User talk:Wrangler

Archives

User Talk Archive 2009 User Talk Archive 2010 User Talk Archive 2011

Resources Pages

• User talk:Wrangler/Resources

Current

Image request

Hy Wrangler nice to have you back, i have at the moment not the chance to rename or move the pic, i have some problems since Nic updated the MediaWiki code, i miss some buttons on the wiki bar and other thinks, i hope Nic fix this little problems in next time, please talk to Revanche or Frabby, thanks.--Doneve 14:47, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Hi Doneve. No problem, i wasn't sure if you were full administrator yet. Thank you for welcoming me back. I still don't have alot time to do full articles at speed you work. ;) I can only do little things. -- Wrangler 15:02, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Thanks, i have a lot of time, i stay on hospital, i think you go to college or some thinks change in your life, and you have spare of time, best wishes.--Doneve 15:13, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Individual Warship articles: Categories

(copy from BrokenMnemonic's talk page)

Hi BrokenMnemonic, finally got some time to look into your articles and there's two points I'd like to raise with you:
1. WarShips aren't JumpShips as far as categorization is concerned. The five major categories for individual hulls are WarShip, JumpShip, DropShip, Small Craft, and Installation. In this sense, JumpShips are (only) civilian JumpShip designs with a standard KF core; WarShips don't fall into the JumpShip category.
2. Please add the appropriate category (e.g. [[Category:Individual Destroyers]]) to articles where the ship's type is known. Similarly and on top of this, please add the appropriate category (e.g. [[Category:Individual Suffren-class vessels]]) to articles where the class is known. In this way, I'd like to mirror the categories tree established for classes. Frabby (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (PST)

1 - Done.

2 - Done.

A couple of things came out of my categorisation spree earlier that you may wish to take a view on.

• Not all WarShip types are categorised - the Volga, Potemkin and Faslane were all missing classes. I used the definitions within the WarShip classifications page to categorise them as a transport, a cruiser and a Yard-Ship respectively, but you may wish to correct that if I got it wrong.
• You may wish to choose to have light and heavy cruiser become subcategories of the cruiser category; looking at the classifications page, some of the lightest cruisers are described as heavy cruisers, while some cruisers such as the Potemkin are either simply described as "cruiser" or a weird subdivision such as "transport cruiser." When it comes to describing vessels narratively, the writers often seem to simply use "cruiser" - the SLS Havana is an example of that. This might require tagging a lot of vessels as both a cruiser and a subdivision, or you could take the view that cruiser is used when that's the only description and is a less accurate category to be improved if information is available.

You've not commented on whether the names of the Minotaur and Lakshmi are correct or not, so I've assumed for now that they are, and added the Minotaur to the Aegis page as the SLS Minotaur, rather than as the THS Minotaur quoted on the CGL forum review. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2013 (PST)

You rule, man! Thanks! The Cruiser designation is sort of a catch-all designation really, and WarShip classification is wonky anyways. I wouldn't want to categorize beyond Cruiser, especially given that the Cruiser sub-classes typically have only a handful classes in them and thus aren't worth differentiating anyways (heavy, light, battle, troop, pursuit cruisers and maybe a couple more; not aware of any particular class referred to as "transport cruiser" though - the Potemkin is called a "troop cruiser"). Similarly, I feel we don't need categories for YardShips or transport WarShips. But it doesn't hurt either. Nothing to "correct" here.

As for The Theseus Knot, I have the print edition of the Weapons Free anthology before me and am working it down story by story. Theseus Knot is upcoming. Reading it over, I gather the SLS Minotaur is a refitted Aegis and the FSS Klingenthal a new Congress. No quick ID of the Lakshmi beyond that it was the former command of the Minotaur's CO, i.e. apparently a SLS ship. Frabby (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2013 (PST)

OK, the system is working so far. Davion and Lola class vessels are going to be a pain, because they consist of discrete blocks (I and II for the Davion, I, II and III for the Lola) in article terms, but the texts often don't specify which block a ship came from - that's a problem with ships like the FSS Charles Davion.

The system is allowing for ships that we weren't previously tracking to be loaded into the wiki, though. A case in point is the FSS Lucien Davion, which couldn't be easily recorded before because it had no class information - the same goes for the SLS Havana and the SLS Dularam. It's a little bit of a pain to have to pipe the ship names so that they show up in the correct format, but considerably less of a pain now than it used to be, where I was having to pipe in the name of the class and the sub-link to the Named Vessels section to link to a ship name accurately.

It's also making the WarShip class articles look a little tidier, in my opinion - you can see the difference if you look at something like the Com Guard subsection of the Essex page compared to the other subsections. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2013 (PST)

I think this helps for your question on my talk page.--Doneve (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (PST)

Thanks, Doneve. I still not convinced its needed. -- Wrangler (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (PST)

No problem,i hope we have you back in next time, for some missing 'mech and vehicle articles :).--Doneve (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (PST)

Hey....

The Wrangler's back! Good to see you back and so prolific. I know you were missed. (You've probably been back a long time.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:15, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Hi Revanche, thank you for dropping by say hi. I've been lurking about, but i've not been able to really apply myself due to time restrains i have to be online. After seeing alot skilled editors coming on and editing things, i thought wasn't quite needed. They're so fast these days. I heard you were gone for while, i hope your life is gotten better. I'm still going limit myself small unpopular subject articles since i don't think i'm encrouching on anyone's turf. I'm not so crazy about individual Warship articles, i think their getting bit sprawling since there not many individual ships need full write in my opinion. Anyways, I hope try contribute more, but i can't say for certain. Maybe as weekend thing. -- Wrangler (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Canon rollback

Hi Wrangler, I rolled back your edit to Canon. You're actually correct in that MWO is not a canonical source (Herb expressly confirmed that in a chat when I asked him), but the quote on the Canon article is, well, a quote. Herb didn't mention MWO there because it didn't exist yet. Your edit read like putting words into his mouth. I think the (non-)canonicity of MWO in particular is made sufficiently clear in the game's own article, in the Canonicity section. Frabby (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2013 (PST)

So what do we do? There no source for hard canon facts to Pretty Baby's stats. There IS a Pretty Baby which is canon, but that notable pilot from TRO:3025, same pilot. But the Awesome has notations of being modified. It Still shouldn't be listed as Canon unit unless we have valid source with the Stats. I wasn't aware of your conversation with Herb when i did that edit. -- Wrangler (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2013 (PST)

Answered on my talk page. Frabby (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2013 (PST)

Thank you sir!

Wrangler,

Thanks for adding the three Clan vehicles from TRO:Prototypes. I've been poking around and doing some of that myself, but you just lightened the load a lot. Thanks!--Mbear^(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2013 (PST)

Hi MBear, I'm glad there still something for me to do! You guys are getting too efficient these days. I'm Glad i was able to help out. :) -- Wrangler (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2013 (PST)

Objectives: Clans

Hy Wrangler, great you have you back, but keep in mind, Objectives: Clans fall under moratorium at this time.--Doneve (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

Crap, I'm sorry Doneve, i missed that. However, on the bright side there only 4 days to go.. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

No problem man, :).--Doneve (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

Unfortunately yes. However I've got a solution. I've overridden your changes with Doneve's last edit. When the Moratorium expires, we can roll back to your last changes and all the updates you made should be restored.--Mbear^(talk) 06:20, 11 March 2013 (PDT)

Thank you. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (PDT)

Beowulf IIC

Hy Wrangler, i give you this award , for your dillegent work, i appriciate your work, you make some red links from TRO:Proto to blue links, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (PDT)

Thank you, Doneve. There no need for that. I'm hear help out, I don't think i should be reward for my less-than-stellar writting skills. I do apperiate it thou! -- Wrangler (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2013 (PDT)

In my opinion you deserve the award, i know you had a wiki beak, but your writing skills become much better as my fluff writing skills in the last year.--Doneve (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2013 (PDT)

Persepolis

Hy Wrangler, where you so cool and add the last missing article from TRO:Proto its the Persepolis, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

Whoops! I'll take care that. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

MWO discussion

Wrangler, please take a look at my comments on Frabby's talkpage.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:22, 2 May 2013 (PDT)

TRO: 3145 Mercenaries

Question: Since the TRO 3145 is going be a printed product, can the Mortorium really be lifted for the PDF Suppliment?? -- Wrangler (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2013 (PDT)

Hy Wrangler, this is a good question, i don't understand the CGL politic in some cases, ok we have the published TRO: 3145 Mercs as example, etc., i know not all faction TROs where published at this time, but the published pdf's match the moratorium. But the other question is why seperate CGL the TRO's in faction TRO's, i have a felling TRO: 3145 match all factions units, this confuse me a little bit, oh and the faction TROs are only published as pdf and not as prints.--Doneve (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2013 (PDT)

Yes (the moratorium can be lifted). Each product released by CGL is considered a standalone product. When they print the TRO 3145 we'll treat that as a separate product, because it is.--Mbear^(talk) 03:31, 11 June 2013 (PDT)

This is no different from how we treated the XTROs and TRO:Prototypes products.--Mbear^(talk) 06:16, 11 June 2013 (PDT)