How to add a word[edit]


; Word : Definition of the word

Shows as:

Definition of the word

Do we really need this page?[edit]

...because each and every single word here should have its own article, making a Dictionary superflous. I suppose this is a remnant that was an original feature of before it became a proper Wiki? Frabby 03:25, 14 August 2008 (CDT)

I'm not sure that is why it is here (I think I created it), but I've gotta agree with you. Every time I thought of linking to a letter section here from an article, I just ended up thinking it'd be easier and make more sense to redlink instead, for the same reason you suggested. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:17, 14 August 2008 (CDT)
I agree as well. I think our goal should be to slowly make this page irrelevant. Link to the definitions that are missing an entry, eliminate the definitions that already have an entry, and over time empty the page. --Ebakunin 09:48, 14 August 2008 (CDT)
Good idea, Ebakunin. When ever anyone feels the Dictionary is irrelevant, let me know and I'll have it removed from the Sidebar & killed with fire. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:15, 16 August 2008 (CDT)
There are still a lot of terms that are relevent for having on a 'dictionary' page, such as 'battalion' or 'neg'. True, many of the words could have their own page. But for generic terms, I think having a dictionary is a good idea. Nicjansma 12:09, 17 August 2008 (CDT)
Well, its clear its definitely not unanimous. In that case, only if a consensus is reached shall we remove the dictionary. However, we can help lead to that by creating the articles and removing the words one-by-one (being sure to wikilink on all pages that use those words). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:07, 17 August 2008 (CDT)


Why was the Thuggee removed from the dictionary. At the moment there no article dicticated too them. I was one whom put it into there since there wasn't enough information warrent full blown article, only a minor entry. Can someone tell me what is going be done since they have played part in the Battletech universe? -- Wrangler 12:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I re-added it, Wrangler, 'cause its clear to me -from his summary- that Cyc was only attempting to remove entries with actual articles, and this one feel in accidentally. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A Statement and a Question[edit]

  • First - I think this page serves a purpose. Many of the terms here, in my opinion, do not merit a full article. They MAY merit a subsection of another article (such as the titles of House Leaders could be added to the respective state sections), and a re-direct can be setup, but that's a case by case basis.
  • Second - Should we add new terms to this page, at least until the above suggestion is somehow addressed? ClanWolverine101 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Game Rules[edit]

I noticed that there are several places where game rules are directly included in the definitions; perhaps they should be put in the colored boxes so readers can more easily distinguish what they are? -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2013 (PDT)

Dissolve this article into individual articles[edit]

See header. Every entry on this article should have (and in many cases, already has) its own Sarna article - and then this article should go away. Batch articles like this one are something we want to discontinue. Frabby (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2019 (EST)

In essence I agree, Batch articles are a bad thing in my opinion. There is some stuff in here that might still served best by a dictionary though. Stuff like "Nathaculor" is a term that likely needs explanation. Most of it though does not need it. A lot of it is real world terms like "PBI" that in all honesty it is not really our job to explain--Dmon (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2019 (EST)
I agree with Dmon. There some items that don't have enough information to warrant a full page, which may be largely empty. It's waste of space, memory, and looks bad for sarna. I think Dictionary still servers as a quick reference to references and small line items. Using category as the quick references is not good either. I disagree with Dissolve of the Dictionary. -- Wrangler (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2019 (EST)
I too come down on the side of "Disagree", though I can see that it might need to be split up. Terms that are specific to a faction or culture could better go on a page that relates to that culture: Clan, Draconis Combine, etc.--though that raises a separate question of "are we plagiarizing from the glossaries in the back of the novels." This page should be for terms that are widely used throughout the Human Sphere. I would take Conventional and redirect it to here, as that is a concept that appears in many articles, but for someone new to the hobby/lore, the commonly accepted distinction between "Conventional" units and, say, "BattleArmor" may need clarification. Talvin (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2022 (EST)

More or less free German rendering[edit]

Given the extensive work already done about the German 'Mech names and German novel titles, I wondered whether it would be of interest to add some notable German variants of the specific terms in this dictionary, e.g. Quiaff/Quineg v Frapos/Franeg. --Sorash (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2021 (EST)