User talk:Cache



Remove of missing copyright tag[edit]

Hello Cache, can you tell me how I can remove the missing copyright information tag by pictures how had them. Or is that an job for the admin's? For example the Battle of Luthien (44).jpg. With best regards


Just fill in the information in the image summary template. Luthien(44).jpg needs a summary. But please leave the "artist" blank if you don't know their name. It helps other editors locate files that need info.--Cache (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2020 (EST)

German novel cover artists[edit]

Hey Chache, you changed the artist info on german covers of Black Dragon (novel), Test of Vengeance and Binding Force. Thank you for correcting it! Could you please tell, from where these images originate? I am completing this list on German novels and are desperately looking for the original source of some of the German novel covers. Thanks for your hints, best regards Phasis (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi Phasis. Black Dragon is a copy of File:Hot_Spots_Cover.jpg, Test of Vengeance is a flipped copy of File:Warrior_-_Riposte_(anniversary).jpg, and Binding Force is from File:Heir_to_the_Dragon_(reprint).jpg. Also, the German cover for Blood of Heroes is from the Color Reference Section of The BattleTech Compendium, and Star Lord (novel) is from the color plates of BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare. I don't know the artist for either of those at the moment.
I noticed that you are adding original covers to the gallery in these articles while that cover image is already present in the infobox. Is there a reason for this duplication? It's not a violation of any policy that I am aware of, but I do feel it is unnecessary to show the same image twice. I do enjoy the work you have done so far in adding German translations to articles. Thank you. Regards,--Cache (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
Hey Cache, thanks for your hints and your appreciation. I added all covers to the section, because it felt more complete this way. Some novels were re-issued with new cover plus the covers in other languages. So far I just have added the german covers, I know of at least some french novels. I think its nicer to have a complete gallery with all covers, instead of having to scroll up. It felt like it outweighs the redundancy. best regards Phasis (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Deleting Role Categories[edit]

Respectfully, can this be reconsidered? It seems MUL supports looking up units by role. For brawlers it lists:

  • BattleMech 482
  • Combat Vehicle 85
  • IndustrialMech 11
  • Protomech 18
  • Support Vehicle 64

Also both RS Succession Wars and RS Clans roles are listed in the "'Mech Data" box. In fact I was planning to update it with MUL and RS material. --Mindw (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Role is a very arbitrary description, and thus iffy for wiki purposes. If you're defining it by "the MUL says so" then it boils down to copying the MUL. Sarna shouldn't try to out-MUL the MUL. My 2c on the matter. I don't feel strong about it either way. Frabby (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
This is somewhat confusing, how is that different from taking the introduction date and cost from the MUL? also, the roles are present in both Succession Wars and Clan invasion TROs? --Mindw (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

(Copied this discussion for consolidation to the Brawler BattleMechs category talk page.--Cache (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2020 (EDT))

The 3025 problem[edit]


I was unhappy with the "Emblematic Mechs" sections of the state military articles because to me they instantly suffered a rather dogmatic problem that blights the BT fan base, I was actually considering removing them. Unfortunately to me your revision of the FWL just makes the issue even more pronounced by the fact that it only includes TRO:3025 designs. We really need to get away from this grognard attitude in my opinion.--Dmon (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Re-read this and I don't want you to think it is directed at you personally, I am just frustrated with what I see as a very narrow view of this specific topic.--Dmon (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
I have no problem with you removing it, I was just trying to add a fix with some sort of canon information and citation. FWL was easy, as production was spelled out. FedSuns... not so much. I gave up at that point.--Cache (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2020 (EDT)
For what it's worth, I don't think a narrow view is necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is spelled out as such and the data supplied is canon (with citations). --Cache (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (EDT)

"Image" vs. "Logo"[edit]

I've done all the changes Cache, you can review the images now and take action if you feel some should be amended.--Pserratv (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2021 (EST)

New Avalon[edit]

You're an artist amongst mortals.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:26, 25 May 2021 (EDT)

Once in a while things work out as well in reality as they do in my head.--Cache (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2021 (EDT)

"Passion" Project[edit]

Hey, personal question for you: what would you say your passion area is on Sarna? What do you think you prefer doing here the most?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:04, 25 May 2021 (EDT)

I think uploading and/or improving images in articles is number one on my list. I do enjoy a (fairly) mindless grind once in a while, hence some of my "projects" that involve minor changes over a large number of articles. Writing articles or sections thereof is dead last. --Cache (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (EDT)
I'm not surprised by your answer. I can't tell you very much right now, but I've gotten permission from Nic to develop a proposal, for which I think you'd be a good candidate. Would you mind answering the following:
  • Would you say you know Sarna image policy and procedures well?
  • Have you been involved in shaping (or discussing) image policy here?
  • Have you ever defended your (or someone else's) image actions (to an admin or editor), using policy (or a modification to then-existing policy)?
  • Who (other editor/admin) would you say is as involved (or more so) in images as yourself?
  • Would you be comfortable being the go-to person that others directed issues to, whether for guidance, feedback, or issue resolution?
I appreciate your feedback. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:26, 26 May 2021 (EDT)
Sorry for the delay.
1) I don't have the policy memorized by any means, but I am familiar with it.
2) I have discussed the image policy in the past and made suggestions for improvement of "image source" policy. Those two stand out at the moment.
3) I don't know about "defended", but I have explained my reasoning a time or two.
4) Possibly dmon, Neuling, Phasis, and Pserratv.
5) I wouldn't mind. I cannot promise increased availability, but I'm on/learning discord now.
--Cache (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2021 (EDT)
I'm looking into #4, but thank you. This helps. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:00, 28 May 2021 (EDT)

Miniatures note[edit]

I think what you just stated in the summary field should be included in a cite (for that article passage). A note like that—from a primary source—would be a nearly-unassailable fact.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:10, 31 May 2021 (EDT)

When I get a chance, I will write an essay on that topic, and my other project with IWM around the same time. They'll be easier to reference that way.--Cache (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2021 (EDT)
Sounds good. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2021 (EDT)

BattleTech Style Guide[edit]

I've been (recently) meaning to develop a policy for how words and names are handled in-universe. so that we editors can point to it to help other editors develop internally-consistent articles. I just stumbled across Mbear's own such project, stalled since 2014. Instead of re-inventing the wheel...The incomplete policy is here, if you'd like to jump in and take part in its development.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:27, 3 June 2021 (EDT)

I will chip in where I can.--Cache (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2021 (EDT)
Not a problem. There's no rush. When I finish it, I'll formally open it to discussion.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:45, 3 June 2021 (EDT)

Addition of Brunel Dump Truck (LMR) image[edit]

Hi Cache. The image was a gift from Sippy the Mead Monk of the Black Pants Legion. We both agreed that the Brunel LRM needed some love and so this artwork was born. --foxy-of-many-lives (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2021 (GMT)

Images as Sources[edit]

Cache, pre-SE employment request for you here. In the last few days, we've experienced the opportunity to identify information as canon based upon that proclamation (in this case, Ray Arrastia). I wanted to capture the "proof" in a more permanent fashion, so grabbed and uploaded 2 screencaps:

Would you please generate up a properly-filled out Image tag for these two, to serve as Policy-level examples for future such images serving as citable sources? If you need details, please see this discussion post (or ask me). Thank you.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (EDT)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for that little reference that Mark was David McKinnons father, I had missed that, and you allowed me to plug a hole in the House McKinnon family tree.--Dmon (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2021 (EDT)

No problem. There was only a one-sentence mention of him in the book, so it made for an easy update. --Cache (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2021 (EDT)

Iron Wind Metals and Ral Partha Europe[edit]

Hello Cache, I have an interesting question for you. As some context, I have been compiling a list of Iron Wind Metals Miniatures (currently focused on the 2003-2007 period). There are gaps in what the Web Archive record of Iron Wind Metals own web site/store, but I have found that Ral Partha Europe's websites were much better preserved in that time period. As I mesh the two sets of data, the following question has come up. I am curious if you have any helpful light to shed on this.

1) Ral Partha Europe's website indicates that they manufacture and distribute Ral Partha lines of miniatures (including BattleTech) for Europe. This started before FASA ceased and continued after Iron Wind Metals was spun off. The lines appear coordinated both in terms of catalog codes and release times. (Ral Partha Europe releases occurred typically a few months after the corresponding release for Iron Wind Metals, at least for the cases that I have data on both.) Given that they were a manufacturer and not simply a distributor or retailer, it would seem that there may a few different ways that the BattleTech lines could shared. (i) Molds were made at IWM and sent to RPE for their use, (ii) Masters were lent to RPE for the creation of their own molds, (iii) Actual product was sent from IWM to RPE, (iv) some combination of the prior, or (v) something entirely different. Do you have any background on how miniatures were shared/coordinated between the two?

Regardless of the nature of the linkage, my current operating assumption is that anything released by Ral Partha Europe had been released by IWM (or Ral Partha) in North America sometime earlier.

--Dude RB (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2021 (EDT)

Sorry for the delay. I don't have any concrete information on how RP or IWM shared sculpts with RPE. I have only heard that RP/IWM sent them masters. Whether this was a master sculpt, casting, or mold I do not know. I don't know why the deal stopped some years ago either, but that's why RPE hasn't had anything resembling a recent sculpt on sale for well over a decade. Also, during the Ral Partha days, RPE produced two modified sculpts that were not available from RP in the US: They sold a BattleMaster and Phoenix Hawk (both Unseen) that had separate arms. The Phoenix Hawk used the arms from the Crescent Hawk PXH LAM and the BattleMaster's arms were just modified to have ball-and-socket shoulder joints. I have no idea how that deal worked either.--Cache (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for the response and the bit of info. This particular point sounds like an unsolved mystery at present. --Dude RB (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2021 (EDT)


Not quite vandalism, but I wanted to let you know I appreciate how quickly you intercepted that fanon. Vandal Cop Award, 2nd ribbon--Dmon (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2021 (EDT)

Archer info?[edit]

Cache, I've searched for "Archer" and "Rubinsky" in Field Manual: Mercenaries and the Mercenary Supplementals, but I can't find any info about the ARC-2R (Rubinsky). Do you have any info for it? Is it Field Manual Mercs Revised? Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 12:38, 17 August 2021 (EDT)

Field Manual: Mercenaries, p. 81, second column at the bottom. There's a handful of 'Mech descriptions--Cache (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2021 (EDT).
This is what you're looking for, right? "...including the substitution of SRM packs and a hatchet for an Archer's LRM launchers..."--Mbear(talk) 13:47, 17 August 2021 (EDT)
(Strange, but my PDF doesn't have that. I had to get the actual paper book. Oh well.)--Mbear(talk) 13:49, 17 August 2021 (EDT)
That's it. Haven't looked to see if the others customs have been added. Odd that it's missing from the PDF.--Cache (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2021 (EDT)

MapPack Cover Image Matters[edit]

Cache, in the process of doing moves and link updates, I discovered an issue with the 2013 MapPack cover images. It appears that for 8 of the 13, that there are two images uploaded for each. The more recently uploaded ones are significantly higher resolution, but there is information posted in the earlier upload regarding artist. Also the earlier uploads cover all 13, but the higher res ones cover only 8 of them. [Specifically, the following five do not have higher res versions: MapPack BattleForce.jpg, MapPack Box Canyon.jpg, File:MapPack Rolling Hills 1.jpg, File:MapPack Rolling Hills 2.jpg, and File:MapPack Woodland.jpg.] So it appears that some form of unification is in order. I am unaware of the protocol for unifying duplicate image pages, but I thought such would be in your wheelhouse. --Dude RB (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2021 (EDT)

I am running into the same issue pretty often with unit insignias. The best way I know to address the issue is: 1) Choose the superior image. 2) Copy any image summary data to the superior image that is not already there. 3) Change all links from the inferior image to point to the superior image. 4) Request deletion of the inferior image. Request for deletion templates are here. (Template can go on the bottom of the page.) I suggest "speedy deletion" for duplicate images. In the "reason" section, include a link to the superior image, like this—{{delete|Duplicate of [[:File:use-a-colon-before-file-for-text-link-only.gif]]|speedy}}
This will put the inferior image into a category where Admins and Senior Editors can review the image and delete if appropriate. --Cache (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2021 (EST)
Thanks for the note. One of the images is a png (while all the rest are jpeg). If images are roughly comparable in terms of resolution, is there any format that is better in general? [In this case, the png is much higher resolution than the older jpg, so the issue of resolution would trump any sort of issue regarding format in this particular instance.] --Dude RB (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2021 (EDT)
I'm certainly not an expert in image types, but PNGs tend to have larger file sizes for complicated images, such as book covers, while having smaller file sizes for simple images like unit insignias. They also allow for invisible backgrounds, which can be useful for unit insignias and the like. These days I don't notice much difference in quality between JPGs and others, when they are saved at a high quality. Default for my image editor is PNG, so that is usually what I upload.--Cache (talk)
Thanks for the info and sharing what has been your experience in practice. --Dude RB (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (EDT)