User talk:Neuling

Welcome

Welcome, Neuling, to BattleTechWiki!

We look forward to your contributions and want to help you get off to a good strong start. Hopefully you will soon join the army of BattleTech Editors! If you need help formatting the pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions go to the Help section or the FAQ. If you can't find your answer there, please ask an Admin.

---

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the wiki:

• For policies and guidelines, see The Five Core Policies of BattleTechWiki and the BTW Policies. Another good place to check out is our market of Projects, to see how the smaller communities within BTW do things in their particular niche areas.
• Each and every page (articles, policies, projects, images, etc.) has its very own discussion/talk page, found on the tab line at the top of the page. This is a great place to find out what the community is discussing along that subject and what previous issues have already been solved.
• If you want to play around with your new wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you. Don't worry: you won't break anything. A great resource for printing out is the Wiki Cheat Sheet.
• If you're not registered, then please consider doing so. At the very least, you'll have a UserPage that you own, rather than sharing one with the community.
• Also consider writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as "Neuling" at the top of the page, though only do this if you're registered). You'll go from being a 'redshirt' to a 'blueshirt,' with the respect of a more permanent member.
  • This is really helpful for the admins, as it gives your account that touch of "humanity" that assists us in our never-ending battle with spambots.
• For your first few edits on the wiki, please do not add any URLs (which can be an indicator of SPAM).
• Consider introducing yourself on our Discord server.
• In your Preferences, under the edit tab, consider checking Add pages I create to my watchlist and Add pages I edit to my watchlist, so that you can see how your efforts have affected the community. Check back on following visits by clicking on watchlist.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random button in the sidebar, or check out the List of Wanted Pages. Or even go to Special Pages to see what weird stuff is actually tracked by this wiki.
• Please sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the circled button in this image; this will automatically produce your name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date.

Again, welcome to Sarna's BattleTechWiki!

*******Be Bold*******

• 2010 Archive
• 2011-12 Archive
• Project List

Need help

Hy Neuling, i send you a pm on the aris forum.--Doneve (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2013 (PDT)

You have a new pm.--Doneve (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2013 (PDT)

SLDF Commands

Is it ok when i create the categorys, you added to the various SLDF pages.--Doneve (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (PDT)

LCAF March

Neuling - All this information could just go under the LCAF article. At the time, they didn't use the word "March". ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2013 (PDT)

Maps

Hy Neuling please add also some links to our BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul/Faction Map Gallery page, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2013 (PDT)

Ullead

Hy Neuling, where can i found the Ullead System programm?--Doneve (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2013 (PDT)

Maps

Hy, great work, i love your maps, can you add all to the BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul/Faction Map Gallery from your user:test page, i appricate this, and i think BM love it to.--Doneve (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2013 (PDT)

Hy again, can you create maps from Jihad: Final Reckoning and Field Manual: 3085, this where very cool.--Doneve (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2013 (PDT)

Ok we need also maps from Era Report: 3145, also maps i talk to you above, the years are 3081, 3085, 3135 and 3145.--Doneve (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2013 (PDT)

Hy Neuling,

Following up on Doneve's comments (and my review on my talk page) I'd like to give you this award as thanks for your work on maps to support the Planets Project - it's very much appreciated.

BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

Øystein's Maps

Hi Neuling, I see you're ripping a lot of maps from Oystein Tvedten's private homepage. Since these maps are copyrighted, I hope you asked for his permission? Because Oystein complained about his maps being copied to Sarna before...

Also, mind that these maps are technically non-canon because they're his private work, and not published as an official BT product. Frabby (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Hi Frabby,

Jumping in a little - I discussed the canonical maps with Rev back when I started getting involved with the Planets project, and Rev indicated that the maps that were being chopped up, recoloured, resized et al should be fine to use under the Fair Use regs because of the purposes for which they were being used, although all of them needed to clearly indicate the original source.

I've not checked the provenance of the 3130 map Neuling's using (the link won't load for me at work) but I gather the 3130 map from the MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game is canonical and can reasonably be used as well even though it's not been published in a sourcebook or one of the other typical canon sources, because it was issued with the various MW:AOD clix properties. So, if that's the source of the 3130 map, I think it should be ok under the Fair Use terms again, although I thought Doneve and I had already uploaded lots of bits of it as a part of the Project: Planets work.

I'd not heard about Øystein complaining about maps he's made being used here - can you provide a reference or link? I really don't want to upset him, and I'd like to check if there's anything I've done for which I should get permission from him directly that I may not have picked up on. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Back in April 2011 I got a PM from Øystein over at the BT forum where he voiced being "displeased" with a certain Sarna article, elaborating "More specifically that someone has just copied my map files without asking me, telling me, or even crediting me. As the permission I got from WK/CGL was for me to have the maps on my personal pages, I would prefer it if the links were changed to linking to my map files, instead of being hosted locally." I raised the issue here on Sarna BTW but (of course...) I cannot find the relevant entries anymore. Just grabbing images from the web was never legal, and Mr. Tvedten is among the people on whose toes we definitely don't want to step. Since he asked me as admin, I also feel a certain personal obligation to make sure it doesn't happen again.

As for canonicity, let me word it more precisely: Øystein's homepage is not an official, much less canonical, source of BT information. It could arguably be described as a meta-source if the maps hosted there had previously been published as official BT material. The general rule is that anything and everything that doesn't come from an official, legal BattleTech publication is just fan fiction. Frabby (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Hmm... I'm surprised that entire maps were being hosted here, which I'd definitely agree is outside the bounds of Fair Use.

Regarding the 3130 map - that was apparently available in hard copy with certain MW:AOD products. Does that mean that to be used here, someone would have to upload portions of a scan copy of an original hard copy, rather than using portions of the copy hosted at Øystein's site? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Technically, yes. But I admit it's my legal thinking here that demands scans of maps generated from these files, because the paper maps (and not the files) were the official product.

In any case, I'm not concerned about the canonicity of the maps so much as about whether or not anyone bothered to ask Øystein before material from his homepage was copied over to Sarna, something he asked us not to do in the past. Frabby (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Jaguar Logos

Hi, Alpha, Beta and Delta are in Era Report: 3052. Two of these were also made by Fighting Piranha Graphics. Epsilon and Kappa are from Turning Point Luzerne. While there are descriptions of other logos I am still trying to track down a canon picture. Hopefully I'll be able to add some more soon. - Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

Timeline brigade

Bring you the page to work?--Doneve (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2013 (PST)

"Pirate" article subject?

I'm confused; is the Pirate page supposed to be about pirates in general, or just the one Death's Consorts unit? -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2013 (PST)

Clan Stone Lion Military

Hi, thank you for adding the military section, but I have a question - shouldn't the Guards clusters be the Lion Guards and not the Iron Guards? --Dark Jaguar (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (PST)

Unit Names

Hi Neuling,
You're doing a great job with updating the garrison details in the Clan Occupation Zones this morning, but can I ask you to change one detail? Doneve and I are updating various garrisons at the moment, and from the talk page over on the Manual of Style page, it looks like the majority favour trying to use the BattleCorps writers style guide where possible. That doesn't affect how units are named when it comes to their articles, but when we're linking to the unit articles, we should try and follow the BC naming convention. It's a bit of a pain, as the detault here was to do it the other way in most cases, but quite a few have been changed already.
As I understand it, the BC naming convention is:

• Use text rather than numbers unless the unit designation is greater than 100
• Only the first letter of the designation should be capitalised

So, for example, the 39th Wolf Guards should be written as "Thirty-ninth Wolf Guards" but the 115th Wolf Guards would remain the 115th Wolf Guards.
I mentioned it because I noticed with your update you're already setting up pipes to make the Garrison Military Force/Planetary Garrisons look much nicer and more readable, and at the rate you're working through entries I think you could fix half the wiki for us in a single morning BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2013 (PST)

Hi Neuling, I've just posted a reply on my talk page regarding your DCMS page redesign - I'm sorry it took me a while, I was at work a couple of hours longer today than usual so I've not had much of an evening to reply in. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2013 (PST)

Award

Hi, I am a long time user (viewer) of this site for information that I can not get elsewhere. I have noticed you are one of the few to actively add useful information to the site. I particularly like your map images that you have put together, these are incredible useful. I would like to nominate you for an award, and as a thank you from an appreciative user. I hope an administrator will agree with me and award you this --Insidiator (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2013 (PST)

Apostrophes in Capellan unit names

Hey Neuling, just want to ask what the apostrophes in all those unit names is about? I do not own the book they are referenced in but it is not a convention I have seen before, do they have the apostrophes in the source material?

Also if it is not to much trouble could you include the units in the appropriate sub-category rather the general "Military units" one as we have literally thousands of units so it would get messy very quickly if we have just the one category.

Cheers --Dmon (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2014 (PST)

CCAF 3025...

I was wondering if I could move the pages listed here to User Sub Pages for you. Both Doneve and I were doubtful of its use to the general public, but I was hesitant to outright delete them. Would you be okay with me moving them to sub pages under your username? -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2014 (PST)

I don't think that you got TAF 3025 moved over to a user page. -BobTheZombie (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2014 (PST)

Format of Brigade pages

Hey man, I removed the repeated information in the Avalon Hussars article because it does not match the established format of the Brigade pages. Most of it is repeated anyway. Edit: I have just gone back and included the information that is not repeated in the correct format.--Dmon (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (PST)

I have replied to your post on my talk page Neuling --Dmon (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2014 (PST)

Brigade page formatting

copied from User talk:Dmon

I finished my first two tries and I think I'm uncertain which is better for our purposes. Neuling (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2014 (PST)

Hey Neuling, i like what you have done there, it looks good with the unit insignias (I like the second format better). Sorry I have taken so long to go have a look as I have been busy. I think in this format I would be more than happy to incorporate the tables into the Brigade pages. It might be worth checking on the BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands and getting other peoples thoughts before we implement it though.--Dmon (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2014 (PST)

It would absolutely be good to propose this to the BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands project. What you've got is good, and I like it. However, if you just start changing stuff without building consensus first, you're just asking for problems. Please copy it to the project page. (Like I said, you have my support.)--Mbear^(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Tables on pages

Hi Neuling! You know you can add class="wikitable" to all of your tables to automatically make them fit in with the site theme, right?--Mbear^(talk) 04:59, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Breaking down army pages (for example AFFS)

Neuling,

I like how you're breaking the large army pages (like AFFS) down into smaller pages. I don't like that you've just decided to do it without trying to show it to the community as a whole. That way we can talk about it and make suggestions.

Like on the AFFS - Units page for example. You have: "The AFFS is primarily broken down into Corps, though some free regiments and brigades do exist. Only BattleMech units are listed below; conventional forces are considered attached to BattleMech commands for convenience."

If you had asked, I would've pointed out that it would be useful to define "free regiment" vs. brigade. Also many brigade level pages (like Avalon Hussars) have information that appeared on the main AFFS page via the onlyinclude tags. So a visitor to that page could get a quick intro to what the unit's history was. The reformatted page you've provided doesn't include that data, and I think that's a mistake.

One possible compromise would be to include your table at the top and then include the brigade stuff at the bottom.

Ideally, you would put this off your personal pages (which you did) and then talk to the Project Military Commands team to see what they thought. (If you did, I apologize, I just don't see any of it on there.)--Mbear^(talk) 05:09, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Hey Neuling, I want to support Mbear here.. I have just attempted to use the DCMS page for a quick reference (even after all this time I still get mixed up with the ramks) and it is quite simply GONE!!!! A really messy skeleton of an article remains but if I was a first time visitor to our fair wiki right now I would never be coming back here ever again. Please sort it out. You have gone off half cocked again and have made more bad than good at this moment in time.--Dmon (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

Please hold off reverting any more of the military pages for today; thanks. I'm short on time and will explain later. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

From Dmon's talk page:

I restored both pages and apologize for the action which I took without any discussion. Furthermore I ask if we can change the layout into a standardized version? With best regards Neuling (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

We absolutely can! And I think you may be onto something here with breaking down the army pages into smaller units. My problem with the current layout is how far it goes in removing content to sub-pages.--Mbear^(talk) 10:27, 13 March 2014 (PDT)

What Mbear said, I am not against the idea of change as long as it makes things better, concensus on the CBT forum says a mix of the two seems best, so I am happy, sub-pages are fine but back to my original post I was upset due to the utter lack of content in the DCMS page, it seems everybody is right in this instance, now just to make it work :-) --Dmon (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2014 (PDT)

Another question is need we tables in the composition history on brigade pages, we dont discuss this in the past and i think we dont need tables, any opinions.--Doneve (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2014 (PDT)