User talk:Cache



Broken Link Images[edit]

Hiya, you removed a number of broken (i.e., non-existant, redlink) image links from TCI Model Sets and BattleTech boxed set, among others. Normally, I would agree with that but in these two cases the redlinks were placeholders for images that absolutely need to be found and uploaded eventually. For this reason, I'd like to revert your edits but wanted to to raise the issue with you here first. Frabby (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2022 (EST)

Errors vs. requests. I thought about that after I'd removed them, so I put the articles in my queue to research. I may have some of those kits. I'll undo the edits myself later, if you don't beat me to it. Thanks for the note.--Cache (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2022 (EST)
Cheers mate! Would be great if you can fill in the blanks. Frabby (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2022 (EST)

RE: References[edit]

Thank you! I was just about to send you a message asking where to look up how to properly format those, the way I was doing it was clogging up the references at the bottom of the page ridiculously. Appreciate your help! Mage (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2022 (EST)

Marguerita Bourkova[edit]

Hey! It's hard to tell from the book, I legitimately had to research each of the artists listed and hers, out of all of them, is the style most like that of the particular portraits I've uploaded. Mage (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2022 (EST)

Direction Appreciated Award[edit]

For helping me figure out the Princess DropShip thing. Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon Talvin (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2022 (EST)

Images-as-references test case[edit]

Discord go boom, major outage. When you have a chance, discussing practical concerns at Talk:Bull Shark.

Images by Artists/Unknown[edit]

Okay, Cache, got the message. I'm still not used to the new template used for image references. I will be sure to leave it blank next time. -- Wrangler (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2022 (EDT)

Filename breaking things?[edit]

File:LAAF + JF 3059.png and File:LAAF + JF 3067.png Are the filenames the reason the images don't show up for me?--Talvin (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2022 (EDT)

That appears to have been the problem. Fixed.--Cache (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2022 (EDT)

Citations on 'See also' sections[edit]

Just saw the Royal Divisions page today. Given that links in that section generally go to other articles and pages in the wiki, isn't requesting citations on those links a bit of overkill? (I did add citations on that note which seemed to concern you the most, since the Talon article itself is rather vague on things like the issue of Royal and Regular Army usage. I might do some work on that one tomorrow, too tired right now.) Echo Mirage (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2022 (EDT)

No, it is not overkill. For example, when I follow the link to the MAD-1R and MAD-2R, I see nothing in the Marauder article that states those variants were exclusive to the Royals. When I follow-up with the references on the Marauder article, I still see nothing that states those variants were exclusive to the Royals. I did not bother wasting my limited time tracking down the references on the others. 1) The user should not have to run down links to find references. They should be provided within the article. 2) You need to vet your information. Judging by the lack of references, you are making assumptions based on memory. That is bad for the reputation of this wiki. Put down hard facts only--WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCES. NO ASSUMPTIONS.--Cache (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2022 (EDT)
• MAD-1R The earliest version of the Marauder, used by the Royal brigades of the SLDF, the 1R utilized CASE to protect the autocannon ammunition and carried eleven tons of Ferro-Fibrous armor. It was introduced in 2612.[18] BV (2.0) = 1,420[19][20]
• MAD-2R This upgrade of the 1R eventually replaced it in 2760. The PPCs were upgraded to ER PPCs, necessitating a similar upgrade of the heat sinks to double heat sinks.[18] BV (2.0) = 1,630[21][22] Link
You were saying? Echo Mirage (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2022 (EDT)
I was saying you are making assumptions. Drawing connections where none are referenced. How does "used by" equate to "exclusive to"? You are also ignoring my statement that users should not have to chase references across multiple articles. They should be provided in the first article.--Cache (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2022 (EDT)

Image Categories (Foreign Language)[edit]

Hello Cache. As some context, I have been working on foreign editions/products recently and have encountered several novel cover images and product images in these other languages. Some of the approaches to image management differ between the languages. For instance, the German product images are often tagged with the product image subcategory based on product type (like Category: Novel Cover Images) and one of the German product categories (Category: German Editions or Category: German Language Products), while product images for other languages were simply tagged with the product image subcategory. So I am working to uniformize the approach across the different languages.

The approach that seems apt (at least to me) is tagging a foreign product image with an product image subcategory (in addition to and independent of what image categories it posesses). See Category:Spanish Product Images and Category:Hungarian Product Images for examples of this model. I plan to extend this in parallel to German Product Images and French Product Images. Given your work with images and knowledge of the image categories, do you see any obvious problems with this approach? --Dude RB (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2022 (EDT)

Just a quick note to let you know that I'm not ignoring your question. I hope to be able to sit down and answer you some time this weekend. --Cache (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for the note. No worries. I understand that things are busy. I got a helpful second opinion from User:Frabby in Category talk:German Editions. So I have begun the transition. If there is anything that 'breaks' the structure of product image categories/subcategories, please feel free to give a holler. --Dude RB (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2022 (EDT)

Broken image links[edit]

Oops. Thanks for catching those. Madness Divine (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2022 (EDT)

You're welcome.--Cache (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2022 (EDT)

Ashley Pollard Portrait[edit]

Thank you for finding that updated portrait of Ashley Watkins/Pollard. The image quality makes her page look much nicer than the one I pulled from her blog!--Beemer (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2022 (EDT)

No problem. I think the higher quality image is a decade old but it'll do.--Cache (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2022 (EDT)

Hadur LRM variant[edit]

Thanks for the update, I presently don't have the 'Technical Readout: 3150' book. Echo Mirage (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2023 (EST)

I'm curious now... where did you get the info that you wrote into the article?--Cache (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2023 (EST)
Got the info on the LRM variant's introduction and initial employment during the Battle of New Oslo from the Operation NOYAN article. The description of the LRM variant in action indicated that the LRM was equipped with a full scale TAG system as well as a LRM launcher. Based on that as well as the space and tonnage available to the baseline Hadur, I assumed that the new variant was a minimum change design that in line with general Clan doctrine (and associated game designer tendencies!) maintained as much ranged firepower as possible while preserving or improving the tonnage available for the primary ammo, in this case the LRM missiles. (To make the most of the available primary ammo capacity I also believed that it was likely that it would have a LRM-5 or possibly LRM-6 launcher.) I was therefore quite surprised when you dug up the detailed specs on the new variant showing that, contrary to the information on its deployment in the field, it is actually equipped with a Light TAG system (the choice of a double LRM-15 system was another surprise, especially given the current Battletech construction rules). As it currently stands, the LRM variant is wildly at variance with the lore; it literally can't carry out the role and tactics that have been described for it. For one thing it would not be able to stick with its standard Hadur partner, but would have to move well ahead to have any hope of spotting targets at the best range of the Arrow IV equipped Hadur, while still being unable to use its own LRMs to anything like full advantage, targeting computer notwithstanding (not to mention that it will probably run out of ammo far more quickly that its partner [only a couple of reloads, if I haven't totally fouled up my tonnage calculations gamewise]). The reactive armor is yet another strange design choice. I'm beginning to wonder if there hasn't been some seriously crossed wires at Catalyst Game Labs here.
I could be wrong, but isn't this new variant unique in putting a Light TAG system on a LRM platform? While light TAG systems aren't entirely unheard of on Clan OmniVehicles and combat vehicles (and the occasional OmniMech or BattleMech), they are usually associated with alternate configurations intended for elemental support or forward artillery spotting, or vehicles specialised for same (including some ProtoMechs lest I forget). And the missile systems where equipped are almost invariably Streak SRMs. Otherwise Clan vehicles equipped with Light TAGs are generally designed for second line units (such as Clan Watch [MP] and Solahma formations) intended for infantry support or hunting down enemy infantry in rear areas. Echo Mirage (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2023 (EST)
One problem with writing wiki articles based solely on information in other wiki articles is that you have no way of verifying the information. That is a very important step. Without verification we get speculation or outright incorrect information, which is a bad thing. Speculation is to be avoided.--Cache (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (EST)

Handling Component Images used in Image Composites[edit]

Cache, I have the following question. When creating combinations of images that then will replace the original component images within articles, I presume that we would wish to keep the original component images around even though the latter are not directly used in an article (for the purposes of preserving source info and history). Is there a recommended way to handle such? See File:Catapult Token.jpg for an example. --Dude RB (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2023 (EST)

My first thought is to upload the composite image as a replacement for one of the original images. (The "front" image in the case of the Catapult.) Then rename the file, mark the unused ("rear") image for deletion, and replace the individual images with the composite in all affected articles. This preserves the history of at least one image without leaving orphans lying around. Odds are both images were uploaded by the same user so there isn't much of anything lost. --Cache (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2023 (EST)
Thanks for the note. I think I will do this with one slight modification. I will upload the rear image into the front image first and then upload the composite image into the front image (then rename and relink). Then the original rear image will also be archived within the history of the final image. --Dude RB (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2023 (EST)


Just wanted to express appreciation for our collaboration and your timely assistance with a number of edits. Assistance Appreciated Award, 2nd ribbon --Csdavis715 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (EDT)


Hey Cache,

I just wanted to express my appreciation for your recent efforts helping out around the wiki in some of the problem areas. Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon, I have placed your first Substantial addition award on your board.

Thank you. --Dmon (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2023 (EST)

Viper Origin Note[edit]

Thank you. The criticism was very productive. HussarZwei (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2024 (EST)