User talk:Pserratv

Archives

Archive 2018

Current

Arms of Thor Logo

Hello. Are there any canon sources that specify the logo for the Arms of Thor unit? The artwork referenced in Maximum Tech is in the section for the Command Console only. Also, the color image technically is fan art, being reconstructed and colorized by a member of the BattleTech forums. --Cache (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2019 (EST)

None other to my knowledge. I did indeed take that from this person In think.--Pserratv (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2019 (EST)

Sorry to butt in (and late), but fan-created art is official acceptable, if it is a quality improvement upon the available source image. For example, if the source image is only b&w, and someone can re-create it with indicated colors, then it is allowed. However, if no logo has ever been depicted--nor described--then this would not apply.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:09, 4 February 2019 (EST)

Umm, Rev? That's not how I remember it. Back in 2010 we specifically created the Template:ApocryphalImage for this purpose. And to quote Policy:Images: "Please note that any edit or modification to an image technically constitutes fan work, requiring attribution to the last editor (usually in addition to the original artist) and eliminating the image's canon status." Frabby (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2019 (EST)

I mis-stated when I used the term "official", so I've changed it to "acceptable", though I suspect that does not pass your muster. And I'm glad you quoted that specific line from the policy ("Please note that any edit or modification to an image technically constitutes fan work, requiring attribution to the last editor (usually in addition to the original artist) and eliminating the image's canon status.").

Let's move this to the Policy Talk:Images, as I have something rather germane to this issue. Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:53, 6 February 2019 (EST)

HexPack rollbacks

Hi Pere, I rolled back your edits to the Hex Pack pages because they were... wrong. The Classic BT Introduction Box Set you linked is a 2007 product that has nothing to do with the 25 Anniversary edition or the subsequent non-anniversary edition of the boxed set that I meant (with, I'm told, much better quality miniatures) and for which we curiously seem to be missing an article. That's something I need to look into. Frabby (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2019 (EST)

I thought they were all the same.--Pserratv (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2019 (EST)

There are two box sets that came out eighteen months or so apart; one has the product number 3500A (I have 2 copies) and one has the product number 3500B (I have 1 copy). The edition with the number 3500A has the Hammerhands/Battleaxe on the cover (I can never remember which is which, but it's the early FedSuns lookalike for the Warhammer) while the one with the product number 3500B has an Atlas on the cover. To make life interesting, from memory they're both entitled "BattleTech Introductory Box Set", although I need to check that when I get home, but the one with the serial number 3500A has a tagline on the bottom right hand corner of the box front describing it as "The 25th Anniversary of the Game of Armoured Combat". Most of the contents of the two boxes are the same, but there are two exceptions. Firstly, each box contains two premium, high-quality minis that come in multiple parts; one set had (I think) a Loki and a Thor in it, or a Thor and a Summoner, but basically 2 Clan OmniMechs; the other had a Mad Cat and... I think an Atlas? I'm not sure what I did with my premium minis, but I don't think they're still in the boxes. Each also contained some single-piece sculpted minis, and those in the later 3500B box set are of noticeably higher quality. My time's all over the place at the moment, but if someone's going to clarify and expand the box set articles and wants pictures or more precise content details, let me know and I'll see what I can do. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2019 (EST)

Trent

Cheers for fixing the image on the Trent article and pre-empting that I was going to ask you about it today.

Have an award

I have also updated your awards board.--Dmon (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2019 (EST)

Ja, ja, ja!! Thanks :)--Pserratv (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2019 (EST)

Actually.. I have nominated you for the Founder's Outstanding Member of the Year Award in the BattleTechWiki:2018 Founder's Awards.--Dmon (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2019 (EST)

Thanks again :)--Pserratv (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2019 (EST)

!

You had me worried for a second making articles with names like Star Stuff :-p--Dmon (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2019 (EST)

It is a real ship :)... it is true its name is... different--Pserratv (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Officer tables and fluff

Good work on the officer tables, much quicker than I ever go! But I just want to say that one of the reasons I am slower is I take advantage of the change to Policy:Notability. Don't be afraid of stub character articles rather than using the notes section, part of the reason I supported the change is so that we do not lose those bits of fluff ;-)--Dmon (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2019 (EST)

Good point. I'll remember that for next ones. Skipping them is though what makes this editing quick. I prefer to work in phases. First tables, then officers, and so on :). In the end it is a way of working.--Pserratv (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (EST)

I thought that might be the case so just a friendly nudge to make sure. Some of the stuff like the CO of Devil's Brigade is certainly worthy of an article even without the policg change.--Dmon (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2019 (EST)

Are you going make this a template? I don't think i could have made these wonderful officer tables by hand like you can! -- Wrangler (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2019 (EST)

Hey, I'm wondering why you're using tables for formatting this at all. The reason I ask is that they look great on my laptop, but when I visit them with my phone and tablet table-based layout tricks like this tend to break and look terrible. Not trying to badmouth your work; I'm honestly curious what advantage you see to using the tables. Thanks!--Mbear^(talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (EST)

Hi Mbear, the first thing... I did not check on mobile or tablet based systems. I liked how Dmon ordered them and decided to help him formatting the officers list. It makes though easier to look at them.--Pserratv (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Hi Wrangler, the tables... this is copy past ability :) Once you have the table once, it is easy to copy past it at amend it for every command.--Pserratv (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Indeed wrangler, I made the first table by hand but afterwards I have just copy/pasted. Mbear, I created them to try and solve the mess of what I call "wikisms" where consecutive authors and sources have resulted in something that is correct but makes no sense in terms of reader flow. I edited a bunch that said "Between 3025 and 3050 Colonel xxxx commanded the unit, he was still in command in 3067, and also 3085" the table is purposefully short (3 sections) in an effort to control the breakage... as such they look ok on my Samsung Note 8, but that is quite a big phone so maybe further feedback is required.--Dmon (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2019 (EST)

OK. Those are all logical reasons. I think we can do better though. By setting a couple CSS classes on the table it should be possible to make a table that presents information without breaking and forcing me to scroll horizontally. (I'm thinking of the vast tables on the Awards page, which make me cringe every time I visit the page.) And it may be possible to create a template that can be used to create the table. And add the caption "Commanding officer of Unit Name" without requiring a four-column colspan. I'd also like to remove the hardcoded 'width=200px' because that seems to be what's causing most of my problems. Let me do some more research and I'll try to get an example up sometime later this week.--Mbear^(talk) 07:01, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Then I'll stop changing tables and wait untill a new version is made "official" to continue on this.--Pserratv (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2019 (EST)

I am more than happy to have the code improved Mbear :-)--Dmon (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Sub-unit Categories

Hi Pere, I'm a bit non-plussed by some categories you created, such as Category:Stormhammers Commands, Category:Bannson's Raiders Commands, etc.. Should the sub-units that you categorize not simply be listed in the main article? After all, it's only ever going to be a handful of units in the first place, the number isn't going to increase, and since those factions weren't proper states, I don't think we need (or should) treat them like the militaries of established major states. Frabby (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2019 (EST)