Editing User talk:Frabby/Archive5

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

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

Thanks, --[[User:Workerbee|Workerbee]] 09:41, 30 May 2008 (CDT)
:It is located in the triangle formed by [[New Aragon]], [[St. Andre]] and [[Foochow]], fairly exactly "north" of [[Zaurak]] and [[Kaifeng]]. The Atlas gives the coordinates as X: 73,04 Y: 96,76
:Btw it is a known problem that the planet's X/Y coordinates are wrong. When the entries were auto-generated, the X-coordinate were erroneously put into both the X and Y slot. Nic is aware of this and it will hopefully be corrected in a future update. (See [[Category talk:Planets# Major Problem with Coords]]). [[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 (CC)|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)

== Planets Project ==
Hi Frabby,

Following on from the poll results, I'd like to get the Planets Project moving again. Rev's life has clearly kept him from being able to push the project forward, and the current state of play is that I posted up the revised proposed template here [[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)

: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)

== Planet/System article names ==
Evening, Frabby. Volt has a favor to ask. I told him about how articles will be named after the most prominent system member (such as Sol redirects to [[Terra]]). He's asking if there might be some master list you have that he could peek at, so that he could change the names in the impending SUC Kit to match. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:26, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
:If there's a master list, I'd like a copy of it too - I'm going by what I find in the text of the articles as I'm updating them when it comes to renaming the articles. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:00, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
:: That's great to hear, because Nic just informed me he's very willing to run a script to replace all current coordinates with the ones from the...ahem...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit. So, we'll need to make sure every entry in the...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit...lines up with an article name. I figure you and I can finish off the Phase 0s (get the coordinate templates added) and go from there.
:: But, yeah, if there is a master list, that would rock.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:58, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
::: Hi guys, sorry for being off the radar - I just returned from a four-day trip to Denmark. (And I'll be travelling abroad again for the entire upcoming week.)
::: Rev, nice to see you're back and bringing the band together. [Insert favorite quote here - among literally dozens, at this time it's a tie between "Fix the cigarette lighter" and "No Ma'am, we're musicians" for me.]
::: About the issue at hand, sorry, there is no master list. All I ever did was jump on the bandwagon of cool projects like Volt's. But I'll gladly help compiling a list of systems with multiple names, or names different from the name of the primary inhabited world or construct. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
:::: Would you please? That would be excellent: one effort to update the kit and then all of the articles will benefit via script. Thanks, mate. 
:::: I announced the release on gruese's HBS thread. Fo you have a recommendation as to which section of CGL's forums I should do the same? 
:::: Enjoy Denmark!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:03, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::Denmark was great (including a short rowing and sailing trip on a viking ship at Roskilde - Yarr!) - and now I have three days to do the last two weeks' work, plus the upcoming week where I'll be traveling to Austria. So don't expect too much contribution from me until after the 21st of August.
:::::That said, where shall be keep the master list and where should I add the list of alias names for systems as I work on it? [[User talk:Gruese#Coordinates]] looks like a good place to begin. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:53, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
::::::Sounds like a plan. I know Volt is looking forward to those. After he incorporates your changes, we'll ship them off to Nic, who will run a script updating the system articles, and then Gruese will be able to scrap those to update the map. Voila! Collaboration! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:05, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
: Welcome back, Frabby. If you haven't started already, just a reminder, several of us are definitely interested in your work on this. Ill keep an eye on [[User talk:Gruese#Coordinates]]. As a reminder, Volt will take your completed report and updated the SUC Kit. From there, we'll share this with Gruese and Nic. Nic will then run a script updating all coordinates to the latest and ''then'' ("there's more!") he's going to see if he can create new local map images based on that. Additionally, Gruese is looking into possibly updating his code to enable us to create more traditional images based on 30 & 60 lys, centered on the systems in question.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:56, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
::Don't wait for me. I only find time for a few odd bits here and there at the moment, and the next week is going to be murder; don't expect me to have much time for Sarna until the week after at the earliest.
::Gruese has created [https://community.battletechgame.com/forums/threads/3607/comments/180969 fantastically helpful scripts] and the results can be seen [http://www.gruese.de/innersphere/data/UCKcomparisonOutput.html here]. Looks like the Clan Homeworlds are all shifted by a dozen or so light-years. I'd like Volt to look over the data; I presume one of the two projects used an outdated set of data and Volt should easily be able to tell which data set is more up-to-date. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:16, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
:::The thing is, Volt needs your names, so that his list matches up with the right article names. He's going to modify his planet names from what you compile. Nic's script will require parity. However, we are also not time-dependent...when you can get it done (or make headway), Volt will progress. I will share Gruese's results with him right now. Thanks, Frabby.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:01, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

== Pserratv Articles of Solaris Champions ==
Question, do we need quanity of empty articles about Champions? I know i'm as active recent years i used to be, but won't it be better unless these characters had fiction behind them or some kind write up somewhere to be just on a large list of Solaris Champions instead? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:27, 20 February 2018 (EST)
:I am for the articles, they may be stubs but as with many things on this wiki, smaller details often weave together to create a greater picture over time. Previously the Solaris games section of the wiki has been left alone. Thanks to Pserratv there has been a burst of activity in the area from various authors. In addition I believe this has been well timed with MWO releasing their Solaris expansion soon, instead of deleting the stubs crack open your Solaris box, re-read those BattleCorps stories set on Solaris or even break out your MW:DA minis sets and join in the action. On the front page of this very site right now we have an interview with the man in charge of getting BattleTech things done stating the writers use our site. That stub with a one liner about some former champion could be the catalyst for the next book set on Solaris! Just my thoughts obviously. But I believe Sarna should be EVERYTHING BattleTech, your thoughts might be different. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:06, 20 February 2018 (EST)
::The articles have been completed. I hope all the champions names are correct... the font of the champions has a letter type I dislike and I might have made mistakes on them. I'm only pending a small review on links to ensure they link back to the Solaris VII Champions list so they can be used to go back to that list. I know most of the articles are not giving much, indeed my original idea was to create the list and also the articles of the big champions (4 championships at least; which have at least some info on Solaris VII boxed set, plus maybe some of the ones that have some (if not much) info, but once I was in, I could not stop, and then decided to create an article for them all, regardless of information under the assumption that better a stub than nothing.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (EST)
:::I tend to agree with what Dmon wrote. Stub articles aren't inherently problematic, and the Solaris Campions are certainly important in-universe even if only a handful of them ever got mentioned in another source. This wiki does track individual starships even when they were only mentioned once in a single source; I don't see why characters should be treated differently. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:42, 21 February 2018 (EST)
::::For me the most enduring thing about working on the wiki is the weaving of the threads into something larger. Due to Pserratvs articles I recently discovered that the chief instructor of the Banshee Stables in 3054 was the last commanding officer of one of the planetary militias destroyed in the early stages of the Clan Invasion (Another bunch of notouriously spartan stubs). I would never think to go looking for unit commander names in a Solaris book and vice versa looking for Solaris characters in a book about the Clan Invasion. So to me that little bit of story weaving is exactly what this wiki is for and that is the value it holds above just copying out the information presented in the books. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 09:14, 21 February 2018 (EST)
:::::I was told by the previous editors that unless it has content, it should only be listed.  To save space was what they were looking at.  Empty articles do look bad. I can understand Regiments or large military formations having stub articles since they will eventually do something. Then you have significant ships, like Warships, which are almost unique units in BattleTech universe, since what they do sometimes effect things even in later days.  However, you have warriors, champions who may not have anything written up on them or maybe ever. I am minority in this view, but List of Solaris Champions in chronological order in same vein as List of minor Mercenary units, would be better way show them until they're given fluff to warrant a article. If their on a list, they happen to get fluff a link can be made to the individual article. It would make bit easier to search through sarna at glance. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 07:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

== 1992 Update Flyer ==
Any reason why there is no article on this product?? It is not even in the list... is it non cannon maybe?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 17:54, 27 February 2018 (EST)
:Oh, it absolutely meets the criteria for canon. Problem is, I haven't been able to get my hands on one so far, and apparently nobody else has. So no article could be writte. If you happen to have one, feel free to create the article, using the [[1993 Update Flyer]] article as a template. As for why it's not in the product list, basically same reason - I know it supposedly existed, but without actually seeing one I wasn't going to feed the rumor mill by putting a ghost item into the lists. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:57, 28 February 2018 (EST)
::Ok, I lost my original copy long time ago, but I think I still got it scanned somewhere. I understand that is valid.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:26, 28 February 2018 (EST)
:::Yes indeed. And if you find that scan, I would be thankful if you could pass on a copy... :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:29, 28 February 2018 (EST)
::::Of course. Back at home I'll do some checking--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (EST)
:::::I would also appreciate a copy if it is not too much to ask. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:21, 28 February 2018 (EST)
::::::No issue, just an e-mail address :)
I'm searching for the 1991 flyer so if you get it... I'm interested :) --[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:47, 28 February 2018 (EST)

== Vandal Cop...again ==
Frabby, I know you don't display the awards you get, but given the level of effort you've been putting in on herding the spambots, I wanted you to have this. [[File:VC.jpg|Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon]] You probably have more than a few, but wanted you to know that I appreciate the work you're doing.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:54, 2 March 2018 (EST)
:Well, thanks for a pat on the back. Just tryin' to keep this place clean. Having the tools for blocking and zapping spammers is one of the perks of being an Admin. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:06, 5 March 2018 (EST)

== Changes not correctly tracked ==

I've seen that some times the changes I do are seen only in contributions, but not in watchlist nor in Recent Changes.
Usually is when I do the changes logged but from hotel wifis. Any idea what can it be??--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 17:24, 12 March 2018 (EDT)
: Just testing with an unknown user and outside the hotel wi-fi--[[Special:Contributions/155.56.68.214|155.56.68.214]] 05:42, 13 March 2018 (EDT)
::Any idea why this might be happening??--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
:::Nope. Categories aren't updating since early February and I suppose both problems are rooted in the same software update. Nic Jansma is aware of the problem. Since he's running this site, only he can fix the software. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:10, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll re-change all I've been changing these days so it is visible--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
:::::Nic believes the categories will update normally (including the backlog) once the error is fixed, so there is no need to undo your edits. (At least not until Nic says there is. ;) ) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:25, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

== Planet Articles Template ==

Hey Frabby,
I would like a little assistance, across the wiki we have several versions of the System/planet article template but I am not sure what is the most up-to-date version. I would assume the ''Project Planets'' version but even that is missing the Military deployment section. [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:49, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
:I'm actually somewhat out of the loop concerning this particular project. [[User:BrokenMnemonic]] should be able to help you better than I. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

== Good catch on Liao. ==
Cheers for catching my mistake there, Saw an unknown IP change the faction loyalty, checked the change history and read it backwards.. They where changing it to the Confederation, for some reason I read it as being changed to Fed Suns and assumed it was somebody trolling! --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
:One [[User:BradGB]] who has also registered here on Sarna pointed this out over at the Paradox forum (for the HBS BT game) in a thread about [[User:Gruese]]'s map project. I even checked the reference given in the article, and yup it's pretty much a CC system on the map on p. 40. Probably an old error that carried over from the inception of this wiki - Nic used an outdated set of data from the IS Cartography Project to set up Sarna, and we're fixing stuff to this day. Incidentally, I started fixing the position of Hunan and its nearby systems only recently... a mere ten years after it was first pointed out to me on my talk page, the very first item on the list for a decade now. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
::I actually checked the reference as well, I just misread what had been changed somehow! As long as it gets sorted it is all that matters.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

== Lost the quick link to actions ==

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

: This happens from time-to-time. I can't tell if it's an error from the mediawiki software, or some data loss error, but it doesn't seem to hit everyone at the same time. However, it will return. (It happened to me today, on one of my earlier edits, but the buttons have returned now.) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:17, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

::Sorry for not getting back to you on this. I never had that issue, so I figured it was a temporary glitch when NicJ updated the software. Is it still persisting for you? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:45, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

:::It has been working again for the past 3 days... but from Revanche's comments, who knows... :) --[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:49, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

== InfoBoxMercUnit Template ==
Though there are not many, some mercenary units do not have mechs... I feel we should add 'Mech as an option here in order to make this more visible. It will a huge effort amending the mercenary units afterwards, but I feel it would we worth of it.
Unfortunately I have no idea on hoy to change '''infoBoxMercUnit'''.
:As a counter-proposal, why not introduce a sub-category [[:Category:Non-'Mech Mercenaries]] instead and sort the few special cases into that? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:00, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
::Interesting option... I think it will be a winner. Let me take some time to review this option and I think I'll buy it :)--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:50, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

== Magazines ==

Just saw you tinkering with the magazine articles and had a bit of a brainwave. Do you think it might be worth migrating the Magazine and Comic categories out of the books category placing them a bit more prominent than they currently are?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:51, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
:I agree that they probably don't belong under "books" but I'm unsure what to do with them otherwise, so open to suggestions. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
::I have decided that a bit more of a top down view of the BTU product range needs to be done. [[:Category:BattleTech Universe Products]] is my new starting point.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

==Recent Changes missing edits again==
On a different note, this edit of yours doesn't show in Recent Edits for me and I'd have overlooked it if not for the notification box. Looks like something is still (or again) broken. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
:This happens to me to depending on the LAN I'm in. In hotels for example any change I do does not appear in global tracker (though yes in Personal one which is also weird; I would expect and all or noting).--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
::I don't think it's the network environment. I get the same (incomplete) result on my smartphone and at my desk computer. And now that you've commented Pserratv it gives "2 Edits" in the Recent Changes where there should be 3 (4 after this edit). Guess I'll have to go and inform NicJ. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:02, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
:::I am on my Android Tablet and it appears that all work stopped on the Wiki some time this morning per the Recent Edits page--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:07, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
::::Poor Dmon - my system ignores you completely. To the point where your intermediate contributions to this talk page don't show up on a "compare recent edits" screen. That's a bit worrisome on the database end. :( [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:12, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

== Codes and Procedures of the Warrior Caste ==

Frabby, have you ever seen/heard of [https://imgur.com/a/bYygxeM this]? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:13, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
:That's the manual for [[MechWarrior 2]]. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
::Thank you! That was bothering me that it was unfamiliar as a product.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:05, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Always glad to help out. :)(Thx Cyc!) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:30, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

== Pick up this ball, please? ==

Frabby, as I indicated to Will [[User_talk:Revanche#History_of_Clan_Sea_Fox|here]], I don't feel it's appropriate for me to give him the decision he seeks. Would you take the helm on this for me? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:33, 2 July 2018 (EDT)
:Done. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:38, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
::Thanks!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:33, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

== New stuff in the news section! ==

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

== Congratulations! ==
That's great to hear about the addition to your family. Keep developing your private lance; I'm sure your merc unit will be formidable.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
:Congratulations! Make sure you set up the paperwork for your 'Mech ownership correctly, so that it passes on from you without being stolen by the government... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
::Thanks guys! I'm happy to report that our baby girl is pure joy, just like her older brother. Nights aren't what they used to be be, but hey that's to be expected and will normalize in due time. My internet connection and phone lines also got fixed by now (took two days, which felt like a week). I'll still leave the message on my userpage for the time being but things are shaping up here. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 19:07, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
:::If you're ever stuck for present ideas for daughters, I've got four nieces aged three or younger, and a fifth arriving this month, so I have some gifting experience... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 06:43, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
Welcome back sir, we even managed to not break much whilst we where without adult supervision! Also congratulation on the baby because I forgot to congratulate you earlier. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

== Magazine ==
Hi Frabby, I'm not sure where your magazine archive of BT-related is up to these days, but Noble Knight games have a copy of Ancible Magazine #1 on sale for $3.40 - less than half price. It allegedly includes house rules for Classic BattleTech. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
:I'm actually somewhat interested... but at a quick glance I've been unable to determine the shipping costs to Germany. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

== Field Manual Updates Artwork WarShips ==
Hi Frabby,<br>

I noticed while wandering through random pages that at some point in the past, you added in a stack of WarShips such as the ''[[Linsenmayer]]'' from a conversation on the CGL forum about WarShips that had appeared in artwork. I did a little digging; while the electronic PDF edition of ''Field Manual: Updates'' has a truncated version of the picture, the original FanPro edition of ''Field Manual Updates'', with the serial number 10976, has what looks like a full version of the artwork in. I'm sitting here with my hard copy and a magnifying glass, and I can see all of the detail cited in your notes on the individual ship articles. I thought you might like to know, because it gives us a concrete canon version of the detail. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 06:15, 22 September 2018 (EDT)
:I wrote the articles based off the FanPro book - wasn't even aware that the PDF has the picture truncated. Just looked it up and ayup, the image is significantly smaller (omitting the entire left row on the screen in the background). Funny enough, it's the PDF scan of the FanPro edition of the book. Not sure what happened there. In any case, were there any specific omissions you found that I hadn't covered in the articles? (Sidenote: re-reading the articles I noticed I wrote the picutre was without "capture" when I meant "caption". D'oh.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:39, 22 September 2018 (EDT)
::Sorry, I forgot to reply to this at the time - work stuff eating my brain. I didn't spot anything you'd missed, although it seems a shame that the artist no longer appears on the CGL forums, so we can't ask for a full version of the image. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

== Product Images ==
Hi Frabby,<br>

As I've not been able to concentrate much lately because of work, I've been fiddling through some admin stuff. I'm currently trying to hack down the number of things showing up as either articles without categories or files without categories, and there are a lot of pictures of BattleTech products without categories. I think it would be useful to group them together, but I thought I should check with you first, as you tend to have clear opinions about such things. A lot of the products don't have a listed artist, and I think it'd be useful to have a category for such things beyond just the artist category. I thought what might work is a master category, called something like "BattleTech Product Images", with subcategories for e-books/non-physical images, sourcebooks with physical versions, and physical items that aren't sourcebooks (like lance packs, box sets, etc). What do you think? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)
:(Traveling and very limited internet access so just a quick reply) Since you asked for my opinion (which is really only that, my opinion - and let's be honest, you're the heavyweight lifter on Sarna these days), here goes: I approve of the idea and your suggestion. I don't have a better solution or suggestion at this time, and what you wrote seem solid. ;) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:13, 14 October 2018 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

==Notable Pilots==
Since four of the most active users as of right now are partaking in the discussion above: Should be create a Policy for notable pilots? It's a recurring issue here on Sarna BTW thanks to the prominent and popular section in the TROs. And since it's a very BattleTech-y thing I'd like to keep a Notable Pilots section on general principle, but I realize we need to establish some rules as to what counts as notable and draw a line somewhere. We may also need to draw up rules on the length of individual entries in a 'Mech article (I'm thinking of the rules we have for the year pages here - one-liners only, with typically only a single link to the article about the pilot). Thoughts? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:41, 15 January 2019 (EST)
:I am very much in favour of keeping the notable pilots section as it brings some flavour to a series of articles that tend to be quite stat focused. Maybe a two line limit and a single link to a character article. Also maybe a limit on how many can be included. This serves the purpose of attempting to prevent bloat but also forcing out the not so notable pilots. (This is an odd one for me as I am of the line of though that one day I would like every BT character ever mentioned to be on the wiki but notability still is a thing).--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 07:30, 15 January 2019 (EST)

== Thanks for deleting all the typos I generate ==

Just thanks!!--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (EST)
:Heh. Thanks for the nice words. Just to be clear, all I'm doing is come cleanup here and there. There is no master plan involving you and your typos. :) Keep up adding good info to Sarna. (Oftentimes, a new edit makes me revisit an older article and that in turn often makes me give said article a polishing workover.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:57, 27 November 2018 (EST)

== Reasons for additional sub categories==
Hello Frappy, I'm a little surprised by the deletion of the Capellan Hussars category. My reason for the addition of the category to the different unit entries was to get a better understanding which unit belongs to the different brigades. At the moment most brigade articles contains to much information in my opinion and with the sub-categories it would be easier to create articles for the different time frames. For example: Take the Syrtis Fusilier at the start of the First Succession War and the shape after nearly 300 hundred years of constant fighting. What is your opinion about it? [[neuling]]
:Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the reasoning. The Capellan Hussars article lists (and links to) all regiments belonging to this brigade, just like a category would. Only, it even offers sorting by timeframe, so it this respect it is superior to a category. Conversely, every individual regiment has (or at least should have) a notion stating that it is part of the Capellan Hussars, providing a link back. There is also a field "Parent Unit" in the InfoBoxMilitaryUnit for exactly this purpose. As such, I don't understand what information the category provides that isn't already there in the articles? It's not like there are so many regiments in this category that they bloat the article. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:26, 25 January 2019 (EST)
::My intention was to provide a way for better understanding the different composition of the brigade during the different time frames. I accept that my idea is not the best solution. I will think about that topic and perhaps we can find a solution that is widely accepted. [[neuling]]


== Request about layout for military articles ==
Hello Frabby, I compare the different articles for the major military organisation like DCMS and AFFS. They don't follow a standard layout concept. I will not change the existing structure. My intention is how we can make it better without a huge rework of the existing material. I will create an example for the brigades at my user page. Feel free to take a look and your opinion is welcome. With best regards [[neuling]]
:I am working on an overhaul of our [[Policy:Notability]], and as currently intended this will include a paragraph or two about military units/formations. It basically goes like this: The BT universe notably uses the Regiment as the basic formation (whereas in the real world, Battalion is the typical unit size), that's why Sarna has articles about Regiments and only covers smaller formations (Battalions, Companies) if they have a specific unit identity. Larger formations (Brigades and larger) are rare and usually administrative formations. They get short articles, with links to their individual sub-regiments. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (EST)

== Image policy inquiry ==

Moved the discussion to [[Policy_Talk:Images#.22edit_or_modification_to_an_image.22|here]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:32, 7 February 2019 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Just want to say thanks for making the [[Thelos Auburn]] worth something, Currently doing lots of overtime at work and my contributions to the wiki are way down on what they should be. 
I appreciate you picking up where I am dropping the ball.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 07:42, 14 February 2019 (EST)
:I could say the same the literally same things to you, so thanks - and keep up the good work! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:38, 14 February 2019 (EST)

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

== Maiden names and birth names==
Hey frabby, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to reverse the change you made to the Candent Sortek/Septarian article because I use the character maiden/birth names as article names in order to make family trees easier to handle.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:10, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
:Now you've got me confused. There's a redirect in place, so either name can be linked just fine. Can you elaborate on the problem? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:45, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
::There was a redirect in place anyway so I am equally confused as to why you changed it in the first place. Simple answer is I just find it easier to work on the family trees if wives have their own name rather than their married name. Most of the time a wife with the same surname becomes a dead end unless we are explicitly told who she is, I lucked out on discovering Candent this morning.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:30, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
:::I moved it because I thought we covered subjects with different successice names (WarShips, merc units, systems, and also people as showcased by the [[Anastasius Focht]] article) under their last/latest name and use redirects for older names. But it's not a policy or a hard rule, and I don't feel strongly about the subject. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:03, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

== WarShip bombardment in BattleTech (2018) ==
Here is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4cFFLPeOwo a video] from the mission. The mission summary refers to a WarShip, and the bombardment has the appearance of a vertical laser beam at least a hundred times more powerful than a BattleMech's PPC. It seems to have been added with the Flashpoint DLC. [[User:Omeganian|Omeganian]] ([[User talk:Omeganian|talk]]) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
:Thanks for posting the video. I can now see where you're coming from.
:But I still contend that there are no active WarShips in the 3025 era. WarShips are a big deal. And in CapCon hands a WarShip would have made all the difference in the world in the 4th Succession War. The matter seems to be treated pretty casually in the video clip, when in-universe it would have been an absolutely groundbreaking thing. To me, this is another case of sloppy factchecking on behalf of HBS, or maybe a deliberate taking of liberties with the main BT canon as they're free to make up stuff as they please for their game. The video game license is distinct from the boardgame/sourcebook/novel license, though I regard the latter as the authoritative (canon) universe wherever computer games deviate.
:In the good old tradition of the "FASA Two-Step" approach, a possibe way to reconcile this video game event with canon could be to assume "WarShip" doesn't refer to the usual definition of a multimillion ton (well, at least 100,000 ton) combat JumpShip with a compact KF drive, but instead simply means "combat spaceship". You could then reinterpret the purported orbital bombardment as a ground attack by a DropShip such as the ''[[Avenger]]'', a class incidentally known for being used in such attacks. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:13, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
::By the way, this video says Artillery Bombardment, but I've played the game and sometimes it says a more global bombardemnt, by I agree with Frabby that this must be a Dropship thing and not a fully functional warship, as only Comstar has them in this era (and very well hidden.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 16:06, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
::: The problem is that it destroys a 5000 HP structure in a single attack, in a game where a PPC gives 50. Not many vessels can perform such an attack. [[User:Omeganian|Omeganian]] ([[User talk:Omeganian|talk]]) 13:04, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
::::Since HBS heavily fudged the armor and weapon damage stats anyways (not to mention the construction and modification rules), this comparison isn't worth much though. I do agree with you that HBS apparently tried to evoke the concept of WarShips and orbital bombardment for this mission; but at the same time, in the game's timeframe these concepts are so outrageously anachronistic that I consider it an error, and would try to explain it away with a less canon-breaking explanation. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

== Search for recent changes is Mobile platforms ==
Any idea on how to do that Frabby? PSERRATV (I don't know either how to add the tag on user.
:Not sure if it is any help but I tend to find the mobile interface virtually unusable for editing so if you scroll down to the bottom of any page there is a tab that says "Use Desktop site" or something to that effect. (just checked, it is just the work "Desktop" highlighted in blue like a wikilink)--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
::And I have just checked on how to do it on the mobile version, again right at the bottom of the page you want to look at, just above the GNU.FDL stuff is a grey strip that says "Last edited x days ago by x" click on it and it brings up the edit history.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
:::I agree it is useless to edit. But what I need is the list or Recent Changes, like in PC... I have Contributions and Watchlist... but not Recent Changes. PSERRATV 25 - 15:38
::::My second comment tells you how I found it on my Android mobile.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
I guess Dmon has already answered your question. Personally, I never use the mobile interface because I hate it; it's useless for editing. When you go to the bottom of any page there's a "Desktop version" button. One possibly useful tip that I can add is that I have bookmarked the "Recent Changes" page and am using it as my main Sarna page whenever I call up the site. That works, even when the system for some arcane reason decides to switch to mobile version between sessions (happened several times). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

== Citations for sourcebook fiction ==

Morning Frabby,
I have something I am not sure how we handle, as the title says Citations for sourcebook fiction, Do we have an official stance on how we handle them? I want to create some articles that treat them as short stories rather than just part of a sourcebook as they are an oft forgotten source of lore, the catch however is I want to treat such stories as fully fledged short stories in terms of Citations and Bibliography as well but feel this might confuse people. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:28, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
:There is no "official stance" but plenty of precendent. If the story was ever made into a product of its own (i.e. published standalone via BattleCorps or as an EPUB) then the article should use the [[Template:InfoBoxProduct]]. If it's a story within a larger product, e.g. individual stories from an anthology or sourcebook fiction, then use the [[Template:InfoBoxStory]]. Case in point: [[Think like a Liao]], from the [[Shrapnel]] anthology.
:As for citations, this is the format I've used in the past: Threat the short story as its own product, and include it in the bibliography section under its name, appending "in: (source)"; also, put the source product into the Bibliography section. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
::Thank you, I knew you would know the answer :-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

== Battletech CCG ==

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

== Howdah Edits ==
Hi Frabby, why did you remove the notes section from the article?  The information about the records sheets only being only found in once source book was valid.
Also, i'm unclear why a category was created for ships named for the Howdah, while currently there are NO canon named ships right now. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 10:15, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
:While the information about the record sheets being in only one book is accurate as far as I can tell, I feel it's simply not notable. After all, one official record sheet is plenty enough, isn't it? I could understand if the note said there was ''no'' official record sheet for the unit... but there is one. So what's noteworthy about that?
:The category is presumably superflous, and I did consider deleting it. But it's currently standard procedure to create such a category for every spacecraft class, even in cases where there's only one or even none entry in the category. It's kind of expected from the article structure that such a categoy be in place. And it's always possible that the name of a ''Howdah''-class vessel gets published somewhere, somehow.
:I don't have strong feelings about either aspect though. Feel free to revert or change as you see fit. ;) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:58, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

== Despiser ==
Hey Frabby, I was still editing that article including an extensive explanation of why I changed the name of the Despiser article, but got an edit conflict and you had removed my work. I believe the name is an error but if you want to remove my work without speaking to me first, thank you for having some trust.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:53, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
:Sorry for the editing conflict, wasn't aware of this. I just saw that you had been the latest editor, and your work normally doesn't require any corrections. I hadn't checked the recent changes and didn't realize you had just moved the article and were working on it. When I saw the ''[[Despiser]]'' article links to a WarShip not a DropShip, I looked the name up in my BC edition of the novel and found it to be a ''Fury'' and always to be spelled as two italicized words, with only one instance of it being names simply "Despiser" - the chapter 19 epigraph. So I figured there had been an oversight on the part of the initial autor. So, again, apologies - no disrespect intended. But now I am curious to see your reasoning why the two-word name might be in error? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
::I have cooled off now, sorry for having a go, I was out of order. Having a very rough day in work so doing some wiki edits on my break was meant to be something chill and you just got the back end. I based the name off the initial epigraph giving the ships formal designation coupled with naval naming traditions pretty much never including "The" as a singular article within a name. I assumed the "The" being italicised was likely a mistake in editing.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:30, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
:::Normally I would agree with the naval naming traditions approach, but in six out of the seven cases where its name is spelled out it is called "''The Despiser''", fully italicized and with a capital "T". The epigraph is clearly the odd one out here, and I thus surmised it's the epigraph that is in error. Btw, I pulled out my ROC print edition to double-check, and the difference is still there between the epigraph and the rest of the chapter so it wasn't altered (I previously used the "prefinal" text provided via BattleCorps). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:47, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

== Sarna Not New User Friendly? ==
Hi, Frabber. I don't know if you saw this post in thread titled "Very disappointed with new Kickstart",  i wasn't sure where to post this.  So i'm kicking it to you for direction. In course of the user's concerns, they felt Sarna.net was NOT user friendly.  Do you think there could be a special page for new users or ask for someone schooled in doing it. I work on wikis, (noticed it's sort of fading thing) i've seen that newer users aren't using wiki as much due design issues.  [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65972.msg1519757#msg1519757 Here the link] to what person was saying. {{quote|''As for sarna.net, as a new player that page is literally anti-user. The design of that page instantly removes the desire to find out about the lore that everyone says is so good, so it keeps me away from Battletech. Things should be attractive for new and old people, a page that looks like 1995 where I have to look for lore among tons of text and links is not a good idea to attract a player.''}} -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 12:01, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
:I saw that too (thanks for bringing it up though). Outsider opinions are always interesting. But this one here wasn't terribly helpful. The argument boils down to complaining about a wiki being a wiki. Sarna is a specialist tool for people who have at least a basic understanding of the BT universe. It is not meant or designed to serve as an intro source. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:33, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

== Star League commands order ==

Hi Frabby,

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

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

I tried to make this a general query, but have no idea on how to do it.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 10:31, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
:The SLDF is a tad bit bigger than other armies. It is an outlier, so I reckon it's not strictly neccessary to give it exactly the same category strutcure as other militaries. Use your own best judgement on how it should be sorted. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:24, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

== Proposed Organization of the Star League Forces (final) ==

I've created and explained a proposal here: [[:Category talk:Star League Defense Force Commands]], could you review and share your insights?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:54, 7 August 2019 (EDT)

== Characters vs Real People ==
Hey Frabby, saw you moved the Chris Lewis character article. I have had a look at the [[Policy:Article Naming#Characters|Naming conventions]] and we do not appear to have a specific policy for this situation but can I recommend that we follow [[Category talk:PeopleReal#Canonized people and their characters|what I did last year]] when I tidied up the real people category. Just to have everybody on the same page.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 15:13, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
:Thanks for reminding me. It boils down to a disambiguation problem - we have characters and real persons sharing the same name. Obviously the articles would need to cross-link to each other via <nowiki>{{otheruses}}</nowiki> tag, and a true disambiguation page isn't required. I.e. one article named "Name (character)", one article named "Name (person)", and one article simply named "Name".<br />The real question in each individual case is, who gets the non-disambiguated "Name" article? My own gut feeling says we cannot have a rule for this because in some cases the real person is vastly more well-known and important to BattleTech than a canon character by the same name, and in other cases it's the reverse. Especially with that Kickstarter situation coming up (where ~3000 backers are going to name a canonical character).
:However, to me it's something of a non-issue because the problem will always only concern two articles that have to be disambiguated. Do we really need a rule for that? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:59, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
::Do we need a rule, in all likelyhood no we do not, I was more than anything thinking of internal consistency on how we handle the matter. How important a real person is to BT and at what point they become the primary "name holder" is a little like the debate on minor characters and down to individual judgement. Now that you mention the 3000 backers, my thoughts that we need something in place as at least a guideline on how we handle things are strengthened. Out of those 3000 people I think it is a fairly safe bet that at least some of those people will want to bring their character onto the wiki. Not a bad thing by any measure but we have precident with Merc units ([[ The Wylde Cards]] and [[TekTeam Technical Services]]) of additional material creeping in. So maybe this is an opportunity for us to formalize some guidelines for how we handle canonization before the potential flood. Nothing draconian, just something to point people too as part of a polite nudge to do things the sarna way.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:46, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

== Ebooks Republications ==
Hi Frabby, i know i've been inactive for a bit. I wanted to talk to you about a new trend we haven't quite addressed. Republications of Serial Battlecorp stories as full Ebook/Print On Demand publications. Essentially, i have found formating of these serial BC not really good because the re-release it as a actually full-on novel is very different format.  Question of the day is, do we make seperate entry for the fullnovel/pod/ etc or do we rework the serial entry. Example is [[Redemption Rift]].  Thanks --[[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 14:25, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
:It's the same story, so it should have only one article. Print-on-Demand is considered a print product and print products are generally treated as the "lead" product in combined articles. Looking over your edits to ''Redemption Rift'', that's pretty much exactly how it should be done. Only the Moratorium does not apply on re-release. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 19:05, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

== Stuff to be deleted. ==

Good evening Frabby, could I please call upon your Admin powers to delete these pages for me.
* Delete [[Amaterasu (members)]].
* Delete [[Clan Smoke Jaguar Minor Characters]].
* Delete [[ComStar Minor Characters]].
* Delete [[:Category:Dark Age Characters]].
* Delete ''Category:Dark Age Mechs''.
* Delete [[Factory worlds]].
* Delete [[Free Worlds League Minor Characters]].
* Delete [[Major Factory Worlds]].
* Delete [[:Category:MechWarrior 4 BattleMechs]].
* Delete [[:Category:Minor Noble Houses]]
* Delete [[SLDF Minor Characters]].

Cheers.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 15:33, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

:My pleasure. Is there a reason why a level-headed longime user like you isn't an admin? I can suggest to NicJ to raise you to admin status if you're interested. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:51, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

::Much appreciated, That is a big chunk of my to-do-list finally done and dusted and I think the war on "Minor" is mostly over :-)

::No idea, I think it might be a case of I have never asked and back in the day we had a full admin staff. I know a few of the admins are a lot less active than they use to be so if you think it would be a benefit for the wiki to promote me I won't mind, I spend enough time here after all.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

== Kickstarter Products ==
Frabby,<br>
As part of our efforts to capture everything BattleTech related where we can, would you have any objections if I created a Sarna article about the recent Kickstarter campaign, and pages detailing the various products that were offered throughout the course of the campaign? I'm aware there may be some changes to the final line-up, but it feels like there are a lot of "things" associated with the campaign like dog tags and coins that might slip from the collective memory once the campaign is over, that we should record as part of BattleTech's history. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:51, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
:Each and any individual product should get its own article, and I reckon most of these would end up in [[:Category:Accessories]]. I am opposed to the idea of creating a category for Kickstarter products, but maybe the Kickstarter warrants its own "Event" style article where its associated products could be listed (it's a finite and not overly long list and as such more suitable for an article than a category anyways). We have "Event" articles about the individual [[WWE]]s, and a summary section about them in the Demo Team article. Kickstarter projects - and I suspect there will be more - should perhaps follow the same approach. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:39, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
::That's essentially what I was thinking; I think that the Kickstarter events are notable in their own right, as they include things like re-release dates for existing products (such as the various digital stories released, and the announcement of new stories) and demonstration of new products that should be recorded as BattleTech items within the existing product categories (as well as potentially creating new Vaporware, which is a fun concept in and of itself) and I think treating the Kickstarter as a subject worthy of an event article would provide a useful index article for someone trying to identify where products originated. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:56, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
:::Good to see we're on the same page here. Seeing how the Clan Invasion Kickstarter will be blazing the trail for future articles, let's talk about good article names. Because all article names for the Kickstarter that I can come up with right now somehow sound bad. For starters, can we avoid "Kickstarter" (as that is one specific enterprise) and use the more generic term "crowdfunding". My current least-bad proposal for an article name would be "Clan Invasion boxed set crowdfunding project". Which is obviously too long. Or is it? Help! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:27, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
::::Presuming that there will be future crowdfunding efforts for BattleTech products, I think I'm moving towards the idea of avoiding recording them as individual event articles, and instead tracking the events by year. So, for example, we could have an article entitled "BattleTech Crowdfunding Projects: 2019", with the "Clan Invasion Kickstarter" being a sub-heading on that page, possibly referenced by date, as in "July-August: Clan Invasion Kickstarter." That way, if TPTB decide to run multiple small crowdfunding campaigns in a year, they could all be on one page, rather than on multiple pages, and it establishes the crowdfunding events as effectively a series. The downside to this approach is that we could end up with some very long pages though, depending on the amount of detail its considered appropriate to include, but we could consider that a formatting issue... Most companies working in the boardgame area don't seem to run that many Kickstarter campaigns a year (CMON, which is the first comparison that came to mind, runs something like 2-3 KS campaigns a year), but a year-based format would allow us to link all crowdfunding campaigns in one area, whether they're million-dollar campaigns for new box sets and a range of other products, or much smaller campaigns for something like a series of novels or an art book. What do you think? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:01, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::I've put together a skeleton format for a possible article on the [[User:BrokenMnemonic/BattleTech Crowdfunding Projects: 2019|Clan Invasion Kickstarter]], although it's at an early stage; I wanted to get my thoughts down in some kind of coherent form. There are areas that I haven't captured in a satisfactory fashion yet, such as the Merchant caste reward level, and some of the products where, having read through the main page several times, I still don't understand what the criteria were for getting them. I did notice some inconsistency in product names as well, and I'm not certain what should be done by way of citing references. I'm going to go through the update posts for the Kickstarter over the next few days and try and work out if there was additional information in those that would be relevant to Sarna, although it may take some time. If you get a chance, could you take a look and give me your thoughts on it, please? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:31, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::Nice article BM, and it gives us a template for the future if any other similar crowdfunding that is done by CGL.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:07, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::::Thanks for the example. Since you asked for my opinion, here goes:<br />1. Why the year pages? I find that both unintuitive and not useful. As a counter-proposal, can't we just have a generic "BattleTech crowdfunding projects" article listing/linking to the individual project articles? These would be listed in chronological order just like the [[List of BattleTech Products]], possibly even a sortable list featuring date, product, company.<br />2. Your sample article is way too long and detailed, imho. If a user wants hhat level of detail he can, should and likely will check the Kickstarter project page directly. Further, I think much of that information is irrelevant to BattleTech. For the purpose of our wiki, I'd include the timeframe, context, and outcome, namely a rundown of products associated with the KS campaign (and if they're exclusives). Each physical or Epub item gets its own article page for details; other rewards (e.g. beard-off matches) gets a writeup in the article. Pledge tiers or stretch goals, on the other hand, are irrelevant after the KS closed. Either they materialize as products or they don't. Goals that weren't reached may warrant a mention. I may create a sample page along these lines if and when I find the time. (My loving wife decided we need to renovate parts of the house first. Sigh. ;) ) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:12, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::::Hi Frabby (and Dmon!),
::::::::Thanks both for weighing in - I'm reassured that all three of us seem to feel it's worthwhile to have crowdfunding efforts like the Kickstarter on here. When I put the first draft together, the questions I was trying to answer were: What was available through the Kickstarter? Was it exclusive to the Kickstarter? Who was it available too? How did you get it? What items of significance to the history of BattleTech, that may not be tangible products, should be recorded? While the most obvious things to come out of the Kickstarter are relatively easy to spot (Star Packs, etc), BattleTech does have a few items of Vaporware in its history that I've seen been the subject of argument, as well as events that are part of the lore of BattleTech that it's worth capturing while memories are fresh - things like the origin of the ''Gausszilla''. I had in the back of my head that while people could go and check the Kickstarter page, pages on the internet may not live forever - I'm possibly reacting to how the multiple CGL forum crashes have cost us legions of definitive answers and statements on aspects of BattleTech canon - so I wanted people viewing this ten, twenty, thirty years in the future to have the best chance of having questions about what happened answered, should the source web page have gone. My first drafts do tend to get wordy though (the draft of Historical: Davion Civil War I started putting together for NaNoWriMo last year is at 64,000 words, and I've only done pre-war events, characters, and updates on the major factions involved...)
::::::::I'm conflicted over the importance of pledge levels. On the one hand, they provide a useful framework for highlighting the exclusivity of certain items, particularly things like attendance at the high-level CGL strategy meetings that went to the highest-tier supporters. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the discussion on how exclusive an item is, is best placed in the article on that specific item, rather than in a master record.
::::::::When it comes to the article length, is the issue the amount of text, or the length of the tables? I'd divided the various rewards up into digital/physical and then subtypes largely based on how things have ended up being categories as items here on the wiki, but I could run them all into one table where the type is just one more field, rather than a sub-heading, if that would be preferable?
::::::::I'm sure your new patio, wine cellar, solarium and panic room will all look lovely though, Frabby {{emoticon | ;) }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 04:32, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::::::Is this more akin to what's needed? [[User:BrokenMnemonic/Clan_Invasion_Kickstarter_2019]] (I don't know enough about Semantic to make the tables sortable; I've kept the year in the title in case we see crowdfunding events running with the same title in different years, for example to fund the second printing of a product line. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::::::I like that one much better, yes. And remmber we have another crowdfunding campaign (the HBS Kickstarter) to test the format with. While we're at it, should we hammer out a RL Event template? Could be used for WWEs and canon GenCon scenarios as well. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:08, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm not familiar with the HBS Kickstarter - I shall have to go and investigate. I do think a RL event template would be useful, although I'm not certain what it should look like, as I've not really been involved with any. What sort of things do you feel should be in it? Ideally, it would be useful to have a template that works early well for things like the Big Beard Rematch and the WWE events, but I think we'd need to be careful to define what constitutes an event. For example, the Welsh (or Welsh and Irish) national BattleTech championship runs at Dragondaze in Newport, South Wales, in October - I had the chance to drop in and see one, because I was delighted to see it running, but it had 8 attendees that time. I'd argue that probably doesn't meet the criteria for notability, but I'm not sure where the limit should fall. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:46, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
:::::::::::What's your understanding of the situation regarding  images from the public Kickstarter campaign page on Sarna? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 17:27, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::::::::Seeing how the entire Kickstarter campaign is promotional by nature, I don't think there's a problem. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:54, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::::::Revisiting this, as I think we need to get it off the ground. In the Rewards section in your example, I think the fourth column ("Exclusivity") should be removed and merged into the third. Pre-existing material by definition cannot be exclusive, and besides Pre-existing and New, you can easily use a third option New (exclusive) or simply Exclusive. Similarly, "Item type" should perhaps indicate digital products. Then again, maybe not - it would be on the article page for that product if it was digital, physical, or both. (Or neither, like the KerenskyCon event.)
::::::::::What still throws me at the moment are proper article names and a name for the Event category. Unfortunately, we already have a [[:Category:Events]], and it's for in-universe events. So... [[:Category:BattleTech-related events]]? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:12, 4 November 2019 (EST)
:::::::::::[[:Category:BattleTech-related events]] or maybe [[:Category:Real World Events]] (in the same way we use the term real to define people from characters) are viable and fairly flexible category names. Are we thinking just commercial events like WWE's, Kickstarter and Mech_con at the moment or "historical" like the [[Eridani Light Horse lawsuit]] and [[Unseen lawsuits]].--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:22, 6 November 2019 (EST)
::::::::::::I hadn't thought about including the lawsuits, but now that you mention it I quite like the idea. The category would probably be most useful if it encompasses all notable events including lawsuits, the Loren Coleman/Frank Trollman case, or Camille Klein's Trial of Grievance. The commercial events could be a viable sub-category. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:32, 6 November 2019 (EST)
:::::::::::::Sorry for the slightly late reply - keeping up with my NaNo targets has been eating my spare time lately, so I've not been checking the site as much as I should.
:::::::::::::I like the idea of a category entitled "Real World Events", but I think we should consider affiliating the categories associated with real people who have profiles on here with it as well, because adding more content on real world material makes me a little nervous about ensuring we can keep a clear distinction between real-world and in-game content. I like clearly defined boundaries, and I think some of the criteria for determining if something is noteworthy or appropriate would apply to both areas.
:::::::::::::Regarding the Kickstarter page specifically, I'm still in favour of including specific mention in the table of an items exclusivity at the time of the Kickstarter, because I think there's merit in allowing people looking back in the future to identify items that were introduced as exclusive items and remained such, and those which began as exclusive and then became commercially available. I'm content to remove the Exclusivity column and fold the content in with the Status column, but I do think retaining the information on exclusivity is important.
:::::::::::::How would you prefer to see digital items tracked? I think something I missed on the latest version of the draft article that I'd like to put back in is something indicating whether the story-based rewards (short stories, novellas, novels, etc) were issued as rewards digitally or not. I think again there's value in indicating whether the copies of the origin of the Clans novels available as rewards were in digital or hard copy format for example, particularly for those looking back from a point where they'll exist in both forms. I also think it's useful to indicate where prestige editions of items were available through the KS (or other efforts) simply as a way of making it slightly easier for those browsing to discover that there were actually prestige versions of certain items. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:54, 7 November 2019 (EST)
::::::::::::::[[:Category:Real World Events]] it is then. I've created the page so this doesn't linger in discussion hell.<br />As for the Kickstarter article, not sure if I understand your point about digital items correctly. I think the information belongs into the "type" column, e.g. the [[MechWarrior: Legends]] art book would be noted twice, once as a digital product for all backers and once as an exclusive print product available as an optional purchase. (Now that I think about it I find it a bit difficult to classify this one specifically, but probably either "Art book" or "Sourcebook" would be good.) Both entries would link to the same article, where the situation concerning this book could be explained in more detail. I think this is the only such product that is available in hardcopy. None of the Epub re-releases is different from the Epub previously available, unless they're new stories. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:42, 7 November 2019 (EST)
If nobody else has anything to say, I'll "steal" BrokenMnemonic's draft article, modify it a bit, and get that article up in a few days. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:22, 28 November 2019 (EST)
:I've finished NaNo, and I need to start getting back into the swing of things here - did you produce an updated version of the draft article? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 05:53, 4 December 2019 (EST)
::Not yet. It's Christmas Crazy period again and I keep getting distracted by other projects like the MW5 novellas and the Boxed Set article. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:57, 4 December 2019 (EST)
:::I've trimmed the article and moved it into the main space; I've also expanded it slightly, to include the details of the three 'Mech packs that were originally announced and subsequently deleted from the campaign. As I know you're a fan of the odd and unusual when it comes to BattleTech products, I've added the three missing packs to the [[Vaporware]] page, so that if anyone asks after them in the future, there's a record of what they were; unfortunately, the Internet Archive only has three snapshots from the campaign, but I thought they were a nice little historical oddity to add to the list. One of the things I subsequently noticed is that I can't for the life of me spot where the Clan Ad Hoc Star was announced a stretch goal in the campaign - it looks like it may have been added in at the end. Also, I really, really wish that the stretch goals had been searchable text boxes, rather than images {{ emoticon | :P }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 08:12, 9 December 2019 (EST)
::::I have to say though, I'm still really unhappy with the name. "Clan Invasion Crowdfunding Campaign" perhaps? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:23, 9 December 2019 (EST)
:::::I'm inclined to leave it until CGL run a second crowdfunding campaign of some kind, so that we can see what sort of naming convention they're going to use? I'm wary of not including a date of some kind in the title in case they run a second campaign with the same basic title... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 15:25, 9 December 2019 (EST)

== Engines ==

Hi Frabby.

I've redone page for [[Edasich Motors (Engines)]]. Can you please take a look at it and tell me if you like it with these format?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 15:41, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
:Perfect! This is exactly what I had in mind. Thank you. Any chance to include years when production started/ceased/was known to be active, wherever these dates are available? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:49, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
::Are you guys planning to create brand articles for all components?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:01, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
:::On the dates, that is a complex topic as we might only have them mech by mech, which could be just "complex" to organize it in start - end only as it would be different per 'Mech. As per the brand articles, let's start with engines, for which there is already a good support on data, and then we can see if it makes sense to go the next level with other components of the war elements: weapons for example. Step by Step.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:56, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

== Undo changes on Antietam‎‎ ==

Hi Frabby,

Why have you undone the changes I made on Antietam‎‎? What I'm doing is ensuring all entities on "Political Affiliation" section have a link. I've been doing this for all planets starting with "A", and this is the only one reverted. Any specific reason please? Just in case so I stop doing this.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:03, 6 January 2020 (EST)
:Accident. When browsing Sarna on my Smartphone, scrolling down the the recent edits, it sometimes happens that I accidentally hit "rollback", which is a one-click action. I had immediately rolled back my rollback though, so your latest edit was reinstated. No harm done. And I HATE the one-click rollback function. This just keeps happening. :( [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:03, 6 January 2020 (EST)
::No problem. Didn't know that option exited... I'll have to be extra careful too then!--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 02:48, 7 January 2020 (EST)

== Redemption & Malice ==
Hi Frabby,<br>

Just to check, was [[Redemption and Malice]] definitely emailed out to all of the Clan Invasion kickstarter backers on the 28th? I've backed at Star <s>Captain</s> Colonel level, and I haven't received an email mentioning it... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 18:25, 29 February 2020 (EST)
:Glad I am not the only one feeling a touch confused at the moment. Only a Star Commander myself (wasn't sure about shipping costs to the uk so basically plumbed for maximum digital content) but I don't think this one is linked to a pledge level is it?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (EST)
::Many people seem to have the same problem, judging from the forum postings over at bg.battletech.com. I can't explain what's going on. The email I got was from crowdox, pretty much exactly like what Cubby posted as an example. Fwiw, I backed at Star Commander level (truth be told I am not particularly interested in the miniatures or even the CI box, more in the fiction and side products, it was more a "support CGL" move) and had completed the crowdox survey a week or so before it closed. I don't think backer level nor having the survey finished has anything to do with the email woes. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:59, 1 March 2020 (EST)
:::The most recent comment on the KS itself about the issue said that most people were at East Pax (?) and it would be best to wait 24 hours to see if it arrived - although that was timestamped Friday.
:::Going in at Star Colonel was as much of a commitment as I could afford - I'm not a fan of the Clans, but I wanted enough minis to be able to run games for friends who don't mind the Clan stuff, and it was the price point that seemed to give a decent amount of stuff for the cost. I did debate dropping down a level, but then they advertised the ComStar boxes... and I realised that I could submit a minor canon character based on my maternal grandfather. I'm oddly sentimental, these days! Although I saved money on the KS when a friend of mine went to Essen for the big convention this year and with her masterful bargain-hunting abilities found me a shrink-wrapped copy of the new main box set, with minor cover damage, for half the RRP price. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:43, 2 March 2020 (EST)

== Characters from Novels ==
Following on from the idea that every character mentioned in BattleTech canon should be mentioned on the wiki, I have a question. I'm not getting much editing time these days, so I'm working principally from the TRO I've managed to send to a work email account, and the copy of ''[[Close Quarters]]'' that I've got in my google books account, and I'm datamining the two sources. This means I've been adding characters major and minor from CQ to the wiki. I've been looking at the page here for the novel, and I've expanded the list of featured characters from the three originally listed, but I thought I should check about what level of notability is required for someone to be listed as a featured character in the novel articles. CQ has a huge number of characters, as Victor Milan has a tendency to name a lot of minor characters, even if it's so that he can mention them again when they die in their BattleMech later on. I've tried to clarify my thoughts a little by breaking the character list down into featured characters and named minor characters, but I couldn't find an example to work from at the level of detail I've been digging down to. What are your thoughts? I don't want to overly clutter the novel article, but at the same time, if we've adjusted the notability requirement to move away from list articles of minor characters, does the same principle mean that minor characters should be listed in the articles about their source? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 07:43, 2 March 2020 (EST)
:At this point in time, I basically think you're right on track. Every last one named character can (should) get an article. Ten years ago I advocated a "filtered" approach, but Sarna has since grown leaps and bounds and there is nothing that is too insignificat to have its own article. This insight came about when we decided to go full monty on named spacecraft and create an article for every last one we find. The virtual same reasoning applies to characters. (The batch articles of "minor somethings" that I created back in the day were a mistake that I'm regretting now.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:07, 2 March 2020 (EST)

== The Star Systems Vs. Planets problem ==

Hey Frabby,

Going back to the subject of the [[:Category talk:Planets|Systems vs. Planets]] problem, nobody else commented but at the same time I feel that making the change to Star Systems official would draw some interest. I would like to move forward with correcting things, Should we create a Star Systems category and start sorting out planet redirects?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:56, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
:Yeah, I figured that if I'm the only one who cares that also means nobody objects to the change. So let's be bold and get it done. Any help is appreciated. :)
:What it boils down to, however, is switching the entire Planets category over to Category:Systems. There are no planet articles as they're individually covered in their respective system article. So a Category:Planets would consist of redirects mostly if not exclusively.
:Btw, much to my chagrin I recently found out that I've been using the term "star system" wrong, as it refers to systems of multiple stars. What we're mostly looking at here are called "planetary systems", with a single central star. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:42, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
::Well I did not know that! [[:Category:Planetary Systems]] it is then. And don't worry to much about the planets category being mostly redirects. I suspect it will remain a mix for quite some time as there are still so many systems/planets that will likely occupy both cats because we do not have a huge amount of detail about them. I am not going to get started today as I am planning on settling down and finding a film to watch soonish, but I will see if I can crack out A tomorrow and aim to get a letter a day done from the main planets category. Not going to touch the faction ones--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 15:31, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
:::I took the definitions from Wikipedia ([[w:Star System]] / [[w:Planetary System]]). But here on Sarna I'd prefer to dodge the whole issue altogether by using a [[:Category:Systems]] that would semantically include star systems, planetary systems, systems which are both (e.g. [[Algol]]), and edge cases like [[Flannagan's Nebula]]. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:14, 28 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Let's not forget on those few planets we do not have the system name? Older planets (or not that old) added by developers that have never appeared in maps and have judged to be secondary planets of existing systems but without saying which.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 06:12, 28 March 2020 (EDT)
:::::Yes, those planets are an exception - because we only know them as planets. But luckily these are rare. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:20, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
Also, while fiddling with the category I realized that there are at this time 157 faction sub-categories in the Category:Planets. I suggest doing away with them entirely. They hold very little informational value because the categories aren't tied to a timeframe, and with BattleTech's fluctuating borders I don't need a category to tell me that pretty much every border worlds was held by pretty much every neigboring faction at some point in the past millenium. Keeping track of 157+ factions is just too much work for such a worthless category. We've got the Map Project for that purpose. Or does anyone strongly feel we need to maintain these categories for some reason? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:20, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
:I support removing the faction sub-categories.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 09:31, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
::I support removing them as well. I feel there will be complaints from the community about it but when the universe is not static and we have things like New Avalon listed as a Draconis Combine world the system starts to fall down quite badly.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 09:56, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
:::I agree... maybe somebody like Doneve can run a macro on this?? Otherwise is the nice manual change of all planets... I did it once for "Owenership", I can do it now to delete subcategories, just confirm :)--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 11:44, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
::::It would be wonderful if somebody could create a macro of some sort, I have done 250 odd planet to systems moves thus far and although it is not hard, it is really soul suckingly boring to do.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:21, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
:::::Yep, I know, but macro is out of my league...--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 13:18, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
::::::There are a lot of planets/systems which were parts of factions for varying lengths of time - some of them substantial - in which they are not depicted on maps, or even for which no maps exist for that faction. While those changes are often, but not always, listed in the ownership history in each planet article, the only way (even crudely) of picking those out via a quick search is to go in through the planets category. If you strip those subcategories out, without having any other form of mechanism for identifying those worlds, we've reduced the information value of Sarna. I oppose removing the sub-categories without having some mechanism in place that allows for someone researching factions on here to identify planets that are/have been a part of that faction at some point in their history, whether through a mediawiki search or some other mechanism. We shouldn't simply strip information out of the wiki because it's inconvenient to keep updating in the current format, IMO. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 17:13, 1 April 2020 (EDT)
:::::::But if that information is only found through the category, then that means it's not in the system ownership history - which means the categorisation would be unsourced. To take the very fitting example of New Avalon being categorized as a Draconis Combine system, putting it into the category would obviously only be the second step after noting in its system history first that (and when) it was conquered. Conversely, if that information isn't there in the article, categorizing the system into Category:DC systems is a no-go. Removing the categories therefore shouldn't remove information, though I concur that it makes information gathering easier in some (limited) cases. Those cases would be where the sheer number of systems isn't flying in the face of picking systems in a quick search as you put it (I reckon a few dozen systems is the largest number where this is feasible) but conversely, if there are only a handful systems to be covered then it is easier and more informative to cover these in the article over having a category (e.g. [[Sarna Supremacy]]). As a middle way, would it be feasible to reverse the default to "no category" and create/retain categories only in individual cases where we deem them useful to have?<br />I'll admit that I seem to be on a general crusade against pointless categories these days so it may just be me. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:47, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
::::::::There are definitely instances where planets are categorised as part of a faction, but where that isn't reflected in the owner history (only the planetary history) because the dates are too vague to easily translate into data points for the owner history. If planet X was occupied by the Draconis Combine in the 2490s, that's enough for a data point. If it was occupied "during the 25th century" it's too broad to reasonably go in the owner history. More critically, I don't think a sensible way to tell people to start researching which planets are part of a faction is to tell them to check every planet article to see if its in the individual article owner history or planetary history. Given that we want Sarna to be a useful resource for the writers, how frustrating would it be for you as a writer to have to identify the worlds of the Capellan Hegemony by checking all of the worlds within an arbitrary distance of Capella to see if there's any mention of them or not? Removing the categories with no alternative and no way of sucking the data out of the owner histories and planetary histories doesn't seem like a step forward. As it is, the sub-categories based on faction are already a partial solution to solve the problem of us not being able to easily pull the data together in any other way, and it's effectively a 90-95% solution to the question it's answering. It also gives us a mechanism for dealing with worlds like those that are described as "settled by Faction X" at a point where we may not have a map published anywhere that shows it, or an actual founding date/decade/century. It's a messy system, but it's a working system that does provide useful information. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:46, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
::::::::ETA: I'm not sure if this helps, but consider this; the sub categories covering faction worlds are acting like an index for research purposes. They're a quick and effective way of telling you where to go and look to find more information. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:48, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

== Thanks for deleting what I detect from time to time ==

Just that.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 06:07, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

== Redemption Rift ==
Hi Frabby.  I didn't want do anything and risk it being undone.  I've read the [[Redemption Rift]] as the printed book, one singluar novel.  Should the article on the wiki be updated/changed to reflect it's actual novella/novel with hundreds of pages verse series of short stories, that it hasn't been in years? I would retain the information about being a series of short stories, but the article looks bad to me. I just didn't want change it and risk being over ruled and wasting my time. Thanks -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 08:56, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
:You're absolutely right in that it's a serialized novel not a short story. But that is what the article already says, or am I missing something? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 10:53, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
::I think he means that now it has been released as a novel (not in serialized format) and is no longer available in the serialized format, should we change the structure of the article to reflect the new fornat. Also the same could be said for isle of the blessed.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 11:02, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
:::Ah ok. We have a precedent for this situation, which could serve as a template: ''[[Betrayal of Ideals]]''. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
::::I will do that if that's alright with you, Frabby, using the Betrayal of Ideals template. As i said before, its very competitive here on wiki now, thus why i seldom do much.  I wanted to ask before i under took something. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:29, 11 April 2020 (EDT)

== Von and other German stuff ==
Hey Frabby, I am hoping to get a little guidance on the use of Von from somebody who has more experience of germanic culture than visiting Germany to go to Wacken a few times :-p Whilst handling how we categorise both character articles and the noble house articles I am getting conflicting information as to how it should be categorised. For example [[House Von Steffelbus]] would be under V or S. I am also finding various sources to be unclear as to the v being capitalised.

As a second and unrelated question but do you have access to a german language copy of [[The Sword and the Dagger]]?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 07:08, 11 April 2020 (EDT)
:I wasn't entirely sure myself so I checked back with my sister-in-law who has a doctorate degree in German linguistics. ;) The following are the correct answers as per current German linguistics:
:The "von" part (meaning "of" or "from", as in indicating the home fief of a noble) is always spelled downcase.
:As for alphabetical order, the "von" is omitted from the last name, and instead treated like a first name, e.g. "Steffelbus, Elric von". I forgot to ask, but I am fairly certain the roman numerals should follow last, e.g. "Steffelbus, Elric von (IV)".
:Wacken - good for you! Never been there. My wife's band almost went there once but it didn't work out.
:Das Schwert und der Dolch is sitting on my bookshelf a few meters from me right now (the old Heyne edition). What do you want to know? Btw unlike the US edition that seems to be a collector's item, the German edition are a dime a dozen on Ebay. If you want one and can't find a seller, I can probably get a copy for you for a handful Euros in short order. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 08:37, 11 April 2020 (EDT)
::Exactly what I wanted, Ironically I had been doing it correctly since the beginning and only changed it last week after reading something online! I shall change things back at some point in the next week.
::If your wife is in a metal band I may even be familiar with them as I have worked in the events industry for most of my working life and as a side thing run a small promotions company called DeathWave Entertainment.
::Thank you for the offer to secure a copy of Das Schwert und der Dolch but I am actively trying to go digital with my books these days. I would just like you to double check something if you do not mind. After we discovered ''Grafina'' as being a strange BT thing, in the english version of the book chapter 22 has a very minor mention of a ''Margrafin Kelya'', described as Katrina Steiners cousin. This is the only mention of both the rank and the character so I am wondering if the german version is any different.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 09:44, 11 April 2020 (EDT)
:::In the book's German edition, the character is mentioned as Markgräfin Kelya - which is the correct form for a female (Mark)Graf.
:::And not exactly a metal band: [[w:Die Irrlichter]]. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:20, 11 April 2020 (EDT)
::::Sir, that is still pretty damn cool :-p--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:48, 11 April 2020 (EDT)

== Abuse filter ==

Hey Frabby,

Not sure how we handle this but I suspect the Abuse Filter has blocked a genuine editor, [[User:Amelody]] was been blocked at 22:58 (BST) last night for adding external links but at 22:11 (BST) had made a major contribution to the [[BattleTech: Beginner Box]] in the form of the back of box blurb. As an admin I can find I have an unblock button but I don't want to jump the shark if we have a pricedure (or a way ti see what the link was). --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:20, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
:Thanks for pointing this out to me, I plainly overlooked it. Have unblocked the user and sent an email about it. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:24, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
:Addendum: I agree it looks like a legit user and false positive spam block. If the account turns out to be spamming after all we can still manuall kill it with fire, but for now I'd rather take the risk over blocking a legit user. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:26, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
:: In all honesty I missed it when I checked this morning, only a few hours later that I have noticed. {{ emoticon | ;) }} I agree it is worth taking the risk.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:30, 20 April 2020 (EDT)

== TCI Model Kit Scenarios ==
Hi Frabby,<br>
Based on your interest in BattleTech esoterica, you might want to keep an eye on this thread on boardgamegeek: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2414412/tci-model-scenarios - it's about the scenarios that came with the TCI model kits, and one of the three participants at the moment is the author of the scenarios. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 10:31, 29 April 2020 (EDT)
:Emailed you via the Sarna system. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:47, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

== Clan Engines ==

I have been thinking on how to tackle Clan Engines. Most of the time they are not branded, so for example 305 XL, but there are a few cases were they are branded... and of course without any kind of rule or logic that I can see. How would you do this for the Engines project.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 07:42, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:I've been thinking on this for some time, without a clear result. Apparently, the Clans are not much into brands, being something of a socialist culture. If their engines are so generic as to not bear brands, then that's how it is. I would treat them just like you treat every other engine or brand - when there's information, even just a brand name, you put it up but when there isn't there's no point chasing after the info because with the Clans at least there may actually not be anything to be found. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 09:31, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
::Thanks for the quick answer!--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 10:13, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

== Yefka Riviera‎‎ ==
I think this character is the one you said after reading LevinList... and it seems they are also the the Hansel and Gretel that appear in messages through the list.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 09:39, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
:Without confirmation though we don't know if he registered with the military under a false name (Yefka) or if this is an IC - or even OOC - typo. May be worth pinging Herb Beas over at the BT Forum, as he wrote these entries.
:Also, I fully agree that Yeska and Stefka are almost certainly Hansel & Gretel. But again, we lack confirmation to be sure. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:41, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
::Can you ask it in the forum, or I do it?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:14, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
:::I've raised the issue in Herb's Forgotten Worlds thread. Fingers crossed. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:30, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
:::Aaand... bingo! Herb [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65086.msg1617672#msg1617672 answered] my questions. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

== 30,000 Article ==

Damn, I miscounted and was aiming for [[Recognition Guide: ilClan, vol. 1]] to be the one so we could give the new product line a subtle push!

Still, I am damn impressed that we have hit 30,000!--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

:I just saw the counter at 30,007 so took the seventh-last new article for the initial announcement - and that was [[BattleMech Technical Blueprints Volume 1]]. But when I returned to the home page the counter had run up to 30,015 and now it was TTS:Valencia. You may want to check though, I was hurried and tired.
:Btw, apologies for stealing your thunder! I was just so excited to see we'd surpassed the 30,000 mark that I immediately put the announcement up. It didn't occur to me until later that you might have been meaning to do that yourself. I feel a bit bad about that now. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 17:13, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
::Haha, no not stealing my thunder so don't feel bad. It was 29,983 when I started but I think it is my count that was off. I just thought it would be cool to have the new product line and our major milestone converge.

::On a different note, I know you pay perticular attention to the Red Duke, have you noticed that [[Bush Wars: Battle of Dahlgren]] might have links since it is part of the Apocryphal House Ricol holdings?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:40, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
:::Yup. I'm on the factchecker team and I have read drafts for some of these upcoming products already. That's all I can say though. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:39, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
::::That sir is cheating! :-p --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:55, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
:::::I just got "envy"?? on you (sorry, I do not remember how to correctly phrase this, but I would like to be there).--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:27, 10 June 2020 (EDT)


==IP attacks==
Just saw a number of new fake accounts made, which led me to the ban you handed out for the IP attack. Are IP attacks becoming an increasing problem again? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 09:47, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
:I would say that I have noticed that the number of bot accounts being created every night has skyrocketed lately but as far as I can tell the autoban on new users who post external links seems to be catching most of them.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:21, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
:: That's certainly good news.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:35, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

== Caption on Hassid Ricol ==
Just looking at the caption on the [[Hassid Ricol]] infobox and from a aesthetic point it looks terrible. Do we really need captions on the character images?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:23, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
:I think we do, in some cases at least. A date going with a character image is at least useful; but an apocryphal tag is a must-have (imho) where the only available portrait is apocryphal, like in Ricol's case (and also [[Trent (Clan Smoke Jaguar)]], I think - CCG stuff is also apocryphal). Open to suggestions though. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:09, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
:Addendum: Added a line break to tidy up the caption for Ricol. Better now? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:13, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

== Touring the Stars: Valencia ==
Hi Frabby, I'm not sure if you've already read it, but I've been catching up with the new releases and ''[[Touring the Stars: Valencia]]'' introduces a new Primitive JumpShip I think you might find interesting. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 16:14, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
:Pserrat wrote above that he's envious because I'm on the factchecker team. Let me take this opportunity to tell you that it's actually a chore, and a bit of a nightmare with regards to Sarna, because I get to read tons of stuff that are changed or dropped entirely. I've read TTS:Valencia for fact check, but I'll have to go back and read the published version all over again. And trust me, most publications undergo a lot of changes between fact-check and publication. I have a huge backlog of stuff that I haven't even read the published version of yet. Will be interesting to compare the TTS:Valencia ships to the designs I saw prior to publication. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:19, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
::Ah, I'd forgotten you were on the factcheck team. I just read it last night and thought "I know someone who'd enjoy this!" [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 16:30, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

== Re: Disambiguating ship names ==

I appreciate the explanation. I wasn't quite sure how to handle naming unique ships and how to list them in product entries.

Separately, I've been thinking about plot summaries for fiction under moratorium. I filled out the allowed info as I read the [[Icons of War|novella]]. I could have written the plot summary at the same time, but commented out until the moratorium is over. Has that approach been discussed? Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 16:21, 14 October 2020 (EDT)

== Unidentified Systems ==
Hi Frabby, I found another system for your meta-list of unidentified and unlocated systems. The entry on the ''[[Peregrine (WarShip)|Peregrine]]'' in TRO: Golden Century on page 56 mentions the ''Green Kestrel'' being responsible for the discovery of "the Hazen system", home to a colony established for mining vanadium that changed hands between the Jade Falcons and the Steel Vipers just after the vanavidum veins ran dry, rendering the system worthless. It states that the ''Green Kestrel'' spent five years in-system as the mining colony was established, but that the colony was due to be abandoned after only eight years of operations because of the vanadium running out. No dates are given to more accurately determine when the colony was around, though. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:16, 30 November 2020 (EST)
:Good find, will update. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:25, 30 November 2020 (EST)

== STK-4P ==
Hi Frabby, do you have any reference available for your claim that the STK-4P loses internal structure and has a new engine? [[User:Seer|Seer]] ([[User talk:Seer|talk]]) 16:32, 27 December 2020 (EST)
:It's a bit of a mess really. Canonically, ye olde ''[[Record Sheets Volume Four: Assault 'Mechs]]'' tome featured the STK-4N and the STK-4P as 70-ton 'Mechs, with accordingly weaker internal structure (i.e. true 70 ton builds as opposed to underweight 85 ton builds). However, these record sheets had issues such as showing 16 internal structure points for the -4N's legs versus 15 for the -4P's; they aren't very reliable. Also, I think underweigh 'Mechs were not allowed under the construction rules back then so they had to use the smaller chassis in any case. The [[MUL]] lists the -4N as a 85-tonner, but acknowledges the -4P to be a smaller chassis - albeit 75 tons, not 70. The chassis defines the internal structure under current rules; while an underweight 85-tonner would be allowed now, the MUL says that's not the case. As for reactor rating, the construction rules are pretty clear that the only permissible ratings are multiples of the chassis tonnage, ruling out a 255 engine for a 75-(or 70-)tonner.
:Thanks for keeping me honest. :) I'll add in a reference/footnote to the ''Stalker'' article later. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:30, 28 December 2020 (EST)
::The most recent record sheet for the 4P is in ''[[Record Sheets: 3039 Unabridged]]'', showing it as 75 tons with reduced structure to match.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 14:39, 28 December 2020 (EST)
:::Cool, that's all I wanted. [[User:Seer|Seer]] ([[User talk:Seer|talk]]) 18:02, 28 December 2020 (EST)
:::Was it really necessary to delete the references to TRO 3025 & 3025 revised? Now there's no context behind the changes. [[User:Seer|Seer]] ([[User talk:Seer|talk]]) 19:39, 28 December 2020 (EST)
::::I saw that RS:3039U has updated the BV and corrected it while I was at it, and in the process replaced the references with a RS3039U reference because I thought they referred to the BV only. The generic "downgrades" entry I put in the Variants section (moved from the -4P entry) should get references though. I'll revisit this... soon. For now, I'm fighting real-world deadlines until 4 Jan. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:59, 29 December 2020 (EST)