|
|
| (153 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Archives_2011|User Talk Archive 2011]] | | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Archives_2011|User Talk Archive 2011]] |
| | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Archives_2012-2013|User Talk Archive 2012-2013]] | | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Archives_2012-2013|User Talk Archive 2012-2013]] |
| | + | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Archives_2014|User Talk Archive 2014]] |
| | + | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Archives 2015-2021|User Talk Archive 2015-2021]] |
| | | | | | |
| | |} | | |} |
| Line 14: |
Line 16: |
| | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Resources]] | | *[[User talk:Wrangler/Resources]] |
| | | | |
| − | =Current= | + | =Current User talk= |
| − | | + | ==Unknown image summary information== |
| − | ==Weapon Lists== | + | When uploading images, if some of the summary fields are unknown please leave them blank. Having a blank field automatically adds them to a specific category. Thank you. --[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 09:25, 26 March 2022 (EDT) |
| − | Not just to complain, but if you could be sure to have unit weapons (in the infobox) laid out as '''#x Weapon''' when you add them, that would be great. This would make life much easier for me, as I'm currently going through every unit to make sure they're consistent. Regardless, thanks for all the ground units you add to Sarna; I really appreciate it! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | :::Can you show me an example of what your talking about. I'm not seen the #x Weapon thing before. Some of the infoboxes are not fully coded right. Sometimes I need to do short cuts to make work or make it look half way descent. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 10:34, 19 January 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::::I don't mean it ''that'' literally, I'm talking about the weapons in the infoboxes of units (see example).
| |
| − | '''Instead of'''
| |
| − | *1 x [[Modular Weapon Mount]]
| |
| − | *1 x [[Anti-Personnel Weapon Mount]]
| |
| − | *1 x [[One-Shot]] [[SRM-2 (Battle Armor)|SRM-2]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''You'd have'''
| |
| − | *1x [[Modular Weapon Mount]]
| |
| − | *1x [[Anti-Personnel Weapon Mount]]
| |
| − | *1x [[One-Shot]] [[SRM-2 (Battle Armor)|SRM-2]]
| |
| − | ::::I know that it doesn't seem to matter all that much, but it does when there are so many different variations, some of which are very confusing or smushed together. Do you understand now? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 11:09, 19 January 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | :::::I will do my best to abide to your request, BobTheZombie. I don't do this all the time. Remember, some those units were added years ago. It takes me good couple hours sometimes to do one article adding all the information there on the unit. Specially the ones that have alot background info from older sources. I'm trying not to dublicate things and devalue the original source so someone will keep buying the things. So i maybe not quite seeing things straight when the article is completed. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:13, 19 January 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::::::I don't mean to accuse you of anything, I'm just stating that there is variation; I had been changing them to the way you have it, until I found out recently how it is supposed to look. Don't worry yourself with it. I'm just really OCD sometimes. And, yes, I understand that not all of them are you, I was just pointing something out. I meant only for you to watch for that when adding them; I'm currently going through and fixing them at my own pace, so don't think that you have to do this on existing articles. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 11:22, 19 January 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | :::::::::No Worries, i'm just sometimes not always on the ball on doing some of these things. I'll try give you less to do. Just becareful of some of the info boxes. For some reasons, some of the newer ones act funny if you remove something from them. There reason why i have like "Weapon Systems" on top of the infobox line for weapon section. It sudden goes haywire shows them in weird order. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 05:38, 24 January 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Security Robot==
| |
| − | Hi, can i upload the pic or you do this?--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 11:33, 15 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::No worries, i got it. Problem is, the picture doesn't match the stats for the machine. - [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:39, 15 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Production Years==
| |
| − | Hi Wrangler,<br>
| |
| − | I've had a look at the InfoBoxCombatVehicle template, and it looks like it's functioning correctly. So, I had a look at the edits that were causing problems, and I think I've worked out what's going on.<br>
| |
| − | There are three fields associated with dates in the template; introduced, production year and year reference. The "introduced" field is the date that the vehicles first started appearing - so 3087 for the Shandra. The "production year" is the year the MUL says the vehicles entered production, so that would be 3089. The "year reference" field is just for a reference, not a date - it's where the reference goes that will be displayed against the production year. So, for the Shandra, it would just be <nowiki><ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref></nowiki>. That means for the fields to work correctly, they'd need to look like this:<br>
| |
| − | <pre><nowiki>
| |
| − | | introduced = [[3087]]
| |
| − | | production year = 3089
| |
| − | | year reference = <ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>
| |
| − | </nowiki></pre>
| |
| − | Does that make sense? Some of the formatting is a bit odd in the way the template is set up. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:26, 17 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::My only issue with the Production year and year of reference is when it shows up on my screen when i enter it, the two years appear side by side instead of down the listed seperately like all the other entries. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | :::The two fields are added together - from what I can see, the problem you've got is that you're repeating the date in both fields. Doing this:
| |
| − | <pre><nowiki>
| |
| − | | production year = 3089
| |
| − | | year reference = <ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>
| |
| − | </nowiki></pre>
| |
| − | :::Generates something that looks like this: [[3089]]<sup>1</sup>
| |
| − | :::Whereas if you put the date in both the production year and year reference fields, like this:
| |
| − | <pre><nowiki>
| |
| − | | production year = 3089
| |
| − | | year reference = 3089<ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>
| |
| − | </nowiki></pre>
| |
| − | :::What you then get is this: [[3089]]3089<sup>1</sup> - which is what seems to be happening with you, right? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:31, 17 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::::Sorry take while to respond, I've been away at a convention. Yes, I'm getting the 30893089 in the infoboxes. Its happening to alot of the templates actually. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 17:11, 23 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | :::::I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining it. The short version is: Don't put a year in the year reference field. At all. It isn't intended to have a date in it, just a wiki reference. If you stop putting the year in the year reference field, it'll stop getting doubled up in the article. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 23:55, 23 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::::::::Its okay, BrokenMnemonic. But it needs to be explained in the info box template what heck suppose to be there, natural thing to do is someone to put a year in there. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 09:38, 24 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==10th Ghost/Ronin==
| |
| − | I spotted a [[BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands#Renaming Issue|similar problem]] a while back. I also recently created a disambig page for the [[Shin Legion]], I hope this helps a little with developing a policy for this increasingly common problem.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 07:43, 27 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::Thank you. There so many editors active these days, i don't get chance to work on unit profiles. 10th Ghosts was something i did, since it was a dead unit, but now its alive again. I'm just going split it up and trying dig around see if there any info on the Ronin. I think Era Digest: Dark Age will include them more since they were used in the clicky game. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Medium Re-engineered Laser==
| |
| − | I think that your version with the capitalized "Engineered" part is the real title, so you actually had it right and the old one should have become a redirect. All the mentions of the title name in the article have that, so it's safe to assume that you had the right spelling. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | :::Should i reinstate my article verse the old one? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 20:13, 2 March 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | ::::Yes; but perhaps in the process check both versions side-by-side to be sure there is no loss of info. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 20:22, 2 March 2014 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==11th Lyran Guards==
| |
| − | Hi Wrangler, I saw your question on the BT forums, and did not want to break protocol. Since I am not a writer, I am responding here. Elements of the 11th helped form the core of the 1st Royal BattleMech Regiment of the 2nd Star League (Morgan's Lions), from FM: Comstar, p. 101. If I remember correctly from the novels, most of the soldiers (but not all) decided to join the nascent Star League. I hope this helps--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] ([[User talk:S.gage|talk]]) 13:04, 23 March 2014 (PDT)
| |
| − | ::AHHH, thats what i was looking for. Thanks S.gage. They couldn't help me on offical forums. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 06:46, 28 March 2014 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Titans of Steel==
| |
| − | Hi Wrangler, the [[MechForce (Video Game)]] article was essentially an article about [[Titans of Steel]], which is an entirely different game. I have removed the ToS content from the MechForce article because a new user said he owns the game and may write the article about it. I also restored the Titans of Steel article which had previously been deleted. From the looks of it, ToS is tangentially related to BattleTech at best and may not be notable for the purposes of Sarna BTW. However, because you mentioned it's somehow related to MechForce in [[Talk:MechForce (Video Game)]] I've kept the content for now and only moved it into its own page. Can you elaborate on the BT connection of ToS? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:10, 2 May 2014 (PDT)
| |
| − | :::God, that was a long time ago, Frabby. I'd have look at my old stuff see if I can remember where i saw it. At the moment, only thing is this brief mentioning on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titans_of_Steel] that was done in same style as battletech.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==BattleSpace rulebook(s)==
| |
| − | Hi Wrangler. You said over at the [[BattleSpace]] talk page that there were distinct books, an 88 page rulebook and a 60 page sourcebook. However, to the best of my knowledge and based on the boxed set I have on my shelf, there was ever only a single 60-page book that was divided into a rulebook and a sourcebook section. I've never heard of any edition where there was a second book. Can you please look into this, as I intend to delete the [[BattleSpace (rulebook)]] article as superflous and merge its extra content into the BattleSpace article. Thanks! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:26, 5 July 2014 (PDT)
| |
