User talk:Revanche

Archives

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Current

Please add new entries to the bottom of this page (in order to ensure I actually see them).

Draw a line

Hey Revanche please take a look of my redone of the Marauder page and give my an opinion abut it. Neuling 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding at BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Page Name Format, Infantry Weapons

The Vehicle Scale weapons are currently named for their class, NOT for the proper name, it is not Martell Medium Laser, or GM Whirlwind Autocannon/5, it is Medium Laser & Autocannon/5 Respectively, This should stay the case with Infantry weapons, but since the weapon stats in a class translate to different stats on the BattleTech Scale the Infantry Weapons would have the proper name in the Parenthetical in addition to the standard Class name that BattleMech Weapons have. If we go to a proper name standard, the BattleMech and Vehicle Weapons will have a Lot of Duplication of BattleTech Stats, going to the proper name level is only useful for weapons that actually have fluff that would be translatable on the RPG scale (shots per battletech burst of fire or mass of each shell, etc) or for infantry weapons that are translated from the RPG scale to BattleTech.--Cameron 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagarism Concern

Please see Talk:Operation Bulldog. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeta Battalion

Rev - Was wondering if you could delete the Redirect for Zeta Battalion that sends them to Wolf's Dragoons. I plan on writing on up an article on them. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no need. You can edit redirects. When the page redirects you, click on the link under the title of the article (it will say "Redirected from [X]"). That takes you to the redirect page, which you can edit the same as any other article. --Scaletail 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Works. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 04:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtual World Article

Hi Rev, recently i noticed User:MechCorps editing the Virtual World article. I'm little foggy on what is considered taboo. HOwever, this article now reads more little like advertisement for Virtual World verse basic talk about the article. Wikipedia doesn't allow for that, though this is Battletech related, is this okay? -- Wrangler 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is not written in 'our' style, i.e., people familiar with the concept of BattleMechs. I'll take a jab at it. Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks good Rev, it doesn't read like advertisement anymore which was my main concern. I do wish there was some more history on them. They've been around since 1990, with advent of the Battletech Center in Chicago, If i'm not mistaken. -- Wrangler 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. If that's true, than, yeah, wish we could have more.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can atest to that being true, i physically went to The Battletech Center located in Chicago in summer 1990. I had read about it of prior to me joining the service, training was in Chicago area. The centers became Virtual Worlds, with couple retaining their BT related name. Its possible VR still has some kind of history online somewhere. Second look, wikipedia has article on it here-- Wrangler 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool deal. I'll import the article when I have the time.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mortium Period for RS:3085 Record Sheets

Hello Rev, it i believe a goof happened the actual dates to end their Moratorium periods for these articles are missing. Talk:Record Sheets: 3085 Unabridged — Project Phoenix. Would you weigh in to see what should be done? -- Wrangler 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrangler, I'm not the best fit to do investigative work on Record Sheets. When the file was released, were hardcopies put on sale at the same time? Mbear may be able to help too, as he's rather involved with moratoriums. Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeta Battalion

Rev - Please give Zeta Battalion a look when you get a chance. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Platoon Organization Articles

I am considering doing a BattleTroops level (per man in 2 of 4 of squads (1 line, 1 support)) dissection of the BattleTech Foot & Motorized Infantry Platoons including either thumbnails or links to weapon carried. How would i do this Family Tree or something similar? Would it be useful?--Cameron 16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked???

Rev - Its ClanWolverine101. Whenever I login to my account, the whole screen goes blank. I've tried this on multiple computers, and nothing will pop up. Is it possible I was blocked somehow? I can't even get in to change my settings. Please contact me at my account's email. Thanks. - CW 192.80.61.181 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Rev - Thanks so much to you and Frabby for clearing up the login issue. Have an Assistance Appreciated Award on me. ClanWolverine101 13:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, CW. I appreciate the thought. I admit, though, Frabby and Nic took direct action on it. I realized Frabby was on the right track only after I confirmed (to myself) that you were not blocked. Glad we got it resolved, though! If it wasn't for Neuling and yourself letting us know, who knows how many people might have just given up on coming back in.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Templates

Hi Rev, I hope things are going well for you. I had question regarding the infotemplates. I've been unable be on as much I used to. I just notice the changes to the infobox, who did this? Color...does quite look right to me too light perhaps on white background of Sarna pages? Is possibly differient color can be choosen, like light blue? -- Wrangler 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wrangler, Frabby took the helm on the recent changes to the infoboxes, if I recall correctly. However, before you approach him about that, I'd urge you to mess around with the new skins Mbear and Nicjansma have established. I've switched over to Marik colors, not because I'm pro-Marik, but because I like the look best (right now). Go to the 'my preferences' tab, then 'skin' and try 'em out. See if that helps. I use IE7 at work, and even on that old system the changes look good. Hope that helps! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I too noticed some issues with the infoboxes using the "modern" skin. They went away when I switched to one of the current crop of skins.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by LRichardson (talk • contribs) .

I'm little fuzzy on the new skins thing for the info boxes. I currently just remove the ads for the webpage skin. I see yellow, around for the info box, which I'd imagine everyone (without logining) else is seeing same as I am. I personally think the base one should been darker for sake of blending. -- Wrangler 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Canon Submission Council

LRichardson, join me here please. I've moved the discussion to a more committed location.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted some more material on the "Quality" dimension of the rubric.-- LRichardson 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have missed the update again. : ) -- LRichardson 20:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a substantial bit of commentary in the NCSC page as per your request. -- LRichardson 00:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hy Rev, i hope allways is fine withe you, i note the most contributions of (Autor: BattleTech Muse 3056) are always plagarized material, in the major Inner Sphere factions section, i dont want to remove content, but can we found a way to correct this, you know i am not the fluff writer, i hope any can overwrite, correct this missere, thanks--Doneve 20:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome template

From my talk page so you're sure to see it.--Mbear 16:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbear, would you please show me how to update the Welcome template to best make use of the skins? I'd appreciate it. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot all about the welcome template, so there's nothing in the skins right now to use them. That said, I'd make a couple of small changes to the HTML in the template and update the skin CSS files. There's a sample at User:Mbear/welcome, with the updated welcome message up top and the existing one below.

The updated welcome message gets an ID attribute of welcomemessage. I've also replaced two DIV tags that were being used for formatting with H2 tags. That's pretty much it for the HTML.

For the CSS I've created a sample at User:Mbear/sarnasteiner.css. I don't know if you can see that or not. Just in case, here's the code:

div#welcomemessage /*sets up colored border*/
{
	border:3px solid #000;
	padding:1em;
}

div#welcomemessage h2 /* "Welcome" and "Be Bold" */
{
	text-decoration:none;
	font-weight:bold;
	font-style:normal;
	text-align:center;
	font-size:18px;
}
div#welcomemessage div /*the white background part*/
{
	border:3px solid #000;
	padding: 0 1em 0 1em;
	background-color:#fff;
}
div#welcomemessage span.editsection {display:none;}

/* This will go into faction-specific stylesheets to set appropriate color background. */
div#welcomemessage {background-color:#C7CFD9;}

Basically everything from div#welcomemessage on down will have to go into the main (global) CSS file. This will set the welcomemessage to the correct size, font size, padding, etc. That doesn't change from one skin to the next.

Faction specific colors can be set by using the last line. I'd just need to add the appropriate color to the faction CSS file.

Nic will need to update/upload those files though. I don't know how MediaWiki sets up the stylesheets.

Does that help or am I just confusing the issue?--Mbear 16:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I postponed answering until I could wrap my head around the above. I follow, to the 60-70% mark. However, I can press the 'I believe' button. Your example (welcome) shows the standard Sarna colors and, if I follow correctly, that may be due to the need for Nic to update/upload. Do I understand it correctly?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Taurian Concordat Update

IT IS DONE!! All rulers, regents, assorted persons and events of significance to the Taurian Concordat (prior to 3060) have been named, paged and referenced! WHEW that took longer that I thought it would but real life jumped up in the way. If you or one of the other admins could give this long labor of faction love a once (or heck twice!) over to make sure it meets this Wiki's standards I would be most grateful.Deeppockets 23:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is cool. Isn't it, well, fun to grab one article and beat all the loose change out of it and then count that change? It really feels like a family tree and if you keep following the links, its amazing where the links will take you. Congratulations! Made me think we need to develop 'campaign' ribbons, for mastering a subject. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I'll take what ever comes my way; laurel wreaths or flame spams! But instead of a new award how about Substantial Addition Award or Good Article Award?Deeppockets 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My humble thanks kind sir.Deeppockets 22:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IS Atlas content integration

Hy Rev, hmm i think the question make some problemes with the policy and other thinks, but i hope you can help me and you like the idea. I want to contact Chris Wheeler, how we can move some planetary description content from [[1]] by her permission, and embeded that in sarna.net, with cannonical references, i know there is a lak of some source infos on IS Atlas and it is a meta-source, i want to make the meta-source content to a cannonical. It is a crazy idea by myself, what you are thinking about this, and i hope the ball rolls.--Doneve 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Doneve, my advice would be to contact Frabby. Not only is he a German-speaker (which will help in translating your idea), but he is well-known on CBT.com for his missing planets project. In other words, I think he would be your best bet to kick this off. Hope that helps. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Frabby, nice to see you back in your spare time.--Doneve 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to be back.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good to have you back Rev! To the topic at hand, we can't copy planet descriptions over from the IS Atlas because the Atlas content is plainly stolen (copied/plagiarized) from the old Housebooks and MechWarrior RPG; nothing there (as far as I can tell) is original content. We'd be running into all sorts of copyright problems here. I do like the idea of more descriptive planet/system information, but we have to write the texts ourselves. Frabby 08:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur. To be honest, I was rather tired when reading the initial post, and knew I would not be able to understand it at the time. Having gone over there, I agree that the information is composed (almost) entirely of original material.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cities

Hy Rev, i forgot to thank's for your support to my created cities etc. articls, i work on next day again on this project, and i think i become some User talks, but i don't like the issue of the others (the articles are not usefull or must integrate on the planet pages), i follow the Unfinished Book Project and pick up any subject, i became a little completely unreasonable view of the i don't like this and that, when user's don't like this, become a member to the UBP and change this, this is my answer to this sadly discussion.--Doneve 14:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide an example link to one of these discussions? I'm not understanding the problem, I'm afraid.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyed from New Avalon talk page

“

Create the temp. articles for the city's later.--Doneve 11:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Doneve - Respectfully, most (all?) of those cities are probably not worthy of their own article. You could certainly argue that Avalon City is notable, but it world still probably be best to write brief descriptions of locations on a planet within the article. Just a thought? ClanWolverine101 06:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC) CW101, BTW strives to record every fact gather-able on any subject within BattleTech. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't get into issues of notability and we do favor redlinks, in the hopes a writer will come along to make it blue. While I have absolutely no issues with your recommendation to provide write-ups on these cities within the New Avalon article, I'm also equally fine with redlinks that point to a non-existent article that has the potential to provide more detail than allowable here. (Caveat: I'm not a proponent of empty placeholder articles. For example, someone creating an article over a minor New Avalon city that only indicated a reference to the source material; I'd much prefer a simple statement at the least.)--Revanche 14:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks Revanche, for your answer to ClanWolverine 101-Doneve 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I'm with CW on this one. I think the information that is being spread out amongst the various articles belongs on this page. In this case it's a matter of context. Reading about Ith by itself doesn't give me very much information, so I have to read the "Geography" section of New Avalon in order to understand the meanings of the various things that article refers to. --Scaletail 23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

”

Doneve, there is just no consensus on this yet. It has been discussed, but some feel everything with its own article will encourage others to expand upon it, while others feel stub articles detract from the site. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for the awards. I agree with your comments about redirects. It's frustrating to try to go to a page and have it go to a search page instead, especially when what you typed is just a space or a letter away from an existing redirect to the page you wanted to get to! GOLFisNOTaSPORT 22:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Community Service Award

...granted for taking the helm in the Fanon Purge and the Non-Canon Submission Council. I am especially glad that you're doing this since I don't have the time to look after these important processes myself though I do try to provide input now and then. Frabby 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Frabby. It is appreciated.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User Essays category

So, I notice an issue with the use of a category page for the essays. It eliminates the step of the user manually going to the category page and adding their link. It also lists all essays as being user:GreatAuthor/Essayname, a fairly ugly convention. I have added a suggested markup to the category page. -- LRichardson 18:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Scroll Box

Holla Rev, i like your scroll box experiment, and want to support this good idea to make long page sections shorter, i give you, in fully respect your , i am very glad to see you back, and bumb up the wiki.--Doneve 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I know you follow my movements and adopt some of my methods. You're like my clone! It's great.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutly, at first the scroll box works, i think on the planet pages, how i picked up your Unfinished Book Project, on the Tharkad, New Avalon pages etc., and want to expand it (seriously i provide a talk on the targed pages), greetings.--Doneve 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

At second i want to integrade your scroll box, to overhelmed pages, and bring some pages to a better view.--Doneve 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually Ebakunin who brought this in. We need him back here.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

HawkWolf.gif

I filled all the data i could, i will try to find the artist.Mekorig 22:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. The source and legal statement are most important. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Spammer

Hi Rev, i happen to spot User:Umipa creating a spam article Here wikis informed‎. I request this thing be removed/banned please, thank you. -- Wrangler 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, Wrangler. I've been waiting for him to post something all day, but it was you who caught it. Handling it now.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We got another live one in User:Notempover and his online IDs. --Dirk Bastion 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Zapp! :-) Frabby 08:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged! --Dirk Bastion 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again & Note

Hi Rev, thanks for the Vandal award. I sorry i didn't respond to you sooner, but my activity off-line been keeping me from contributing as much as I used to. I'll try do my best keep up helping out. Did you or anyone else find those weird ads that were I guess, temporarily in Republic of the Sphere article else where? I do periodicly see them in other websites, but i didn't know it was a browser filter thing or something else. - Wrangler 22:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I'm traveling myself at the moment and haven't had much Sarna time either.

No, haven't heard anything else. I think it may be a toolbar (or other app) you have installed on your browser, that highlights advert words.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I saw another example of "invisible ad links" on User:Mbear's user page. The spambot used a code that made the link effectively invisible in the text when displaying it. I have removed the code, but you can see it here. Perhaps that's similar to what Wrangler saw in the ROTS article. Frabby 06:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I had considered that also, but found no such code. Additionally, the article he reported these on, The Republic of the Sphere, had a minimal of IP edits and, IIRC, no otherwise non-regular edits. Each of those added solid edits (with only one exception). In Wrangler's words: "Words that are effected "special" "administration" "the planet". I tried edit remove them, but they don't appear (from what i can tell) in the normal coding a editor usually can see." That suggests to me some sort of search engine optimization-related linking that he inadvertently allowed to alter his browser. Unfortunately, I haven't experienced such a change to my browser, so am not really sure what to suggest for removal.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Switching to Firefox? --Scaletail 11:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 ::sigh:: I'm so comfortable with Firefox, that using IE at work makes me itch.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Greate Takayoshi Fuchida

Hy Revanche, i give you your , all purpose award, great expansion by the ...Kearny ...Fuchida, bio pages, very clean i like it.--Doneve 04:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Doneve.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Realm categories for star systems

Not sure if this is a good idea. It is a static description of a dynamic process - that way lies madness. Too many planets change hands frequently, some are co-owned or independent. What do you do with Chaos March worlds that previously were part of the Tikonov Republic and ended up with the ROTS? Ultimately, almost any planet belonged to almost every faction at some point in time. So the categorization isn't very informative, imho. Frabby 03:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree, man. I don't think it is static, when presented thusly: "This category lists all articles for planets that have been within the boundaries of the Draconis Combine." While there is a lot of changing hands around borders (and of former Hegemony worlds), its not like the old 'Mechs debate about production versus faction use; if a planet was in Marik hands twice and Steiner hands twice, it'll be in the appropriate category only once.

One aspect of Wikipedia I really enjoy is being able to dial down into categories, as they get more and more specific. On that project, Category: Battles opens up child categories for a varied amount of information: By country, By era, By type (aerial, naval, sieges, tanks) and even Battles and conflicts without fatalities and Nonviolent revolutions! Here, someone can -with a few clicks- determine every planet ever controlled by the Magistracy or the Combine, not just what they now control. I realized we didn't have a means of answering my question: which worlds have been controlled by the Combine? And a list was far from accurate (or trustworthy) way of answering that.

I'm absolutely willing to stop for the time being, to discuss, however. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

By all means, continue. I was just wondering because I honestly don't think it is very informative to know all systems that were part of, say, the Draconis Combine once (includes the entire FRR and a good share of the Steiner and Davion realms). Without a given year as context, it's just a mess of data.

Which reminds me of an idea I had: In an ideal world, BTW wouldn't list system ownership in the way we do it now; it should be a section labelled "Political affiliation/Ownership" that lists the date of first colonisation and every date when political affiliation/ownership changed since then. And how it changed, of course. But that's for some distant time in the future when I have way too much time on my hands and no other BTW projects... :) Frabby 17:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on ownership. Who owned it in what era is a holdover of Nic's ISCS download and it's archaic. I agree, the planets need a much-needed scrubbing and effort to establish informative parameters between the various pages. I'd be glad to help with that. Maybe one day...--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hy Rev, how we handel the Clan Planets.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Doneve (talk • contribs) .

Doneve, check out Category: Clan Wolf Planets and copy the wording there for other Clan holdings. (You can also see the other six Clan categories, if you click on the 'C' quicklink under Category:Planets.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks.--Doneve 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechforce Magazines

Rev - What's the current policy for the material in the Mechforce magazines? I just dug up some from '96. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 17:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Jump in, hy CW101, i think the magazines falls under apocryphal content, but talk to Frabby, he is the expert in this thinks.--Doneve 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, MechForce material is apocryphal. Given that there's a multitude of MechForce magazines around (2 for MFNA, 3 for MFG + 2 for MGF spin-offs...), which magazine do you have? Oh, and as for what to do with them: I suggest an overview article with a (brief!) content rundown for each individual issue. See BattleTechnology or Wunderwelten articles. Frabby 19:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, they were for Mech Quarterly. The first two I have are Volume 2, Issues 13 and 14 from AWOL Productions. The third is Volume 1, Issue 1 of MechForce North America Quartely from when FASA took over the fanclub for AWOL.

I actually was only half-interested in writing issue articles. I am more interested in the content, and how to add apocryphal content to already existing articles without making a mess of them. For example, one published scenario has two lances of Grave Walkers defeating a Clan Wolf Star in a post-Tukayyid Trial of Possession for some bondsmen on Carse. Stuff like that. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 23:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The formal way to include apocryphal material in an otherwise article would be like it was done in these articles: Jimmy Lee, Menlo Drews, Cassie DeBurke, Crescent Hawks, Cameron's Legion. Be sure to include a canonicity section and clearly marking what part of the article is based on apocryphal sources, as opposed to canonical sources.

In cases where only a very small portion of the otherwise large article (a single tidbit of information) is apocryphal, I have omitted the "Apocryphal Content" tag in the past and merely inserted the information, clearly marked as apocryphal of course. Examples: Shandra Noruff-Cameron, Hansen's Roughriders#History ("The 3030s" section).

Regarding your "half-interestedness" in writing articles about the sources - pretty pleeeaaase? :-) Since it is impossible to get the 'Mech and Mech Quarterly magazines here I can't do it myself, and I know next to nothing about the MFNA either which is quite a hindrance in writing that article. (I never was a MFNA or MFG member, but at least I found enough stuff on the MFG to write an article for them.) Frabby 10:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Frabby - Thanks! Your guidance on making changes to the already existing articles is most helpful. As for the magazines themselves... well, I will chew that over. ClanWolverine101 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict Infobox

OMG! Rev is making a conflict infobox! I can do SOOO much with that! Have a in advance. :D:D:D ClanWolverine101 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That made me laugh. Thanks. Right now, I just taught myself how to 'hide' an unused section, in this case a third opposing force (ala Blakists in JTP:L). Let me know if there is anything else that you'd expect to see in a conflict infobox.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's me Neuling, I have put alot of time in the various conflicts and will have your thougths about the topic. It is usefull to split the various battles of for example the clan invasion or the 4th succession war into induvidual conflict pages or not. I think by some events the informations are to small to create a good text aound it. Neuling 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"I think by some events the informations are to small to create a good text aound it." That's your answer, right there. If you feel you cannot write an article that merits your standards because too little information is available, then by all means summarize the battle (ex: routine patrol engages small enemy force) in the article on the larger conflict (ex: Battle of Luthien (Jihad)). Individual battles with enough information to warrant an article /should/ have articles, if the initial writer can build it. Otherwise, they should be left on the larger article. Does that help?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think MOST battles do not merit their own article. Most battles get (maybe!) a paragraph in a book like the NAIS 4th Succession War books, or the Clan Invasion sourcebooks like Invading Clans. I like what Frabby did on the Hesperus II article, with little subsections for each battle, most of which little material was published on. Contrast all this with the GDL's battle on Glengarry in 3056. Published works : One scenario pack, one turning point campaign book, two NOVELS, and over a dozen minor mentions in various books. THAT is the foundation for a great article. ClanWolverine101 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree, CW. I think Frabby does great work, creating highly informative articles and I don't think the site suffers because people don't create articles on the small stuff. It's just that it is very hard to define what is too small, if there is interest in writing about a certain subject. And that is what I was trying to convey to Neuling: if he is not comfortable creating an article on a certain battle because it either lacks importance or source material or he feels it is better served by including it in a larger perspective, then he absolutely should do so. Great articles can only be built when provided with adequate information.

Likewise, if someone feels they can datamine something to an extreme and create more than a sub-stub, then they should absolutely do that, as well. It may not be a great article, but it may be a start-class article for something that will become great, when more information becomes available. Or, maybe, it serves another purpose: it simply answers someone's question about something very specific: "when did it occur", or "who was involved". They don't all have to be great, they don't all have to be articles, but they must all be informative. I'll be the first to label an article a sub-stub if it provides absolutely no in-universe information about a subject other than its name and/or date, even if it provides references, and then delete it myself 7 days later. But I also understand some writers enjoy and are skilled at creating large, informative articles while others prefer acting as archivists of the minor details, knowing that a larger picture can also become clear through that method. I don't prefer one angle over the other. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories by Clan Worlds

Hi Rev, i'm not sure if its good idea to category individual Clan controlled worlds. Clan worlds specially in Clan space, changes hands alot or are partially owned. Only because previous sourcebooks did we know the percentages of the planets. This seems to be changing due to new policies of CGL to simplify things. Won't it be simipler to classify Clan occupided worlds by listing them Category: Clan Planets instead? There are good chunk of Inner Sphere/Periphery worlds that now owned by the Clans, some those Clans are hybrid nations like Rasalhague Dominon and Raven Alliance. Isn't this going add alot more categories of worlds? Example the Raslhague will have least three, Draconis Combine, Free Raslhague Republic, and Clan Ghost Bear. Clan worlds change alot more often. -- Wrangler 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My intent, with the categories, is to allow a researcher to quickly determine where a state (Clan, IS or Periphery) has had claim, past or present. We won't be removing planets from a category, since BTW covers all eras, but add a planet to a category when it does change hands.

In other words, I can ask: "What planets did the Lyran Alliance control? Oooh, Unukalhai? When did they loose it? Oh, okay, the year 3xxx!"

Of course, we can't answer that last question yet, but that's because we haven't started the Grand Cleanup of the planets yet. Once Doneve and I are done categorizing them, I'll open up a discussion on what the perfect planet template would look like and then we'll use the categories we've developed to make that project manageable.

As for your specific concern on Clan worlds, you may be right, but to simplify the overall planet categorization, we're dividing them into states only right now. It might be wiser (when we're done with this phase), to separate them into Homeworlds and IS Holdings, instead. We'll see. Thanks for the suggestion.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was nosing around in the planetary regions and categories area after reading one of the planet entries that came up as a result of the random page function (I was getting tired of writing entries for Star League Corps) and I noticed that you don't have a category for independent planets. There are some dotted around at various eras within the BattleTech timeline, particularly after the dissolution of the Free Worlds League; while the majority are either Periphery planets or Chaos March planets and are already covered, I wasn't sure what your plans were regarding the former FWL. I did notice on the Planets Project page that the intention is to have information available for all of the various eras of the BattleTech timeline; with the recent Age of War material coming out from CGL and maps going back to the founding of the various major realms in the handbooks, there are a lot of planets in the Inner Sphere that were independent for various lengths of time. BrokenMnemonic 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BrokenMnemonic. I think that is a good category name. Doneve and I had decided not to include 'independents' because they didn't fit our definition of multi-planet states, but by putting them in that category, the category answers the question "Which planets were once states unto themselves?" and they don't just disappear in the Planets category. I'll get with Doneve to go back and start including those. Thanks.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help :) Independent planets is also a good way to track a lot of state fragments, like those worlds the Lyran Commonwealth didn't annex from the Rim Worlds Republic and the Taurian Concordat settled planets that are still around but not in either the Concordat or the Protectorate at the end of the Dark Age. Depending on the status of the original Gray Death Legion novels, it would also technically include Verthandi just prior to the 4th Succession War. How far back will you be rolling the years with the planets? CGL included maps going back to the founding of the various states in the Handbooks, at which point there were a lot of smaller states flying around, some overlapping with the Age of War. There also appears to have been a fair number of planets settled during the Star League era, which means a lot of planets that wouldn't exist in early entries suddenly appearing later on. Will you be tracking dead planets, too? I was reading Handbook: Major Periphery States and it's frightening just how many planets in the Outworlds Alliance simply vanished after the fall of the Star League. BrokenMnemonic 20:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll be a bit dis-appointed in the near term. Right now, Doneve and I are doing no research in our categorization. We're categorizing solely on the Owner History sections of each planet article. We're trying to establish a baseline, so groups of planets can be hit up and improved in appropriate groups, rather than just hitting the 'C's or the 'G's.

However, it's my intention, once we kick off a team project to do so, to really clean up and make these planet articles more informative. Owner history will no longer detail eras and who controlled them at that specific year, but each turnover and the year it occurred. Once we do that, then planets will see additional categories, where appropriate. For example, right now Verthandi will not be included in the independent category (by myself), as it never shows the period of independence in the Owner History section as it now exists. Same thing goes for dead planets. Once we start organizing and modernizing the planet articles, the categories will be more accurate.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it this means that by default, worlds which swapped between realms during the various succession wars will all show the same date based on the maps, unless there's a text somewhere that indicates a specific year within which the world changed hands? It sounds like you've got an elegant workaround for the problem of planets that were allegedly swapping hands a lot, like those in the former Terran Hegemony, but which always ended up with the same nations in the end of Succession War realm maps. BrokenMnemonic 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It'll be a daunting task, both in the complexity of the information, as well as the numbers of planets to be covered. It won't be a project counted only in months. I was thinking, it might also be beneficial to change the map graphics each planets has to not show realm colors, but just the surrounding stars (also 2 jumps out). That way they won't be pigeon-holed to a specific year.

And I'm not sure it's 'elegant'. Some may feel the use of categories as static groups unrelated to 'current' status are not very informative. But, it should work for organizing the big planet cleanup.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't envy you getting to grips with that task! I don't know how the map colours are determined currently, but I find them a little hard to navigate, partly due to poor eyesight. I don't know how many worlds change hands more than once or twice, but I'm guessing that one of the problems you've got is that colouring the worlds is informative for worlds that never/very very infrequently change hands, which would primarily be those worlds in the heartlands of the major Inner Sphere realms, but very limiting for those that change hands. To be honest, I normally work out where worlds are by searching a PDF map of the Inner Sphere, or if I'm sure a world is within a particular realm but I can't work out exactly where, I go to the Handbooks. With so many worlds in the game it's markers like realm/state boundaries or nearby major capitals/worlds that help me work out where a world is, rather than it's local neighbours.

I do think your solution is elegant, but I'm thinking in terms of database queries - categorising worlds using realms they've been members of, and adding dates to show when they changed loyalties makes for very searchable datasets - it makes it possible for people to run queries for worlds in a particular realm, limited by boundary dates, and get comprehensive lists. Whether the wiki can actually do that at the moment, I don't know enough to comment, but I do like the idea of being able to do that in the future. BrokenMnemonic 08:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not certain searches can be done that way (I don't think wikis are that dynamic), but I'm only 90% certain. However, as you've indicated, the overall query can be somewhat simplified by the initial category and the reader can specifically see when a planet changed hands by opening the article. Ideally, the state article's history section would also detail those changes chronologically; that can be built by the properly-cited information within each planet article, without the writer having to go to the original source material.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Real World References

I hope this is the correct way to ask this question... I've been working through the Star League Defence Force Corps, creating basic entries for those Corps that are currently lacking them, and I came across XLIV Corps, which includes the 1st Infantry Division (The Big Red One). Given FASA's love for cultural, historical and pop references, it seemed to me that this is probably a reference or homage to the US 1st Infantry Division, although perhaps not a deliberate continuation of the real world unit as it's not the 1st Royal Infantry Division or something similar. I had a look at the unit entry, and there's no note to that effect in the notes section, which made me wonder if such things are outside the scope of the wiki. I had a look in the policy are but couldn't see anything that related directly to this; I was wondering if you could tell me where the wiki stands on such things? I had a look for other examples that occured to me, and I noticed that the Team Banzai entry notes the reference to Buckaroo Banzai, but the entry on Blanc's Coyotes (vice Wylie's Coyotes) doesn't contain a similar reference. BrokenMnemonic 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew this had come up before, but had not found a policy regarding it. However, I did a search for "not wikipedia" and found these two discussions: Talk:Horse & Talk:Striga. Basically, it boils down to the idea that we do not know, within the in-character context of the BT universe, why something was named this or why somebody would do that unless it is officially mentioned. We all know the character Aleksandr Kerensky was named after his historical predecessor, but it would be inappropriate to introduce that as fact, unless it had been so stated (either in the fiction or by an official statement indicating he was so named by his parents for that exact reason). However, I see in the Sarna article on the man, someone wrote a Trivia section (which I'm now re-naming as Notes) where it was proposed. As long as that doesn't become a debated 'discussion' more appropropriately placed on the Talk page, I don't see why you couldn't mention it as a possible origin of the fiction unit's name, in a similar Notes section. Does that help?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. You've been great at helping me out and giving advice since I started poking around here; would it be ok for me to award you one of the appreciation medals, like this one? BrokenMnemonic 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)