User talk:Wrangler

Archives

User Talk Archive 2009 User Talk Archive 2010 User Talk Archive 2011 User Talk Archive 2012-2013

Resources Pages

• User talk:Wrangler/Resources

Current

Weapon Lists

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! -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. -- 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

You'd have

• 1x Modular Weapon Mount
• 1x Anti-Personnel Weapon Mount
• 1x One-Shot 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? -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. -- 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. -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. -- Wrangler (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2014 (PST)

Security Robot

Hi, can i upload the pic or you do this?--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. - Wrangler (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2014 (PST)

Production Years

Hi Wrangler,
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.
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 <ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>. That means for the fields to work correctly, they'd need to look like this:

| introduced      = [[3087]]
| production year = 3089
| year reference  = <ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>

Does that make sense? Some of the formatting is a bit odd in the way the template is set up. 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. -- 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:

| production year = 3089
| year reference  = <ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>

Generates something that looks like this: 3089¹

Whereas if you put the date in both the production year and year reference fields, like this:

| production year = 3089
| year reference  = 3089<ref>''[http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6654/ MUL online date for the ''{{PAGENAME}}'']''</ref>

What you then get is this: 30893089¹ - which is what seems to be happening with you, right? 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. -- 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. 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. -- Wrangler (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2014 (PST)

10th Ghost/Ronin

I spotted a 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.--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. -- 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. -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (PST)

Should i reinstate my article verse the old one? -- 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. -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--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. -- Wrangler (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2014 (PDT)