Policy Talk:Manual of Style


I strongly recommend that this essay become policy. It forms the basis for Policy:Italics and for several other policies I have in mind, in the arena of Manuals of style. By making it policy directly, we can refer to it in the quest of standardization of articles. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No arguments here. --Scaletail 14:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Past tense in articles about vehicles?[edit]

Why did you put the Chameleon article into past tense? Should vehicles etc. not be written in present tense unless clearly and totally extinct? Frabby 07:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for writing about fiction state that you should always write in the past tense about them, because they were written in the past. It does get a bit confusing because BT is a living storyline that is never finished, but I believe the same rules should apply. I haven't always been the best about following them myself, but I think Revanche is in the right here. --Scaletail 12:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Scaletail is right about my motivations. We've talked about it here somewhere, but unfortunately, I'm not as good at you at finding past discussions. I've been planning on writing either an essay or policy candidate that would address it. My in-universe perspective is that we're all researchers at the University of Sarna at some distant point in the future, writing about the past. As new materials (i.e. new products) are uncovered, we add to the historical archives. If you adopt that persona, its easier to bypass 'issues' between the 'now' of CBT and the 'now' of the Dark Ages. (The only exception, of course, would be the real world articles.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I disagree. For starters, contrary to what Revanche wrote above, the fiction being referred (especially the TROs) was not written in the past tense - if it was then I would not have any issues here. More importantly, I feel the decision has already been made long ago as all the BTW 'Mech and vehicle articles (save Chameleon) are actually written in present tense. Frabby 11:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the articles being written that way. Unlike other fictional universes, times does go by in the game. These vehicles/Mechs were written sometimes IN the TROs as present time of the name the TRO. Example: TRO: 3025, TRO:3060, TRO:3075. I believe that articles here should reflect the past since time will past by after the writing of the article. -- Wrangler 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Scaletail was referring to articles on fiction rather than the official sources themselves (which tend to bounce between reported upon and presently occuring, depending upon the character). We are, however, working with several different timelines: CBT (currently in 3076, IIRC), Dark Age (3139 and holding?) and possibly with a whole slew of future Editors waiting to beat down our door for the MechWarrior reboot, set in 3015. By taking the stance (and copius amounts of citations) that -by the time the article is generated- everything is past tense, we avoid internal conflicts of interests as to what "now" we're talking about. Inculcating all Editors into one firm policy (much as we are firm that we don't determine canoncity) of 'past tense', we avoid debates about what is true 'now.' To abuse a phrase: "we report, you decide."
To be honest, aside from the work to change tenses (which is just another unending task of copyediting), I don't see the in-universe downside. Making it present tense, especially considering the nature of the new materials for all eras in CBT, plus those of other official sources, seems to be the greater burden...to me. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not convinced. I maintain that a past-tense approach to BTW as "Jane's BattleTech" is neither doable (for its sheer workload - you are effectively suggesting to "copyedit" aka rewrite the greater part of all articles here!) nor desirable. I still don't understand why BTW should adopt a different style from, say, the TROs in this.
In the hope that maybe there was a misunderstanding, I shall try to explain what I feel is correct, and why:
  • The Kentares Massacre is a thing of the past and a finished event within the BT timeline. It is to be referred to in past tense, as it is a past event being reported on.
  • The Locust is, not was, a 20-ton 'Mech and will remain that forever. Past tense is not applicable and present tense is called for.
  • For OOC articles the same principles apply: Far Country should be covered in present tense, as should be the plot summary. However, if you would create an article about the Telendine, a specific IC JumpShip that has been lost, you would revert to past tense again because the Telendine is no more and the events leading to its loss are a thing of the past. See Liberator as a case in point.
To sum it up, only events (which occurr at a certain point in time) should be referred to in past tense, and only if they are already over. Similarly, specific/individual vehicles or people should be treated in past tense if they are lost/dead/whatever and the article is looking back. Everything else should be written in present tense.
As for timelines, the latest bit of information always sets the viewpoint. Anything else would not make sense because you would otherwise end up reporting on future events. I'd like to add here that, as a contributor and BTW author, I consider myself a real person outside of any BT timeline. Frabby 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on that last statement, now I am confused. It seems then that tenses change dependent upon what type of in-character (i.e., a subject not in the Real World, like FASA or Randall Bills, but Illium Shipyards and Kai Allard-Liao) article is being written: dead, alive, presumed dead/missing, currently utilized, currently active, destroyed. So are we writing from the perspective of 3076? Or are we writing from 3139 (as Dark Age stories are being written for BattleCorps)? Some subjects exist in 'the now' in both time lines. An Editor writing from the perspective of the MechWarrior video game reboot may talk about the invasion of Deshler as it is happening now, while if Deshler is the subject of Jihad Turning Points: 3078, then it too will be present tense. Plus the assassination of Lord Muckety-Muck in 3140 on Deshler is also present tense. The reader could be quite confused.
Yes, I am a real person, and I, even as an admin, would see numerous discussions taking place as to whether or not the tense was correct, depending on each particular Editor's POV. As a contributor, as well as an admin, I'm not interested in mediating such debates as to which takes precendence 'this time' for 'this article', when it can be solved with a simple policy of 'this happened then.' To be honest, as a historian yourself, I'd have thought you'd prefer the past-tense.
I understand your point about the Locust. WP does something similar, writing about a current tank (M1A1) in the present tense, while using the past tense for the M4. But, I don't see the downside in writing from the past tense for any article.
As for the editing...no big thing. No article has been deemed to be perfect yet. Bibliographies and references are all screwed up, citations are not at all expected in the articles, many articles don't even have complete sentences. But Editors that seek to bring an article to perfect status and are familiar with these policies can improve articles to meet these standards on an individual article basis. Its not a violation needing a slam-template if an Editor writes in the present status. But, after dealing with all of the various incosistencies, an article will become a featured when it meets all of the policies in-place. I don't intend to 'counsel' Editors who write in the present tense, though -if it becomes policy- I would be willing to use it when Editors seek to promote an article to featured status.
I sense you feel strongly about this, much as I did for including fanon on the site. Can you address any other downsides for past tense?
[Side note: You might want to read this above and take the reins...consensus may be shifting.]--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest moving this discussion to Policy talk:Manual of Style. The discussion I believe you were referring to is at Template_talk:InfoBoxMercUnit#Layout. --Scaletail 23:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed and done. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While I am normally on the side of simplicity, I think I have to agree with Frabby that unit articles should remain in the present tense. I recently edited the "Blood Asp" article and simply could not bring myself to migrate it to past tense. I'm not sure why, but it just sounds wrong. Let me see if I can explain. Fictional events happened in the past. The author put the proverbial pen to paper in the past. If he or she did that in the present of future, we could not read it, therefore it must be the past. The problem is that the Sylph is not an event. It is a thing, however imaginary. Because of that, it exists now just much as it did yesterday and just as much as it will tomorrow. They are markedly different from other fictional objects because I can use it now in a game of BattleTech. I suppose if BT dies and everybody stops writing for it and nobody plays it anymore, we will think of the units in the past tense. Somebody else lend me an assist here. Note that I only refer to unit articles. All other articles on BT (aside from articles about the real world) should be past tense. --Scaletail 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Consensus?[edit]

Okay, I was hoping to invite more to the debate, but other than Wrangler joining in (thank you), just the usual suspects taking part. And I'd say we're rather entrenched (though in a more positive attitude than usual) and equally so. I feel we really do need to resolve this, and for a pro-past tense contributor, it would be easier now than later, but...in the drive for a featured article, it only has to be resolved before we do host featured articles...so no immediate need. So, we'll proceed as we have done as individuals on this matter, and I'll further resolve to not post-tense-ize current 'mech (et.c) articles, unless I create them myself (which is unlikely, in any case).

Side note: my absence in the near term is not due to this (just to ward off concerns). I've been apart from my family for over a year now; they come back tomorrow and I have 10 days of leave. If I'm hear, it'll be for small eye-catching things and not in my usual Warden role.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe Reference[edit]

If you're like me and have trouble remembering when to use an apostrophe, there's an illustrated guide at http://apostrophe.me/ Even better, it's amusing, so you'll remember what you see there.


Since we're starting to have disagreements about the use of tables in articles, I propose adding the following text in a new section. This comes from w:Wikipedia:Tables.

When tables are appropriate[edit]

Tables are perfect for organizing any information that is best presented in a row-and-column format. This might include:

  • Mathematical tables
    • Multiplication tables
    • Tables of divisors
    • Lookup tables
  • Lists of information
    • Equivalent words in two or more languages
    • Person, birthdate, occupation
    • Artist, album, year, and label

Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians. Also, when compared with tables, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less esoteric when used for desktop publishing, page elements, and page orientation and positioning.

--Scaletail 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is keep the text from the above box, but in the list remove/add, so it reads something more relevant, like:
  • Word translations
  • Person, birthdate, occupation, deathdate
  • Wikilinks
  • Locations
  • Attributes
I'm certain the list can be much larger, but if a nice mix of options achieves the point, then better. Also, I'd make a statement about...well, statements being verboten.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me examples for the last three in the list? I'm not sure where any of them would apply. I agree about the statements. Statements, sentences, phrases don't belong in tables; but in the body of the article. --Scaletail 06:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
As I stated, there may be a better list of items to...list, but examples of the last three are:
  • Wikilinks - Rosice, as in a 'See Also' function
  • Locations - X: -281.66 Y: 53.46, Skytower City, etc.
  • Attributes: blue eyes, tall, etc.
The list was my brainstorming and was meant to indicate we didn't need to list the same things Wikipedia provided (Multiplication tables, Tables of divisors). — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Revanche (talkcontribs) 10 April 2010.
I still don't see it, but I don't have any problems with listing more examples, either. In a nutshell: unless the only way to pass along information properly is to put it in a table, don't do it. The examples listed are just examples, and shouldn't not be seen either as a complete list or as a mandate to portray that information using tables. Any text that is a phrase or longer likely does not belong in a table. --Scaletail 02:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear on the examples you're providing Revanche. Are you saying the last three items (wikilinks, Locations, attributes) should be in a table?--Mbear 19:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no...I wish I could delete my previous list. I'm saying: instead of using WP's description by itself, we should take out those items that do not apply ("Artist, album, year, and label", "Multiplication tables") and use examples/generalizations that are more BattleTech-centric. Is that more clear?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be best not to use any examples? --Scaletail 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on my above experiences, yes, I think that would be best! Yeah, the text you provided seemed to be clear enough.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


I propose adding the following section:

When writing about fictional events, write in the present tense.

Why? For consistency, of course. But why present tense? Because that is the way it is supposed to be done. That's how Wikipedia does it, that's what the Chicago Manual of Style's guidelines state (5.116). This guideline would apply to all articles that are not about real-world things.

You may have seen me writing in past tense, especially recently (thank you, Frabby). I had been taught to write that way. I was taught incorrectly. --Scaletail 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I adamantly disagree with this proposal, for three reasons:
1) Admittedly the weakest argument, but it would mean extensive re-writing of large portions of the wiki, and because of my second argument, one that I would not enjoy (and probably not engage in) going thru the tremendous numbers of historical events and biographies to fix. I really don't want to go back and re-do things that are, in my perspective, correctly done.
2) The link you provide above is a WP policy on how to address summaries of fictional works (movies, books, etc.). As stated in the link, "these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed." My issue with this is that BattleTechWiki cannot be categorized as Wikipedia - BattleTech Fork. I've never felt we had to approach each subject of an article here on BTW as if it is a fictional product, as that gets horribly redundant. Every person...every single one...understands we are not writing about real world events and therefore I see no reason to adopt every WP policy to match. Instead, I've always see our role on BTW as reporting on real events, from a historical perspective, stepping OOC just long enough to provide the reader with the materials he needs to find the original source. Why does that need to change now?
With the exception of the BattleMech articles specifically and all vehicles by extension, we've done this. I did not agree with that concept of present tense when it was limited to BattleMechs, because it was out-of-the-norm compared to the rest on the wiki. However, as I was no longer actively involved in Project: BattleMech (following CJKeys' leading us to completion of the back-books), I really didn't feel I should be dictating P:BM policy and conceded my stance to allow consensus to be reached. It was a compromise then, but one I am vocally opposed to extending to the rest of the wiki.
3) A third argument against this, if the 2nd one is accepted, is that by limiting ourselves to the present tense, we confuse the issue...not just for readers, but for Editors, the ones doing the grunt work and the backbone of the larger project. Look at any encyclopedia article (whether WP, other online example or deadtree format) on a person, place or event, and it is written in the past tense (unless it is a breaking event).
Ex1:"In 1901, Einstein had a paper on the capillary forces of a straw published in the prestigious Annalen der Physik. In 1905, he received his doctorate from the University of Zurich. His thesis was titled "On a new determination of molecular dimensions". That same year, which has been called Einstein's annus mirabilis or "miracle year", he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of matter and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world."
Ex2:"In January 1905, the institution of the City Governor, or Mayor, was officially introduced in Moscow, and Alexander Adrianov became Moscow’s first official mayor. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, on 12 March 1918 Moscow became the capital of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and of the Soviet Union less than five years later."
Ex3:"As the Hindenburg's tail crashed into the ground, a burst of flame came out of the nose, killing nine of the 12 crew members in the bow. As the airship kept falling with the bow facing upwards (because there was more lifting gas still in the nose), part of the port side directly behind the passenger deck collapsed inward (where a crack formed during the initial blast), and the gas cell there exploded, erasing the scarlet lettering "Hindenburg" while the airship's bow lowered."
In summary, I do not think this is an acceptable idea, Scaletail. Trained as a historian, I'd find it very difficult to write of past events in the present tense and don't find the argument (encyclopedias writing about fictional storylines in the past tense) fits the characterization of our efforts here. It is only incorrect to do so, if you feel your objective is to write about a fictional storyline; if you approach this as the reporting of historical events, writing in the past tense is the natural and correct method. In the end, I don't see BTW as a legitimate scholarly project about BattleTech, but one that is also for BattleTech.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Scaletail's proposal. As CBT is a living universe and progresses through time, mixing tenses would make things very confusing. How would we re-write the history of military units for example?
Another issue is the statement:
This guideline would apply to all articles that are not about real-world things.
Isn't that everything in the wiki?--Mbear 17:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, then, a few things:
  1. Is there consensus to have no policy here? That would leave the proper style up to projects and reaching consensus on individual pages. I'm amenable to that, I just want to spell out what this means.
  2. Rev, I've thought a lot about what you've written. I think my suggested addition could apply only to articles on sources for which plot summaries are provided (novels, BattleCorps stories, etc.), since that's what the guidelines actually apply to.
  3. Mbear, I assume you're being facetious, but, for the benefit of anybody who may be reading this and not realize that, no, it is not everything on the wiki. We have articles on companies, people, and books (among other real-world topics). --Scaletail 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in answering; I'm on travel right now and am spending less time on line than I had anticipated.
I'm not sure "no policy" will be the final consensus. As I've indicated elsewhere, I'd like to work from the perspective (for the majority of the wiki's content), that we are writing about the past, which allows the Editors to approach a subject from the perspective of "At this time, we know this:..." I don't mean to say we have to have personas of researchers from the year 5001, but that approaching it from that perspective would be easier to grasp and solve the problem of writing about an expanding universe. For the time being, I'm amenable to the idea that Projects can dictate the tense they want to focus on, but that leads to a fragmented 'society' here. How do we handle an article that falls under the purview of two different Projects (say, P:BM and a hypothetical Project: Dark Ages)? I've avoided this subject in the past due to concerns of fractious debates, but I also don't feel I should tap it down when it comes up. Earlier than later would be better. In that regards, I think its best we pursue a wiki-spanning policy, that incorporates exceptions for certain (defensible) perspectives.
(Which leads me to say again, I'm having trouble getting onboard with BattleMechs needing to be written in the present tense.)
So, from that perspective, I believe we should have two distinct policies here: the majority of the content (being fictional in nature) should be approached as being real-world events, written in the past tense and updated as new material comes to light. The other content, the actual Real World items, should be written 'out-of-character' and as summaries about their subjects: products, people of influence, companies and websites of relation, etc. Neufeld and I are slowly coming to form a policy on how to represent rules on the site, using colored boxes to represent stepping out-of-character. I propose Real World articles be shaded in a similar way all the time, so that a reader instantly recognizes that such shading represents Real World material, rather than in-universe material.
As for your idea about past tense being used in such Real World summaries, I do endorse that. As those articles should be written from a scholarly (or more specfically, encyclopedic) perspective, that would be the appropriate format.
Thank you for pursuing this line of discussion. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't being facetious earlier, I honestly forgot that we had real people and real companies listed on Sarna.--Mbear(talk) 06:15, 20 November 2013 (PST)

BattleCorps Style Guide?[edit]

Do we want to include information from the BattleCorps Style Guide?--Mbear 12:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


When I read through wiki articles, I find that big walls of blue (linked) text can be hard to read. In light of this, I prefer that each wiki page be linked the first time it is mentioned in the article (or perhaps the first time in each section), with subsequent mentions of the term left as plain text.

For example:

The 2nd Succession War took a heavy toll on the Brigade, which barely survived with the 789th Striker Regiment and the Black Cobra Regiment intact. The weakened command was hired by the Federated Suns in the wake of the 2nd Succession War, and found itself stationed on Deneb Kaitos. Not only did the Cobras refuse employment from the Draconis Combine, whose ruling House the command blamed for the collapse of the Star League, but their contract to the Federated Suns saw them engaged in numerous conflicts with DCMS units. One DCMS unit, the 30th Dieron Regulars, initiated a blood feud with the Cobras, which eventually led to the complete destruction of the 30th.

In the preceding paragraph the term DCMS is used and linked twice. I think that only linking DCMS the first time increases the overall readability of the article. Furthermore, I think that people are most likely clicking links (instead of searching for the article directly) when they want more information to enhance their understanding of the article they started out at, which I think they are more likely to seek the first time they see an unfamiliar term than on subsequent uses.

Linking as much as possible all the time sees to kind of be the default, but I haven't found any actual discussion on the topic, so if I have missed previous discussions, links would be appreciated. Otherwise, what are everyone else's thoughts? --Count.Zero 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Still looking for where, but this is already policy. Cyc 00:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Found it - Help:WikiLinksCyc 00:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm almost positive I looked at that page too, but I guess I missed the exact part I was looking for. --Count.Zero 00:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Late to the party, guys. Count.Zero, feel free to remove the excessive wlinks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Military Rank Italics[edit]

Hy contributors, i add italics to some military ranks and Scaletail talk to me this is not in the style guide. I want your opinions if we add italics to the ranks, or not, when not i revert my changes, you can follow the disscusion on my or Scaltail's talk page.--Doneve (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2013 (PST)

What's the official CGL guidance to their writers? Ever since I saw someone (Mbear?) commenting on the official guidance to writers, I've tried to follow what I can remember of it when writing articles here. I'm fuzzy on why some non-English ranks are always in italics in the sourcebooks (Combine/Capellan military ranks) but others (Hauptman? Hauptman-General?) aren't. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2013 (PST)
Usually only Chinese and Japanese ranks get italics.--Mbear(talk) 03:37, 19 November 2013 (PST)
As I stated on the talk pages that Doneve mentioned, this is not proper grammar. Unless the title is in a foreign language, it should not be italicized. I understand that it calls attention to the rank but I don't believe that's enough reason to warrant a change. --Scaletail (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2013 (PST)
I agree with Mbear's point about Chinese/Japanese ranks; additionally, I've never seen non-Liao/Kurita ranks be italicized in any of the canon novels I own. -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2013 (PST)
Ok guys, i revert my changes.--Doneve (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2013 (PST)
I thought we had agreed some time ago already to adopt the BattleCorps Style Guide as policy on BTW. Looking over the policy, I note it's a copy of some other wiki site and not at all customized for Sarna BTW (yet), so perhaps it's time to give this policy page a serious workover. (Btw, there's another, updated BC Style Guide document but as it is not freely available I don't think I'm allowed to share it.)
Regarding the topic at hand, the BC Style Guide has this to say about the matter:
"Other italicized words include all foreign language and ranks (with the exception of the Lyran Alliance/Commonwealth ranks) as well as traditional Clan words: ja, wakarimas-ka, Tai-sa, seyla, surat." Frabby (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2013 (PST)
I'm relieved to know that I've been trying to follow the right format, even if only by accident. If the wiki is supposed to be following the BC style guide, then that definitely needs to be made clearer - I had no idea, and I've read a lot of the policies here to try and avoid screwing up when I'm working. If there's a more up to date version on LIMDIS within the writer community then I'd recommend asking the author/controller of that document (Jason?) for permission to incorporate it into the policies here, assuming that there's nothing privileged or covered by an NDA within it. It may simply be that the BC website hasn't been updated to make it a public document yet? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (PST)
I have asked about the other, newer BC style guide document but alas, I received no answer and until someone from BC says otherwise I feel bound by my NDA. Sorry. What I can do, however, is to check if there are any actual changes or additional guidelines and maybe paraphrase them. But it will be a while - the year is ending and like always, I'm buried in work and have little time for BT until around the end of January. Frabby (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2013 (PST)
Another question is BC our style policy? I set up also some questions to the guys and became no answer, very sadly and clear not all questions.--Doneve (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2013 (PST)

Heading Links[edit]

There should never be a link in a heading, right? -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (PST)

That's right - putting links in heading breaks the default formatting of titles for the articles. Or at least, I've always assumed that's why it shouldn't be done. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2014 (PDT)

Floating Text Question and Unit Descriptions[edit]

Howdy, I would like to ask if there was a way to address something that been troubling to me. Articles on say, Regiment's information usually appears on the top of the page. I've written on Sarna for number of years, I've always found the text describing combat formation on the top of a page highly annoying and I've felt with text being separated by a content box and allowed to "Float" on the top of the article, would be missed by someone casually reading the article. I personally like the Unit Description section, since its gives brief heads up on what feature article is all about. Is it a Combat Vehicle Regiment a famous independent Aerospace Wing? Having the information to tell what heck the unit is about in the history doesn't always work. Some these formations don't have alot of history in them, but have done something to be notable enough be featured in article. The point of this, there been question having something like a Unit Description in article from keeping the description of the unit "floating" out of sight sometimes from rest of the article is good thing? I know alot of us know Battletech and history, but the readers may NOT know it. I'd like make sure at least there section giving the break down what article is about, keeping at eye level. What do you guys think? --Wrangler (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2014 (PDT)

I personally like the "floating text" simply because it is above the contents box as some of the contents boxes can get pretty lengthy, but yes we need to discuss this and make a guideline on it.--Dmon (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2014 (PDT)
I also like the floating text. It's a quick summary of the page content, with more detailed information later in the article. Plus it's easy to use the <onlyinclude> tags to pull that data into another page (like the Brigade page or Army page).--Mbear(talk) 05:14, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
I guess I'm in the minority in this subject. -- Wrangler (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2014 (PDT)

Updated Style Guide[edit]

I've finally incorporated information from the BattleCorps Style Guide into the Policy page. Please review and comment on User:Mbear/StyleGuideUpdate. (Mostly I've just copied and pasted the relevant portions of the BCSG into the appropriate sections.)--Mbear(talk) 05:14, 14 August 2014 (PDT)

Title Capitalization[edit]

Hello all, PerkinsC brought up the fact that I changed many of the words "Battle Armor" in titles to the lowercase version because they are lowercase by nature. Is what I was doing wrong? Should the titles be reverted? -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2014 (PDT)

If it's in a title, it should be capitalized. --Trifler (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2014 (PDT)
Mbear has a draft update of the Manual of Style in his sandbox at the moment, incorporating the BattleCorps writer's guidelines laid down by CGL. That includes a section on the capitalization of various different technological beasts - I'd recommend putting the question to him, and possibly to Frabby as well (who's a working BC author). BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2014 (PDT)
I have an updated and much more polished BattleCorps Style Guide document than what is publicly available on the BC homepage, but this document unfortunately isn't in the public domain so I cannot share it with you. It does explicitly say that "battle armor" (also battlesuit, powered armor, small craft, aerospace fighter, vehicle/tank, infantry) is always written in all lowercase, though of course even lowercase words may be capitalized in titles, headers and the like. Frabby (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2014 (PDT)
Now that I think about it, it is a given to capitalize all major words in a title except the articles (a, an, the), so I dunno why I even did the BA --> ba in titles or had to ask this. When I left the note I was quite out of it and felt bad for promising it and not posting right away. Sorry for the waste of time. I will change all those back. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2014 (PDT)