Category talk:Mercenary Commands

I feel there are a few "incorrect" links. I've seen that for example we have links to the Illirian Lancers... and also its subcommands. Shouldn't we have only single article and from there calling the individual units?

In what way are the links incorrect?--Dmon (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2017 (EST)
I feel we should link here only the global units, and link the subunits to the principal ones --Pserratv (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2017 (EST)
I feel the complete opposite. I feel pages like the Wolf's Dragoons especially are huge and massively over detailed. The info should be broken up into more manageable chunks in my opinion.--Dmon (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2017 (EST)
I haven't explained myself well. I mean that in mercenary commands we only put the mercenary units, and inside the mercenary we put the links to the subunits, like we do for RCT for which when possible unit members are listed and linked; or with the Inner Sphere March Militia units.--Pserratv (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2017 (EST)
Ah, yes I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean in the category pages where the subunits appear under the parent unit?--Dmon (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2017 (EST)
I meant that we should only put there the big commands (like Kell Hounds, and not the individual battlations there), and in the general article of the unit do something like the links we have in big commands: Syrtis Fusiliers

This is part of a greater issue that goes for military units in general here on Sarna: If the units in question are larger than a regiment in size then their individual sub-regiments get their own page. The focal formation is the regiment.
This kind sorta evolved out of the BattleTech setting where the 4-'Mech lance was the yardstick, sourcebooks were written about individual companies, and regiments were essentially the largest formations cohesively mentioned in any source material. In the Succession Wars era, brigades and larger formations simply didn't exist as battlefield formations - the only brigades we knew were essentially organisational brigades. A few mercenary brigades existed but even these were usually covered through their individual regiments.
As BattleTech fiction evolved to ever-larger scales, so too did the unit sizes involved grow; and Alpha Strike also raised the boardgame level from small groups of individual 'Mechs to much larger formations.
This wasn't so much planned out or decided as it simply happened. But I don't think a change is required. As far as I can see, the focus is still on regiment-sized (or smaller) units, so the regiment remains a viable organisational cut-off size for articles. The brigade articles need to exist, of course, but as was said above, they would be too long if they had to give details on each component regiment so an overview article about brigades with links to individual regiments seems to be the best way to go about it, at this time at least and in my own humble opinion. Of course, that's not set in stone. Frabby (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2017 (EST)

My comment was that in this exact page we are showing at same level as mercenary commands, for example the Kell Hounds, 1st Kell Hounds, 2nd Kell Hounds Regiment, and for me, in this case for example only the Kell Hounds link should be there as the other two are just the units inside the big command and not mercenary units themselves
Ah okay, misunderstanding on my part. In that case, I actually agree with you. Perhaps we should create a separate category, "Mercenary Sub-Units". The problem I see with that is that there are some sub-units which are truly independent to the point of being almost their own unit, like the Crescent Hawks within the Kell Hounds or the Black Widow Company within Wolf's Dragoons, and they fit in neither category neatly. As long as there is only one category, that's not a problem. But a sub-units subcategory might muddy the waters. Opinions? Frabby (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2017 (EST)
I'm not a fan of exceptions, but maybe for them we could do them... but the way I've not considered the Crescent Hawks part of the Hounds... Also, we shoulds naybe also aling sub-units... 1st Kell Hounds, 2nd Kell Hounds Regiment.

I forget too many times to sign what I write! --Pserratv (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2017 (EST)

The Kell Hounds are only a two regiment brigade for a very small part of their history, but the unit originally posted was the Illician Lancers, the Lancers are very much a brigade and have been for hundreds of years in universe having no less than three regiments at any one time and a high point of nine regiments. I think the problem is that we are treating Mercenary command differently to how we treat house commands. If the Lancers where a house unit there would be no issue with this. Everybody uses roughly the same force structure and as such there is actually no need for merc unit articles to be handled differently from an organization stand point.

And then there are the special cases at the other end of the scale from the Crescent Hawks in the Crater Cobras, their second regiment the Black Cobras split off after three hundred years and has arguably become more famous than the parent command.--Dmon (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2017 (EST)

But we might start with the big commands we could easily amend, and then start a discussing for individual units, and for example, on in the Crater Cobras, article might link both regiments while they were together, and when their second regiment the Black Cobras split off after three hundred years, we have and article only them individually --Pserratv (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2017 (EST)
That brings up the problem of having to discuss a lot of things to see who is an exception and who is not. It also returns to my previous post about why we handle merc units one way and house units the other. This would compound that existing issue. The Regiment is generally the building block unit in the BT universe and as such I think makes a good "bresk iff" point for dividing articles about larger commands.--Dmon (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2017 (EST)
But my point was that the category: Mercenary Commands should only have the high level units, and that from there we should link the regiments--Pserratv (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2017 (EST)
Maybe creating sub-commands as it has been done for the Wolf Dragoons --Pserratv (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2017 (EST)
Ah! I totally misunderstood what you where getting at. I thought you where saying to fold the regimental commands back into the brigade articles.--Dmon (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2017 (EST)