Policy Talk:Moratorium

Policy creation[edit]

I suggest creating a new policy that would put a moratorium on using information from new books. My suggestion would be one or two months after the book becomes available in print. Are there any objections to this? --Scaletail 19:34, 24 August 2008 (CDT)

I'm playing devil's advocate here for a moment (tho, I agree we should consider the issue): for what purpose do you suggest a moratorium?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (CDT)
The purpose of this is to encourage people to purchase the products put out by Catalyst, or, rather, to not try to compete with them by putting up information from brand new books. Consider, if you will, a website that puts up full stats on every 'Mech as soon as they come out. All you do is plug those stats into your pirated version of HeavyMetalPro, and you don't need to purchase any record sheets. If we have the fluff on here, too, then you don't need to buy the technical readout, either. This is not the norm, but I know it's happened elsewhere, so I want to preemptively put a stop to it. This is obviously more important for some products than others. The idea is not unprecedented here, as the Project: BattleMechs team decided to leave the 'Mech articles vague enough that you cannot fill out a record sheet completely based on the information here, as that is not BTW's purpose. In short: don't put new info up so that people still have a reason to buy new books.
Of course, that time period elapsing is no guarantee that the info will spontaneously appear. I also feel that this should be a guideline, not a rule that is enforced, frankly because I don't want to have to constantly worry about whether or not such and such 'Mech is allowed to be here. In addition, it's kind of moot, because the information is stored in the article's history, so it's not possible to just erase it. In other words, I'm suggesting a guideline, not a "you will be banned for doing this" policy. --Scaletail 18:39, 25 August 2008 (CDT)
Very well put. One advantage to a moratorium is that it is more likely more people will have the book for fact checking, when those additions are made. I think, too, by making this a policy it heads off any concern from CGL that we're pirating their stuff. How attached are you to 2 months? I was wondering if we should consider 6 months, a year or even confirmation that the dead-tree version is no longer in print. In any case, I think a policy -fully hashed out via discussion- would be appropriate and source articles could come with a banner/tag indicating that its use as a source for subject articles is under the moratorium period.
I agree with you that it should not result in instant 'banination' (to quote Strong Bad). It might be appropriate to add some information (such as the return of Clan Wolverine), but not over-populate any article with too much significant information for a source in moratorium.
BTW, if I'm not mistaken, there is a way for admins (or maybe bureaucrats) to erase specific edits. But, in any case, those edits won't appear in a search. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (CDT)
The length of the moratorium is certainly up for grabs. The problem with "out of print" is determining when something is out of print. I thought two months to be a reasonable time for people who want the info to purchase the book, since most people still don't purchase .PDFs.
I'm not aware of being able to erase edits, but if that is a possibility, then I suppose we also need to decide if it's appropriate to nuke those edits. As you pointed out, there are going to be circumstances when it is acceptable to add some info, lest BTW simply end up looking incomplete (maybe we could note in articles that more current info is available in Book X... but that could be a lot of work, depending), which could lead to a lot of judgment calls, so I think the guideline needs to be very clear on what is and isn't acceptable, especially if we start erasing. --Scaletail 21:53, 25 August 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, you're absolutely right that we need to be clear on that. In that vein, I'd suggest the criteria being anything that allows for playing the game itself. Frabby expressed a concern with any rules posted that assisted in game play (though I'm starting to change my POV about that, in light of some statements by the PTB about CBT being a product of stories and games), and I guess if we decide to never provide game stats for vehicles (et al), then if anyone did we'd delete that edit. However, I'm also of the mind that editing the article addresses the issue of making the information easy to access. A lot of people would have to know that specific gaming information was available in the histories for it to be a threat to CGL. Summary: I'm not too concerned with having to resort to edit deletions.
As for Out-of-print, CGL makes that easy here. You can select the 'In Print' filter. If a source is in a moratorium period here, then constant review of that filter will let us know when CGL is no longer ordering print runs. Not suggesting that is the way we have to go, but I think legally, that would be the easiest one to defend. (<-- completely speculative opinion).
Personally, I'm the type of guy who wants to delve completely in a new title and start absorbing it by using it here as soon as possible. Two months would allow me to get that fix in an appropriate time (and I suspect for you, as well). But, I'd like to hear from others as to what they might think is appropriate. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:22, 25 August 2008 (CDT)
I like the idea of putting a new sourcebook page up and fit a banner/tag to it. Regarding the timeframe I think 2 months should be minimum and I wouldn't mind to use up 6 months.--BigDuke66 17:24, 29 August 2008 (CDT)
I know that we can find out when books go OOP, but, like you said, it means having to check the website pretty often. Frankly, that's more work than I want to put into this. I understand where you're coming from with it, but I think that would be sort of a last resort if somebody over at Wizkids' non-existent legal department decided to come after us for some reason. I agree with BigDuke that somewhere in between the two-six month period makes sense. --Scaletail 11:46, 30 August 2008 (CDT)
Its just a tool, and I think you've got a good argument as to it being used to a fallback position (and BTW is no where as game-oriented as a lot of fan sites out there are, with a lot more gaming material available). You two have both quoted 2 months, I'm for that as well. If we don't hear any arguments for another length soon, then it sounds like a consensus. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (CDT)


I have created the policy. As always, comments are still welcome. Specifically, if anybody can think of any other good exceptions, please suggest them here. --Scaletail 13:43, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

If the moratorium is applied to a rulebook in print, should it be modified to allow for information to be posted on what the book is about? I don't think this is competition with CGL - quite the opposite, as it feeds into potential purchases. For example, the strategic operations page only has the moratorium tag on it. Some information on contents of the book (not the actual contents - but what sort of information you might find) could be useful for a person seeing if they would like to purchase the book. --Sean — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by (talkcontribs) 23:02, 2 April 2009.

New Material Mention[edit]

Okay, because of a question posted on CBT forums, I've been driven to update the article on the Liberator. However, a niggling little part of my subconscious starting poking me, reminding me that I couldn't use any information from Strategic Operations just yet, because of the moratorium. However, the likely-hood of me remembering just what that item was that needed to be updated when StratOps falls out of the moratorium gave me further pause.

So, what do you think about this idea: a tag that operates very similarly to the function of the moratorium one that reads something along the lines of, "This article has new information to be found in the recently released product {{product name}}, which currently falls under BTW's Moratorium policy. When this moratorium is lifted, please update this article."

My idea is that, when one of us then erases the moratorium, we can then seek out these tags (based on a category that addresses articles needing update from a specific source). The information to be found should be easy enough. (BTW, the "Please Update" tags would not be removed, until the article was actually updated.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:17, 7 June 2009 (PDT)

I have no problems with that. --Scaletail 04:45, 13 June 2009 (PDT)

"Update needed" tag[edit]

Not quite sure why you are doing this. If and when the moratorium for HB:MPS ends, people will probably begin to work through the entire volume and edit new information into the respective articles. But I do not see any point in marking all potential articles with periphery connections with a "Update needed" tag. In the case of the Oberon Confederation I can even confirm it to be superflous, because it is hardly mentioned in the new book (I have the PDF) and no new information was presented. Btw, I have taken the liberty to undo your editing in of the tag in the case of the Oberon Confederation. Frabby 11:52, 30 June 2009 (PDT)

You fell into my trap, my friend! As I was doing this, I was considering the response. My initial perspective occurred when I read about the Liberator in MPS. I intended to update the article right then, but remembered the moratorium. I immediately realized there was no way I'd remember to go back to the article when the moratorium was lifted. so that's why I proposed the tag when I did (here). And then it occurred to me that --if someone visits an article, simply as a Reader-- and they see this Update Needed tag, along with where the material can be found (the source title), we may pull them in as Editors. So, I simply went thru the index of HB:MPS and added the title to articles that already existed. It boils down to my overall mission to increase the numbers of Editors on the site thru every tactic we can think of. (Wait until I tell you about my interviews concept; still developing the framework.)
As for expecting people to come in and update it, I disagree with you. That is the goal, yes. However, the BTW is definitely not there yet, not in active Editor membership, in any case. Hopefully, this tag will help make the decision to add to an article an easier one.
As for superflous, you -having done the check of the available material- are the best judge of that. However, do you think the title merits a mention in the Oberon Confederation article, thereby providing a reader (new or otherwise) a source for finding the various titles that mention the Oberon Confederation? If so, could you link to the book article for that reason?
Always good to work with you, Frabby. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:15, 30 June 2009 (PDT)
In hindsight, I could see how fellow Editors might view this as not opening it to discussion, and that is not an incorrect POV. As the first Editor here, I'm used to being bold in my efforts to build, promote and project the wiki, but concede maybe I should have pushed the issue here more to get more than just Scaletail's feedback on it. Sometimes I just get to the point of needing to do things myself, since we really don't have enough people to hand off tasks to. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (PDT)

Moratorium Lifted news[edit]

I realize that the admins are using the Sarna HPG appropriately to update readers as to semi-important updates to the site, and I know nothing is stopping me from doing the following, but I'd really like to stress that announcing the end of a moratorium there would be beneficial not only to the development of articles, but would also allow first-time and casual readers to see constant evidence of BTW growth. There is something to be said for the value of front page real estate for a site and the news section needs to be updated constantly with fresh, but relevant, information. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:28, 7 June 2009 (PDT)

Makes sense. Coming to think of it, the temporary nature of the moratorium sort of demands something like this really. Also agree about the other point, demonstrating ongoing activity. Frabby 11:19, 7 June 2009 (PDT)

PDF & Printed Books[edit]

Is there any thought on what the policy will be on the PDFs? Since the PDFs are published before the paper backs. I can completely understand not detailing any information from these sources until their published in print. However, CGL has been getting backlogged and behind on their publishing schedule. Stragetic Operations came out PDF in December 2008, its still not in book form. Do we wait six months AFTER they get around printed these books? -- Wrangler 11:11, 30 June 2009 (PDT)

Wrangler, the conconsensus was that we'd wait for 2 months after the print hit the streets. The way we view the BTW is that we are not a primary source of information; the official products are. Giving two months following printed release means those people that intend to buy only one version (in this case the printed) do actually buy that version, rather than depend upon BTW for their information. After that period of time, we're meeting the need of people who are looking for a quick answer or the original source for the material, or have no intention of buying the materials but are willing to 'settle' for what we have. Lengthy response, I apologize, but I see our mission as doing nothing to hurt the profitability of the official line, but provide a source of knowledge at an appropriate time and in appropriate detail. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:33, 30 June 2009 (PDT)

Conspiracy & Rumor Books[edit]

I have been reading some (recently purchased) books of BT rumors and conspiracy theories in my free time, for my MW campaign. Currently I'm reading Jihad Conspiracies. Technically the book is probably out of moratorium, but I feel like adding its contents in detail, and explaining each conspiracy might not be appropriate. Why? Mentioning the rumors is one thing (and I whole-heartedly believe a list of rumors without explanation should be placed on BT wiki), but BT wiki to me is more encyclopedic, more facts based. Knowing a rumor about Tanites exists is different than explaining the all the rumors in detail. If the information was not written on BT wiki, people who are interested in learning more about a rumor would have to purchase the books from BattleCorps, which also serves to improve BT wiki's (unstated?) goal of advertising the product. Has a policy about rumors been considered?--S.gage 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been listing anything that been in a conspircy type section or entire books as Canon Rumor. I place anything that falls under that into the a Note for the article. If article is completely a canon rumor. Then i start the article out as such. I do believe though that the Rampage is among the few thing in the book which has straight canon including its fluff in description. I would like see policy that states, that if anything if canon rumor or text styled as questionable to have citation can be specified to stating be adjusted to saying what parts of article are canon rumor. -- Wrangler 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Late to the ball game, S.gage, but I wanted to acknowledge your concern about revealing spoilers and how it pertains to sales. I don't think this is limited solely to rumors, such as the Tanites. However, I'm not sure how to be all-inclusive and encyclopedic, but also vague. If it assauges your concern any, I'd say that 1) the nature of Editors' work here will enforce viewers to check the sources (when properly attributed) to ensure accuracy (I know I do it) and 2) the number of people who will choose not to buy a product because of the information would be, in my opinion, very low.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)