User talk:BrokenMnemonic/2012 Archive



Hy BrokenMnemonic, welcome to, you can move your most of your New User Log discription to your own User page, and leave a minor description on the New User Log page.--Doneve 12:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, BrokenMnemonic[edit]

I just read your New User log entry and it seems you're a great example of our target audience. I really appreciate that you want to 'give back' to the community what it provides and using what ever skills interest you do just that. Trust me: minor edits are no small added value to a wiki. In fact, I'd say that's probably how many people get there start, as they learn how a wiki works.

Additionally, registering (vice editing as an IP) is more than us getting our grips around you, much more. Now you get credit for your deeds, as well as the opportunity for award ribbons and more open discussions with the other members of the community here. We're glad to put a name to a face. Welcome!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Substantial Addition award[edit]

Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. Still way too early for you to get your Time-In-Service (TIS) and Edit Count (EC) ribbons, but I did see the value you added to Always Faithful‎, which definitely deserves recognition:

Substantial Addition Award

I don't give these out too often, but this is the 2nd one today. I added an awards board to your user page as well, so be sure to add your TIS and EC ribbons, when the time comes. Good job. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you :) I've not finished editing the Always Faithful page though, because there's detail from the 20 Year Update and I think the Field Manual: Free Worlds League that needs incorporating, and I've not checked my 4th Succession War Atlases to confirm what they were up to then - should the award wait until I've finished the main edit? I'd not want to step on any toes. I'm delighted to be able to help! BrokenMnemonic 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to wait! Editor Awards can be given out by anyone seeing something positive being done (or just completed) and should be given out then. No nomination process is necessary (and you can give them out, too). Now, if someone else awards you for the same effort, you have the option of declining the award; just let them know why.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Saw your summary note: it's more than ok. Both the TIS and EC ribbons are automatic awards, as there is no real way for other editors to ensure people get them; its left up to you, the individual. Good job.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Year Pages[edit]

Hy, please take a look on Policy:Year Pages, great work on Crater Cobras.--Doneve 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, my apologies for breaching the policy on year pages - I've read through the policy and will stick to it in future.BrokenMnemonic 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Casual Edit award[edit]

I'm well impressed and quite happy with the work you're doing here. As an incentive to continue to improve articles, have a Casual Edit award:
Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon Frabby 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very cool :) I saw a few of your posts on the CBT forum regarding editing on the wiki, which is one of the things that persuaded me to wander over and start poking things... BrokenMnemonic 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Hy please dont delete added references and infoboxes, when you have not the sourcebooks, leave a note on the target page, i double check the references and talk then to you, thanks.--Doneve 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a complete mistake, I'm afraid; I was editing just the History section, and between previews the wiki announced that the session data had been lost and I should refresh the revision. I did that, saved it, and discovered that I'd somehow gone from editing just the History section to apparently editing the entire page! I undid the revision ASAP, and replaced it with the correct version. I'm still not sure exactly what happened, but it's made me a little paranoid. BrokenMnemonic 10:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a big think, keep cool, the data is saved.--Doneve 10:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unknown Planet[edit]

Okay, let's talk thru this, to see if we understand things the same way. On Tyrrhenia, you provided cites for the Unknown Planet entries. In your own words, what information did you provide there? What does that source information tell you about the planet?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The citations show that according to the maps of the region cited at that date in time, the planets didn't exist as colonies, so that if in the future someone searches for planets in the Taurian Concordat, they can be excluded when refining the search by date. It also shows for those looking to try and work out when planets were likely to be settled (where we don't have precise dates) which sources at least confirm the planet wasn't settled at that point in time. BrokenMnemonic 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that was roughly what I thought, too. Do you think "Unknown Planet" is the best term to put there? I don't know what "unknown planet" means. Let's see if I can keep from being too confusing here:
We can definitely presume that a planet's absence from the maps indicates it was as yet unsettled (or not officially known to be settled, by the map's creators, in this case ComStar Cartographic Corps). What we absolutely know for a fact is that it is not on the map.
We have four paths to choose from: ignore the map since it doesn't mention the planet, indicate it was not settled (which may not be the case), indicate it was not reported to be settled or indicate it was not represented on the map. I think the fact we have a source (the map) available that covers the area of concern (to include the area around Tyrrhenia) is something we need to use, so I vote 'no' on option 1. CGL may very well release a map anytime in the future that represents a period of time before the current map that does depict the planet, which means this map simply didn't have the planet, not that it was or was not unsettled (though I find that unlikely).
What we really want to say here is not that the planet was undiscovered, or even unsettled, but that no records of it exist at the times of the map's depictions. Is that right?
Note: the page number for the first entry appears to be wrong. I see maps for 3040 & 3067, not the three that are currently indicated.
The first citation is wrong; sorry about that, I changed the text, but forgot to change the page number in the description (although I did change it in the reference code, which is odd). Slip of the brain, I think.
I grabbed the phrase "Uknown Planet" from the existing entries from worlds up in the Rim Collection, and I'll admit I hadn't thought about it much beyond checking to see what was already in use. I asked about planets not appearing on maps on the CBT forum as a part of a question on the missing OA Star League-era worlds, and the answer Cray sent me was this:
According to MW3 RPG, the OA lost 3/4 of its worlds during the Succession Wars. That was the driver behind the OA's losses in the HB:MPS. Oystein's total estimates (and I might be misremembering a very old discussion) for Succession War losses are 750: 250 Inner Sphere, 500 Periphery.
However, there's a difference between the two regions: Inner Sphere maps show inhabited planets. If it ain't inhabited, it ain't listed. So when a planet leaves the map, it's dead. The Inner Sphere blew 10% of its planets off the map (or let them die through failed technology.) Periphery maps, OTOH, mostly show the noteworthy planets. Humanity's population doesn't stop at a rigid wall of the Inner Sphere - it diffused across it and there's no particular dearth of habitable planets in the Periphery - so there should be many inhabited planets along the Inner Sphere's flanks that never earned a mention in any maps.
But for planets that left Periphery maps that could mean either they simply left a major faction, or it could mean they died. In the case of the hostile planets settled by the Star League in the Rim Worlds (nominally Rim Worlds, they were pretty much Hegemony planets, per JHS:Terra) those mostly died without advanced technology. What happened to the OA "lost worlds" has not been published.
So, CGL have already established that Periphery worlds can "drop off the map" through no longer being significant/noteworthy, and in theory then reappear later. Cray also said this about realms appearing out of the blue that hadn't been in past publications:
The Magistracy also represents a grand-scale "poof! there it is!" nation. It was formed in the 2500s out of existing colonies that banded together against Inner Sphere aggression. You won't see those planets on earlier maps.
So, in the Periphery we have: genuinely uninhabited/undiscovered worlds, worlds not noteworthy enough to appear on the map, worlds that willingly drop off the map, worlds ComStar discovered but chose not to reveal... basically, one huge mess. I've already hit conflicts with the Calderon Protectorate worlds, because there are worlds like Belle Isle that I can't find on any of the maps in sourcebooks I have, but which have been added to the wiki and which have co-ordinates - and in some cases, are even mentioned in the text in HB:MPS, which is seriously frustrating.
We need something that says "either no records exist at the time of this maps compilation, or the world was not considered noteworthy enough to be recorded." Although we also probably need a "dead world" category, for those worlds confirmed as haivng been wiped out.
Maybe we need a Wiki-specific setting rather than an in-universe one - something like "undefined" or "absent"? BrokenMnemonic 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
First off, great read above. I'll be re-reading what you've provided when I get home tonight.
Second, I didn't mean to imply you chose 'Unknown Planet'. I should have been more clear that I was seeking conversation (which resulted, in any case) on ways to improve the entry, so that it actually means something.
So, it looks like we have a near-match for a conclusion as to defining the problem with the way Owner History is currently established. 'Unknown Planet' doesn't provide any information, while "undefined" or "absent" might be a better fit. How about "No Record"? Even when cited (as you've done with their absence from the cited maps), you're providing historical data to a specific date, indicating "no record" existed at that time. What do you think? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't mean to sound defensive :) I'm just used to citing sources and references when I'm compiling information. I'm more than happy to go with "No Record" - that leaves us with wiggle room to play with if CGL add more worlds in. I asked Herb on the CBT forum about whether or not any of the missing Outworlds Alliance worlds from 2750 might still exist as independent worlds and simply not show up on the map, and he said that the majority of the worlds in the Periphery that vanished simply died out, but that some will still be inhabited, even if they're bleak hell-holes with low population - you can see his response here: [1]
As an aside, if the main purpose of the planetary reference pages isn't going to be the breakdown of nearby neighbours and jump distances, would it be ok for me to start adding in dead/absent worlds from the Star League era? They'll mainly be isolated entries because they don't have co-ordinates, so they won't show up on mini-maps, but it does mean they'll have entries if needed for future use, and if someone's looking for a particular world they will at least find an entry. BrokenMnemonic 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, add away. And the citations for 'No Record' entries will be valuable. Thanks for taking cites so seriously. (Off for a few hours.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Hy, have your first All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon, for your great efforts in the planets section, keep up your good work.--Doneve 14:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very cool :) It looks like I've hit 500 edits today as well - a good day on several accounts. I've just finished updating all of the Outworlds Alliance worlds, so I should probably do some housework before I start on the next Periphery realm! BrokenMnemonic 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Research Gallery[edit]

As mentioned in my latest response on BattleTechWiki talk:Planet Article Overhaul/Archive‎‎ : what if we had a series of galleries (on one page) of maps in chronological order? A person researching a planet's owner history for the overhaul could open the relevant maps in order, and record the changes, much as you've done. It differs from your experience, in that you've looked at a map and made the changes to the relevant planets, while a project member in this case will choose a planet (say Sarna) and then go to the appropriate region gallery (say Capellan Confederation) on the maps page and open up each map listed chonologically there, recording when Sarna fell in (or out) of the CapCom's dominion.
I found Category:Maps Gallery, with 153 maps already, bit it is a category and not a gallery page. I could start using these to show you what I mean, and then as you upload your mini-maps and other complete maps, we could add them to the gallery page.
I'll start building a demo for you. "I'll be back."--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Demo Gallery: great timing on Doneve's part (he uploaded these only 4 days ago). Now, they aren't high enough resolution for this project, but it demonstrates well what I'm envisioning; you're editing the article on Ling, so you identify its location on the 2366 image, but notice it's missing from the 2571 image. So, you scroll down to the Free Worlds League gallery and look for an image dated after 2366 to see when it was depicted as being acquired by the FWL.
It means you and I have a lot of hi-res maps to upload, but I think its critical to fixing Owner History. Thoughts?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that's entirely doable (although I'm having some trouble with my copy of HB:HD). One of the advantages the PDF housebooks have is that they're searchable, and as the planet names are a text layer over an image, they stay readable at a lot of resolutions. Static images won't be text searchable here, but they will give those without access to the maps themselves a way of helping.
How heavily modified does an image/map taken from a sourcebook have to be to qualify for fair use? There are good reasons for uploading complete maps in some cases; the example I'm thinking of is that HB:MPS has no maps for the end of the 1st/2nd Succession Wars, whereas HB:HD and HB:HL do - so I've been updating the Concordat worlds using the information from the edges of the FedSuns/Capellan maps.
I'll have a play tonight and see what I can do from home. Thanks for the notes on uploading images, btw! I'll get some images resized and uploaded imminently. --BrokenMnemonic 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
From Policy:Images, 'fair use' is met when the image is relevant to an article. My first take on that was the image must be used in the article, meaning your mini-maps, however modified, would be covered by their use in the article's infobox. On second thought, that should also apply to the ones that exist in the Research gallery. We may have to delete the maps that are not used in any articles following the project's conclusion, but I don't foresee any issues, as long as the source is out of moratorium.
Also, reading thru the image policy, those notes I provided on uploading files should also mention that anytime an image is modified from the original (i.e., you crop it or add to it), the summary line should mention that it has been modified. You could even add "(modified)" after the source material: "Handbook: Liao, p. 47, "Beer Run Raid!" (modified)"--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've had a play around and put together the following image. Is it at sufficient quality for the idea you had envisioned? I can make them at higher quality but the file size goes up dramatically, and I have a couple of concerns about moving the files around at that size. I can reduce the file dimensions, but the text starts to "fuzz up" as the image size reduces. I'm not sure how to embed thumbnails so I've gone for a file embed, I hope that's ok.
Direct link: File:MarHeg_3055.jpg -- BrokenMnemonic 10:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Three ways to test it: 1) within an infobox (the eventual primary place it will be seen) (ex: Asgard), 2) clicking the file page & 3) clicking on the file.
Now, ignoring the fact that Asgard is apparently in the quadrant diagonal from the representative image, the dots are clearly too small to determine where Asgard is on this map. However, the map is far enough out to know exactly what part of space it lies in. So, suvvess on that note.
Now, on the file page, it is just within reading tolerance by my contact-assisted eyes, a standard distance from the screen. Obviously, not ideal for some readers but if I were expected to find it on the map, I think I could. I'm presuming I'm average, in that respect.
Clicking on the file itself...whoa!!! (Like this play-by-play perspective?) That is huge. If the screen resizes, the words are way too fuzzy to read, strangely enough since the image is actually large than the file page's view, but the original graphic is way too large to be informative, especially since I have no idea where on the image the target graphic resides.
So, if I understand you correctly, if you import a smaller file, the text gets too fuzzy to read. If we accept that limitation at the article page's thumbnail, is it also true on the file page?
(Note: take a look at the code I used here to create a thumbnail (with hover caption)):
Marisa Tomei lives here
(Another Note: please revert Asgard's image, when you're done with the demo.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that the wiki doesn't resize the images particularly well when creating the thumbnails, although I don't know enough to have any idea how to change that. The problem with the coloured files is that they're created from the .pdf maps in the Handbook series in the main, and those files have multiple layers - the planets and boundaries are one layer, the text is another layer, and the floating boxes with the caption and like are another layer. Every time you zoom in or out, it resizes the image layer, and then re-smoothes the font on the text to a size appropriate to the current viewing resolution. Once you cap the picture to colour it, you're stuck with the text at that resolution, and shrinking the image actually deforms the smoothing effect slightly, causing minor variations in colour that provide definition at the size the cap was taken to distort as it's size is altered. Keeping the files at hi-res reduces that problem, but makes the files pretty big. Re-colouring the files works better the further you zoom in on the original, but that also increases the distortion when the images are resized.
Marisa Tomei confirms no worlds were harmed during the making of this map
I've taken the original file on the wiki and created a new version at a smaller size, but as close as I can get to the original file resolution, which you can see here:
I think this is at a manageable resolution when viewed full-size, but I'm not convinced by it's readability in the map gallery. What do you think? I've reverted the Asgard map, by the way. Thank you for the demonstration - I've copied the code into my working file! BrokenMnemonic 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this newer image you loaded is great. I'm not sure what you mean by map gallery; should I presume you mean either in the infobox's thumbnail or on its own file page? Or did you mean within gallery code or on a gallery page? If you mean the file page (File:Marian_Hegemony_3055.png), yeah, it's just about outside the scope of easy viewing, but by leaning in, I feel I could find a planet. However, at that displayed resolution, I'd also try clicking on the file itself ([2]) and since it isn't too large, I'd stick there to find my planet. Does that make sense?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still learning my way around the Wiki lexicon; I did mean the image on it's own file page before it's clicked on. I'm going to see what I can do about sharpening up the image a little more but I'm hitting the limits of what I can get done during a lunch break at work and still email home. I think I might be able to update the quality just a little more, but I'm reassured that the system I'm using now is good enough - I should be able to turn out a few maps each day, with any luck. One thing I did think of is that it would be relatively easy to produce cropped versions of the larger maps for use with each planet, and to colour individual planets in, giving each planet it's own map... but doing so could seriously jack up the amount of bandwidth people visiting the site use, and the size of the wiki itself, and I'm not sure where Nic stands with the service provider for that.
The map I used for the Marian Hegemony currently occupies about a quarter of a page in HB:MPS. One of the problems we're going to have is that the bigger realms have substantially bigger maps; producing a map of somewhere like the Lyran Commonwealth at the same quality as the map here that's still readable is going to be something of a challenge. I shall have to play around and see what I can come up with... BrokenMnemonic 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, despite your lackluster wiki-language skills, I think we're on the same metaphorical page now. Curious as to why you're concerned about uploading at work: if you're emailing home, it's not a bandwidth issue, right?
I have the same concerns as you regarding the large faction maps. I think we'll have to limit them to regions, but then we have an issue with possibly 'loosing' the region, since those shapes are not as familiar to us. I really do like the idea of creating custom images for each planet, but am very aware of the enormity of that task inititally. It almost merits a project in itself.
I've been kicking over how Wikipedia uses subsets to identify locations for their article infoboxes. I hust don't have a firm grasp of the graphic arts to be creative enough with possible solutions.
I'm not really concerned about Sarna's bandwidth, as we'd be replacing single-article images, though granted with much larger images. I'll ask Nic, though; I'm awaiting a response from him on other issues.--Rev (talk|contribs) 15:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not so much a bandwidth issue as a net-logging issue. If I'm uploading large quantities of data to a website, it'll attract attention, and runs the risk of the site being added to the banned list and me being sumarrily sacked for abusing the net access at work. On the other hand, emails don't attract as much attention and aren't site specific. I did originally think I'd have to email the very large sourcefiles home and then compress them at home, but a little research at work has let me compress some maps I made there today into what looks like a good size and format... but I promptly forgot to email them home because I got distracted by all those Taurian worlds that need citations.
Creating individual world maps is time consuming, but not hugely so, provided that four or five planets are roughly centred and can use the same map. What'll take the time is uploading them all I suspect... but I can sit down and do a few test runs. What I'd probably do is use locally stored huge source files, and cap/crop/colour individual maps from them. The elephant int he room is how many maps would be needed for each planet; would we want one, one for each era, one for each major era? Planets that died off in the 1st-3rd Succession Wars are likely to only be on a small number of maps, but whatever era we go for the map is only relevant for a given period of time. Unless we create a gallery of maps for each world to reflect changes in ownership over time?
I have no idea how wikipedia managed to do that - compared to anyone with a modicum of training, I'm a gorilla with a set of colouring crayons, but at least what I do is simple! In theory, with a big enough map, some co-ordinates and a dose of javascript, it should be possible to do all sorts of things, but it's way above my level of competence.
Having created some maps at work for the Taurian Concordat from 2571 to 3067, it's amazing how densely populated the Star League era was compared to the recent age. Adding in all those dead planets is really going to up the planet count here... I had to change the default colour for the Concordat from that used in the official 3130 map though, because the colour is basically a nightmare to work with and keep text legible against. I'm hoping no-one will really notice, though! BrokenMnemonic 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, no one cares about the Taurian Concordat. Tongue.gif ::ducks:: --Scaletail 22:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
[wincing] Oooh...that's gonna leave a mark.--Rev (talk|contribs) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Numbers of maps: which ever one is best at 'locating' the subject planet. Clearly, the subject planet'll have to be on the map uploaded, but as long as there's enough of the image to locate where in the IS (or wherever) the region is, the actual date of the map is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.--Rev (talk|contribs) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template: PlanetOverhaul[edit]

Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. You may have noticed Mbear has created, and I've begin unveiling, a new template for the upcoming overhaul. I know you haven't yet, but because I know you're so passionate about the overhaul, I thought I'd ask you to refrain from posting the new template on the articles just yet. Doneve and I still need to finish up the faction categorizations and the overhaul effort still needs to be defined. Thanks, man. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, not a problem - I'm happy to stick to updating owner histories at the moment, and I'll wait until the all-clear before using the new template. Does this mean at some point I should actually join the planets project team? ;) BrokenMnemonic 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually hesitated from putting you on there. Doneve was already on there and since he's assisting me with the pre-overhaul stuff, he 'survived' the membership refresh. Feel free to join in, and that includes in the overall discussion, too.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Surreal Award[edit]

I've never given one of these before, but I think the chasing summary lines have brought a wry sense of humor to that oft-overlooked bit of virtual paperwork.

Surreal Award, 1st ribbon

Congrats. ;)--Rev (talk|contribs) 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, a new ribbon! Very cool. I'm a huge fan of shiny things! (One reason why I live in a house full of toys, books, films and games.) Although if I'm being awarded a surreal award, you should have one as well; after all, for surreal humour to work, two people at least have to be involved and aware that it's actually surreal humour in the first place... BrokenMnemonic 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Cop award[edit]

Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon Thanks for your efforts in tagging the spambots - though I do request to simply leave such pages alone in the future until an Admin deletes them which usually happens within a few hours (often minutes). Frabby 10:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there anything I can do to help with these spambots? I found your note on Doneve's profile about leaving their pages alone after the first 4 had appeared today, so I held off touching the adverts they were posting, but I thought breaking the redirect links might be ok. BrokenMnemonic 10:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say just to bring it to the attention of one of the day's more active Admins. I usually like to kill spammers first thing off, before crushing the morale of the users.--Rev (talk|contribs) 11:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I can always send PMs on the CBT forums to say that there's a spammer on the loose on the wiki. It's frustrating that I haven't yet worked out how to get one arm far enough down the intertubes to be able to remove a spammer's internal organs through their ears, but sooner or later I'll manage it... I'm a little wary of getting the admins attention before the first coffee of the morning though, in case any of the wrath, fire and brimstone comes in my direction. BrokenMnemonic 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning house after that spambot. Have another Vandal Cop Award (3rd Ribbon). Frabby 20:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Smiley.gif - that's the second destructive spambot we've had in a week, although the first one only seemed to go for fanon pages. I have a feeling from the pages that it rewrote that it was hunting through sarna for the words "child" or "kid" and then corrupting the articles it found. BrokenMnemonic 07:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Provinces, Regions & Factions[edit]

BrokenMnemonic, maybe because it's late and I'm tired, but I'm a bit frustrated. It's clear now that the idea of the reference gallery idea of mine is going to be difficult, much more complicated than I had thought.
Do you think you'll be able to develop the idea, take charge? I decided to upload maps per demanding requirements (see the above page's opening statement), but found out with the 2nd map there was no way to show all of the FedSuns' faction map, as early as 2571! I think we'll need to break the galleries down beyond just factions, but also regions (provinces, marches, etc.) That means, for example, not just grabbing an image of every map in, say, Handbook: House Davion, but cropping them so we get clear images of the marches over time. Instead of having a Federated Suns gallery, we need a sub-section gallery of the Federated Suns, say, Crucis March, where we follow that region over the years. So, now, it's no longer as simple as each faction, but includes regions, where necessary.--Rev (talk|contribs) 02:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, I think I can do that; the long answer is that I may not be able to do a complete job because I'm having a lot of trouble with one of the Handbooks, Handbook: House Davion. It doesn't seem to want to let me copy graphics the way Handbook: Major Periphery States does. I think the idea of breaking the areas down by region is a good one, because it'll let us show things like the existence of the Federated Suns Terran March while it existed.
There are a couple of areas where we're going to have problems, but I don't think they're insurmountable; I'm thinking of things like while it's fairly easy to plot those worlds that were a part of the founding of the Federated Suns, you need either a really big map or a digital copy of the handbook to track all of those other worlds that were settled but presumably independent at the same time - but that's probably a secondary priority compared to getting the Federated Suns founding worlds logged, for example. Era Digest: Age of War highlights that the United Hindu Collective was just one of a number of mini-states around at the time, but I don't think we're ever going to get a complete map of all the other states, which probably makes it less of an issue - we just cite where we have accurate records.
I'll start uploading maps ASAP, but I don't know when Handbook: House Kurita is out to allow me to produce maps of the Draconis Combine... BrokenMnemonic 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you have a plan, can get your mind wrapped around it, which is good. I feel this issue is important enough to the project, but the graphical/technical side of the house is a bit out of my realm.--Rev (talk|contribs) 11:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've started uploading maps of combat theatres in the FedSuns; it seemed the best way of uploading detailed maps without having them be absolutely huge, given that the FedSuns is a really, really annoying shape. Can you take a quick look at them, and let me know if they seem obvious in what they're trying to portray? If they are, I'll crack on with the FedSuns and Protectorate of Donegal maps done the same way. Ta! BrokenMnemonic 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I like that; I do. {Green eggs and ham, I am.)--Rev (talk|contribs) 00:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

1 Month Old Today[edit]

Time in Service (1 month)

Well, I created an account here one month ago today, and I've not been deleted yet, so it seems like a cause for celebration. There are donuts in my office at work if anyone would like one... BrokenMnemonic 10:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We're all so proud of you. Thirty days old and already uploading files, categorizing planets and cropping maps. As for the donuts: they taste a bit stale. They may be older than you.--Rev (talk|contribs) 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tamar Pact image[edit]

Hy, i see you uploade a new TP image, take a look on BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul/Faction Map Gallery, there some TP images uploaded by myself, ok there is no colour and cropped.--Doneve 17:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you've been uploading white cropped images - I've been working on some that are not as closely cropped so that those looking to track worlds near borders can see where the planets are moving during wars, and I've been colouring mine as a visual aid. I've already done some for places like the Taurian Concordat and Marian Hegemony, and I thought these versions would compliment yours. BrokenMnemonic 17:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Award[edit]

Thanks for bringing that vandal to our attention. Scaletail is better than I at following new users around, but this was also more insidious in that he registered days ago, before making his first edit. Please do us a favor, though, and don't make/mark the spammer's main page, as that can camouflage him a bit from us (if we miss your edits; I watch your edits like a hawk, but...Wink.gif). I pay more attention to the edits of editors/writers who don't do some of the practices other new registrants might. Also, please let one of the admins know, either on their talk page or at BattleTechWiki:Administrators.

Vandal Cop Award

Again, thanks for identifying the attack on the site.--Rev (talk|contribs) 11:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Willdo! If memory serves, there was at least one other account created at the same time that didn't post anything immediately, so there may be another one lurking. I noticed that this spammer also didn't post the usual kind of spam, but instead what looks like a template for a replacement web page. BrokenMnemonic 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I recall that too. I think you caught that one also. --Rev (talk|contribs) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd ask if that means another bar on the Vandal Cop award ribbon, but I'm worried that given that I tend to be only person pottering around here early-mid mornings GMT-time, I could end up listing to one side after a couple of weeks... Wink.gif
LOL. I generally give vandal cops the Pavlov treatment: you're never really sure when you'll get recognized. --Rev (talk|contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You realise that's only going to encourage my efforts to make spammers catch fire via internet-based pyrokinesis, right? Or maybe see if I can do a Scanners routine... BrokenMnemonic 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I am SO willing to risk that.--Rev (talk|contribs) 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor Faction[edit]

Morning, i think we can put on your new created Capellan Holdfast etc. a Minor Faction category link, what you are think.--Doneve 10:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Morning Smiley.gif) I wasn't aware of the Minor Faction category before you mentioned it, but having tracked it down, I think that's a good idea. I'll whistle around the various factions I've written up this morning and add it to them as well. The Capellan Zone seems to be a complete mish-mash of states of varying sizes, most of them knocking each other over on a regular basis. Thanks for pointing the category out! It'll be handy for me to use in the future. BrokenMnemonic 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

All Purpose Award[edit]

Thanks for attempting to help MechWarriorfreak‎‎ contact the Beas. Helping people new to the wiki is -in my opinion- the best way to encourage them to stay to help.

All Purpose Award

Thanks again. --Rev (talk|contribs) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't want him feeling ignored, and it was no trouble to help him out. I can't see Herb going with his idea though... BrokenMnemonic 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Explorer Corps[edit]

Evening ;), i take a look in Explorer Corps (sourcebook), and found a lot off not added systems, worls there have a relation ship (or taken) by the clans, what we do with this independent? clan controlled?... worlds.--Doneve 22:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Morning :) I've been meaning to dig out Explorer Corps (sourcebook) for a while, but I got sidetracked from Periphery nations to the Capellan Confederation because the maps are soooo pretty. Anyway... are you thinking of worlds that appear to be under de facto Clan control, or worlds that have been mentioned as having contact with the clans (and perhaps not the inner sphere) but for which there are no clear ownership details? BrokenMnemonic 06:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've dug out my copy of Explorer Corps. Are you looking at the various sites marked on the Periphery Map (Coreward Sector) on P.48? I notice the following pages give us some basics on each system on the map, but not a huge amount of detail, and only a small number of those worlds shown are occupied worlds... most seem to be transfer stations, orbital facilities or garrisons. I think I remember hearing mention of battles around some of them in various of the Jihad sourcebooks.
As the lanet entries are becoming system entries, I think we should record them... but I think all we can do is create an owner history with a single entry in, until we get more detail on them in future books, or until more references are brought in from other books. In terms of ownership, unless the text indicates that they're the subject of a trade relationship or the like, I think they need to be categorised by the Clan that has them listed as a facility.
I notice the text on P. 25 "Draconis Combine Facilities" mentions a WOB facility named Opotiki, too... BrokenMnemonic 19:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah i think so to, i create in next time orbital facility articles, then we can put this subjects to the Manufacturing Centers category, or the clan occupied worlds.--Doneve 19:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet Categorization[edit]

I'm finally done with my half of the alphabet, and Doneve is wrapping up his, too. Thanks a lot for categorizing while you were charting. So many times I'd open up 15 planets to try and pump some out over a span of a few lax minutes and groan when I'd see these really complicated histories. However, more often than not, I'd scroll down and see they were already categorized by you. And today, that was the case with the last two, and one had been done by you only yesterday. Thanks!
Once I get Doneve going on his Mission Phase 0, you and I can start working on Sarna, 'kay? I'll pull you over to our mission page when I'm ready. --Rev (talk|contribs) 19:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I've been able to help :) It's probably a dead giveaway that if there's a planet entry with more than six references in it's owner history, I've been fiddling around with it. I've been working through the maps in the handbooks, categorising all of the realm worlds, and cross-referencing periphery states with the maps in the various Handbooks. It didn't feel right to expand the ownership history without adding categories too, and I found a fair number of oddities in the pre-generated owner histories. That's why it's been taking me so long to do a relatively low population of worlds, though... I'm forever mixing and matching references and citations, and if someone's added planetary details or garrison details with citations, I've been using that detail for the owner histories as well. It makes it pretty slow going...
Anyway, I'm looking forward to working on Sarna, Rollis and Grossbach :) And not just because a break from the Confederation sounds like heaven at times... BrokenMnemonic 19:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Planetary Expansion?[edit]

Wow...simply wow. I've never seen the site grow by as many articles in a single day, even with sub or stub articles. Great job! Any idea how many articles you added? (And you still had time to review Historical: Reunification War?) --Rev (talk|contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... well, my main spreadsheet is at home, but from memory the Capellan Confederation has had roughly 480-500 systems within it's borders at any one time. I've been updating the histories based on the individual founding states, but I decided late last week to get all the Star League era worlds that have since vanished uploaded, as I thought that would be reasonably quick and simple. I think of the 480-500 systems, about 200-300 are still around and in various hands, so I've added maybe 200 systems. I do know my work on the Confederation plus the map uploads took me from about 1,100 edits to just over 1,500 in a week or so, although there are some other bits and pieces mixed in there like the RWR worlds Oystein confirmed were reappearing, and I've been slowly updating the OA worlds with citations. I'm not looking forward to adding in all the missing worlds from the other major states... and, frustratingly, because the Handbook maps skip from 2571 to 2822, there are worlds I can see on the 2750 maps in Handbook: Major Periphery States that I otherwise wouldn't know about, so if CGL produce 2750 era maps of the Inner Sphere (Historical: Liberation of Terra?) there could be another big tranche of worlds to add, even after going through all the Handbooks.
I didn't review Reunification War in any great detail, I just skimmed through looking at odd bits and pieces like particular worlds and battles, and details of mercenary/house/periphery units that were new to me; I was mainly focussed on seeing what maps there were, and getting an idea for whether any Periphery worlds appeared and disappeared between 2571 and 2750. It's no wonder the Taurians are paranoid - the Star League/House Davion annexed more than half the Concordat during the war. In fact, if they'd gone one world "deeper" into the Concordat across the board, the Concordat would've been reduced to basically the Hyades worlds and not a lot else. Ouch.
I took a quick read through Field Report: Periphery as well, and that's a bit of a painful read. I hadn't realised that the Magistracy was effectively an occupied nation for most of the Jihad, and I think it's great that we've finally got a decent map of the Hanseatic realm... but where are the maps of the Chainelaine Isles? BrokenMnemonic 11:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Not only did I learn a new word just now ("tranche"), now I see having you join us when you did was either a good or bad thing. "Good", because you're so dedicated to revealing what should be known but was not provided here or "bad", because you've just added 200 articles to the Overhaul effort, with a promise of a lot more to come. At the least, the "good" aspect will force you to be a driving force in the Overhaul. Hah! Serves you right!--Rev (talk|contribs) 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm a study in duality! Would it add weight to the good or bad argument if I mentioned the 75-80 new Outworlds Alliance worlds, 100-150 Rim Worlds Republic worlds and 50 or so Taurian Concordat/Magistracy of Canopus worlds I'd already added here while you weren't watching me too closely? ... Why are you holding a machete? BrokenMnemonic 14:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
[thinking] "Let's see...Lizzie many whacks?"--Rev (talk|contribs) 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's been a while since I took on a big single-article project like the Crater Cobras piece I did a few weeks ago... I could always stop adding planets for a while, do another couple of big articles, and give Doneve a chance to catch up with all the new planets? Although, there are all those maps that need to be cropped, coloured and uploaded, and they're so shiny... BrokenMnemonic 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
hey BM, have you added all the known systems (based on Oystein's maps, not counting what we may find when HB:HK comes out) already, or are you still missing a few more? -Volt 15:29, 24 February 2012 (PST)

Two jumps[edit]

BM, I don't think I missed this, but I want to be sure. The auto-generated maps made by Nic represent all planets within 2 jumps, but the ones you're replacing those with (or intending to, in any case) are not to that scale, right? --Rev (talk|contribs) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's correct - I've based the maps and their dimensions on rough visibility/viewing ease, and the scale in the source maps varies considerably. There's no easy way of marking a scale on there without recreating the source maps in something like Adobe Illustrator, which I don't have access to, I'm afraid. BrokenMnemonic 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
And that's absolutely fine. We just have to remember to remove that "Planets within 2 jumps" caption when we change out the images.--Rev (talk|contribs) 20:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I had a think about this last night, and I think I might be able to get a scale onto the images, if there's a scale on the source images I'm using. It's going to be fiddly and time consuming, but I'll do a test run with the 3067 FedSuns maps I'm going to be working on today. If I can get it to work, one of the problems is that all of the maps are going to end up being larger, increasing the chances of having to scroll the image if I'm to keep the text legible... BrokenMnemonic 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This could be interesting... However, I don't see having a scrollbar on the thumbnail and in the infobox being something that we can do. Even if we we want a scroll bar there?--Rev (talk|contribs) 11:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've managed to produce maps with two different versions of a scale on, based on the scales published in the handbooks. The problem with adding a scale is that it pushes the dimensions of the map up, because there has to be somewhere for that scale to go onto the map without disrupting the area on which attention is being focussed. Most of the maps I've produced with a scale on (that I'll upload tonight) are fairly large in terms of the area they cover, as they're for the map gallery, but the one that covers the smallest region is this one: File:Chaos_March_3067.png - I had to modify the captured scale image to get something that would fit, so making this map took about twice as long as the Chaos March 3058 map. Do you think it's likely to be useable for the local neighbours maps in the planet entries, given that those images are thumbnails? It might be worth replacing the thumbnail map on the Terra Firma or Capolla planet articles to see how the map might look when shrunk down. BrokenMnemonic 12:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Dude, take a look at New Avalon! I wanted to use it in an infobox, since that is where they'd be used. Whatcha think?--Rev (talk|contribs) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hy guys i think we can handle the scale map problem, by a vektor graphic programm that calculate this, thoughts.--Doneve 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks good on the New Avalon page, although the versions for planet entries will have the home province in white and the world in red; I'll hurry up and upload some of the bigger maps with more scale details on them so we can see how those work. So long as I remember to capture all of the maps at the same time, I can copy the scale from the main map and add it as another layer to the image, so it's superimposed on top - it's a little laborious, but not enough to stop me.
I don't really know enough about vector graphics to comment on whether using a programme that can calculate and chart them is a good thing or not - would it mean we'd need to redraw the map for each world? Would it show the scale, or would it show the jump rings?
Thinking about it... between the Manassas in Living Legends and the WOB super-jump drives, how confident are we as a wiki that the standard jump is always going to be 30 LY at most, going past the Jihad/Dark Age? BrokenMnemonic 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't go down that rabbit hole! That way be madness. Seriously, though: we can't speculate, only report. Don't fret about it.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok the super-jump drive, takes a longer jump distance, (we talk realy about super-jump drive distances), i think not, my indication was to bring a idea how we can handle this problem, a vektor graphic prog. can calculate from your stard point you are setted to each end point a vektor, oh, and we can fix the map size problem, you indicate the probs. of map sizes, and other parameters ref. point, target point etc. and bam you have the correct distance from planet to planet, i hope my writing was not to rough, i add a example in the next days, thanks guys.--Doneve 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you guys still need a means of determining distances (in LY) between two systems? I might be able to retool my coordinates list such that if I select a reference system I would see how far each of the other 3008 systems are from said reference system. Let me know if you guys would be interested in such. --Volt 15:35, 24 February 2012 (PST)
This is a great idea, go on.--Doneve 15:45, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Done!-Volt 20:19, 24 February 2012 (PST)


I realize you're heavily involved in the Faction Maps prep-work for the Overhaul (and Doneve and you are doing great work), but I wanted to let you know I'm going to start work on Sarna. The mission page for the mockups is here, though we'll be discussing our work here.
I'm will be taking a (very short) wiki-break in early September, and in preparation for that, I'm trying to get some balls rolling, so ya'll aren't necessarily waiting on me.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on the Sarna entry and pitch in where I can - I'm looking to use your work on the Sarna article to get the Rollis and Grossbach articles done. I'm still not overly familiar with how the templates work here, which is why I've been poking a couple of them to see how they work. Don't worry about keeping me busy, though - think of all those worlds from the Steiner, Davion and Marik handbooks are that vanished from maps and which aren't on the wiki yet. Maybe I could add another 600 worlds while you're on your break? BrokenMnemonic 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You could probably invent some, without anyone noticing.<ref>''House Amaris: The Triumph of the Meek'', p. 47, "The 75 Hidden Righteous Planets"</ref>
As for whatever planet you start off with, try to do it in phases, to test the method. I'd be interested in your perspective, as I see you following other team members along and filling in Phase 2 articles with the customized maps. The templates shouldn't be too much trouble for you; just cut and paste everything in this box and then fill in the relavant fields from the data that exists on the page already.
Gotta get home. Later. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The 75 Hidden Righteous Planets? I couldn't possibly do that. I'm too busy working up the bastion worlds Clan Wolverine created in the Deep Periphery to act as the last line of defence against the aliens trying to invade the Inner Sphere.
I'm going to start (carefully) poking the Rollis article to start getting it into line with the new template. One thing did occur to me, though; the maps showing the planets are most likely to come from one of three eras - either 3067 or 2750, and from the Handbook series, representing either the current state of play for still-inhabited planets or the Star League era for those planets that vanished before 3025, and then the Dark Age era for worlds mapped using the 3130 Inner Sphere map. Obviously, I'd include details of the source for the map in the map image file details, but would it be of use in the planet template to have a box to show the year the map represents? I'm thinking that for new users, a map is a map, and for long-time players, lots of names they don't recognise will intimate a Star League map, but that adding a map year in the planet article itself makes it more obvious at a glance what "kind" of planet the article is about. BrokenMnemonic 07:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think indicating the year of the map is a good idea, but in the caption would be best. I've petitioned Mbear to take a look at allowing captions to work in the style of infobox we're using. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Is the odd text artifact I've got in the image box in the draft Rollis article a result of the infobox style? BrokenMnemonic 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It is indeed. Look at how I did it with Sarna. That's how you get it to display 'properly' (if 'properly' also means inflating the image up to 285 pixels). Hopefully Mbear will be able to assist us.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All Purpose Award[edit]

I give you the All Purpose Award, 3rd ribbon All Purpose Award, for drawing my attention to the Documents category with your recent edits. --Neufeld 11:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. I only noticed the category myself yesterday when I saw someone (ClanWolverine101, I think) update a document on the Bell Accord. Since then, I thought "wouldn't it be good to include some of these documents that keep appearing in the references to Capellan Proto-States that are making assigning planet/state categories a complete nightmare" which goes to show that I'm clinically and certifiably insane. BrokenMnemonic 11:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Castilian Principalities[edit]

Evening, have you any info of the Castilian Principality, i found a little bit in Era Digest: Age of War, i added a red link (grm) in the year category 2392, i cant found another info of the subject, thanks.--Doneve 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I can't find anything in any of the books that I've got, although I'm missing the Jihad era books past Dawn of the Jihad, not counting Jihad Conspiracies, Interstellar Players and Masters and Minions. I had a look in the Explorer Corps, and that indicates that Nueva Castile was founded by Terran colonists from Iberia in the late 24th century (page 58). I'd Ask The Writers if they're the same thing - Nueva Castile's been picked up in The Blake Documents I gather, as well as Field Manual: Periphery and the Wars of Reaving. Every other realm established in that list in Era Digest: Age of War is a realm with an established history in canon and I recognise, which makes me think that the Castilian Principalities are an exiting realm with an odd name. ColBosche might answer, even though he's no longer a formal member of the writing staff, as he wrote ED: Age of War. That's my best guess, I'm afraid. Sorry I can't help more! BrokenMnemonic 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I notice that Field Manual: Periphery openly states that Nueva Castile was settled in 2392 - I'd say that makes it pretty much certain that the Castilian Principality was the original name for Neuva Castile, but I can't see anything that actually confirms that. BrokenMnemonic 07:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.--Doneve 10:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


Hy, please can you add a Phaso O template when you update planet pages, i appriciate this, i must tag hmm 1.900 planet pages, and it was great help by you, thanks.--Doneve 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Willdo - I just need to work out how ;) BrokenMnemonic 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks bud ;).--Doneve 18:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Phase 2[edit]

Hey, I think there may have been a lot of posts recently, so you missed this one to you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I did. Thanks for pointing it out! I'll dig the co-ordinates out of the resources area for Rollis. Is it ok for me to add the new co-ordinates to other worlds while I'm updating the ownership histories, or should I wait until the general template has been given the go-ahead? BrokenMnemonic 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Time-saver: the coordinates are provided in the Helpful Links on the project page.
You can, but be sure to post them with the template provided. However, Phase 2 is all about coordinates. They will be put in by whomever will be focusing in on only their Phase 2 assignment (when the missions start).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the Phase tag. Once you're done and it's showing as Phase 2, we'll start on Phase 3.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Preps for Phase 3[edit]

I realize you're still working on Phase 2 for Rollis, but I wanted to give you head's up that I envision you as the project cartographer, which means you pretty much 'own' Phase 3 for every mission. In that light, I thought you might want to consider the maps for the three Mock-up systems.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm pretty much done with Phase 2 for Rollis... and I have maps for Rollis, Sarna and Grossbach on my machine at work, ready to be uploaded. For once, I'm possibly ahead of the curve! BrokenMnemonic 12:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Aaah, great. Don't forget to update the Phase tag to show Phase 2 then.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


Hy, i think you want this map File:MallaC and FVC 3075.jpg, greting.--Doneve 11:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the map! I'm having a bit of trouble reading it, though - is it not set up for easy enlargement in the ebook? BrokenMnemonic 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thats truh, sorry but i dont have a better qulity.--Doneve 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


...for completing Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130)‎‎.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it part-finished and had some time this morning, so I thought I'd help out. It was a nice change from playing "find the missing planet"... BrokenMnemonic 12:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
See, I think that's the fun job!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Phase 0[edit]

Hy BrokenMnemonic, i finished the PlanetOverhaul Phase 0 tagging today.--Doneve 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done! You've beaten me and my lost worlds - I'm still working my way through the Lyran Commonwealth. BrokenMnemonic 12:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Intra-article links[edit]

Saw your edits to Forgotten Worlds. We usually link a keyword only in its first appearance throughout an article; linking it several times is an exception reserved for prominent mentions where a direct link makes sense over expecting the user to search for the first mentioning in the article (typical examples would be the Bibliography and/or References section, or the unit lists in novel/short story articles). Frabby 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was under the impression that keywords were linked the first time they were used in each paragraph or section, rather than the first time they're used in each article. I'll follow the convention in future. BrokenMnemonic 10:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! Frabby 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple systems sharing a name[edit]

Rev and I though it might be more appropriate to use numbers than a (potentially arbitrary) realm short to differentiate systems with the same name. See here: BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Planets/Planet_Overhaul#System_Naming_II_-_Systems_with_the_same_name. Frabby 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd been keeping a watching brief on the conversation on system naming, but I wasn't sure if it was being endorsed as policy yet. Rather than start moving articles around, I thought I'd follow what'd been done before - I've added several hundred new planets to the wiki over the last four or five weeks, and looking at my maps and notes, I've got less than 50 to go, all based in the Free Worlds League. Out of that 50, I'd be surprised if more than a couple result in duplicated names - I've only had to put in about seven or eight disambig pages or entries so far - so it may well be easier to simply add changing the name formats as a phase within the Planets Project than me doing something off my own bat with the last couple. Unless you specifically want me to try and use the next one I find (if any) as a test example? BrokenMnemonic 10:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody else on the project chimed in on the discussion, I figured there was a consensus and remembered it when I saw your Altoona (LC) action. It's not a great issue though and you're right that sticking to the established scheme is probably better until some formal policy or project guideline emerges.
Btw, thanks for putting up with my frequent "friendly helpful guiding" attempts. :) Frabby 10:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit, I didn't chime in on the conversation because I don't really need to have an opinion on it... It's one of those things where I just need to do what I'm told, and it doesn't make any objective difference to me which way is used. Although, if it's based on distance from Terra, I'm going to need to dig out my scientific calculator and dust off my hazy memories of trigonometry to work out which is the closer planet in some cases.
I wouldn't say I was putting up with your friendly helpful guiding attempts - I'm doing what I'm told ;) I'm very much the new guy here, as I've only been editing on the wiki for about six or seven weeks, so the onus is on me to learn how things are done, not to run around doing what I think's best and presuming I'm right. I'll leave that approach to people with larger egos than mine ;) BrokenMnemonic 11:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll weigh in here by only saying how utterly & completely wrong you are. Seriously, though: if you don't have an opinion one way or another, that's fine. But don't feel just because you're the new guy or not an admin or whatever criteria that you think is required for an opinion, that you can't speak up. Frabby and I have both backed away from a position that was clearly not the consensus view. Besides, you've already gone a long way towards establishing new procedures for Project: Planets. "We Demand Suffrage for BrokenMnemonic Now!!"--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Project: Planets Cartographer[edit]

Evening, BrokenMnemonic. This isn't so much an award as simple recognition for all your work in the Overhaul and the importance you hold in the effort to come. I commissioned HikageMaru over at to make this for your user page.

PP Cartographer.png

Hope you enjoy it! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very cool :) I shall add it to my user bar now, and display it with pride :) Of course, this also means I should probably make some more maps at some point... BrokenMnemonic 11:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I see your role as more than 'mapmaker'; you're helping us identify who owns what and where. 'Cartographer' may not be the best fit for the planetary jack-of-all-trades, but it sounds distinguished enough!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad_Syntax's project[edit]

Ack: almost forgot! VoltAmpere requested additional eyes on the coordinates project with which he is assisting Bad_Syntax. I told him you might be interested, as your interests here are related to that project, but it'd be up to you. Anyhow, I did tell him I'd contact you with the request.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I take it I need to get in touch with VoltAmpere via the CGL forums? I had a look on here and didn't see him registered... BrokenMnemonic 07:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I could have sworn he was registered here as (simply) Volt, but couldn't find him. I know he's posted here; he's credited conversations here with getting him in contact with Syntax.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll see about tracking him down from the CGL website when I get home tonight... BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Category names[edit]

You didn't ask, but...a category automatically alphabetizes an article by the article's name. However, when an editor wants an article to be alphabetized under a different letter (such as by last name; see Category:House Davion Characters as an example), he'll put a pipe ( | ) into the category and then the word he wants the article to be alphabetized by. So, for planets, there is no reason (of which I can think) to include a planet name after the pipe, as it will be alphabetized correctly without it.
"Knowing is half the battle." --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What I've been doing is correcting the spelling of a planet's name within the category field, because I've found a number of instances where planets have been misnamed both within the article name and the category name. I've been assuming that the names are specified after the pipe so that when planets have been renamed (Cussar to Barlow's Folly, Arn to Jia Tan, etc) it's possible to include a category for each name for people searching through the category list, rather than assigning a category to a redirect page - have I been getting that wrong? BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that, but I don't think it's working like you anticipated. Look for Arn on Category:Planets. It's listed as Jia Tan (in Arn's place). So, someone looking for Arn won't find it and if they don't know about the re-naming, then it does them no good.
Try this (I don't know if it'll work): go to Arn. You'll get redirected to Jia Tan; from there, find "(Redirected from Arn)" and click on Arn. Edit that page and put in [[Category:Planets]]. That way (I presume), it'll show up as Arn in the category, and when someone finds it in the category, they'll get re-directed to Jia Tan.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The most likely reason for it not working is that I haven't added the multiple categories to renamed planets yet Smiley.gif It's on this list of things I have to do, but I was distracted by the elephants... BrokenMnemonic 14:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay...I'll take your word for it. Got distracted by something I stepped in, as I was trying to look around the elephants.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
That wouldn't have been a problem if you'd kept the mice away from the elephants. You know how scared elephants are of mice... BrokenMnemonic 19:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ooooh....that's what they are! Very flat mice. There goes my food source.
When's this BBQ?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Did you receive my last e-mail? I ask, because I would like to ask a favor of you today, off-line. You can always reply in the affirmative or negative here. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, thank you - I'm sorry I've not responded yet, but you gave me a lot to think about, and I've been mulling it over. That email address definitely works via the sarna mail system, so send away - email's forwarded to my phone as well, so I should receive it pretty quickly even if I'm at work. BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sent.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Owner History[edit]

Hy, i found a little error in your new created planet pages, i think a copy and past failur, you add two 3052 years, and the reference say it was 3067, not a big think, but i want to talk to you.--Doneve 12:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this in the owner history section? If it is, then it's almost certainly a copy and paste failure - I caught a couple of Lyran Commonwealth planets where I did that. I thought I'd caught them all, but evidently I missed a few. Sorry about that Sad.gif BrokenMnemonic 12:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, when i came to the pages i fix it Wink.gif.--Doneve 12:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

3130 Map[edit]

Hy again, i think when we use references, we must provide a valuable link in the bibliography section, can you provide a link to the 3130 map, i think it is help full, when other users visite the planet pages and found a workable link, thanks.--Doneve 15:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK... all I need to do now is find out where Oystein hosts the map. I'll be right back... BrokenMnemonic 16:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've activated the bibliography citation as a link, beginning with McEvedy's Folly - let me know if I've got it right/wrong. BrokenMnemonic 17:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the citation is correct, but the link don't work?--Doneve 17:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on - it works for me, takes me straight to the .pdf file, which is loading up in my FireFox window automatically. BrokenMnemonic 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Untran vs. Achtur[edit]

Hy, i found this two planet articles Untran and Achtur, i think this planets merged together, the planet is renamed in circa 2786, and we can include all content in one article and set up a redirect, what are you say.--Doneve 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If the co-ordinates for the two of them match, I say go for it. In every other case where the co-ordinates match and the powers that be have been asked, they've confirmed it's the same planet back again, so I think in this case we can presume they're a match. BrokenMnemonic 17:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


Hy again, iam a little bit tired to add all co-ordinates separate to planet articles and then in the next task the infoboxes, i would to stard with the starsystem and planet infoboxes and include in one step infoboxes and co-ordinates.--Doneve 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can do that yet, although I can definitely understand why you want to. I think the problem at the moment is that there still isn't a concensus on what the articles should look like - so it may be decided that the infoboxes need to change. I haven't seen anyone complain about them recently, but I'm nervous about using them outside of the test articles until the format's agreed.
I dropped messages on the talk page of everyone on the Planets Project team roster and User:Frabby, asking them to comment on Rev's suggestions for how the finished articles to look; hopefully, they'll do that fairly quickly, and we can move on to making big changes to articles. BrokenMnemonic 18:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hm, i think it is not the problem to add infoboxes, i dont change the style of the pages i add only the infoboxes, and include data that is provided on the page, i dont change owner history etc., the Planet Overhaul say if you have system or planet data include this in the infbox, but ok i work further on the co-ordinates, i hope i found some mices to feed the elephant task.--Doneve 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oberon Confederation Map[edit]

Hy BM, i double checked the info, and i don't found any map in 25 Years of Art and Fiction, i remove the info from the summary template.--Doneve 10:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I take it this means I shouldn't rush out and buy 25 Years of Art and Fiction for it's maps of Periphery realms? BrokenMnemonic 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Draconis Combine Prefecture Maps[edit]

Hy again, i found on Østein's page some Draconis Combine Maps (3025), and stard with uploading, take a look on this link [3].--Doneve 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's rather cool, and gives us some good maps of the Combine in advance of the Handbook coming out. I wonder why I can't click on the Illyrian Palatinate, though? What does the map know about the Palatinate that I don't? BrokenMnemonic 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The Illyrian Palantinate link don't work i know, but the best on this flash map is, she provides some Unaligned Worlds in the Free Worlds Leage and other regions.--Doneve 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM, thanks for helping out by co-ordinates Smiley.gif, oh and i found some new planets in Bad Syntax database, i must check the source and maps of this and give you later a response.--Doneve 13:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help - I can't let you have all the fun Wink.gif So far, I've been through those planets that start with a J, K or Q.
Rev listed some new planets that need to be added here: Project Planet New Articles, which includes the Hanseatic League, Nueva Castile and the Járnfolk Planets. I know all of those are in BadSyntax lists. One thing I did find is that if you look at his list of dates in the master spreadsheet, if a planet only appears in 2586, then it's from the post-Reunification War map in Historical: Reunification War and we can't add the worlds yet until that book's out of the moratorium period. It might be worth adding those worlds to the planet article I mentioned above, though, so that we know they need to be done? I know I spotted a few planets like that, including one almost on top of Terra. BrokenMnemonic 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM, the Kage info is correct, it's from a novel, but i have at this time the book not to hand, please don't revert the edits, i add a {cn}.--Doneve 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that - I'll leave the page alone. I've been really twitchy about edits made by unsigned IPs after that spam attack this morning. BrokenMnemonic 10:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM i found this link, [4], download the pdf file and enjoy it Wink.gif, please give me a response, what you are think about this, i don't have a email address from you, i must give you this on this way, greetings.--Doneve 21:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get home, thank you Smiley.gif Rev managed to send me an email through the wiki, and I was able to reply to that (which passed on my email address) - if you can send me an email the same way, I'll do the same thing.BrokenMnemonic 07:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if it is of any use, but i have got several pdfs with maps of the whole inner sphere during the different eras on my computer. They seem to be correct. Can you use them? Harry 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry about how late my response is, this comment completely slipped my mind in the madness that is my daily commute home for work. Regarding the .pdf maps... it really depends on what their provenance is. Doneve and I are currently populating the maps directory with maps taken from the official sourcebooks, in part because a lot of details on other sources like the Inner Sphere Atlas project are inaccurate. If the maps are from an official sourcebook or a source like Oystein, then they could definitely be helpful. If they aren't from a canon source, then we can't really quote them... 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting file - someone's been very busy with Adobe Publisher! I don't recognise a few of them, so they must be from books I don't own or haven't read yet... Is there an index that references back to the original sources? It'd be easier working with one file than the 3 CDs of files I've been using so far. BrokenMnemonic 17:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM, i want to upload JSBD maps, but the pdf copy of the maps have a poor quality, iam in work to fix the quality and upload some maps in the next days, have you any tips for me how i can handle this problem, thanks.--Doneve 12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been playing with the maps myself, and it's incredibly frustrating trying to get accurate maps out of them. I haven't found any ways of cleaning the images up. I have worked out how to recreate things like nation borders using Photo Shop Plus, but I can only do that at work... what I've been considering for some of the smaller areas is making new maps using a mix of maps from Era Report: 3052, the various Handbooks and the 3130 map of the Inner Sphere, and crediting all of the individual sources. It's not a particularly quick process, though... And I just realised I haven't downloaded that file you sent me yet, either. I must hurry up and do that! BrokenMnemonic 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, i hope we found in next time a way to handle this problem, thanks.--Doneve 12:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

New File[edit]

Hy BM, take a look on this here Wink.gif.--Doneve 11:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Morning BM, have you a 2750 map from the Terran Hegemony, take a look on my updated Ambergrist page, i want to delete the 2750 entrie, i cant found a map that refers Ambergrist was a Terran Hegemony planet at this time, thanks.--Doneve 09:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The 2750 dates are a pain - they're an import from the IS catalogue. What I was looking to do with them was reference them against the First Succession War house maps. In this case, the 1st SW map for the Capellan Confederation clearly shows the border changes around the St. Ives Commonality, and indicates that Ambergrist didn't change hands - so it was a Capellan world already at the end of the Star League era. The Hegemony never stretched that far out, so it's a bogus entry - probably a case of someone getting co-ordinates mixed up at some point. I'd say the entry can be deleted - or you could change it to show the Capellan Confederation owning the planet at that point, and cite the 1st SW map as an authority.
I think that Historical: Liberation of Terra is likely to give us proper maps of the Star League in the late 28th century for the first time. BrokenMnemonic 09:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks BM, i delete the 2750 entrie, when Historical: Liberation of Terra is out, and we have new maps, i updated it by the new source.--Doneve 10:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM, i finished the last planets tagging, i work in next to update the owner history and add system and planetary infoboxes.--Doneve 15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me - I'm adding owner histories to planets at the moment. I didn't manage to get as many of the [e] upgrades done as I intended, but it still seemed like a lot of edits! No-one seemed to comment on the makeup of the planetary and system infoboxes when I asked for comments, so I think we can assume that those are ok. I'm working through maps adding in things like dates planets are identified as dying, and so on. I'm tempted to sit down with a copy of Historical: Reunification War and work through the various periphery nations annotating the battles, or maybe one of the Jihad books... BrokenMnemonic 17:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
At this time, every Planet page are have a [e] tag template, i work at next on occupied Clan planets owner history, must finish the Hell's Horses, Jade Falcon, Wolf, and Ghost Bear planets.--Doneve 18:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
One thing I noticed as I was going through adding the [e] templates and some owner history from The Blake Documents is that at some point, the Ghost Bear holdings changed from being the Ghost Bear OZ to the Ghost Bear Dominion - by 3075, it was the Dominion, and then by 3130 it was the Rasalhague Dominion, so a lot of planets are going to need both tags. BrokenMnemonic 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I know man, but the Rasalhague Dominon is etablished since 3060, i add this and fix other articlec for indication of the owner ship changes.--Doneve 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Was the Rasalhague Dominion established as the Rasalhague Dominion in 3060, or as the Ghost Bear Dominion first? The Blake Documents seems to indicate the latter. BrokenMnemonic 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Ha Ha Ha, i updated my comment, and hade a talk conflict when you talk to me, 2 minutes to slow ;).--Doneve 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes, I'm quicker than I look ;) BrokenMnemonic 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You are right, the Rasalhague Domionion etablished later, and the Ghost Bear Domion was before, i forgot to talk to you, how we tag this [Clan Ghost Bear], [Ghost Bear Domionon] at there first time or ?? ;).--Doneve 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to make sure to keep the distinction between [Clan Ghost Bear] and [Ghost Bear Dominion]. The tag [Clan Ghost Bear] shows when the planets were part of the occupation zone, and the [Ghost Bear Dominion] only came into being when the Ghost Bears relocated their entire population to the Inner Sphere - before that, it was an occupation zone, with just their military troops in place, whereas the Dominion was an actual nation-state. BrokenMnemonic 18:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

second view[edit]

Hy bla bla :), please can you take a second overview of my new planet entrie Alleghe, i think it works!!--Doneve 20:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me! BrokenMnemonic 06:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM, i give you this All Purpose Award, 4th ribbon award, for your great efforts to update some planets by Historical: Reunification War info, i love to read your entries.--Doneve 11:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's very cool, thank you Smiley.gif I'm trying to avoid plagiarising Historical: Reunification War, but at the same time I want to make the articles the sort of article I'd like to read and refer to, rather than just a list of facts. It helps that the Reunification War is one of my favourite BattleTech eras! BrokenMnemonic 11:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like the Reunification War era to, but i still favor Operation Exodus, the Liberation and the terrible battles on Terra.--Doneve 11:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Outworlds Alliance: Reunification War[edit]

I'm looking at updating the Reunification War entry on the Outworlds Alliance/Operation UNION HOLD, using some maps I uploaded last night to show the battles broken down by year. Are the maps clear enough to be legible? The 2583 map in particular looks very cluttered to me. BrokenMnemonic 08:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM, good news, take look in Mercenaries Supplemental II p. 39, "Green Mountain Boys Unit Profile", there came the info, i add a ref. note to the Risin page.--Doneve 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's good news. And a really, really good example of why people should add more citations. I'd never have thought to look in my hard copy of Mercenaries Supplemental II under a different unit name. Excellent job, thank you :) BrokenMnemonic 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pitcairn Legion article[edit]

Your Pitcairn Legion article is excellent. Please add this Good Article Award, 1st ribbon to your awards board.--Mbear(talk) 17:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow.... that's really kind of you, thank you Cheesy.gif ... although now I've got to try and do better with my next big article, on Operation UNION HOLD! BrokenMnemonic 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor Characters[edit]

Hy BM, have a All Purpose Award, 5th ribbon for your great efforts to add minor characters from the reunification war era, and your great artilces.--Doneve 16:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) I have been rampaging through the ranks of minor characters, trying to finish up on the Outworlds Alliance part of the Reunification War, but I have some big articles yet to write - most of which are biographies. The Welkens Nordd article took ages, and his one was simple...
I'm going to add that to my awards board now Cheesy.gif BrokenMnemonic 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Named Vessels[edit]

Hy again, please can you take a looke to the Winchester article, i stard to add Named Vessels from Historical Reunification, but i need a feedback if my minor description is ok, thanks.--Doneve 19:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm awake again I've taken a look, and I think most of them are fine - there are a couple where the phrasing's a little odd, so I've tweaked them a little, but I think in general you're getting them right :) BrokenMnemonic 07:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Thhhpppttt!! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I bet he didn't do a programme on the adult film industry on Restitution though! BrokenMnemonic 13:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't rule it out, though. Wink.gif --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


Hy BM, i cleand up the pages there have to many bolds, you are right by your talk to Frabby.--Doneve 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doneve Smiley.gif I know it's a mistake I made when I first started here. It helps that I can be very literal when looking for references ;)


Hy BM, i take a look on the Terra page, and want to create a Mars planet page, there is a lot of info what provide to create a new page linked to Terra, yeah the name on the map say Sol and mean the Sol system, but for futer articles like [Venus], [Titan (moon or planet)] etc., mentioned in Jihad: Final Reckoning, and i think the Terra page becomes to long integrade all data in on article, i would to say its usefull to seperate them, what you think about that.--Doneve 09:16, 19 December 2011 (PST)

I think that given the amount of detail that's now out there on all of the worlds in the Sol system, what we should do is what's done with some of the articles on bigger military formations, like the Outworlds Alliance Militia or the Magistracy Armed Forces - have a section at the top that covers information common to all of the planets, but make each planet article a main article in it's own right, linked back to the main Sol system article. Does that make sense? I can't see another way that would keep the system article short enough to be useful, and there's already a precedent established through things like the Nation articles having seperate sub articles for particular parts of their history. BrokenMnemonic 11:14, 19 December 2011 (PST)
When we create at first a Sol system article and then linked to some planets Terra, [Mars], etc, we must difference between SOL system and Terra!--Doneve 11:22, 19 December 2011 (PST)
I can see a disambiguation page being needed, given that on every map I can think of, the system is shown up as Terra... BrokenMnemonic 00:40, 20 December 2011 (PST)

58th Brigade article[edit]

Hi BM, this is a very non-descriptive article name. Suggest moving it to "58th Brigade (SLDF)". Frabby 03:37, 19 January 2012 (PST)

Well, I can do that... it'd be a little time consuming though, because it's the 13th article I've written in the same format, all dealing with SLDF brigades from the Reunification War. I hadn't considered it much of a problem because the naming convention for the SLDF brigades in this format has only been used within Historical: Reunification War, which is largely self contained and which I suspect was invented for that particular sourcebook. If you want them all changed, I'll sit down and move them after I finish the article I'm writing at the moment. BrokenMnemonic 03:53, 19 January 2012 (PST)
All the brigade articles I've written have been renamed. No-one else is doing updates from Historical: Reunification War that I've seen so far, so hopefully there aren't any other articles out there with the same naming convention I was using. I'll make sure that future brigade articles follow the new naming convention.BrokenMnemonic 04:31, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Good work on this! Have a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon. ClanWolverine101 08:20, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Thanks for swiftly altering the title format! Frabby 10:08, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Thanks for the award, ClanWolverine101, it's very kind. I've only got another 50 or so brigades to go and they'll all be done... BrokenMnemonic 10:31, 19 January 2012 (PST)

Alliance Borderers[edit]

Morning BM, can you take a look on the Alliance Borderers page, i make some copyedits on it, and want your mention if looks good, or i must fix some thinks, thanks.--Doneve 19:26, 27 January 2012 (PST)

Hi Doneve,
I had a look at the Alliance Borderers page yesterday, and thought about it in the evening. I see why you're altering the format, and it's an area where I think we could do with a standard format, but I think the new format you've used has a couple of problems.
I think that the sub-units should really be organized in such a fashion that units of the same size are at the same indentation level. In the 3067 entry for the Borderers, I didn't realise that the 1st Battalion had become the Command Battalion at first, making me wonder what had happened to the first battalion.
I also think that using a hyphen or dash to seperate out the CO's details doesn't really work grammatically, particularly as each is followed by an abbreviation and then a colon. It doesn't help that the information sources aren't really consistent in how they give us information, either. I know that tables aren't the preferred format for information here in a lot of cases, but the sub-units could almost do with being a table.
The third problem that niggles at me is the comment on the 3025 composition of the Borderers regarding their infantry, armor and DropShip support, which is currently inset using a hyphen - I think it looks better to use a nota bene (N.B.) which means "pay attention to this next part" - it flags up important information added as a sidenote or a rider to a statement.
Looking through some of the books, the information we get on the regiments and their sub-units, ignoring the original House books, generally consists of:
  • The unit type (Mech, armour, infantry, etc)
  • The unit's experience rating (Elite - Green)
  • The unit's reliability rating (Fanatical/Reliable/Questionable)
  • The unit CO/XO.
The older sourcebooks muddy the waters by giving us things like the unit weighting (Light - Assault), and details like whether the units have DropShips/JumpShips and AeroSpace support. Sometimes, the unit CO isn't the CO of one of the sub-units, just to make life even more complicated. As the information given isn't consistent, it makes it difficult to come up with a consistent format that's going to catch everything.
I'm going to tweak the Borderer's format a little, to see if I can make the 3025 and 3067 entries look a little more like each other. Give me a few minutes, and then take a look and let me know what you think. You've got me interested in seeing if you and I can come up with a standard format for laying out sub-units now! Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic 01:17, 30 January 2012 (PST)
Addendum: Neuling's just over-written about half of the formatting changes I'd made this morning. To see what I did, you'll need to go through the various revision histories. This does mean that you've got several versions you can compare now, though. BrokenMnemonic 02:06, 30 January 2012 (PST)
Sorry BrokenMnemonic, I read your message and would not destroy your work. My opinion was to put more details at the Borders site. Please take alook at the sandbox and give me your impression about the formating of the composition. I find a way to include the data from the Field Manual: Update without plagarism. I hope with your help I can improve my work further. Neuling 02:15, 30 January 2012 (PST)
Hi Neuling, it's not a big issue - I actually found it fairly humourous that even as I was talking about formatting with Doneve, the article as being updated by yourself. You presented the information in another format, different to any of the previous three, which gives another option to look at.
One of the things I've been thinking about is the way that the Field Manuals tend to only give a short piece on each unit, but those short pieces are more than we're going to get in the future according to the Developers over on the CGL forum, because the Field Manuals don't sell well. That's had me thinking that perhaps the military unit project team need to have a think about how they want the articles structured, because we may not have the information available to update a composition history in future books. I think that means we may need to make more use of narrative paragraphs in the composition than the kind of formatted lists we've been using until now.
I'll have a play in the sandbox, and see what I can do - take a look when I've had an edit, and see what you think? BrokenMnemonic 02:40, 30 January 2012 (PST)
I think the layout for Field Manual 3085 is an good example how the future Field Manual could be made. The Field Manual provide for every faction the exact struture (only the aerospace fighter are missing). In combination with the deployment table and the known format of the technological level and the commanding officers we had enougth to do. The Wars of Reaving is also another example of the predicted development for me.Neuling 02:53, 30 January 2012 (PST)
I haven't had a chance to read FM: 3085 yet (I've been busy doing Reunification War updates here) but I've got a copy of War of Reaving here at work with me - can you give me a couple of page numbers from WoR as examples to look at? BrokenMnemonic 03:01, 30 January 2012 (PST)

Alliance Air Wing[edit]

Hy again BM, please take a look on the various "Alliance Air Wing" articles, i think some merged with the Avellar Guard, Alliance Borderers and Alliance Grenadiers.--Doneve 05:42, 28 January 2012 (PST)

I dug out my copy of Field Manual: Periphery and found the articles on the Alliance Air Wings, and it's... interesting. I think the Outworlds Alliance is the only nation where the BattleMech units are sub-units of the Air Wings, rather than vice-versa. It certainly creates an interesting problem.
I think that where the units don't have a particularly long and detailed history at the moment (like the Long Road Legions) then we should look at merging the Mech unit details into the parent Air Wing unit article. Where there is a lot of history for the ground unit, I think we should keep them as a seperate article, and link to the article from the Air Wing article using the main article link format, as is used over in the Magistracy Armed Forces page where it gives a brief blurb on each brigade with a link to the main article on that particular formation. Rev made a point to me that if a unit was particularly active in a certain war, then it made sense to spin out a seperate article on that subject; I think the same principle applies here. The Avellar Guard don't have a particularly distinguished or memorable history from what I can remember - I certainly don't remember seeing a lot on them in print - so I think they can be just a sub-section within the 1st Alliance Air Wing. The Alliance Borderers and Alliance Grenadiers do have a fair amount of history though thanks to the Reunification War write-ups, so I think they should stay as seperate articles, but should be linked to within the 3rd/5th Alliance Air Guard articles. Does that sound reasonable? BrokenMnemonic 01:51, 30 January 2012 (PST)
Yes that sounds really good to me, added links to the Alliance Air Guard pages.--Doneve 06:58, 30 January 2012 (PST)

support for Maps project[edit]

Hello BrokenMnemonic, I will help you with the project to provide high quality maps for the community. Please tell me where can I help and what should be done. Here you have two examples of my work CSJ and CNC OZ 3052.png + FWL 3079.jpg. Neuling 02:48, 30 January 2012 (PST)

Hi Neuling,
We're having a chatty morning today, it seems Smiley.gif
I'm more than happy to have help with the mapping work that Doneve and I are doing. There's a gallery that's been created for the Planets Project, and is intended to help people updating the owner history sections and other bits of each planet article; the gallery's located over here.
Doneve and I have been working through each book that has a decent map in electronic form that we can find; Doneve's been working mainly in black and white, while I've been re-colouring the black and white maps from things like the Era Reports and Handbooks. The guidance that Revanche gave is that each map should be clear enough that it's easy to find the planet you're looking for, but not so large as to make it impossible to work out where the planet is in relation to the various interstellar regions and nations around it.
What that means in practical terms is that the largest a map tends to get is about the size of a Federated Suns Combat Region, or a single Draconis Combine Prefecture. When we're ready to go with the planet article updates, all of the nearest neighbours maps will become maps at the same sort of resolution and size. If you go through the map gallery and have a look at the maps I've made, you'll see that each of the maps is designed to display without scrolling on a 1200px wide display, and each map is centred on a particular region. I've either coloured all of the map, or I've coloured every region other than the central region on each map. This makes it easy to work out where the world lies in relation to nearby states, as the colour scheme used is the same as that used in the Inner Sphere 3130 map - I'm effectively using the official colour scheme.
Generally, I make the maps by zooming in on the maps in the sourcebooks, copying them at a large scale, adding in the scale, taken from the same master map at the same resolution, before reducing and cropping the image to a good size before recolouring it in Photoshop.
Does all of that make sense? It'd be worth having a look through some of the maps uploaded to get a feel for the right kind of size and resolution. Not all of them have scales on, unfortunately - it took me a while to work out how to do that - but I'll go back and update them all at some point. I haven't made many maps recently because I'd hit the point where they were taking a lot more time, because I'd done all the easy bits and needed to start getting maps from two pages and overlaying them on top of each other because the spine of the book runs through the area I want to map, and because I was waiting for a couple of books to come out of the moratorium period, before I got distracted by the Reunification War.BrokenMnemonic 03:21, 30 January 2012 (PST)


In Historical: Reunification War the planet is spellt as Wrociaw but on the wiki it is spelled as Wroclaw, i set up a note section to the article, i think it's a typo, what you are thinking about this.--Doneve 16:56, 7 February 2012 (PST)

I've done a check of Handbook: House Steiner, Historical: Reunification War, Era Report: 3052, Field Report: LAAF and the IS 3130 map, and the only one that spells the world as "Wroclaw" is Handbook: House Steiner. Handbook: House Steiner spells it like that on every map, though. I've put a question up in the Ask The Writers forum over on the CGL website, with a link in my profile under "unanswered questions." I'm pretty much certain that it's an error in Handbook: House Steiner, but I want Oystein to confirm it as such. There are other maps that still could do with being checked - Era Report: 3062, the Inner Sphere book whose title escapes me, possibly Field Report: Clans, but at the moment it may be worth us moving the article to Wrociaw and noting that Wroclaw is most likely the erroneous name, but I'm inclined to wait for a couple of days and see if Oystein responds quickly. Good catch! BrokenMnemonic 00:12, 8 February 2012 (PST)
ETA: Øystein has spoken - Wrociaw is correct, Wroclaw is the mistake. I'll move the article now. BrokenMnemonic 00:24, 8 February 2012 (PST)
Wait, what? Wow that thing flew under my radar... updating my database to Wrociaw... Do you guys have a list of Systems with either alternate names (Erin = Von Strang's World, etc...) or list of typos so that we can work on redirecting, in case some people decide to search the wiki looking for a system that's misspelled in-publication?--Volt 15:48, 24 February 2012 (PST)
I had a conversation with one of the admins about tracking these small errata and clarifications, and the short version is that there isn't a centralised record of them here, because it should be a CGL responsibility to track that sort of thing. However, as I'm not entirely comfortable with that, what I've been doing is this; whenever I become aware of a correction like this (I watch the Ask The Writer/Ask The Developer forums a lot) I make a correction here, and cite the original source with a link and a direct quote. You'll see an example of that if you check the planet entry for Wrociaw here.
What I've also been doing where planets change names is that I update the article to reflect the latest name, but I include a Wiki redirect for the earlier name that moves readers straight to the later article. Searching for Erin takes you to the article on Von Strang's World, for example. I also do the same with common spellings where I'm aware of them, and I set up redirects for any planet names where the name includes non-standard characters for a UK or US standard keyboard like á and the like. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best I could think of given that Doneve and I are kind of the planet-spotters here on Sarna. The planet co-ordinates lists you and Bad_Syntax are producing have helped, because before I was checking for planets reappearing by fiddling with map overlays in Photoshop and hardcopy maps, which is a tad time-consuming. BrokenMnemonic 16:05, 24 February 2012 (PST)
I'm glad the list helps, if you need me to produce information for you for whatever reason from the list let me know. I'll work on the computing of linear distances between systems after a few errands. In return I only ask for your souls, or better yet, feedback on pre-2571 system ownerships. I've read on some of the talk pages on systems that maps display them as "independent" but are really part of a minor faction (like what you said about Nanking). I'd like to get that data into this list so that people would be able to identify them accordingly with the same ease that you are able to on the reappearing maps.
I'd also need to revise the spellings on some of the systems on the list, as previously I've only used the 26 alphabet characters to spell out the systems. Gonna be hella fun I bet--Volt 16:12, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Sorry for the late response, I had guests for the weekend and somehow my cable modem ended up not working, so I have been internet-bereft for the last three days. I'm currently shaking from withdrawal Wink.gif
Thank you for the offer of information to help - that could well be helpful in the future. I know that the co-ordinates list is often ahead of us here on Sarna because of the three-month moratorium on using sources here, which made it very useful for me when I was uploading dead and lost worlds because I could see extra worlds from the 2596 map entry before I could use them.
The problem with the pre-2571 worlds is that pinning the Developers down on things is... difficult. Having spoken with Øystein a little on the CGL forum, I get the feeling that there's a lot that isn't clearly defined because of how FASA handled and recorded their information (or didn't). I'd put together what I thought was a 80%+ accurate suggestion for the 7 worlds of the Muskegon Coalition/Empire based on the 2317 map in HB:HD, the 2366 map in HB:HL and details of the wars between the various states in the area recorded by the two original House Liao and House Davion books, but Øystein refused to commit. It sounds as if he had a hell of a time trying to put together the original founding maps, and trying to confirm anything prior to that isn't a priority for them at the moment. Although, interestingly, I asked a question about Genoa because the epublication Dark Age Republic Worlds (3130) contradicted an earlier source for the founding date of Genoa, and Øystein not only gave me the exact year Genoa was settled, but also said that it was the 115th colony. That implies that there's a list showing at the least, the first 115 colonies to be settled and the years they were settled in.
I'm now slogging through books updating planet articles with owner history details from areas other than maps, but it's slow going and intensely frustrating. A lot of planets change hands in vague ways, and you'd think it'd be easy to pin down which planets are involved in certain events, but it really isn't. I've been trying to work out what the "11 independent Capellan planets" were that McKenna conquered in the early 24th Century, based on the 2366 era map, but it's a classic example of being able to get fairly close but not actually being able to get a good answer. If you look at the 2366 map, Brownsville, Mandal and Bex are all worlds that appeared between the Free Worlds League 2271 map and the 2366 Capellan map, so it's unlikely that any of those three are involved. The Tikonov Union conquered Tybalt, Rio, Mirach, Ruchbah and Algol (whcih I think should actually be Angol) as the Terran Alliance was collapsing. So, if Ruchbah was a part of the Tikonov Union and then Grand Union, does that mean it wasn't an independent system in the context of the quote above? The Star League sourcebook talks about the attack on Ingress, which fits the time frame, as well as the capture of Terra Firma, Capolla, and even "distant Nanking". House Liao talks about the Nanking Collective, the Chisholm (Elgin) Protectorate and the war the Tikonov Grand Union fought in 2336-2339 with the Terran Hegemony over the Chisholm Protectorate. So, Nanking and Elgin/Chisholm weren't independent systems because they were a part of the Chisholm Protectorate... but which other planets were? The local geography would suggest that Hsien probably was, as Arboris, Genoa, Zurich, Aldebaran and Gan Singh are all described as independent worlds that joined the Duchy of Liao over fears of being snapped up by bigger neighbours. The detail on the Nanking Collective and Chisholm Protectorate mentions "several other worlds", though - so there should be at least 3 more worlds that were a part of that union. If Ruchbah was a part of the Tikonov Union, does that mean that Tigress, Achernar and Basalt should be, as they lie between the Union in 2366 and Ruchbah. Basalt's described in Dark Age Republic Worlds 3130 as being one of the first systems discovered or settled (I forget exactly which) so it would seem odd for it to be an old colony and yet for it to not be annexed by the Union at some point. There aren't that many worlds in the area that could've been conquered by the Hegemony within the time frame given, but TPTB won't confirm which worlds were... even though it would seem reasonable to say that the list should probably include Capolla, Terra Firma, Acamar and Woodstock. The Federated Suns is the new kid on the block, but we don't know where it's border with the Draconis Combine was. We do know that the Marlette Association was getting squeezed between the Tikonov Grand Union, the Chesterton Trade Federation and the Draconis Combine... but does that mean that everything south of Tybalt counts as being in "the Capellan Zone"? If it does, does that mean that Fletcher, Ingress and Sheraton do? And all of this thinking is me working under the assumption that the 11 independent systems were 11 independent systems, not, say, 6 independent systems and the Nanking Collective because the original writers were frustratingly vague and imprecise.
You can see the sort of fits I'm having trying to work this stuff out. I'm currently working on a lot of nations as if they're logic puzzles. For example... The Chesterton Trade Federation isn't shown on any maps. I know it was a sister nation to the Tikonov Union and a member of the Tikonov Grand Union, but the TGU is now reading more like a big mutual defense pact rather than a nation. I know that Chesterton warred with the FedSuns over Beten Kaitos and Emerson, and that at some point in the 2320-2350s the Trade Federation was annexed or conquered by the Sarna Supremacy. My betting's that it was conquered during the 2351-2352 Supremacy/Union War, but the writers appear to be ignoring my question. When Reynard Davion landed troops on Bell and demanded Highspire and Chesterton from the Sarns, sourcebooks talk about the Sarns being surprised having only recently absorbed the Federation. So, Bell, Chesteron and Highspire were Federation worlds, and in the case of Highspire, that means the Federation gained Highspire after the end of the Capellan Hegemony, because Highspire was an independent world until the Hegemony and the Sian Supremacy rescued it from pirates. So, the Chesterton Trade Federations stretched as far as Bell and Highspire... but didn't include Jonathan, because Jonathan is clearly a longtime Sarn world by the time of the 2351 war from text in the early sourcebooks. New Aragon apparently was a Chesterton World, but St. Andre and Tsitsang were Capellan Hegemony worlds before their big war with the Sarna Supremacy in the early 2300s. Halloran V, Mira, Mesartim and Almach are considered Chesterton worlds by the Confederation, but were also heavily contested border worlds between the Tikonov Union and the Marlette Association... despite being very close to Chesterton and somewhat further from Marlette. We know that the Confederation tried to recapture the Chesterton worlds during the 1st Succession War, but failed to nab Chesterton itself. However, they did snag several worlds including Ulan Batar and Farwell, so we know those worlds were Trade Federation worlds originally. Does that mean that Goshen, Tecumseh, Axton and Valexa were? It would seem sensible, but based on past conversations in the Ask The Writers area, TPTB won't confirm.
Reynard Davion managed to grab a number of worlds from the St. Ives Mercantile Association in the 2340s, but the text indicates Tikonov held it's own, even though Tikonov came under attack for the first time in it's history. If Mirach was a Grand Union world, but Mira, Mesartim and Almach were contested border worlds, does that mean that Castleton and Schedar were Marlette Association worlds? Or even Draconis Combine worlds, perhaps? Marlette was presumably the capital of the Marlette Association, so it would seem sensible for Logandale and Gooderich to be Association worlds too... but what about Tawas, Sanilac, Edwards and Listowel?
It feels like it should be easy to sit down and map these nations out, but there just doesn't seem to be quite the right level of detail there to do it. And it really bugs me (as you can probably tell). Anyway, I'm happy to pass on those dates for planets that I can confirm an ownership history, and I can also do things like indicate where I know worlds were part of a nation even if I don't know when, although I'm not sure how much help that will be. I've not gone any further than 2399 yet, because it takes a fair amount of time to sift through the books, but what's the best format to pass you the information in?
After all this work, I'd love to see a Second Exodus Turning Point: Capellan Border Wars, just to make me feel as if all of the blood leaking out of my ears was worth it Tongue.gif BrokenMnemonic 00:43, 27 February 2012 (PST)
haha sounds like asking for your soul would have been the easier path, eh? Before I released the updated coordinates, I was discussing with Syntax about limiting the starting year to 2571 because of absence of consistent data on the founding years (truth be told I'm still 49% inclined to just "Delete Columns" that entire range). My problem is that I have very little Inner Sphere related source material because the Clans are more to my liking (though that has not helped me unlock the ownership of each of the KCluster worlds from 2821 to 3067, much like what you described above)
I think a format something like <SYSTEM NAME> <FACTION1> <FACTION1 START YEAR> <FACTION2> <FACTION 2 START YEAR> ... <FACTION X> <FACTION X START YEAR> would work, from whatever year it was clearly identified (by Map or by Narrative) until it's faction in 2571. Once that is identified, we could then filter who owned those systems in 2271, 2317, 2319 2341, & 2336. Or you can just fill in the data straight to my systems by era.xlsx file. Actually, I've been meaning to get that very information from what's already available at BTW and put it in my spreadsheet in order to reduce those pesky blank cells I have all over the place.-Volt 02:17, 27 February 2012 (PST)


Hy BM i hope allways is well with you, i read your talk on the Characters page, i think we can create sub categories and put the bios in, like independent etc.--Doneve 13:08, 12 February 2012 (PST)

Hy Doneve, I'm largely ok. How're you doing?
I think we should create sub-categories too - after all, we already do it for planets, and I think it works really well there. I'm hesitant to just go out and do it though, because there is a characters project team I think, and because the current organisation of the categories isn't really... logical, I guess. I can't work out why some of the categories are named for Houses but seem to catch everyone from the successor state that family rules (the way everyone from the Federated Suns falls into the House Davion characters category) while everyone from the Star League, Terran Alliance or Terran Hegemony ends up in a category named for the state. I'd prefer to go for a state-based naming system with the House categories being for those people related to particular families that get a lot of attention, but it doesn't feel like it's my call to make... BrokenMnemonic 23:50, 12 February 2012 (PST)


Hello BrokenMnemonic, I create a modified map from IS map 3052 and here is the example Kagoshima-Prefecture-3054.png. What do you think about it. I can do the same for manufacturing centers like you know from the Objectives Series.Neuling 10:05, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Hi Neuling,
Well, my first thought is that I like the idea, and I like the way you've tried to do it. I've been experimenting with maps to illustrate campaigns myself. I don't think what you've done is quite right yet, but I think you've made a very good start. So, if I sound critical, remember that I do like what you're doing.
I think you have a few problems with the image, though.
1. The image is both too large and too small. When you zoom in to full resolution, only a small portion of the map is visible - you have to scroll around to work out where everything is, which isn't great for a deployments map. When the map's not zoomed, the text is just a bit too fuzzy to be easily read on the unit descriptions. I think it's partly a font problem; some fonts just don't read well when reduced. It's entirely legible when the image zooms in, though. I think you'd do better to size the base picture initially to about 1200 x 720 pixels - that's a good size for full resolution here on sarna, and about as big as pictures can get on here while still being useful. That should make the font look crisper, although you may need to try a few alternative fonts; I find Tahoma resizes quite well, or some variants of Arial.
2. Some of the unit text boxes are a little awkwardly placed. This is a difficult problem to do a lot about, because when Oystein makes his maps, he has the advantage of being able to move the planet names around easily - I can do that with some copying/pasting/moving, but it can be a little fiddly. If you look at the deployment maps in places like Historical: Reunification (I've been referring to the one on p. 94 a lot recently) you can see some of the tricks Oystein has used to make the map more legible and useable. He's moved the individual unit boxes around so that they don't cover the name labels for any of the planets, and the unit names are all larger in font pitch than the planet names, to make them more obvious. The labels also tend to cross borders at fairly sharp angles in most cases, to prevent the edges of the labels from blending into the border lines. I don't know if you're planning on showing both of the OPFOR deployments - it looks like only DCMS units are listed at the moment - but if you're going with DCMS units only, then you could increase the size of the unit labels a little and move them around to make them a little more obvious and legible. Some examples of what I'd do are:
  • Move the 22nd Dieron Regulars label left, towards Bangor and Jeronimo, and make it larger; then move the 8th Ghost label up and make it larger.
  • Move the 24th Dieron Regulars label up and right, so that it's above the Cheriton label and to the right of the McAlister label, and increase it's size.
  • Move the 32nd Galedon Regulars and 4th Pesht Regulars labels up and left, to be more squarely under Jeronimo, and move the Ryuken and 2nd Dieron labels up to join them, making them larger in the process. You might need to move the Marshdale planet label left a bit to have them all fit. You could then move the 8th Dieron label up above the Meinacos planet label, underneath the Pesht label, and make it larger and go for straight line connection to the planet.
  • Move the 1st ALAG label up next to Cyrenaica, and then copy and move the Kilmarnock planet label up and to the right, to the other side of the circle for the planet, to create space up and above Luthien. Then, copy and move the Avon planet name to the other side of the planet it marks, freeing space up and left of Luthien. Then, using the space freed up, you could list some of the Luthien units under Cyrenaica, and more between Kilmarnock, Kagoshima, Chatham and Luthien; that should give you more space to move more of the Luthien units up onto the map.
  • Move the Luthien and Chatham planet labels left a little, so that you can move the Chatham unit labels up and make them a bit larger.
As you can see, while there are lots of little things I'd adjust, I think you're onto a really good idea, and I'd like to see any new drafts you do. BrokenMnemonic 12:00, 13 February 2012 (PST)


Hello BrokenMnemonic, I think I found a good solution for my map project. Please tell me what you think. User:Neuling/Test-map-page‎ Neuling 13:45, 14 February 2012 (PST)

Hi Neuling,
I like what you've done. The map looks rather cluttered, but that's inevitable with so many units deployed along the border. There are a couple of things I'd tweak to make it a little more legible; the first thing I'd do is colour the map, so that the labels with the white borders in particular are a little clearer, and I'd include lines linking each label to the planet the troops are deployed on. Having the deployment table below is good, as it helps work out who's where, but it would be good to be able to glance at the map and see immediately that flag 5 refers to Pesht - it could be Pesht or Unity, based on the map currently - and that G* refers to Outer Volta, rather than Marshdale, for example. It's definitely looking good, though - I particularly like the way you've used a gradient fill for the Smoke Jaguar labels. Very nifty! BrokenMnemonic 23:45, 14 February 2012 (PST)

Another Solution[edit]

Hello BrokenMnemonic, I'm working on a huge project . During the work I get an idea. My project is to gather all available information about components and load them to the corresponding sites. My thought was to establish a map where all manufacturers a listed with their main products (not the components) like Hesperus II build the

BH-K305 Battle Hawk
CBR-02 Cobra
EFT-7X Eisenfaust
GST-10 Ghost
GRF-1DS Griffin
GRF-6S Griffin
HCT-5S Hatchetman
HCT-7S Hatchetman
NGS-4S Nightsky
STN-3L Sentinel
ARC-5S Archer
PPR-5S Salamander
ZEU-9S Zeus
GUN-1ERD Gunslinger
BNC-5S Banshee
AS7-S Atlas
BRZ-A3 Berserker
FNR-5 Fafnir.

for a specific region like the Federation of Skye. The table would looks like Planet|Manufacturer|Product. What do you thin about that?Neuling 14:15, 17 February 2012 (PST)

To Neuling, I would to say we have the manufacturing centers to include the info, and your example like Planet, Manufacturer, Product hit this and merged with some of this, any thought.--Doneve 14:29, 17 February 2012 (PST)
Hy Neuling, I forgot to say you have a new huge project, my opinion is you struggle in your projects, you want to much in a short time, i would to say take your talk to the various project pages, iam become a brain burst when you talk to me day by day or after few days i have this idea or this new project, i want to say i concentrate me at first to my healing, and the time i stay on sarna in the last months is my love to BT, yes it's a lot of time, i cant work and stay by my wife and family, i compensate this time to take usefull contributions here and become my brain free of other thinks, i concentrate me at first to BM planet overhaul project and the manufacturing center revamp, i see what you do her but i cant involve in all, sorry i must say this, but please talk to others when they not match the planet project or manufacturing center talk, thanks.--Doneve 15:56, 17 February 2012 (PST)
I'm not quite following what you want to do - do you have an example written up that I could take a look at? BrokenMnemonic 00:05, 18 February 2012 (PST)

New World found[edit]

I found on the Historical: Reunification War map p. 159, a Draconis Combine world there is called Ferranil, i was very appriciated you create a article to this world.--Doneve 17:53, 17 February 2012 (PST)

I've added an article - I think that's five or six completely new worlds from that one map now, so far. We're picking up small numbers of worlds that didn't exist at the end of the Age of War, and never survived until the end of the First Succession War. That's very cool :) I don't know if you'll turn many more up in the Draconis Combine yet though, because we don't have those early Succession War maps yet from Handbook: House Kurita. I find that fascinating, and I find it very satisfying to add new world articles here - thanks for letting me do this one Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 18 February 2012 (PST)
Great thanks a lot for the new world article, i think i found more and talk then to you.--Doneve 11:49, 18 February 2012 (PST)
And now i found the next world Corfu, New Ceylon, Ouagadougou, Duxfort, Sikkim, Bilma, Tuat, Ulsan, Odawara, Tuscarawas, Takata, Osumi, Sendai, Beils, Aldrecht.--Doneve 11:57, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I've added all four. I think Ougadougou may be the same world as a world named Silence on the Inner Sphere 3130 map - if you look, they seem to be in the same location. I've asked a question over on the CGL forum about them; hopefully, Oystein will reply saying they are. I should check Bad-Syntax's planet list at some point, because the version I have isn't the most recent one - but it also doesn't have Silence on it, or the Federated Suns world of Arcadia. BrokenMnemonic 13:43, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I've added them all now - Takata reappeared on maps as New Start, it seems. I've worked through all the Federated Suns worlds, so I think when you've finished the Draconis Combine worlds we'll have finished with that map... although I did notice that some of the military region HQs moved around from one map to another. I don't know if there are pages here that track that sort of thing, though... BrokenMnemonic 05:16, 19 February 2012 (PST)
Hy i found a new world they is calld Trip on the Jihad: Final Reckoning 3081 Map p. 63, Magistracy of Canopus.--Doneve 07:27, 29 February 2012 (PST)
Trip is actually Adhara - which renamed itself at some point in the 31st Century, although I don't think there's a redirect set up. I remember thinking it needed updating, but I'm sure someone asked a question over on the CGL forum about when Adhara changed to Trip, and hadn't had an answer yet. It'd probably be best to move Adhara to Trip at this point... I'll do that now. BrokenMnemonic 07:40, 29 February 2012 (PST)


Hello BrokenMnemonic, I have worked on an test page under User:Neuling/manufacturing-centers and as always give me your response. I project will starting when I have all available components and main products at What do you think about it. I know Chaffee has no manufacturing center. I will changed it.Neuling 03:06, 18 February 2012 (PST)

Ah, that makes it clearer, thank you.
Well, I like the idea in principle - but I think it's a huge amount of work to do, because you're effectively creating a new version of Objective Raids, only covering the entire history of the Inner Sphere. One question that sprang to mind when I looked at the map was "what year does this refer to?" How will you be tracking manufacturing availability? Will you be listing a date next to each item made, to show when it was in production? BrokenMnemonic 11:46, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I will clear the situation for you a bit. THe page is a prove of concept site. I think when I have all components and products at and in my excel sheet I can create the tables with the information with easy. To create an map with the markings for the topic of the page take only a short time for me. You see what can I do and what the information can be include. I can show you also the developments of campaigns or operations like the operation revival or the dominion wars. The possibilities are endless.Neuling 11:56, 18 February 2012 (PST)
If you can get it done, then go for it. It'll be a monumental piece of work, but I think it has a lot of utility for sarna. I can churn out maps reasonably quickly, like those I used in the SLDF Task Force Outworlds article, but I keep bouncing from topic to topic to keep my interest up Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic 13:54, 18 February 2012 (PST)

Good Article Award[edit]

As much as you came as close to self-nominating yourself for the award as can be done, I do agree your efforts on SLDF Task Force Outworlds help to improve the overall quality and details expected from any article on BTW. For that, receive your second Good Article Award:

Good Article Award, 2nd ribbon

Good job! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:12, 18 February 2012 (PST)

Blimey - thank you! I wasn't thinking of the mod awards, I was thinking of the substantial addition award when I asked. I'm very flattered you think the article's good enough for a good article award :) BrokenMnemonic 11:47, 18 February 2012 (PST)

Random Act Award[edit]

Holla, have your next award Random Act of Appreciation Award, 2nd ribbon from me, for the new created planet articles.--Doneve 13:41, 18 February 2012 (PST)

Thank you! Smiley.gif You and I are making fast progress through that map in Historical: Reunification War. Only another fifteen or twenty maps to go after that one... BrokenMnemonic 13:52, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I know, i think we are a good team Smiley.gif.--Doneve 13:54, 18 February 2012 (PST)
Definitely! We'll have this planets project done before you know it Smiley.gif Although, when that's done, what will we do next? BrokenMnemonic 14:00, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I think we found new thinks to bring sarna up to date ;).--Doneve 14:05, 18 February 2012 (PST)


Hy BM, i finished the owner history update from the Historical: Reunification War 2596 map, now the next step, oh and thanks for the award.--Doneve 06:31, 20 February 2012 (PST)

That's the 2596 map done completely, then - I might give it a few days before I try working on another new map Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic 09:54, 20 February 2012 (PST)
Okidoki, let me know when i can help Smiley.gif.--Doneve 12:18, 20 February 2012 (PST)
I should be ready to start on another map in a few days; I was thinking that it might be a good idea to step forward through the maps from the earliest one, to try and make sure we catch all of the worlds. I noticed a problem, though - with the exception of the Stewart Confederation, all of the House founding maps only show those borders for nations that formed that House. The Free Worlds League map of 2271 doesn't show any of the Capellan nations that existed at that time, for example. So, I think for those early maps, we'd need to only mark a planet down as independent if there wasn't an over-riding reference from another map. Does that make sense? BrokenMnemonic 12:22, 20 February 2012 (PST)
Ok, can you give an example.--Doneve 12:35, 20 February 2012 (PST)
OK, I'll use one I've just been looking at. If you look at the map of the Free Worlds League in 2271 on page 16 of Handbook: House Marik, it shows the worlds of Nanking, Liao and Aldebaran. If we had no history on any of the worlds, we'd just annotate all 3 as being independent worlds in 2271, using the HB:HM map as a reference. However, Nanking and Liao were both members of other states at the time, as recorded in their owner history - so in those cases, we'd add 2271 to the owner history of each world, but tag each as being a member of the previously-listed nation, and a note to say that we're presuming the affiliation stays the same because HB:HM doesn't contradict it. So, Nanking would show itself as being a member of the Nanking Collective in 2271, and Liao would still show itself as a member of the Liao Republic in 2271, but with a reference from page 16 of HB:HM, and a note to explain what's been done. Does that make sense? BrokenMnemonic 12:57, 20 February 2012 (PST)
This make sense, thanks for the example.--Doneve 13:01, 20 February 2012 (PST)
It's not a perfect system, which is why I think the explanatory note needs to be there, as sooner or later another source may contradict it... but it's the best way I can think of to say "this world was inhabited." I'd rather have a solution that's mostly right than not record the information at all, you know? Although I'm starting to rethink this after spending a day dealing with the quagmire of contradicting details that is early Capellan history... BrokenMnemonic 13:09, 20 February 2012 (PST)

Hanseatic League[edit]

Hy BM, i found some missing Hanseatic League worlds in Field Report: Periphery and older sourcess, i hope you create articles of the missing words, i know you work on other things, but i hope the ball is rollings, greetings.--Doneve 12:57, 23 February 2012 (PST)

Hy Doneve, I hope you're recuperating well?
I'd forgotten about those Hanseatic worlds - and there are all the Chatelaine worlds that need doing, too. I just found the area in the Project: Planets page that lists all of them - I shall crack on with them Smiley.gif I've been feeling a little lacking in motivation after hitting 5,000 edits and finally writing that article on the Capellan Hegemony a couple of days ago, so this will hopefully get me back into the editing groove again. BrokenMnemonic 13:05, 23 February 2012 (PST)
Hy again, the therapy works very well and i can stay at home on next week and see my wife and family Smiley.gif, i know what you mean but i hope i give you a little bit motivation by the Hanseatic League.--Doneve 13:17, 23 February 2012 (PST)
That sounds like excellent news Smiley.gif I hope your family make a fuss of you when you get home. I need to head up to bed (chasing down small details through the House books is way more time-consuming than I like) but I'm hoping to get all those worlds loaded up tomorrow. BrokenMnemonic
When I can help you with some maps, please let me know. I could provide IS maps for 3039/3040/3050/302/3060/3067/3079/3081 further more maps for the deep periphery, clan world during the wars of reaving and many more. Neuling 14:01, 23 February 2012 (PST)


Greet BM, you added all Hanseatic League planets to sarne, have for your efforts the All Purpose Award, 6th ribbon award, good job.--Doneve 04:36, 24 February 2012 (PST)

It was fun :) Thank you for the award! If you find any more planets you want added, let me know. I'm going to get those Jarnfolk planets added tonight before I turn in. BrokenMnemonic 11:53, 24 February 2012 (PST)


Hello BrokenMnemonic, we wrote a the same time the Alborg planetary article but my version wasn't accepted it was a waste off time but you couldn't know that I have the same intention like you. Neuling 12:55, 24 February 2012 (PST)

Hi Neuling - that must be synchronicity at work! I worked through all the Hanseatic League and Nueva Castile worlds earlier today, so having just eaten I thought I'd work through the Jarnfolk worlds... looks like we both had the same idea. BrokenMnemonic 13:16, 24 February 2012 (PST)

Never Ending planet story[edit]

Hy Dude :), Neuling talke to me there some missing Clan planets on sarna, take a look on The Wars of Reaving pp. 231-237, greetings.--Doneve 14:03, 24 February 2012 (PST)

I miss furthermore the 3 planets from the Tanis system:

Tanis - War of Reaving p. 236
Stancha - War of Reaving p. 236
Alexandra - War of Reaving p. 231
another planets with out an article
Etienne’s Sanctuary - War of Reaving p. 233
Neuling 14:49, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Isn't Wars of Reaving still under moratorium? I've not paid it much attention because I'm not a big fan of the Clans. I don't see the worlds listed in Bad Syntax/Volt's list of planets and co-ordinates, but that doesn't stop us from generating articles. BrokenMnemonic 15:06, 24 February 2012 (PST)
The moratorium has expired.--Doneve 15:09, 24 February 2012 (PST)

Maps for a story[edit]

Hello, BrokenMnemonic I have upload two examples of planets with their neigthbours (Weistheimer Neighbors1.png + Kossandra's Memory Neighbors-new.png. Give me your response if the quaility good enougth. I use the map from Jihad Final reckoning of page 62-63 with a 400% zoom.Neuling 15:13, 24 February 2012 (PST)

Hi Neuling,
I had to do some digging around on here because the nearest neighbours maps were discussed at great length between me and Revanche with various test maps put together as we worked out a common format. Unfortunately, that means all of the conversations are scattered around various talk pages. You can see a lot of the discussion here: BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Planets/Planet_Overhaul#Phase_3 and there's also more in my talk page and Revanche's talk page. The major points that went into deciding the common format for the new nearest neighbour maps are as follows:
  • As the 3067 maps represent the most recent "closed" area of canon, maps should be taken from the 3067 era maps for each world, unless that world is a Star League era world that later vanished, in which case either the 2750 Periphery nation maps (from Handbook: Major Periphery States) or the 2822 post 1st Succession War maps (from the Handbook) series should be used. That may change if Historical: Liberation of Terra gives us a more comprehensive map of the Star League era. Another exception may be worlds that reappeared on maps by the time of the 3130 map, which may mean that the 3130 map has to be used as a source, but that's going to be probably the last set of worlds to be mapped.
  • The maps should be coloured to show national affiliation for surrounding areas to help the reader quickly key in where the world is by eye, and the world in the article in question should be highlighted in red (or another visually distinctive colour for the Draconis Combine) and roughly in the centre of the map. Periphery nation maps will also be coloured, to highlight the difference between the periphery nations and open space.
  • The map should include a scale, for visual reference, and given the vagaries of the IS co-ordinates system as highlighted by volt, the scale will probably end up being a horizontal scale, not vertical.
  • The map should be easily readable as a thumbnail image in the planet article and shouldn't cause the screen to scroll when blown up to full size - I've been working on roughly 520x520 as a good size for the maps so far.
  • You can see an example of an almost-finished map in the article on Sarna. I still need to produce a fully-coloured version (one with the Liao Commonality in green) for comparison purposes so that the final decision can be made.
Does that all make sense? There have been a few books out since everything was thrashed out, and while I remember some talk about putting extra maps in the gallery section of a planet article for reference as borders shift, I don't think a common concensus was reached. The only reason I haven't been uploading hundreds of maps already is that I'm waiting for the last parts of the planet article structure to be nailed down so that Doneve and I can start changing planet articles en masse... BrokenMnemonic 02:06, 27 February 2012 (PST)

Jihad: Final Reckoning map[edit]

Hy BM, you see i update the owner history by the 3081 map, but i don't know how i integrate the most worlds there a member of the shatterd FWL, named the world as independent or as periphery word or or, have you a idea how i can set it up by right way in the owner history.--Doneve 15:21, 26 February 2012 (PST)

Hy Doneve, I'm sorry I haven't been able to answer you sooner, but my internet connection at home failed on Saturday morning and won't be repaired until tonight, so I've not been able to get online. I've taken a look at the J:FR map, and at the mini-maps included on the left hand side of 62. The dashed line seems to encompass most of the worlds within the former FWL area, with the exception of the Rim Commonality. Based on that, I'd suggest that unless there's something that specifically states that the world considers itself to be a Periphery world, we should mark it up as an independent world, in the same way that we're doing with the founding-era maps. I debated whether worlds like Payvand, Obrenovac and Eleusis would revert back to being Periphery worlds given that they were once parts of the Periphery back in the Reunification War era, but I realised that if I defined them as Periphery worlds, I'd be making an assumption that I couldn't find an in-text citation for, which made me uncomfortable.
So, I think that worlds like Zorn's Keep, Hardisey's Haven and Clayborne II should be shown as Periphery worlds, because they are a part of a former Periphery nation, but that Sierra should be listed as an Independent world until we get a text source that says Sierra considers itself (or is considered to be by other nations) a Periphery world. Does that sound sensible? BrokenMnemonic 02:13, 27 February 2012 (PST)
Okidoki sounds good to me, i updated at first the lesser states, and minor factions.--Doneve 04:38, 27 February 2012 (PST)
Which states have you done so far? I can pitch in with the others, now that I have my internetz back BrokenMnemonic 11:28, 27 February 2012 (PST)
The Rim Collection is done, i work on this time on the Marian Hegemony planets and go then to the Circinus Federation and so on.--Doneve 11:54, 27 February 2012 (PST)
OK... in that case, I'll make a start on the Outworlds Alliance as soon as I've slogged through the email backlog. BrokenMnemonic 12:13, 27 February 2012 (PST)
I thing my update become a little slow down, i added all references there i found on the various sourcebook maps, and don't work only from the 3081 map, take a look on Landfall.--Doneve 12:49, 27 February 2012 (PST)
That's a good idea. I was doing that originally with a lot of worlds, although I ran out of steam when I was doing Age of War era Federated Suns planets... I should probably start doing it again Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic 12:54, 27 February 2012 (PST)


Hello BrokenMnemonic, I start at the weekend a new work. When you take a look at the Taurian Concordat Planets you notice that most have a map with neighboring system from 3067 or when they were displayed on a map like the worlds which only were shown for 2751. For planets with different owners I will create maps for each faction to show the different. I know that is a big task because of over 3000 planets but with the time it is possible. Before I create more tell me if the layout is okay for you. Neuling 13:15, 27 February 2012 (PST)

Have you any thoughts about it?Neuling 13:33, 27 February 2012 (PST)
Well, the final arbitrator for deciding what gets used as the nearest neighbours image will be Revanche as the Planets project team leader, but I do have three observations:
  • Being black and white, it can be difficult to work out where a planet sits against the larger backdrop of the Inner Sphere - so having it in colour would be better, I think
  • The thumbnail looks fuzzy, for some reason. I'm not sure why, but it does make it a little harder to read than I'm comfortable with.
  • The thumbnail doesn't show a large enough area to really be useful; it'd opted for showing a chunk of the inner sphere approximately 120 LY x 90 LY, which is enough that something by way of a recogniseable name or border should be visible, particularly in colour. With maps that only show about 60 LY x 30 LY, it's not covering the two-jump distance that seems to be the standard, and there are going to be a lot of planets with nothing major nearby to make them easily locatable.
It may be worth getting Rev to weigh in, as he was setting the requirements for the maps. BrokenMnemonic 02:52, 28 February 2012 (PST)

Kossandra's Memory[edit]

Hy BM, i found a discrepancy on the Jihad: Final Reckoning 3081 map, Kossandra's Memory is spellt as Kassandra's Memory, i think it's an typo, i leave a note on the planets page.--Doneve 04:36, 29 February 2012 (PST)

That's definitely a mistake based on Historical: Reunification War, although it's not the first time I've seen it spelt that way. I should post up an Ask The Writers check for Øystein, although I haven't had responses from him for the last few questions I posted up yet... BrokenMnemonic 04:51, 29 February 2012 (PST)


Hello BM, how can you secure that the distance around each planet covers 120 light year in diameter at the map? I think when you create for every planet such a map (picture) the file size increase considerable. Neuling 10:56, 29 February 2012 (PST)

I think I have a good solution for my problem with the 120 light years. Please give me your opinion about that. 120lightyeartest.png
Hi Neuling,
That looks better - I don't think it's quite right yet, but it's better. The cross-hairs you've got aren't quite centred on Algenib and the vertical bar is slightly out of place (it cuts over the lower ring at the bottom, and doesn't quite meet the outer ring at the top.
The method I use for checking the distance around the planets is simple; I copy and paste the horizontal scale chart from the source map onto my map. The horizontal scales are usually 120 LY long, and having the scale on there means that people can do visual comparisons between other worlds on the map.
To generate the maps quickly, I take a large original source map at a high zoom (300% is typical for me), colour the entire map, put the scale on top of it as a new layer, and then crop down to what I want. I then export the image I've created from PSP, before undoing the cropping, moving the scale to reflect the next world, and repeating the process.
The file size does increase, but that's inconsequential, because the files need to be quite large to keep the names of the planets readable. If you look at the Algenib image, the text of the planet names is a bit fuzzy - that's because you're compressing the image in a fashion that blurs the text slightly. The different source maps work in slightly different ways, but I use various filters to compress the images down while keeping the text as crisp as possible. This is an example of how my version of the Algenib map would look: [[File:Algenib 3067.png|150px]] BrokenMnemonic 01:20, 2 March 2012 (PST)
Hello BM, what do you think about it when I use only the two circles without the crosshair and as usal the distance below?Neuling 01:42, 6 March 2012 (PST)

Nearby Distances[edit]

Evening BM, i see you revamp the Nearby Planets table, great, i think when i update the owner history i revamp also the distances by Volt's Doom sheet, but i miss the Liao planet on the exel sheet. My question is double check you the planets on the table by canon maps, or work you the added list on the planet pages down and change and rearange the planets to the nearest to the farest distances to match Volts distances and round it up, thanks.--Doneve 14:10, 7 March 2012 (PST)

Hy Doneve,
Liao was originally known as Cynthiana - is it appearing by that name on the list?
What I've been doing is sorting the spreadsheet each time so that the data is listed in order of distance from the planet I'm working on. That brings all of the planets up within 60 LY in order. I then list them in each entry in increasing order of distance, rounding up to the nearest 0.1 LY. Does that make sense? It's slow going, as I can only really do it at home and last night was one of those nights where I was very late home from work and very busy. I think I've only managed three planets so far.
One thing I am doing is checking on maps to make sure that the planet I'm looking at isn't too close to the borders of the Draconis Combine, so that we don't end up having to rework lots of articles when Handbook: House Kurita gives us lots of new worlds to add to Sarna.
Does that all make sense? I'm a bit slow this morning. BrokenMnemonic 01:48, 8 March 2012 (PST)


Hello BM, take alook at the link which Doneve had provide to you. At the known forum you can find all information from the old housebooks, recordsheets and many more in good quality. I hope that helps you in your work. Neuling 00:31, 9 March 2012 (PST)

The link Doneve gave me has been fuelling a lot of my work here for the last few months :) It's an extremely useful resource. BrokenMnemonic 01:17, 9 March 2012 (PST)
When I have finished the update of the material you enjoy it more, believe me :). Neuling 01:18, 9 March 2012 (PST)


I hope you can help, i found on the distance spreadsheet from Volt a failur and set up a talk to him but want you involve, from [Achernar] - Conway had 39.335 as coordinate and Mesartim 47.824 but the planet Conway is redirected on to Mesartim iam a little bit confused about this is this the same planet or change his name or or.--Doneve 11:20, 9 March 2012 (PST)

Hi Doneve, Conway and Mesartrim are two different systems in Chesterton Commonality of Capellan Confederation, as found in the 2822 map in HB:HL. I think the error is on the redirecting.-Volt 14:32, 9 March 2012 (PST)
I think I'm responsible for that. The source I used was House Liao (The Capellan Confederation), p. 23 of the electronic version, specifically:
In 2344, Federated Suns forces succeeded in recapturing Mira, Conway (Mesartim) and Michelet (Almach), the last without a single shot being fired.
I took that to mean that Conway was the FedSuns name for Mesartim, and Michelet the FedSuns name for Almach. The system I see on the 2822 map on p. 31 of Handbook: House Liao is named Conwy though, not Conway? BrokenMnemonic 12:39, 10 March 2012 (PST)
oh lol you're right, it is Conwy... sorry, my bad. Need to take out the A in all my lists-Volt 13:52, 10 March 2012 (PST)


Professional reasons are as good as any other. In fact, I'd encourage you to step away from BTW completely, as a way to decrease the demands upon you (unless you find it's a way to blow off steam). Not trying to get rid of ya, believe me, but this might be a way to recharge your planetary batteries. Wink.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:40, 14 March 2012 (PDT)

Aye, I've been having some trouble getting motivated the last few weeks. I'm hoping that it's just because work's gone utterly crazy and is likely to stay that way for at least another few weeks, and that I'll get my motivation back when that's out of the way. BrokenMnemonic 13:34, 14 March 2012 (PDT)
Well, if that's you under-motivated, I suspect you're the clone of Doneve when you feel motivated! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:21, 15 March 2012 (PDT)


Hy BM, i found in the planet list on sarna Untran and Achtur, but there the same planets only changed the name and i think the two articles merged!--Doneve 12:16, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

Hi Doneve, I've been able to confirm that the two are referring to the same system and can be merged.-Volt 15:49, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
The instruction I was given by the admins when I started raising the idea of systems with different names over time was basically that I need to get it confirmed by TPTB over on the BattleTech forums that the systems/planets are one and the same before I can merge any entries together. Øystein's usually very quick to respond though - if we've got more of these systems with multiple names still outstanding (and I'm sure I saw at least one on the list of systems from 2765) then it'd be good to be able to get a ruling on all of them at once. BrokenMnemonic 00:56, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Renamed Systems[edit]

Here's a quick list of name changes, perhaps we could monitor from here if TPTB have confirmed the name change outside of official source materials:

Adhara (Trip 3040+)
Aer (Finnalon 2822+)
Agmond (Bornal 3130+)
Anatolia (Pillory 3130+) 1
Arn (Jia Tian 3130+)
Austerlitz (Scauld 3130+) 1
Badlands Cluster (50) (Pirates Haven 3025+) [from Historical: Reunification War]
Belamor (Zanzor 2822+)
C.M.O. 26 (Gulf Breeze 3057+) [from Handbook: House Steiner]
Carver V (Liberty 3063+)
Chisholm (Elgin 2878+) [from House Liao: The Capellan Confederation]
Cussar (Barlow's Folly 2864+)
Cynthiana (Liao 2202+) [from Handbook:House Liao]
Dersidatz (Blantleff 3025+) [from Periphery, 1st ed.]
Dijonne (Pain 3050+) 1
Dunklewälderdunklerflüssenschattenwelt (Bob 2822+) 5
Edirne (Brank 3130+) 1
Erin (Von Strang's World 2775+) 1
Green Stone (Clayborne II 3025+) 1
Hansii (Itsbur 2822+)
Helbrent (Andiron 3025+) 1
Himmels (Baltazar III 3025+) 1
Hope IV (Randis IV 3025+)
Huanghuadian (Tincalunas 3130+) 3
Iolas (Diedre's Den 3025+) 1
Jardine (Herakleion 2822+) 6
Jodipur (Neukirchen 3025+) [from Era Report: Age of War]
Kirkvåg (Toch Zu 2822+)
Lamu (Tunlmar 2822+)
Lushun (Jibbet 3130+) 1
Lywick (Ferreusvirgo 3130+) 1
Meglan (Victoria 2537+) [from Handbook: House Davion]
Murris (Kalindam 2822+)
Oporto (Veil 3075+) 1
Ouagadougou (Silence 3130+)
Perrot (Shaula 3025+)
Port Vail (The Rack 3050+) 1
Qualip (Kerensky's Vision 3130+) 4
Quimper (Chirac 3130+) 2
Rhodos (Runrig 2822+)
Sanurcha (Ildrong 2822+)
Sartu (Bastille 3130+)
Seven Lands (Garotte 3130+) 1
Shaobuon (Liu's Memory 3130+) 1
Shaun (Burl 2822+)
Takata (New Start 3130+)
Thamel (Wyeth's Glory 3130+)
Treeline (Winfield 2863+, LC) 2
Untran (Achtur 2822+)
Zara (Homer 2850+, Clan) [from The Clans: Warriors of Kerensky]
Zhaomaon (Cluff's Stand 3130+)

--Volt 23:37, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Having a record of where name changes are recorded or confirmed is a very good idea - I know that when I get a definitive answer from TPTB, I record it in the article for that planet as well, so that anyone glancing at just the article has an obvious reference to follow if they have any questions. BrokenMnemonic 00:42, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
Yeah, I even posted the list in the General Discussion Forum to get community support in filling the gaps, same with what Frabby did for the unmapped systems/planets.-Volt 01:12, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
I posted a question about Ougadougou/Silence in the Ask The Writers forum a while ago, hoping Øystein would confirm that the two are one and the same, but haven't had a response from him yet... which is a little odd. I've been tracking those questions I ask in my user page though, so I've got a record of what's been answered (and where) - I'm a big fan of keeping track of the information that TPTB drop over on the CGL forum that I think should be recorded here on Sarna. BrokenMnemonic 01:28, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
Yeah, that was actually a good idea. I came across your post, and I actually had a few posts myself that were left unanswered too. I'm hoping Oystein sees and responds to my post and gives the official word on some or all of those that I listed. The plus side is I'm getting responses from others in the community that actually ADD to the list, didn't expect that but it's turning out to be a good idea, just wish people were more specific with their sources.-Volt 02:21, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

Planets Infoboxes[edit]

Hy BM, hope allways is well with you, i take a slow down on sarna, work in my old job and company, to become a normal life after stayed on hospital, and it works very well, i updated in the last weeks the owner history and revamp the nearby systems, and don't have a focus to the system & planet infoboxes, great that you do this on Port Moseby, i updated in the next days the planetary and era specific date sections when i found time.--Doneve 15:31, 4 April 2012 (PDT)

Oh i forgot to say, i think we must handle the system and planet infoboxes by one style please take a look on the Acamar this differ of what you use on the Port Moseby article, which infobox systems rules, any thought for how we can handle this or fix the templates, thanks.--Doneve 13:42, 6 April 2012 (PDT)
Hy Doneve, I'm mostly ok - it's a busy, stressful time at work, so I tend to be quieter online at this time of year, but I'm hoping it'll give me a chance to recharge my wiki-batteries, if nothing else. Are you enjoying being back at home from the hospital? You'll be redecorating before you know it!
Regarding the infobox, the ones I used in Port Moseby were the ones from the Project Planets template - Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard - I was under the impression that it was the new standard. It was updated by Rev and Mbear back in August, and matches what was in the new template. It seems a bit pointless to switch back to the older templates only to change them whenever someone finally ticks off the new planet article format? BrokenMnemonic 23:56, 9 April 2012 (PDT)
Thanks for response, hehehe the redecoration is in work by my wife, "ugh" Wink.gif, i take a look on the [Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard], ok one or two minor cleanups must become, i talk to Mbear or Revanche about this.--Doneve 06:11, 10 April 2012 (PDT)
I read at this time Historical: Liberation of Terra Volume 1, i take a brainstorm of the involved fores, armys, etc. when we update the various pages, d'oh, we must recruite more user's, there is so much info, i forgot the new maps for the planet project, i become a brain burst, i love this era to liberate Terra and the other campaigns, how we handle this hercules task.--Doneve
Let me know when you're done with the Template - I'd like to roll it out to more articles as I work through the objectives books, although I did just find a nice little project to work on thanks to Jihad Hot Spots: 3076. More fun than wallpapering and painting, yes? Wink.gif
Would you believe I've not had a chance to read LoT yet? I was very excited for it, but I got as far as opening it up and going through the maps, and since then work's been so crazily busy that I've just not been able to get back to it. I'm a bit wary of how much work it's going to generate - after all, Historical: Reunification War is something I'm working on updating entries with, and each of the two chapters I've done took about two months. And when I say "done"... I've still got a list of two dozen articles on my user page that need to be written, based on those two chapters alone. LoT is going to be a huge piece of work.
Maybe what we should do when it comes out of moratorium is pick project areas to work on? I may lose my temper if I see someone just going around adding "update needed" tags based on it Wink.gif I'd like to get all of the new planets from LoT onto sarna - I think that's something you and I could do pretty quickly, thanks to Volt's mapping. After that... well, I was fixing unit entries from the original Star League sourcebook, and there's so much more in LoT it's crazy. Maybe do the planets, then create the entries for new equipment?
I might just go and do some more JHS quietly before my brain overheats as I think about all the work still to do yet! BrokenMnemonic 23:52, 10 April 2012 (PDT)

Jihad Timeline[edit]

Holla BM, i follow you'r Jihad update to various pages, great :), you found also a lot of info in Jihad Hot Spots: Terra what can integrate you, best wishes.--Doneve 15:57, 25 April 2012 (PDT)

Hy Doneve, how're you? I like doing the little Jihad updates - I don't have a lot of time at the moment because work is crazy, but I can potter away doing small Jihad updates whenever I get a quiet few minutes. I noticed that there's a lot of Jihad stuff that's never made it on to Sarna, and a lot of what is here hasn't been spread across all the various entries applicable to it, so I decided to just sit down with Jihad: Final Reckoning and Jihad Hot Spots: 3076 and work slowly through the timeline. When I've worked through JHS:3076, Jihad Hot Spots: Terra will be next Smiley.gif There's a lot of work that can still be done, as I'm only using the timeline summary paragraphs, which means there's a lot of text in the earlier events that needs to be mined for data, but even doing little bits like this, I get to feel like I'm still contributing Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic 23:51, 25 April 2012 (PDT)

Operation SCOUR[edit]

Hy BM, i want to cleanup a little bit the article and i think we can remove this sections [Individual Planets] and the table in the [Operation Scythe] section, what do you think.--Doneve 05:06, 23 May 2012 (PDT)

Hy Doneve,
I agree with you. I was a little surprised that there was so little in the Operation SCOUR page when I found it, and that things like the individual worlds attacked by the Ghost Bears before SCOUR even started were included in the article. The Jihad timeline is pretty clear on when Operation SCOUR began, and if a planetary campaign or operation wasn't a part of SCOUR, why is it in the SCOUR article? Equally, I don't think Operation SCYTHE should be listed in detail in the article either - I think SCYTHE should have it's own article.
I'm working through the Jihad in Review timeline a page at a time at the moment to cover the individual entries first, and then sweeping up the bigger articles in one go, so I won't be doing an update to the Op SCOURGE article until I've managed to get as far as the April 3078 conflict on Liberty... that means it'll be a few days yet. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to change SCOURGE as you see fit Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic 06:37, 23 May 2012 (PDT)

New point of view[edit]

Hy BM, i follow at the stard of this blog [[5]] every time, and i want your mention, what do you think about this, i like the corrected MUL list and the clean references and other details go on, [6], but Bad Syntax take more to cleanup up a lot of canon stuff errors and so on, i love his work.--Doneve 18:31, 13 June 2012 (PDT)

Hy Doneve, I'm a ltitle confused - BTEngineer is Bad Syntax's blog, yes? How has he managed to end up being banned from the CGL forums? I don't read a lot of threads over there, but I don't remember him being abusive or obnoxious. BrokenMnemonic 01:00, 14 June 2012 (PDT)
I don't remember the specifics but I think he had an argument (or several of them) with a mod (or several of them) because his stance was that there's not enough info (or too many conflicting info) from the BT publications and that there's a way (which he presented, I think) to work around those gaps and inconsistencies. Being as impassioned as he is with his work, the "discussions" became heated and went like a collision between an unstoppable force and an immovable object would be like, unfortunately what was not added to the equation was that the immovable object also had moderator rights)-Volt 19:10, 14 June 2012 (PDT)
Sadly, that sounds like a classic case of too many strong egos in a small space. It's a great shame - Bad Syntax has done some really useful work. I've seen Herb respond to someone pushing a particular problem (FedComGirl, maybe?) by saying to submit a summary of the problem and an essay of no more than so many pages explaining how to deal with it, presumably with a view to a fix being implemented... I think that was over something like introductory technology dates for various pre-Age of War items. Maybe that would've been a better way to get things done? BrokenMnemonic 03:34, 14 June 2012 (PDT)
Aye, looks to me that's exactly what happened. Syntax did a great job on his BattleTech Encyclopedia. Can't imagine how much time he spent running through all that data, organizing it and presenting it in such a way as to make it useful to players. Wish he continued with his cartographer app though... but with the apparent death of HB:HK, looks like we'll never get to see the lost/depopulated Kurita systems from 2765 to 3025 except for those near the Lyran and Davion borders.-Volt 19:10, 14 June 2012 (PDT)
Handbook: House Kurita is a dead project? I thought Herb said in the last battlechat that the book was still going to be released. Two of the things I've been wanting to see for ages are all those missing Drac worlds, and the new periphery worlds apparently cropping up in IO or one of the related books. BrokenMnemonic 23:52, 14 June 2012 (PDT)
i'll believe it when i see the release date. The further it's delayed the less interesting it becomes, as it's already out of chronological context. I'm looking forward more to the new maps after 3085.-Volt 05:25, 16 June 2012 (PDT)
If nothing else, these comments from Herb are one of the most interesting BT things I've seen to look forward to for a while:
[19:02] <martian> Is it still true that Interstellar Expeditions will be available this year?
[19:04] <@Habeas2> Martian - We hope so
[19:05] <Nerroth> Is IE the book which will have the post-Reaving Homeworld Clan data noted earlier, or is that in a yet-to-be-announced product?
[19:06] <@Habeas2> Nerroth - Yes
[19:06] <Nerroth> Excellent, thank you.
[19:06] <Nerroth> Will it also include maps of some of the other Deep Periphery regions, such as the Jarnfolk or the Samoyedic Colonies?
[19:06] <Nerroth> With planetary data, I mean.
[19:07] <@Habeas2> Nerroth – MMMmmmmmmmmmaybe
[19:07] <Nerroth> I'll have to wait and see, then.
Periphery realms are something I love seeing expanded on in maps, and this last year has given us maps of the Hansa worlds, Nueva Castille and the Chainelaine Isles. I'd love to see something on the Samoyedic Colonies - or even Rim Worlds Republic Outpost #27 from the old Hot Spots box set. BrokenMnemonic 11:36, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

Total Chaos[edit]

Hy BM, i found a lot of info of death and dying worlds in Total Chaos i know it fall's at this time under moratorium, but for the near futer a great source with some fluff for planets etc. etc.--Doneve 09:02, 22 June 2012 (PDT)

Sorry for the delayed response, I was trying to clear up some of the kerfuffle going on with the Potatoe page - I think one of the admins needs to make a ruling fairly fast on how to handle how Mechwarrior Online stuff interacts with Sarna, before we end up with Sarna full of detail only specific to MWO all over the Canon universe articles. Heh... maybe we need to bring back the fanon tag? Wink.gif
I've not had a chance to buy Total Chaos yet, although I did pick up a few new books a couple of weeks ago when Drive Thru RPG did a wishlist sale. Does Total Chaos explain what happened to Aea or McEvedy's Folly, by any chance? I just finished the Redburn Virus article, so we have our first bioweapon. BrokenMnemonic 09:31, 22 June 2012 (PDT)

Good Conduct Award[edit]

Perhaps not 100% accurate from the description, but I feel you deserve this for your help on Potatoe. Thanks dude. Frabby 23:48, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

Thank you, that's very kind Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic 02:16, 24 June 2012 (PDT)

Need Help[edit]

Hy BM, i need your help, i want to create some new Regulan Hussars unit pages, but now is the question, in witch category i put the commands. I prefer to create a [Principality of Regulus Commands] or [Regulan Commands] category, the FWL is shatterd and the most of the new Regulan units join the Principality, what of this categories is your favor.--Doneve 13:46, 27 June 2012 (PDT)

Hy Doneve, I'd go with a [Principality of Regulus Commands], personally. If you specify in the category description that it's for units that were a part of the military of the Principality of Regulus while the Principality was an independent nation, that'll make them distinct from Free Worlds League units, and if in the future the Principality rejoins the League, the units can just have an extra category added to them. That way, it'd work exactly like the political affiliation categories do for planets. BrokenMnemonic 13:51, 27 June 2012 (PDT)
Great, thanks for your help.--Doneve 14:13, 27 June 2012 (PDT)

Your infobox template[edit]

Good work! It looks great.--Mbear(talk) 04:39, 28 June 2012 (PDT)

Hy BM, great Wyrm article, have your All Purpose Award, 7th ribbon award from me, we need a category for it.--Doneve 08:09, 28 June 2012 (PDT)
Thank you both, that's very kind on both counts Smiley.gif
In terms of categories... Having gone through the list of categories in use, I think we need a category for [Structures], and we could create [Mobile Structures] as a sub-category of that. I'm not sure how many of each have been published, but I've got reworking the Rattler article on my list - that was half the reason I sat down today to try and make the template. What do you think? BrokenMnemonic 10:14, 28 June 2012 (PDT)
The Template looks great to me, and i know how much time it coast to create it, sounds good to me to add a [Structures] and [Mobile Structures] category, then we can use the "Structure" for the Castle Brian's.--Doneve 10:21, 28 June 2012 (PDT)
I just noticed the Castle Brian details in Jihad Hot Spots: Terra - I could be busy for a while! I've added the two categories. Would you be able to upload the Wyrm picture and add it to the article for me? Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic 10:31, 28 June 2012 (PDT)
The Wyrm pic is uploaded Wink.gif.--Doneve 11:23, 28 June 2012 (PDT)

Secondary Canon[edit]

Saw your edit to Periphery, 1st Ed, and I think you got it dead wrong. The book (and the others mentioned) remain canonical from what Herb said; they're just prone to errors and omissions. The caveat "canon only where not contradicted by other sources" is part of the canon definition and applies to virtually all canonical products anyways. It doesn't de-canonize the sources in question to mere apocrypha. Frabby 07:09, 8 July 2012 (PDT)

But the description within the template itself says "Although it is an official BattleTech product, the subject of this article may not meet the criteria for Canon for the BattleTech universe. See the article's section on Canonicity for details." Each of the three sourcebooks is a BattleTech official product that according to Herb, isn't canon in places despite being an official product. Unless I'm being obtuse, that matches the literal wording of the apocryphal template almost exactly. If I am being obtuse, then just change the articles back and I'll mind my own business on such things in future until I've learned better. BrokenMnemonic 12:06, 8 July 2012 (PDT)
Ho hum. See what you mean. Perhaps the template needs a workover for clarification now that Fanon has been removed from BTW altogether. I think the wording as is was because of BTW's old policy of allowing Fanon, which we have abandoned since. (Had to look up "obtuse" in a dictionary... no, it's not you. It's unclear wording in a template I wrote.) Frabby 03:47, 9 July 2012 (PDT)


Hy BM, great [JH:FR] update to the various pages, i hope i can use your brain to clean up the Manufacturing Timeline page, i talk to [Mbear] but i want a second point of view, how is the best way to handle the page style, i want to integrate tables to the year sections and split it to 'Mechs, [Combat Vehicles] etc., take a look on the page, iam very appriciated for your respons and ideas, greetings--Doneve 13:59, 11 July 2012 (PDT)

Hy Doneve, I'm quite enjoying mining J:FR for information, although it's more fun when it's lots of information on different subjects rather than having to do the same update to 39 WOB Divisions.
I've had a look at the manufacturing timeline page, and I think I see what you're trying to do, but I think it's going to be difficult to present the information easily because of how many different types of manufacturing there are, and how many are produced in some years, and how long some of the names are. I tried putting together some tables that covered what I thought were the major manufacturing areas, but you can see the problem I had - even breaking out the most common types (ASFs, Battle Armor, Mechs, Combat Vehicles, DropShips, WarShips) and adding columns for other, weapons and tech, it's already 1000 pixels wide and you can see I've had to manually insert carriage return characters within some of the entries to try and even the tables out. It's a lot of work to update. I'll keep thinking about it and see if I can think of a better way to do it, but it's a tricky one. You do like the difficult projects, don't you? Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic 04:08, 12 July 2012 (PDT)
Yeah i like the difficult projects, and you are right many names are to long, i think also about the table problem, but as next i added the missing units (ca. 1000) Wink.gif, i have a great source from [Bad Syntax] he created a pdf with 1198 pages, here is the link [7] if you have interest, click the download button on the top of the page, and enjoy this great source, greetings.--Doneve 06:50, 12 July 2012 (PDT)
Holla BM, i think i use a another way, i split the table in the year sections, but it is a test bed, Mbear is involved, he experiment with the semantic wiki and when it works, we have a great manufacturing timline page.--Doneve 15:27, 20 July 2012 (PDT)
25th Century
Year Aerospace
BattleMechs Combat
DropShips WarShips Other
Weapons Technology
2403 Manatee (Cargo)
2407 HMR-HC Hammerhead LRM Carrier

SRM Carrier
Tracker Buffel VII ESV
2420 Vulture (Cargo)
2423 Jumbo
2430 CNT-1A Centurion KVR-3R Korvin Iveco Burro
Heavy Cargo Trucko
2432 Vincent Mk. 39 Silverfin
Coastal Cutter
2435 Merkava Mk. VII
2438 MSK-5S Mackie
2439 BattleMech Recovery
Vehicle (Heavy)
2440 MSK-6S Mackie BattleMech Recovery
Vehicle (Standard)
2442 Drost IIA
2443 KY2-D01 Kyudo
2447 Nightwing
2448 Farragut Mosquito IX
Radar Plane
2449 Manatee
(Mech Transport)
2450 SL-25 Samurai
2451 Buffel VII ESV
2459 BKX-1K BattleAxe
2460 HEP-1H Helepolis
2461 TFN-2A Typhoon
2462 BWP-X1 Ymir
2463 BKX-7NC BattleAxe
COM-1A Commando
Marsden II

Mauna Kea
2465 LTN-G14 Lightning Merkava Mk. VII
2466 COM-2D Commando
2468 BKX-7K BattleAxe
CRS-X Crossbow
GLD-1R Gladiator
31st Century
Year Aerospace
BattleMechs Combat
DropShips WarShips Other
Weapons Technology
3049 Daishi (W)
FS9-S Firestarter
FS9-S1 Firestarter
GHR-5J Grasshopper
GLT-5M Guillotine
HER-3S1 Hermes
HER-3S2 Hermes
JM6-DD JagerMech
JVN-10P Javelin
MCY-97 Mercury
TBT-7M Trebuchet
Ibex RV
(Standard & MG)
Manatee (Cargo) Dawn Treader
Cargo Airship

HVR-99 Harvester
3050 Riever F700 & F700A
SYD-Z2A Seydlitz
F-92 Stingray

Infiltrator Mk. I
CRD-5M Crusader
Daishi (S)
ENF-5D Enforcer
Grand Dragon


HCT-5s Hatchetman
HOP-4D Hoplite
JVN-11B Javelin
JR7-C Jenner
LCT-3S Locust
Mad Cat (S)
(A, B, 3, Prime)

QKD-5M Quickdraw
Uller (C, S)
SDR-9K Venom
VTR-9B, 9D & 9K
Dawn Treader
Cargo Airship

HVR-99 Harvester
ATAE-70 Uni
3057 Riever F700 & F700A
SYD-Z2A Seydlitz
F-92 Stingray
Longinus (Flamer, Laser,
Light Gauss, MG)
DRT-6S Dart
DFN-3C Defiance
EGL-2M Eagle
Falcon Hawk

GRM-01A Garm
HER-4S Hermes
HBK-5N Hunchback
JG-R9T2 Juggernaut
KTO-2A Koto
Darter Scout
Car (C3)
Triumph (Upgrade) Fox
RCL-4 Dig Lord

Congrats on Your First Year[edit]

BM - Congrats on your first year. Its been very encouraging to see you and other (relatively) recent arrivals put in consistently strong work on this wiki. You've had a huge impact, and I look forward to reading more from you. Kudos! ClanWolverine101 19:41, 15 July 2012 (PDT)

Thank you Smiley.gif It feels very strange that it's been a year, particularly when I look at the list of projects I've had outstanding for more than 6 months... on the other hand, I'm quietly satisfied that most of the Jihad is now on Sarna in one form or another, and that lots of planets that had no planetary history now have something, even if only a few sentences about something happening once several hundred years ago. BrokenMnemonic 01:11, 19 July 2012 (PDT)


Hy BM, the Word of Blake Protectorate Militia page is a mess, i remove some sections, when it's ok.--Doneve 05:24, 19 July 2012 (PDT)

Great, thank you. The article seems to be a mess to me - it's a set of long lists without much by way of supporting text or citations... BrokenMnemonic 06:21, 19 July 2012 (PDT)

Unknown Planets[edit]

  • snip* Who'd have thought that planetary histories would be such a busy subject? Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic 11:54, 11 August 2012 (PDT)
  • snip* :Frabby 13:58, 11 August 2012 (PDT)

You've both made good points. I've made the Unknown Planet and No Record pages redirect to BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Unknown Planet or No record, per Frabby's suggestion, and included the definitions BrokenMnemonic provided above. Hopefully that will meet everyone's criteria. (Basically I was tired of seeing the two appearing in the WantedPages list. Sorry about the confusion.)--Mbear(talk) 05:07, 13 August 2012 (PDT)

Thanks for picking that one up - it's something I'd meant to get done, but I hadn't counted on the Planets Project being delayed for so long. It may take a while to convert all of the entries into links though, but I'll make sure I include them when I do the new planets from Era Report: 2750 and H:LoTv1. BrokenMnemonic 05:31, 13 August 2012 (PDT)

Owner History[edit]

Hy BM, i found a problem on your new created Federated Suns planet articles, the reference notes are wrong, take a look on the first note on the references section, Skaslien, Noh-wan Hohm, etc.--Doneve 12:12, 26 August 2012 (PDT)

That's seriously weird... I copy and pasted the references from an existing article. I'm going to be sitting here trying to remember which one now. I'd better go back and fix these - thanks for pointing it out, it'd gone straight past me. BrokenMnemonic 12:18, 26 August 2012 (PDT)
I found the problem change ref name to ref, Wink.gif.--Doneve 12:21, 26 August 2012 (PDT)


Hy BM, i found Hodmezovasarhely, iam on travell and have not all books to hand, only my laptop, the only what i can say it is an Free Worlds Legue system, need help.--Doneve 12:55, 18 September 2012 (PDT)

Hódmezovásárhely? It's only on two maps in Handbook: House Marik for the 1st and 2nd Succession Wars, although it's also on the Star League maps. It's near Zempoatlepetl and Tongatapu in the Marik Commonwealth, and the name is Hungarian, I think. What do you need me to find out about it? BrokenMnemonic 13:06, 18 September 2012 (PDT)
Yep you are right, thanks.--Doneve 14:00, 18 September 2012 (PDT)

New Systems[edit]

Hy BM, i found a mistak, the system Shaun you have created was in 2822 renamed to Burl, and the page exist, i double check the other systems, and flag the Burl page for deletion, and we set up a redirect to the [Shaun] page for [Burl], the same with Lamu, the system was renamed in [2822] to Tunlmar, Rhodos was renamed in [2822] to Runrig, Baruun Urt is OK, Quimper was also renamed in 3130 to Chirac, the best way is when you want to create new systems talk to me and i double check by my updated spreadsheet if the systems exists or renamed, i hope this helps.--Doneve 05:59, 26 September 2012 (PDT)

Hy Doneve,
I've not heard of Burl, Tunlmar or Runrig. There are two Quimpers though, in the same era, and both in the Crucis March - one near New Avalon, and one further away. The one I created recently is the one close to New Avalon - the system which was renamed Chirac already had an entry.
I wonder why those Capellan systems were being renamed during the Second Succession War? BrokenMnemonic 06:49, 26 September 2012 (PDT)
I don't know why this systems renamed, i used Volt's updated spreadsheet, i think we talk to him.--Doneve 07:13, 26 September 2012 (PDT)
Hi Guys, there are several renames I have on record, though I have not gotten an explanation why most of the name changes occurred. I currently record 54 systems whose names have changed. I haven't had time to sit down and continue updating the coordinates so I have not been able to release a new spreadsheet. --Volt 22:36, 27 September 2012 (PDT)

Good news[edit]

Hy BM, take a look on this [8], and you where surprised Smiley.gif.--Doneve (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2012 (PDT)

Apparently Herb confirmed a lot of that detail in the recent BattleChats - it looks like we could be in for an interesting few months Smiley.gif Apparently, there are four .pdf products all just waiting for layout work to be done before they can be published, too. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2012 (PDT)

SLDF units[edit]

Hy BM, ugh i found a big mistake by the various SLDF units, some of the forces don't take part in the Reunification War, i know, i and [Revanche] make this copy and paste error when we create the pages, i change [Reunification War] to Periphery Uprising, yes it's a lot of work, but i correct the mistake, best wishes.--Doneve (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2012 (PDT)

Hy Doneve,
I've seen that mistake a lot - it's one of the things I asked Revanche ages ago if it would be possible to fix via some sort of 'bot controlled by Nic, but nothing ever came of it. I don't envy you correcting all those units, although you should find some where I've corrected it as I did a big bit of work soon after I first started, getting all of the missing SLDF units I could find from the Star League Sourcebook onto Sarna and starting to fix all the redlinks within the listing. I ran out of enthusiasm for the Corps descriptions, but wherever I found that mistake, I fixed it.
Did you see there are three new .pdfs out? I'm not particularly bothered by Dark Age Turning Points: Anatallos or the Bounty Hunter stuff, but I'm tempted to pick up XTRO: Phantoms... although I'm saving my money at the moment for some of the bigger books that're supposed to be on the way. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2012 (PDT)

Your work is appreciated.[edit]

BrokenMnemonic, you're going to add this to your awards board. Random Act of Appreciation Award, 3rd ribbon Though it's supposed to be for no reason at all, it's really because I appreciate you updating several articles on the Sources Needing Updates list. Hopefully this will reinflate your soul (if it was crushed). :) Have a good one!--Mbear(talk) 07:14, 26 November 2012 (PST)

Thank you, that's very kind Smiley.gif First award in ages that wasn't time served or edit counts. I can see why trying to bring down the update needed list is so demoralising - I spent about three evenings worth of time working on it, and thanks to all the ISP3 tags, the list was longer than when I started! I'll go and update my board now, and see if I can tackle some more updates. It's a bit of a nice change from updating planet owner histories (although I am almost done with 2750) although it's odd that so many sources get data mined for data points in unit articles, but the same data never seems to get added to the planets when it's equally applicable. I like to see planet articles with stuff in Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2012 (PST)

Indeed. Seems like you and Doneve are running the wiki 80% these days. Casual Edit Award, 2nd ribbon :) Frabby (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2012 (PST)

Thank you! Smiley.gif Doneve and I work really well together - he's faster and more determined than I am, but that just makes me try harder Wink.gif - although I think there's already more BattleTech material out there than we'll ever manage to get loaded into Sarna, so there's always going to be more to do. Good thing I like being busy, yes? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2012 (PST)

Updates needed[edit]

Is it possible to sort the updates needed by publication type? I sometimes crack through 10-20 pages of a publication I'm finding interesting at the time, datamining and removing update needed tags. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2012 (PST)

I'm not aware of any way other than clicking every link and seeing what's listed.
Also, we may as well start putting the update needed tag on those things you've been holding off, like Objectives FWL. (I've still got the one on the SLDF COmmands category so we won't need one there.)-- User:Mbear 07:42, 3 December 2012 (PST)
I've tried doing wikisearches using Update Needed and the publication title, but it's very hit and miss. Going to the publication title and using the "what links here?" option can help with the new stuff, too, although it's a lot of links either way.
I've actually started tracking how many update needed tags there are on things I update - I'm hoping that might inspire people to finish off the odd one if i've left it with just one or two tags left.
I'm not sure that the Update Needed tag is really fit for purpose, though. Or maybe that it's not being used well. There are a lot of instances where it looks as if someone just ran through the contents page and slapped a tag on everything mentioned, which seems a bit illogical to me. And with some pages have 8-9 tags on, I'd question where the cutoff is. I can't think of a single page here where I'd be confident that I had every single bit of information without owning every publication in searchable pdf format and searching for them. So is it better to have update needed tags that aren't a complete list, or just not bother?
Of course, I'm one of those who almost never uses the Update Needed function - the only times I've really used are where I've done a big edit on something using a sourcebook, but where I know there's more information in that sourcebook and I haven't had the chance to dig it out, and I wouldn't want someone to see the text references in the bibliography and assume that everything was done. I did that a few times with the Reunification War, where people or units crossed over between theatres (an entire Corps got redeployed from the Outworlds front to the Taurian front), but if I'm digging odd facts out of books, I'm more inclined to just update the article as I go.
Which is a really long way of saying "you don't need to worry about update needed tags from me!" - they don't really match how I work.BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (PST)
OK. FWIW, I usually use a google search to find the update needed tags that are similar. --Mbear(talk) 10:26, 3 December 2012 (PST)


Hy BM, please can you take a look on the Sheratan page, i added the system and planet infobox, but i notice a problem the [yerar] row don't work only the date row work in the Planet Standard infobox, it is wrong to add the current date expect. 3079 it's not the founding, we must fix the infobox, the year row must work but don't do this at this time, i think we talk to [Mbear], and he can fix this.--Doneve (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2012 (PST)

Hy Doneve,
I think I've fixed it. The date and year fields were mentioned in the template description, but only the date field had been incorporated into the template itself. I've adjusted the template so it now has both a date and a year field; date is the Founding Date, and Year is the Reference Year. I moved the 3130 date in Sheraton from "date" to "year", and it's now showing up as "Reference Year: 3130" in the article. I hope this helps Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2012 (PST)
Excellent, thanks Smiley.gif.--Doneve (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2012 (PST)

Named JumpShips[edit]

You have added named ships to various JumpShip articles. I have to warn you - there's probably a couple hundred named JumpShips of various types in BattleTech lore (I started a list myself almost 20 years ago that had more than 200 entries; much better and larger listings are found on the BattleTech forum). This would badly clutter the articles on individual JumpShip types. I therefore strongly suggest not to include named ships except where these are somehow special - the Magellan-class Persephone for example is a heavily modified unique ship and also played an important role in the noteworthy Manassas affair, so I reckon it warrants a special mention. Rank-and-file ships of a given class don't.

If you really wish to go through the immense task of catalogueing all named spaceships in BattleTech then I reckon these lists should be separate articles from those covering the general type, like "List of Invader-class JumpShips". Heck, we could even go full monty and create an article for each and every single named spaceship, and sort them through appropriate categories. That's what Wookiepedia does for Star Wars. Huge undertaking, but certainly a way to get another 1000 or so articles for BTW. :) Frabby (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2012 (PST)

To be honest, the idea of list articles or even individual articles doesn't bother me that much - after all, I've spent eighteen months or so working regularly on 2,000+ planet articles - and I'd rather over-compensate by having too many articles rather than leave valuable information out there unrecorded. There are already some 200+ named WarShips out there, many recorded in articles already, and from what I've seen from the lists on the forum and the rumours about H:LoTV2, there are likely to be many more names added to the list.
I'm happy to keep an eye on the JumpShip articles and create seperate list articles of names when/if we hit a critical mass as needed. If it comes down to creating individual articles for each one, I can think of worse fates - cataloguing all those dead worlds turned out to be something similar - although I'd hate to have too many sub-stub articles floating around.
It does bug me a little that the JumpShip and WarShip articles haven't been consistent in the way they treat named vessels, though. We've already got 30 or so Essex-class named destroyers, 15 Black Lion-class battlecruisers, 18 Sovetskii Soyuz-class carriers... that's more than 50 ships from just 3 classes.
The Planets project is already fairly insane in scope, so at least I have previous form in the "tackling insane ideas" arena Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2012 (PST)
Matter of fact, you and Doneve are the two users here who I'd trust to actually get anywhere with such a project. I like your attitude. Individual ship articles it is then. Give me a day to come up with a suitable category tree, article format and infobox template. Frabby (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2012 (PST)
You mean we're both gluttons for punishment? Wink.gif How will the rules on sub-stubs apply to the ship articles, as they're likely to be quite small? We'll also need to decide how to handle nationalities for WarShips - some served with two or more nations (Terran Alliance -> Terran Hegemony -> Star League, or Star League -> Clan Nova Cat -> Second Star League, or Terran Hegemony -> Star League -> Clan Widowmaker -> Wolf's Dragoons) for example, so we'll need to make sure the names for the articles refer to just the ship name, I suspect, rather than trying to list them as the SLS/THS/CNS/WDS Whatever.
We'll also need to decide what to do about Redirects - there are a lot of articles where the name of a WarShip points back specifically to the Named Vessels section of the WarShip class article. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2012 (PST)
ETA: Thanks for the comparison to Doneve, btw - he and I work well together, and I have a great deal of respect for his work, so I'm very flattered by the comparison. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2012 (PST)

Work Part 1 done: I have changed the whole category system for DropShips into similar categories clearly marked as "... classes" categories, to make room for individual ship categories. The same thing has to be done for WarShips and JumpShips, but I'm off to bed now. Once the classes are neatly settled into the new format, we can develop a category tree for individual ships and start creating articles. I reckon I'll have the InfoBox up and running in 30 minutes once I begin. It's moving the existant categories (and updating the articles with the new categories) that's taking me so long. Frabby (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2012 (PST)

4th Skye Rangers[edit]

BM - FYI - I'm rewriting the 4th Skye Rangers' article, top to bottom. Let me know if you had any thoughts. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2012 (PST)

I don't have any strong feelings about the 4th Skye Rangers, I'm afraid - I only edited the article because there was an update needed tag from a source I had open at the time. There aren't that many units I have particularly strong feelings for (which is probably a good thing, given what TPTB did to a lot of units during the Jihad...) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2012 (PST)

Thanks and so on[edit]

Hy BM i know it was as a little bit early, but i would to say thanks, for your expensive support etc. and our great hand to hand workship in the last year and so on. I would wish you a great christmas time and a happy new year to you and your family. Hmm the world goes under in 21.12.2012, hahaha i think not so, and we do what we love in next year, we rais our loved wiki to a new level, in this way i say thanks, and the ball is rolling.--Doneve (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (PST)

Hy Doneve Smiley.gif Thank you - it's been a great pleasure alongside you on sarna, and I think we've achieved a huge amount this past year. I doubt the world's going to end tomorrow, although I suspect someone's making a killing somewhere selling tinfoil hats to people who believe that it will end! On the assumption that things will carry on as usual by the weekend, I hope that you and your family have a great Christmas and New Year. I hope that 2013 has lots of opportunities for editing and far fewer illnesses for everyone Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2012 (PST)