Talk:List of minor mercenary units

How to use this list[edit]

...and why I want this list deleted[edit]

As the one who originally set up this article years ago, I feel it is my duty to make sure it disappears again. :)

No, seriously: I have come to realize that this kind of batch articles serves no useful purpose and that Sarna BTW should actively try to avoid them. The mere fact that mercenary unit names redirect to this article should already prove that each and every named mercenary unit should have its own article, however short it may be; stub articles are nothing to be afraid of. We've seen that this works well with starship articles. I feel that lumping together "stub" articles within a much larger category violates the intuitive order of the wiki. This wouldn't be a problem if the article summarily covers the entire category (such as the List of BattleTech products), and has no overlap with an existing category.

Another problem I have with lists or categories of "minor whatevers" on principle is that there is no definition of what constitutes "minor", it is a very arbitrary distinction that only serves to muddy the waters. This goes for "minor mercenary units" as much as for "minor characters".

I'll therefore endeavour to kill such summary lists with fire fortwith, starting with this one. You're invited to help out, or to voice compelling reasons that would change my mind. :) Frabby (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2017 (PST)

I am fully for killing this. I have long created unit pages for minor units that may only ever be mentioned by name once. Some of the units have been fleshed out by the authors in time, most have not but that is not the point. As a GM why have your Mercs face off against the some what faceless Chupadero Militia when they can face off against the canon 1st Chupadero Armored Legion? No real difference but it adds that little touch of feel to the universe.--Dmon (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2017 (PST)
I'd like to state I like the list as is because it makes it easier to word search small units based on details and find what I'm looking for. I don't really agree with (or see) the point of how its a problem that some merc units redirect a user here. How we have the list now has proven much more useful to me than going through multiple pages with one line blurbs would be. My two 0.02 C-bills. 12:19, 22 January 2017 (EST)
Keep it. Having a list of Merc units is incredibly useful. I may not even know the name of a particular Merc Unit unless it's on a list like this. If anything, it needs to be grouped/ordered by era, so if I'm looking for units available in 3025, I can find them. -Dutch, 1:40pm, 23 January 2017 (CST)
Thanks to the latter two posters for voicing their opinion. However, it sort of confirms my resolve. Because if you're using this list as any sort of (minor) mercenaries listing then you're using it wrong. It's not a coherent or comprehensive list of "all" or even all "minor" (whatever that's supposed to mean) merc units. It never was that, never was meant to be that, and could never possibly be that. So I'd argue that the very existence of this article is misleading, chalking this up as another reason to remove it. Instead, check out Category:Mercenary Commands for a list of articles about named merc units in BT canon.
@Dutch - Sorting by era is impossible because we don't even have dates for the inception or disbanding of the vast majority of merc units in BT, sorry. Frabby (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2017 (EST)
If it works for us, how are we using it "wrong"? It has details easy to search and cites sources with each unit making it easy to look them up. With the lame category function I have to look through page after page to find what I want. I've yet to see a convincing argument for changing it to the less search-friendly category system. The battletech novels list page links to individual book pages, so if you're heck bent to make two sentence pages for every single-mentioned merc unit then we have a precedent for both systems. -Chet
Very well then, if there are indeed users who want to keep it then I'll not delete this list, even though I stand by what I wrote. I will not maintain it or add to it anymore though, and I'll still create articles on every named merc unit. Frabby (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2017 (EST)
Frabby - Suggestion: I always believed that this article was intended for mercenary units for whom we do not have the content to justify a full article. Simply put, there are merc units in the BTech universe for whom all we have for them is a name, and possibly a year they were active. I hate the idea of creating dozens of "stub articles" for such units. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
I'm afraid I can only respond that I've come to regard stub articles preferable over incomplete, unreliable and highly arbitrary summary batch articles. Besides, as I'm working down the list it turns out many of these merc units aren't "minor" at all. Frabby (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
In my mind, that's how it should work? I just added "The Hard Riders", because they were only mentioned one time ever, and what you see on the list is what you get. I do not think the wiki would be better for giving them their own article. But that's only my opinion. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2017 (EDT)

Okay, I've completed the task of creating articles for each and every merc unit listed in this article. As far as I'm concerned, that ends this article's usefulness. Frabby (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

Great work Frabby and I agree completely about the usefulness of the article. - Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2017 (EDT)
I disagree that with deletion of this article. Creating a articles for individual units with less couple lines in a source book is wrong. It's nice having quick reference list as well. Posters are the actual players looking things up. I have rarely seen people use categories as quick means that comes to mind to look up units. Again i am against this deletion. However I am in the minority on this issue. -- Wrangler (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2017 (EDT)
I vote in favor of deletion. The list is sorely in need of update, and as Frabby was the creator and primary editor of the list, I feel it will only get further out of date should he choose to no longer update it. The merc units category is sufficient, in my opinion.--Cache (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2017 (EDT)
With sincere respect for everyone here who posted their opinion, I do want to express some mirth at this. As I recall, in the early hours of this wiki, one of the issues we batted around was if every properly named object (person, vehicle, group, etc.) deserved its own article. I definitely crusaded for that, and I recall Wrangler did as well, while Frabby was a staunch warden of list pages for minor objects. So I find it some what interesting to see the changes in perspective...and the balance appears to remain the same. I, however, will support delete as a stance.
For those of you that prefer list pages, I offer categories as a means to find mercenary units to explore; I understand the category page itself provides no information to help you decide if a unit bears investigation, but it will provide a you a strong list of all units that are represented on BTW. The list pages are one further step remved from being complete; many units just will fail to make an appearance on a list page for one reason or another.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:46, 8 July 2017 (EDT)
I will not (for now) pursue deletion of this article further, as several users have requested that it not be deleted. I don't agree but I respect their opinion. As a compromise, I will add a suitable warning into the article about its problems, so that nobody mistakes it for an actual comprehensive list of minor mercenary units. Maybe a year or two down the line we'll have this conversation again... :) Frabby (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
I suggest creating wlinks to these articles you've created. Maybe that will demonstrate to the list users how much (if) they actually use the articles vice the list.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:15, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
Good idea; will do. Frabby (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
Thank you for sparing the deletion of the list. I am not so happy about not allowing people to updating it. If editor wants to add/update unit on this list they should do so on their accord. Personally, if one want have large swath of files on these minor mercenary bands. Why not add the internal links the list. Keep adding names to that and linking them to large articles. I've physically talked to people about the use of category. While i think its excellent way to organize things. A master go-to list such as this one makes it easier casual userr to use. -- 06:30, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
Oh, if anyone wants to update the list then they're welcome. But I'm not doing it. Frabby (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
Though I would hope that anyone updating the info here also takes the time to update the main article as well ;) Which leads me to be in the camp of deleting this article (when next reviewed) - having to update information in two places for a 'minor' merc unit is a bit overboard. Justin Kase (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
Had an afterthought - what about just adding a list category for Minor Mercenary Commands for any page that lacks certain data requirements? Then just define those must have fields. Justin Kase (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2017 (EDT)

Please leave this section at the very top of the discussion page. :) Frabby 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page[edit]

This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. 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.

House Liao (The Capellan Confederation) page 80 - McCormack's Fusiliers - Lander's Landers brief devastating encounters on McCormack's Fusiliers and their payback on the Landers.</ref> Source: House Liao (Source book): pg. 80

Minor or not[edit]

You'll note that numerous not-so-minor merc units (such as the 15th Dracon, Dragon's Breath, Tooth of Ymir, Mobile Fire) are mentioned in the list. That is because I use it to collect snippets of information and references before creating a full-blown article on the units. Everybody is invited to create articles for individual merc units from this list (please remember to delete them from this list then, and make sure to include all that information in the article). Frabby 13:51, 14 February 2009 (PST)

Frabby - This sounds like a good idea. I'm thinking of adding Barber's Marauder IIs to the list. What do you think? ClanWolverine101 15:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Barber's Marauder IIs is the same unit that used to be Miller's Marauders in the 3025 era, and it's another excellent example for a not-so-minor merc unit that doesn't have much fluff but keeps popping up. They certainly deserve their own article but if you want to collect bits and pieces about them, feel free to use this list. That's why I created it in the first place! Frabby 15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Frabby, I'm unaware why references should not use the established method with this type of article. Is there a precedent set on WP that influences your course? Secondly, if the references are kept as you've developed them, is there any reason why they can't be linked to their respective source material articles? Thanks for the explanation. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:04, 20 December 2011 (PST)

This has to do with both the nature and the purpose of this list. Every subsection essentially constitutes its own "minor" article, therefore a common references page makes no sense. It may even turn out to be detrimental to have: Imagine you try to take out an entry and expand it into its own article. Not only do you not have the references at hand; in the case of references that are used repeatedly (c.f. Liao Housebook), you need to look up the reference in another section where it was used first.
Or is there an established method for list-type articles that I have missed? Frabby 09:54, 20 December 2011 (PST)
'No' to the latter part (list-type articles). I meant the general references section presented at the bottom of each page.
As for the lack of references in the section, won't the intra-linked footnote (to the specific reference) solve that problem? To be clear, I mean where the footnote takes you to the reference 'House Liao (The Capellan Confederation), p. 78, "Blandford's Grenadiers".'--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:15, 20 December 2011 (PST)
I would offer this : Redoing this article in the standard format would require a lot of work while adding little if anything to the overall quality of the wiki. I would agree, however, that some of these units are deserving of full articles. Some, meanwhile, were mentioned once in passing, and should be confined to this article for the forseeable future. So in terms of concept, I am all for it. ClanWolverine101 12:17, 20 December 2011 (PST)
To be clear, I'm not talking at all about the format of the article. This is a list, which by definition is different. I'm asking solely about referencing methods.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:26, 20 December 2011 (PST)

Team Venom[edit]

I was just wondering if we should delete Team Venom from this list due to the source that is cited for them is from the Apocryphal Product MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat. Thoughts on this? DerangedShadow (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2013 (PDT)

Apocryphal content such as this is explicitly welcome here (see Policy:Notability). The entry does indeed belong here, but it needs to be clearly marked as apocryphal (see Policy:Canon). Frabby (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2013 (PDT)

Illician Rangers & Cunnigham's Commandos[edit]

Wondering if the Illician Rangers & Cunningham's Commandos (1st and 2nd) should be deleted from this list. Based on the information on the page, the "Illician Rangers" engaged the Black Widow Company during the Galtor campaign. This most likely was the 21st Illician Rangers (21st Illician Rangers), which have their own page. On top of that, the overarching organization (the Illician Lancers) also have a page. So, having this other unit listed here could be confusing.

Similarly, Cunningham's Commandos have their own page Cunningham's Commandos - so maybe we should just condense this info there and delete them from the minors ;)

Justin Kase (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2016 (EST)

Same can be said of Ever-Free Ever-Free, Lone Wolves Lone Wolves and Vandelay's Valyries Vandelay's Valkyries Justin Kase (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2016 (EST)

You're correct, those double mentions should be deleted here. Just make sure that all information found here is present (or edited into) the proper article about the unit before deleting.
Truth be told, I'm hating myself for ever setting up this summary article in the first place. Each and every unit here should get their own article. Like every Christmas, I'm badly overworked right now and will not do much until mid-January, but creating individual merc unit articles and finally deleting this article here is on my to-do list. Frabby (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2016 (PST)
PS Justin, good to see you active here! :) Suggest you get yourself a proper user registration.
I thought I had an ID, but when I asked to have it send me a PW reset to my email, I never received it. Once I get that, I will try to create individual articles for each unit. Along with adding in the bellow, and adding all of them to the main Merc list.
Chaos Irregulars Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p. 42, "Chaos Irregulars Unit Profile"
Critchley's Cavaliers Mercenaries Supplemental, p. 61, "Stealthy Tigers Unit Profile"
Dante's Detectives Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p. 48, "Dante's Detectives Unit Profile"
Grandin's Crusaders Total Chaos, p. 25, "Grandin's Crusaders"
Heart of Blake Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p. 69, "Heart of Blake Unit Profile"
Jie Fang Legion
Khasparov's Knights Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p. 76, "Khasparov's Knights Unit Profile"
Larsen's Loaners Field Manual : Periphery, p. 118, "Militaries of the Lesser States"
Nelson's Longbows Field Manual : Periphery, p. 119, "Militaries of the Lesser States"
O'Gordon's Rifles Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p. 92, "O'Gordon's Rifles Unit Profile"
Raymond's Redcoats Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p. 98 "Raymond's Redcoats"
Star Seeds Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p. 109, "Star Seeds Unit Profile"
The 48th Mercenaries Supplemental Update, p.24, "The 48th Unit Profile"
Zeus' Thunderbolts Technical Readout: 3085, p.98
Also, under the main merc list, I'd like to move the sub-units of the Lexington CG (and others) under their parent formation - much like the Dragoons and ELH. Justin Kase (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2016 (EST)
By move the sub-units do you mean how they are laid out in the category pages?--Dmon (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (EDT)

Want to Update[edit]

I feel that this list still viable, not everyone want to have file on every lance size merc unit on it's own page. Having quick list is useful, i've seen recently asking for list of merc units found in the House Arano source book. I find the articles with units with barely any fluff a waste of bandwidth. The units should be noted, but not in big wide page. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

I am dead set against this article myself.--Dmon (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
I feel the House Arano sourcebook article (when created) is the proper place for a list of Merc units contained within. This article would only provide a block of units that would have to be searched, thus not making it a "quick list". In fact, it is only a slightly shortened version of the Merc Units category. I'm against updating this article, as mentioned previously.--Cache (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
I have just had a quick scan through the House Arano (The Aurigan Coalition) book, and I only found 3-4 Merc units mentioned, and they had full force strengths, named officers, deployment status and even unit colors.. So I think we are ok to make proper articles and leave this list where it belongs.--Dmon (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
Why am i such minority on this....There going be units found in fiction as well that fall under this category. Barely line of info on them, but they play part, but there little information on them. Seems wasteful to put full webpage dedicated to something that maybe a single sentence of information on them. I wish we could do a pole see how people feel about it. Categories tend not be as easily navigated as just straight up list, someone using a computer can do Control F (find) type name in. For Mobile phones i'm uncertain, I've not been able do word search with droid. My point typing Category: Mercenary Commands isn't really intutive to someone causal user/first time user to the wiki. -- Wrangler (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
I think you feel the same as I felt when I started this article. But, like I wrote above, I've come to realize in the meantime that this was a very bad idea as it actually creates much more effort. To handle the large numbers of merc units on Sarna, we need to properly sort them into the mercs category and this requires an individual article for each and every last one of them. Otherwise, you cannot link them and won't easily find them; to get arond that you need to create redirect articles which are then categorized. When you do that, you can create a proper article just as well. (This is much the same situation as with individual named spacecraft - some really only exist as a name, but there you go and we decided we want an article on every one of them.) Frabby (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
Can you guys at LEAST make a link on the main page for the Category: Mercenary Commands so mobile devices will have something. -- Wrangler (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
There already is a link to Category:Military_Commands on the main page. Right at the top, under Factions. Under that is the Mercenary Commands category. It's a total of two clicks/taps as opposed to one, but I don't feel that is unreasonable.--Cache (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2019 (EDT)