailed systems are bound to be less interesting to users whereas high-profile systems tend to have a lot of detail on them available. It's really systems like [[Hesperus]] that should shape the article layout. That said, if certain text headers remain empty then you don't have to have them in the article. Think of the layout as a tool to make your life easier, not a form to make your life miserable. Ignore it where it doesn't help you. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
::::It seems to be working fairly well at the moment - Doneve and I have started rolling the template out, and I've changed a few minor things as I get more practised. Where there's nothing in print about the system, I've started marking them as having one habitable world ''or construct'' rather than simply at least one habitable planet, because I don't think we can be certain that they aren't significant systems in the same way that the [[Gulf Breeze]] system is, with it's inhabited mining station, or the Periphery system where the settlement is built around a recharging station with DropShips stuck on it. I'm not entirely comfortable with having an "as at -current year-" statement in the header, but it does make it easier for casual readers to work out where the world is, particularly for those that we don't have maps for yet - although in practise, I'm using either 2750, 2765 or 3145 as the current year. One specific problem I hit is [[Achernar]], though - there's a lot of information in the planetary info section in the current article with no citations. Some of the detail looks sort of right from what I could find in texts like Dark Age Republic Worlds (3130), but there's a lot of information I can't find a source for. I don't have a lot of the novels though (or any of the Dark Age novels) and I've only got a small percentage of the BattleCorps shorts. Could you take a look and see if you can identify the source information? I've checked and it doesn't look like it comes from BattleTechnology, which was my first thought, but I think that the Call to Arms novel might be set on Achernar, and I think there's a Decision at Achernar short that I don't have a copy of that may have supplied the detail. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:49, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::The Chaos Irregulars short story is actually titled ''[[Decision at Acamar]]'' and has nothing to do with Achernar. ''[[A Call to Arms]]'' is indeed set on Achernar, but I haven't read most of the DA novels yet including this one. I suspect most information comes from this novel though. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::I checked ''[[A Call to Arms]]'', and you are right Frabby, the most info comes from the Novel, but i know iam not a fluff writer i hope any other can step in and add some infos and references from the source.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::I hate to say it, but I'm not going to rush out, buy A Call to Arms and read it for the sake of the article. I know my commitment is lacking, but so is money... and I'd rather buy the new Succession Wars books that are coming up ;) [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::I can added the info from A Call to Arms (but from the german novel), i hope anyone can check the speeling and grammers ;).--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::::I can do that! I'm off out to a Christmas lunch (and have been drinking a very agreeable Cabernet Merlot blend all morning) but I'll take a look at the article tonight or tomorrow. Remind me to give you an award for assisting an admin in a time of need (and intoxication!) [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:15, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::::I think I have the english Epub version of ''A Call to Arms'' on my HD (I got a bunch of DA novels in print and an even bigger bunch as Epub, and legit I may add but like I said I didn't read them all yet). Maybe I'll make that book my next novel project then.<br />BrokenMnemonic, what new Succession Wars era novels are you talking about? Did I miss anything? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::::::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==
+
== Adding Design Programs in Left Menu ==
−
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)
 
  
−
== Turning Points Article ==
+
Do you think is worth adding a direct link the the design softwares? The pages I've been adding: [[:Category:Battletech Design Software]].--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:12, 22 March 2021 (EDT)
  
−
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.
+
== Board Game ==
−
[[User:Orwell84|Orwell84]] ([[User talk:Orwell84|talk]]) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Canonicity ==
 
−
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)
 
−
: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)
 
−
::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==
 
−
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 ==
 
−
Hi Frabby,<br>
 
−
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)
 
−
: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)
 
−
::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)
 
  
−
== System Names ==
+
Afternoon, Frabby. IRT [[Board Game]], I'm not sure what to make of this page. It seems to attract the attention of multiple Editors, but...what is it saying? I'm thinking of categorizing it as either Lists or Miscellaneous, but...I just don't get it. Advise, please. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:38, 9 May 2021 (EDT)
−
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:
+
:It's funny that you raise this just now. I've had to take a short wikibreak of sorts and taking that step back made me realize there's a laundry list of admin-level issues on Sarna that needs to be adressed, or at least is becoming a serious problem from my viewpoint. Presentation, project coordination, category structure, article structures, newbie help,  you name it. Artifact articles like this one you mentioned are a small facet of one of the major chapters on this wish list. I was going to discuss this with Nic and the active admins shortly and I'm extremely happy to have you back so expect mail shortly (couple of days probably). :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:03, 9 May 2021 (EDT)
−
* "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)
+
::Roger that, muh-man. I'll hold off on any action until in receipt of your treatise. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:20, 9 May 2021 (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)
+
== Brawlers ==
  
−
== Canonicity ==
+
Afternoon, Frabby. Would you please take a look at my attempt to update the [[Brawler]] article? I'm specifically asking for a review of the general completeness of the role's description and the (hopefully) fair-use presentation of the ''Alpha Strike'' description. If/when it is acceptable, I'm intending to update/build the remaining unit role articles, including for the ASFs. Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:26, 15 May 2021 (EDT)
−
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)
+
:Unfortunately I've never played Alpha Strike, never even completely read the AS rulebook. I'm totally in the dark about that game system. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:07, 18 June 2021 (EDT)
−
: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==
+
== Longbow Note ==
−
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)
+
Hey Frabby. In the note you left on the Longbow article, it may be worth mentioning that Ral Partha produced the miniature using the Unseen image, [[Ral_Partha_Catalogs#Ral_Partha_Catalog_1988|in their catalog starting in 1988]], which coincides with the appearances in ''Merc's Handbook'' and ''The Star League''. --[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 11:01, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
 +
:That's indeed worth noting. I don't have that catalogue, and didn't know that (I'm really not very much into miniatures). Can you expand the Notes to include this info? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:07, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
 +
::I gave it a shot. Hopefully I got the point across while maintaining the flow.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 11:59, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
 +
:::Pretty good, thank you. I take it "sku" is part of the product name? In an ideal world we would have an article link here, but miniatures are the stepchild of Sarna and I am in no position to improve the situation. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:16, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
 +
::::SKU stands for Stock Keeping Unit--the manufacturers stock number for the product. It is listed in the catalog article, there just isn't an easy way to directly link to its exact location. Setting individual anchors is a bit of a task.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 12:27, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
  
−
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)
+
==Four minor points==
 +
:''(Moved from user page to user talk page)''
 +
I can't get the hang of pinging on this wiki, so I came to your page. It's nice to have feedback because my efforts aren't perfect.
 +
* Re: AeroSpace Fighter, I've been using the [[Policy:BattleTech Style Guide]] connected to the Manual of Style, which requires CamelCase. I don't think I have a copy of the BattleCorps MOS.
 +
* Re: Mad Jumpin Jacks, it was inconsistent within the article so I went with what's at the [[Phoenix (Mercenary Command)]] page the unit name redirects to. I don't read German and I don't know if I have a PDF or doc of the novel to check against so I didn't even try to consult the original.
 +
* Re: Hyphen use in co-founder. I've been going with Fowler ("hyphens are regrettable necessities, and to be done without when they reasonably may") due in part to the over(mis)use of hyphens by CGL. I'm using a dictionary aggregator and the Chicago Manual of Style for hyphenation but I'm bound to get a few wrong.
 +
* Re: Correcting quotations. I try to consult the original text before correcting quotes but I know I miss some; I'm glad to have my mistakes corrected. I've actually had to correct a few quotes in other articles to match what's in the original product text.
 +
It would have been helpful if FASA/FanPro/CGL had at least tried to be consistent in its own products... [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]])
  
−
: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)
+
==PseudoTech==
 +
Hey Frabby.  Saw that you removed Moratorium from [[PseudoTech: Arcade Operations]]. Please note this is ''not'' a Free product.  It costs $2.99 in the CGL store and DriveThruRPG.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (EDT)
 +
:D'oh. Me sloppy. Thanks for pointing out! Changing back. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:03, 7 April 2022 (EDT)
  
−
::Email sent. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
+
== Some German edition issues ==
  
−
== Development of IO ==
+
Frabby.  I encountered two issues related to German editions of certain novels. The issues are posted in [[Talk:List of German BattleTech novels]] and [[Talk:Shadows of War]]. Please feel free to share any insights that may help resolve those.  Thanks. --[[User:Dude RB|Dude RB]] ([[User talk:Dude RB|talk]]) 22:23, 15 June 2022 (EDT)
−
You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, Herb's written quite an interesting post on the recent development history of ''[[Interstellar Operations]]''. It's up on the CGL forum [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/new-and-upcoming-releases-vol-iii-what's-next/msg1087180/#msg1087180 here]. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (PDT)
 
−
:Nothing really new in there though. I'm in the factchecker group, and as such I've seen (and participated in) some of the work process. Sarna will have to go over this tome with a very fine-toothed comb given all the hard data we're going to get. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:50, 26 June 2015 (PDT)
 
  
−
== Sarna as a Writing Resource ==
+
:Just gonna drop this here, as sorta related: [[Im Schatten der Bestie]] had some notes added to the Canonicity section about Mech names and mistranslations. I just moved it down to a Notes section and otherwise left it be, but if you get a chance, please take a look?  Thanks!--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 18:01, 17 June 2022 (EDT)
−
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==
+
== Intermedia X-Pulse Laser ==
−
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 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)
 
  
−
== Rare BattleTech Items ==
+
I just saw that you reverted [[Intermedia X-Pulse Laser]] from where I had marked it for deletion.  I am rather confused: it is one among a pile of similar redirects that used to point to Fanon, has nothing linking to it, and I can't see why it would need to stay?--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 08:22, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
−
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)
+
:I did? Damn. Presumably another case of me hitting the stupid "rollback" button when I was really only trying to scroll down the recent changes on my not-so-smart phone. I hate that button! And this time I didn't even realize I had hit it. Re-deleted. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:58, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
::I have never tried to use this site on anything smaller than an iPad.  Somebody rolled my userpage back a couple months, once. :D Thanks for fixing.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 13:00, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
  
−
== Orca Talk ==
+
== Astronomical Features  ==
−
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, you raised a [[Category talk:Astronomical Features|point]] about the definition of [[:Category:Astronomical Features]] back in 2020.  I know that idea may have grown dormant since then, but can you elabaorate (in [[Category talk:Astronomical Features]]) on the issues you see/recall from then and whether they still need attention now? --[[User:Dude RB|Dude RB]] ([[User talk:Dude RB|talk]]) 00:03, 5 July 2022 (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)
+
:Thanks for the ping. I’ve replied over on the discussion page. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:18, 5 July 2022 (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)
 
−
::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)
 
−
:::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 ==
+
== Japanese Editions ==
−
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==
+
I seem to recall you collect foreign editions. I have done more detective work: [[Category_talk:Japanese_Editions]] --[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 13:25, 7 July 2022 (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)
 
−
: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".
 
−
: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 ==
+
== ä ==
−
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 ==
+
[[Glenmora (Individual Trutzburg-class äDropShip)]]--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 08:31, 11 July 2022 (EDT)
−
You talk this to me:
+
:Oops. Fixed. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:35, 11 July 2022 (EDT)
−
: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)
+
== 25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set and BattleTech Einsteigerbox ==
  
−
== Monitor ==
+
Hello Frabby. I saw your removal of the German edition information from [[25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set]] and the note on the edit.  I am curious to get your vantage point on this.  While the 2012 ''BattleTech Einsteigerbox'' did not adopt a German version of the title, it does appears that its cover and the components are a port over of those in the 25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set, using the component list from [https://web.archive.org/web/20160813065958/http://www.ulisses-spiele.de/sortiment/tabletop/battletech/produkte/36/battletech-einsteigerbox/ the archived product page from Ulisses-Spiele].) Some of the contained booklets have page counts off by four, but the descriptions of the maps and the 'Mechs, including the premium 'Mechs, seem to align.  Even in the lower right hand corner of the cover  [[:File:BattleTech Einsteigerbox-cover.jpg]] there is a note that reads '25 jahriges jubilaum kampfkollosse des 4 jahrtausends' (trans. 25th anniversary of the battle colossi of the 4th millennium) so it also seems to be acknowledging the 25th anniversary of BattleTech.  It would seem proper to classify this as a German version of the ''25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set'' even though the title is vastly different. Is there something that I am missing or overlooking (whether in terms of interpretation or historical context)?  An error on my part is quite possible, especially as German is not a language I am fluent in. I would be curious to get a proper understanding one way or the other.  --[[User:Dude RB|Dude RB]] ([[User talk:Dude RB|talk]]) 19:47, 9 January 2023 (EST)
−
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)
+
:Need to research this a little more. The Anniversary Box and subsequent Introduction Box are very similar, that makes it difficult to decide which (if indeed any particular one) of them the German box is based on. It can't really be both though. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:51, 14 January 2023 (EST)
−
: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)
+
::One thing to note is that there are (at least) two different versions of the ''BattleTech Einsteigerbox''.  One released in 2012. And one released in 2014.  Ulisses-Spielle calls the latter ''BattleTech Einsteigerbox (Neuauflage)''.  See [https://web.archive.org/web/20160813065958/http://www.ulisses-spiele.de/sortiment/tabletop/battletech/produkte/36/battletech-einsteigerbox/ BattleTech Einsteigerbox] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20140910183509/http://www.ulisses-spiele.de/produkte/954/battletech-einsteigerbox-neuauflage/ BattleTech Einsteigerbox (Neuauflage)] for a comparison.  In fact at the bottom of the web-listing for the older one is a link to the entry for the newer one.  --[[User:Dude RB|Dude RB]] ([[User talk:Dude RB|talk]]) 12:59, 14 January 2023 (EST)
 +
After looking into this I fully agree with you and have re-inserted the German edition parts into the 25th Anniversary Box article. Thanks for calling me out on this mistake. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:55, 19 January 2023 (EST)
 +
:Thanks for the update and the independent confirmation.  It is definitely good to have another set of eyes to help confirm or correct.  --[[User:Dude RB|Dude RB]] ([[User talk:Dude RB|talk]]) 19:20, 20 January 2023 (EST)
  
−
==MW1 Additions==
+
==Disambig (cont.)==
−
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, I'm not sure if you read my last reply in my talk page's Disambig discussion. Have you given any more thought to matter? --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 09:08, 22 September 2023 (EDT)
−
:Yes... basically. I've actually done it in most 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)
+
:Just checking in. As of this moment we are at 1,252 disambig pages and still climbing. I've finished going through all Clan characters and bloodnames currently in the database and have moved on to systems. Deadfire has helped me eliminate several hundred "structural" redirects to improve the search and autocomplete functions. Continuing to add disambig/seeother notes on non-Clan pages as previously discussed. Do you feel things are working and progressing to your satisfaction? [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 07:23, 9 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::You're putting much more work into this than I ever did, honestly. I'm totally fine with it. In individual cases I might disagree regarding the disambig/seeother tag at the page header but if and when I run across something and actually find the time to lean into it, I'll ping you. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:52, 9 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:::Appreciate it. If you feel the wording of the tag can be improved, of course please make whatever adjustments you feel is appropriate. Sometimes it's not always clear and I'm just doing a quick scan of the article for key words to put in. [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::Following up on something. Going through the DropShips and WarShips looking for same-named ships, I didn't realize just how many ships were needlessly disambiguated. I didn't count but there's maybe 100? My feelings on this have changed since you first mentioned it last August. Some of them make sense and understandable to leave as is, but if given the opportunity one day I'd be happy to move 90% of them back to their appropriate, simplified links, along with text replacements to rid the wiki of redirects that we don't need, decluttering the search function a little. [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 01:07, 4 March 2024 (EST)
 +
:Oh, you're really preaching to the choir here. Apparently, someone got the notion that all ship names should be disambiguated to "name (class, type)". That wasn't my idea and I never liked it. You are very welcome to purge unneccessary redirects and disambiguations! A word of caution though, there are some edge cases where a ship was renamed and one of its earlier names may be a redirect that requires disambiguation (we do try to track previous names by redirecting these names to the vessel's latest established name). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:37, 4 March 2024 (EST)
 +
::When the time comes, I'll be thorough during my checks. :) [[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (EST)

Latest revision as of 03:21, 4 March 2024

Archive 1 (created 04 January 2012)
Archive 2 (created 01 January 2013)
Archive 3 (created 03 January 2014)
Archive 4 (created 04 January 2018)
Archive 5 (created 07 January 2021)

Feel free to leave a message. :)

As of 07 Jan 2021, I archived all content on my talk page because I reckon there were no pending issues.

The Nellus Academy Incident[edit]

Hi Frabby,
Have you read The Nellus Academy Incident? I've just finished reading it, and there are a few details in it that are making the canon-processing part of my brain itch a little. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2021 (EST)

Read it via BattleCorps; I also have the PoD standing on my shelf. Was going to produce a proper article, but since it ultimately seems like a side story of little relevance it got pushed back. I think I know what itches your brain though. :) Frabby (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (EST)
I'm going to keep reading the author's books - it was a good YA SF read - but I singled out three things that felt anachronistic to me: sending messages to and from Nestor via the jump point of somewhere near Gienah without an HPG, the presence of a COM-2Dr Commando which is a Jihad-era refit according to TRO-3085 in a novel set in 3067 (with it being a well-known enough variant for FWL cadets to recognise) and the ending section where the four-hundred thousand tonne Monolith class JumpShip was accompanied by WarShips "more than twice its mass" which at the time, can only be the Fylgia and Yggdrasil, which seemed a bit of a stretch... I'd been thinking of trying to write up the summary for the webpage, but I'm not sure how to reconcile novels being the highest level of canon with these odd details. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2021 (EST)

Fortune Charlie[edit]

Hi Frabby, I have not re-read the books, but from what you say, I nevertheless thing temporarily we should keep the information there and link to Operation CERBERUS once done, otherwise this piece of lore would be easily forgotten (at least for me).--Pserratv (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2021 (EST)

Cerberus and its sub-commands is covered in quite some depth in the novella A Splinter of Hope. If and when I get around to doing an article on Cerberus, Task Force Styx and Fortune Charlie within it will likely feature rather prominently. But I firmly believe Fortune Charlie should only be a redirect to the proper operation that it was a small part of. Calling Fortune Charlie a unit is at least misleading if not outright false, and as such I felt I couldn't just leave it there. Frabby (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2021 (EST)
I read it yesterday, and it is true what you say. As members of "Fortune Charlie", only one unit is spoken by name, the others are considered an assorted mix of units, like Jihad era conglomerate of small mercenary commands by Devlin Stone.
Once you have full article though, we should redirect this page to the section that specifically explains what "Fortune Charlie" represents.--Pserratv (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2021 (EST)

Emblematic Mech[edit]

Hello I finally take the time to write the Essay: Emblematic 'Mechs like you advise me to do almost a month ago (I had a lot of works before :(). I don't really feel like it's a true essay. I just extracted and centralized information dispersed in other articles, without putting thought or arguments. After, I have no idea if there is a better way to categorize it and you have far more knowledge on that than I. I would be very grateful if you can look at it and tell me what you think of it. Dermenore (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2021 (EST)

Images for individual starships[edit]

Hiya, I wanted to ask you to refrain from putting generic ship class images into articles about individual vessels, like in the Full Moon article. There is a less than 1% chance that this image is actually showing the Full Moon out of the 106 Potemkins ever built. Please only use images that are confirmed, or at least reasonably likely, to depict the specific vessel in question. I feel using generic images is like putting a regular Centurion image into the infobox of the Yen-Lo-Wang article just because Yen-Lo-Wang is a Centurion. If there is no picture for a specific starship then so be it. Frabby (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (EST)

Frappy, do you know the long ODDS of individual Warship picture to be created? Likelness is 1% it will ever be made. That's crazy Frabby. Unless something special is made, i think that sort policy is bit going too far. --Wrangler (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2021 (EST)
I'm afraid this where we have to "Agree, to disagree". This a Warship, not a person with thinking mind or a unique one-off vessel. You can't capture EVERYTHING. I think your being too specific. This my personal view. Specially with BattleTech, Warships are least love units aside from ProtoMechs by some element of our fandom/gamedom. Warship is a Warship unless it's a variant. Frabby, the thing is that Full Moon, is a Clan 3057 version. Technical Readout: 3057 Revised spells it out that Clans changed their ships in this specific case. Mk39 looks like old Vincent from 2750. That's been established. Yet there now 2 kinds of McKennas. Completely different, like much of 2750 ships such as with Aegis specially, but again. 3057 Revised spell out which one is which when it happened. I think your going too far with this. Mjolnir for instance looks same as the sister ship. There no individual pictures of now destroyed second ship. As again, i think your being too picky. I say again, "Agree, to disagree". Your one main editors now here, i'm just some body who helps out since i can't complete in editing and my work isn't as close to people who those who here daily. What you say goes, i personally thing your going too far on dead end subject. I will do as you say, i think your in wrong this. I don't want be banned. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (EST)

Developer Insights[edit]

I read a post on the official forum that had great insight into the changes to the Tukayyid "C" 'Mech record sheets. I feel like that would be great information to archive here in some way, but I'm not sure how. A link in the 'Mech article notes might work, but the BT forum are far from permanent. Any ideas or opinions?--Cache (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (EST)

It's probably gonna be important when trying to explain that, and why, the "C" configurations were retconned to what was now established. As a first thought, perhaps copy that post into an Essay type article and link to that in the 'Mech articles whenever a "C" variant is discussed.
In the past I used to archive such information on the pertinent talk page; but this is different as it is not exactly a ruling, and also much longer. So I think it needs to be treated differently. Frabby (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2021 (EST)
I like the "essay" idea. I have PM'd the author for permission to copy.--Cache (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (EST)

Sam Lewis in Wolves on the Border[edit]

Hey Frabby,

I have just done a search in my ebook copy of Wolves on the Border for Sam Lewis. I can't find any mention of him in the book.--Dmon (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2021 (EST)

Checked my print books, and ayup, you're right: It's one Prof. McGuffin (!!) who was mentioned along Dr. Banzai for the Jump Stabilizer. Seems I plainly misremembered. The reference to Professor-General Sam Lewis was in Warrior: Coupe instead, according to his article here. Might as well have looked there first. Frabby (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2021 (EST)

Image Categories[edit]

Hi Frabby,

Do you know how the system maps are generated? All those images don't have a category and this makes the Uncategorized files not very useful as from the first 1000 thousand maybe 95% images as these ones. And I do not want to put them in a category as this might affect the "program" that generates them. Do you know who can help? Maybe when the image is generated it can be put in a category like "System Images". I'm asking more people, but do you have any idea?--Pserratv (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2021 (EST)

Adding Design Programs in Left Menu[edit]

Do you think is worth adding a direct link the the design softwares? The pages I've been adding: Category:Battletech Design Software.--Pserratv (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Board Game[edit]

Afternoon, Frabby. IRT Board Game, I'm not sure what to make of this page. It seems to attract the attention of multiple Editors, but...what is it saying? I'm thinking of categorizing it as either Lists or Miscellaneous, but...I just don't get it. Advise, please. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:38, 9 May 2021 (EDT)

It's funny that you raise this just now. I've had to take a short wikibreak of sorts and taking that step back made me realize there's a laundry list of admin-level issues on Sarna that needs to be adressed, or at least is becoming a serious problem from my viewpoint. Presentation, project coordination, category structure, article structures, newbie help, you name it. Artifact articles like this one you mentioned are a small facet of one of the major chapters on this wish list. I was going to discuss this with Nic and the active admins shortly and I'm extremely happy to have you back so expect mail shortly (couple of days probably). :) Frabby (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2021 (EDT)
Roger that, muh-man. I'll hold off on any action until in receipt of your treatise. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:20, 9 May 2021 (EDT)

Brawlers[edit]

Afternoon, Frabby. Would you please take a look at my attempt to update the Brawler article? I'm specifically asking for a review of the general completeness of the role's description and the (hopefully) fair-use presentation of the Alpha Strike description. If/when it is acceptable, I'm intending to update/build the remaining unit role articles, including for the ASFs. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:26, 15 May 2021 (EDT)

Unfortunately I've never played Alpha Strike, never even completely read the AS rulebook. I'm totally in the dark about that game system. Frabby (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2021 (EDT)

Longbow Note[edit]

Hey Frabby. In the note you left on the Longbow article, it may be worth mentioning that Ral Partha produced the miniature using the Unseen image, in their catalog starting in 1988, which coincides with the appearances in Merc's Handbook and The Star League. --Cache (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2021 (EDT)

That's indeed worth noting. I don't have that catalogue, and didn't know that (I'm really not very much into miniatures). Can you expand the Notes to include this info? Frabby (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
I gave it a shot. Hopefully I got the point across while maintaining the flow.--Cache (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
Pretty good, thank you. I take it "sku" is part of the product name? In an ideal world we would have an article link here, but miniatures are the stepchild of Sarna and I am in no position to improve the situation. Frabby (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2021 (EDT)
SKU stands for Stock Keeping Unit--the manufacturers stock number for the product. It is listed in the catalog article, there just isn't an easy way to directly link to its exact location. Setting individual anchors is a bit of a task.--Cache (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2021 (EDT)

Four minor points[edit]

(Moved from user page to user talk page)

I can't get the hang of pinging on this wiki, so I came to your page. It's nice to have feedback because my efforts aren't perfect.

  • Re: AeroSpace Fighter, I've been using the Policy:BattleTech Style Guide connected to the Manual of Style, which requires CamelCase. I don't think I have a copy of the BattleCorps MOS.
  • Re: Mad Jumpin Jacks, it was inconsistent within the article so I went with what's at the Phoenix (Mercenary Command) page the unit name redirects to. I don't read German and I don't know if I have a PDF or doc of the novel to check against so I didn't even try to consult the original.
  • Re: Hyphen use in co-founder. I've been going with Fowler ("hyphens are regrettable necessities, and to be done without when they reasonably may") due in part to the over(mis)use of hyphens by CGL. I'm using a dictionary aggregator and the Chicago Manual of Style for hyphenation but I'm bound to get a few wrong.
  • Re: Correcting quotations. I try to consult the original text before correcting quotes but I know I miss some; I'm glad to have my mistakes corrected. I've actually had to correct a few quotes in other articles to match what's in the original product text.

It would have been helpful if FASA/FanPro/CGL had at least tried to be consistent in its own products... Madness Divine (talk)

PseudoTech[edit]

Hey Frabby. Saw that you removed Moratorium from PseudoTech: Arcade Operations. Please note this is not a Free product. It costs $2.99 in the CGL store and DriveThruRPG.--Talvin (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (EDT)

D'oh. Me sloppy. Thanks for pointing out! Changing back. Frabby (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2022 (EDT)

Some German edition issues[edit]

Frabby. I encountered two issues related to German editions of certain novels. The issues are posted in Talk:List of German BattleTech novels and Talk:Shadows of War. Please feel free to share any insights that may help resolve those. Thanks. --Dude RB (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2022 (EDT)

Just gonna drop this here, as sorta related: Im Schatten der Bestie had some notes added to the Canonicity section about Mech names and mistranslations. I just moved it down to a Notes section and otherwise left it be, but if you get a chance, please take a look? Thanks!--Talvin (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2022 (EDT)

Intermedia X-Pulse Laser[edit]

I just saw that you reverted Intermedia X-Pulse Laser from where I had marked it for deletion. I am rather confused: it is one among a pile of similar redirects that used to point to Fanon, has nothing linking to it, and I can't see why it would need to stay?--Talvin (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2022 (EDT)

I did? Damn. Presumably another case of me hitting the stupid "rollback" button when I was really only trying to scroll down the recent changes on my not-so-smart phone. I hate that button! And this time I didn't even realize I had hit it. Re-deleted. Frabby (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
I have never tried to use this site on anything smaller than an iPad. Somebody rolled my userpage back a couple months, once. :D Thanks for fixing.--Talvin (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2022 (EDT)

Astronomical Features[edit]

Frabby, you raised a point about the definition of Category:Astronomical Features back in 2020. I know that idea may have grown dormant since then, but can you elabaorate (in Category talk:Astronomical Features) on the issues you see/recall from then and whether they still need attention now? --Dude RB (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the ping. I’ve replied over on the discussion page. Frabby (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Japanese Editions[edit]

I seem to recall you collect foreign editions. I have done more detective work: Category_talk:Japanese_Editions --Talvin (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2022 (EDT)

ä[edit]

Glenmora (Individual Trutzburg-class äDropShip)--Talvin (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2022 (EDT)

Oops. Fixed. Frabby (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2022 (EDT)

25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set and BattleTech Einsteigerbox[edit]

Hello Frabby. I saw your removal of the German edition information from 25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set and the note on the edit. I am curious to get your vantage point on this. While the 2012 BattleTech Einsteigerbox did not adopt a German version of the title, it does appears that its cover and the components are a port over of those in the 25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set, using the component list from the archived product page from Ulisses-Spiele.) Some of the contained booklets have page counts off by four, but the descriptions of the maps and the 'Mechs, including the premium 'Mechs, seem to align. Even in the lower right hand corner of the cover File:BattleTech Einsteigerbox-cover.jpg there is a note that reads '25 jahriges jubilaum kampfkollosse des 4 jahrtausends' (trans. 25th anniversary of the battle colossi of the 4th millennium) so it also seems to be acknowledging the 25th anniversary of BattleTech. It would seem proper to classify this as a German version of the 25th Anniversary Introductory Box Set even though the title is vastly different. Is there something that I am missing or overlooking (whether in terms of interpretation or historical context)? An error on my part is quite possible, especially as German is not a language I am fluent in. I would be curious to get a proper understanding one way or the other. --Dude RB (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2023 (EST)

Need to research this a little more. The Anniversary Box and subsequent Introduction Box are very similar, that makes it difficult to decide which (if indeed any particular one) of them the German box is based on. It can't really be both though. Frabby (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2023 (EST)
One thing to note is that there are (at least) two different versions of the BattleTech Einsteigerbox. One released in 2012. And one released in 2014. Ulisses-Spielle calls the latter BattleTech Einsteigerbox (Neuauflage). See BattleTech Einsteigerbox and BattleTech Einsteigerbox (Neuauflage) for a comparison. In fact at the bottom of the web-listing for the older one is a link to the entry for the newer one. --Dude RB (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2023 (EST)

After looking into this I fully agree with you and have re-inserted the German edition parts into the 25th Anniversary Box article. Thanks for calling me out on this mistake. Frabby (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2023 (EST)

Thanks for the update and the independent confirmation. It is definitely good to have another set of eyes to help confirm or correct. --Dude RB (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2023 (EST)

Disambig (cont.)[edit]

Hi Frabby, I'm not sure if you read my last reply in my talk page's Disambig discussion. Have you given any more thought to matter? --Csdavis715 (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2023 (EDT)

Just checking in. As of this moment we are at 1,252 disambig pages and still climbing. I've finished going through all Clan characters and bloodnames currently in the database and have moved on to systems. Deadfire has helped me eliminate several hundred "structural" redirects to improve the search and autocomplete functions. Continuing to add disambig/seeother notes on non-Clan pages as previously discussed. Do you feel things are working and progressing to your satisfaction? Csdavis715 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2023 (EST)
You're putting much more work into this than I ever did, honestly. I'm totally fine with it. In individual cases I might disagree regarding the disambig/seeother tag at the page header but if and when I run across something and actually find the time to lean into it, I'll ping you. Frabby (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2023 (EST)
Appreciate it. If you feel the wording of the tag can be improved, of course please make whatever adjustments you feel is appropriate. Sometimes it's not always clear and I'm just doing a quick scan of the article for key words to put in. Csdavis715 (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (EST)
Following up on something. Going through the DropShips and WarShips looking for same-named ships, I didn't realize just how many ships were needlessly disambiguated. I didn't count but there's maybe 100? My feelings on this have changed since you first mentioned it last August. Some of them make sense and understandable to leave as is, but if given the opportunity one day I'd be happy to move 90% of them back to their appropriate, simplified links, along with text replacements to rid the wiki of redirects that we don't need, decluttering the search function a little. Csdavis715 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2024 (EST)
Oh, you're really preaching to the choir here. Apparently, someone got the notion that all ship names should be disambiguated to "name (class, type)". That wasn't my idea and I never liked it. You are very welcome to purge unneccessary redirects and disambiguations! A word of caution though, there are some edge cases where a ship was renamed and one of its earlier names may be a redirect that requires disambiguation (we do try to track previous names by redirecting these names to the vessel's latest established name). Frabby (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2024 (EST)
When the time comes, I'll be thorough during my checks. :) Csdavis715 (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Frabby&oldid=1058333"