Sarna News: Bad 'Mechs - Banshee

Talk:Free Worlds League

This article is within the scope of the Factions WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on the various factions. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Factions team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.


2306 Who is this non-Marik?--— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Moosegod (talkcontribs) 21:08, 19 August 2008 .

From House Marik Sourcebook, p 11:
In 2306 however, after Parliment signed the Ryerson Accords, a member of the Selaj family was elected Captain-General in order to help the Capellan Hegemony fight the Sarna Supremacy.
That's all there is. But, you might find it helpful to have the PDF for your own review.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:26, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
Should article be expanded to list various providence of the FWL and list the ranks of the military? Or should be seperated in own articles? -- Wrangler 14:28, 18 May 2009 (PDT)

Ranks definitely should go on FWLM much like the AFFS and DCMS pages, with a short list/description of the provinces with links out full articles. FWL is presently leading all states with number of provinces that have full/partial articles at the moment. Cyc 14:48, 18 May 2009 (PDT)


Should we going to partition the provinces/principlities/duchies, etc into seperate articles? There are number of them whom later became their own faction/nation time after the Jihad and prior to the formation of the League itself. -- Wrangler 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is enough material to warrant building it further than what is on the mother page, then I'd vote yes. I wouldn't call for pulling it off this page in the state each one is now, nor just copying the information over to its own page, but if a suitable article can be built, then yeah. (Actually, I'm all for its own page in any case, but this is my compromise view.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I had planned to pursue those articles. The problem that I ran into is determining how many articles each province gets. For example, if we say that "Marik Commonwealth" is an article, does that stop in 3078 and link to "Marik-Stewart Commonwealth", which picks up from there and goes to 3140 and beyond? Or should those two be combined in one article, since it's all the "Marik Commonwealth"? This would hold true for Regulus, Tamarind, and Oriente. Andurien is a bit easier since it doesn't really change its name, though it does swallow up smaller provinces. I can make the case for both, so I would be interested to hear what others have to say. --Scaletail 00:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If the province was radically changed (geographically-speaking), then I'd imagine Wikipedia would have the article conclude with something along the lines of, "and then was broken up into two different provinces. See Province#1 and Province#2 for more details." I'd suggest we do the same. Ugh...maybe a hypothetical article about the United States' history would be an example, where the Civil War and the Confederate States rate a mention in the main article, but have complete articles (that have more details) of their own. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, we could have listing of provinces per era or time period. FWL Provience as of 2650, FWL Provinces as of 2750, etc. Have those locals listed that way. If they have significante history, they get own parent article that keeps tab on its region history/activities /culturial significance/etc. A FWL Provinces List, would be good way to mention the minor ones didn't really get fleshed out or didn't last long to get quick mention. -- Wrangler 11:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't break up create articles based on era. I just don't see people searching for them that way. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think if we go the route of a list, it would be a comprehensive one. I don't think there's enough variation to justify a series of list articles. I could see an article that lists the FWL provinces, then give the FWL successor states their own articles. --Scaletail 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm unsure why this article needs a bibliography section, rather than including the associated titles in the present References section. While its a Help essay rather than policy, it appears to me that this is a good example of the merging of Specific and Detailed references, as depicted in the Additional Info section of the References how-to page. I propose merging the two sections into References. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually did this without thinking. Comes from my BA in history—"always separate the endnotes from the bibliography since they serve different purposes." Which may not apply in a wiki situation Tongue.gif. The more that I think about it, the more I believe that they should be separated for major articles like this. References should refer to specific topics (and page numbers), but a bibliography allows a much broader scope. This whole rant is probably more appropriate to the Additional Info section. I'll move it there. --Ebakunin 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've used this format in pretty much every article I've written in the past year or two. Probably for the same reason as Ebakunin. --Scaletail 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking the two of you check out Help:References to review how it is currently worded. If you can please suggest a method of introducing the concept of bibliographies (maybe as as replacement for Basic References), in a way that won't lead Editors to include the same titles in both (or to do so in a way that demonstrates the value), it'd be helpful. I understand your backgrounds call for a differentiation (I've got the same degree), but I'm unsure how to qualify it for these (BTW) articles. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it works pretty well as is. The only difference is that the references footnotes would become part of the "Notes" section, while the "References" section stays separate and is essentially the bibliography. Check out Draconis Combine and Phalanx for examples on how I've done this. --Scaletail 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
While in theory I agree with Scaletail, we're stuck with a legacy system that calls footnotes "<references />". If we call a list of books references, and call <ref> notes, we'll end up confusing the average editor. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 02:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on the large possibility of confusing the average Editor. How about using ==Bibliography== instead of ==References==? Or maybe ==References== instead of ==Notes==? It'll be a huge undertaking, but better to start sooner than later.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my proposal is thus: we introduce the section ==Bibliography==, under which only titles are placed. The section ==References== will still be located at the bottom, and will use the "<references />" underneath it to collect citations. If I can get a strong "amen", I'll re-work the references pages to represent. (I'm working on a timeline here before a possible wikibreak, or at least reduced presence.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That's reasonable, but it's going to require changing that on almost every article in BTW. --Scaletail 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, agree, but its a gradual thing. Better now, now that we're all in agreement, then later, when more people take sides over us doing it the 'wrong' way. You guys convinced me. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Be Nice If You Included a List of Provinces[edit]

Frankly, this article is severely lacking in basic information.--Aldous (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2014 (PST)

Nobody seems to be working on it at the moment as there's no WIP/Underconstruction template added - feel free be bold and expand the article.BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2014 (PST)