User talk:Csdavis715


I have decided that I am going to start bringing back the awards to the wiki, I feel people deserve to know their work is appreciated. So as one of my first awards in what might be about to years, I would like to award you the Substantial Addition Award for your MechWarrior 5 content and grant you a Act of Appreciation Award for how well you are expanding your interests into other aspects of the wiki. Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon --Dmon (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2023 (EDT)

MW5 High Reward Quests - Campaign vs Career[edit]

I wondered the same thing but didn't have time to check my old saves, but yes there are often extreme differences between Campaign and Career Mode in reward values and even location and reputation level required. Campaign values I guess would be the prefered as everybody who owns the game has campaign and not everybody has DLC and career (though IMO they should). Cyc (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (EDT)

Hey thank you for your message and sorry, I don't know how to message you properly, so I hope you're seeing this. Anyway just let me know if I can do/not do something. I'm only trying to be helpful. -csdavis715 8/27/21


Hey CS, though it best to bring this over here instead. Yes you are right signing is easy once you know how but pretty much everybody takes a while to catch on. Policy:Sign your posts on talk pages.--Dmon (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2021 (EST)

Wow, super easy. And thank you for your contributions to the Sarna site. I wish this community was around back when MW2 came out. Csdavis715 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2021 (EST)
Haha, yes I could not agree more, I spent hours creating a massive xl spreadsheet with all the 'Mech stats for MW2 and MW2M. So glad we can turn stuff into community efforts now.--Dmon (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2021 (EST)

MW5 "Orphans"[edit]

Hello! I'm Talvin, the guy who started Project Orphanage, which just went official today. I have noticed you doing work on the Mechwarrior 5 pages, and I wanted to let you know about BattleTechWiki:Project Orphanage/Video Game Orphans. All of these are pages that were found in Special:LonelyPages, and they got sorted into a "parking lot" until a proper home could be found for them. Can you suggest good places to link all those jump-points? I am only familiar with MW2 (and that has been many years) and the HBS Battletech game, so I am pretty lost when dealing with MW5. Talvin (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2022 (EST)

Hi Talvin, thanks for creating this project. At present, the only systems identified in the MW5 pages (as you may already know) are the ones used in Conflict Zones or featured in scripted missions. And to be honest, I assumed every system on the map was taken from existing BattleTech info. So these systems like JP-A-109 were created just for MW5? I'm not sure what to suggest off the top of my head; this will require some thought. --Csdavis715 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2022 (EST)
That is how it appears to me. JP-G-657 is a good example to look at, there. Talvin (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2022 (EST)
Also, feel free to join us on Discord! Talvin (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2022 (EST)
This came up in Discord, and the Sarna Cartographer said, quote: "I propose that the "gameplay" section in the MW5 page be expanded to include how it is to navigate in-game, then post the JPs according to where players may expect to find them". Talvin (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2022 (EST)
Interesting! I'm not sure yet how a "Gameplay" page of MW5 might look, since it's my understanding that information has to stay neutral. But yes, that would be one option we can do if you don't mind being patient for a month or two. My next vision is to create a "Factions" page that would be a comprehensive list of all Employers/Factions, their subsidiaries, links to all the scripted missions that are associated with them, and the mechs that are used by them. Maybe I could join Discord at some point and have a conversation with you guys about how might be the best way to do the "Gameplay" page. Thanks for keeping me updated. --Csdavis715 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2022 (EST)
I am arguing (I think successfully) that with so many people coming to Sarna because of their love for the Video Games, we need to figure out how to support those folk better without mixing the Canon and Apocryphal stuff in ways that will confuse readers. For example, I have suggested Portal pages for the games. Definitely consider jumping into the Discord, it's a friendly bunch. --Talvin (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2022 (EST)
Hi Talvan! I think I've done all that I feel compelled to do with the MW5 pages at this point (before learning what the upcoming DLC will bring). If you'd still like my input, I'll be happy to join Discord in the coming days so we can chat about your ideas. I've never used it, so I just have to get set up first. --Csdavis715 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (EDT)
Hey, CSDavis. I have left the Sarna Discord server to focus more on editing in the Wiki, but I am still active on the Discord platform, you can find my username on my Userpage. Also definitely consider the server, you will find others to chat with there as well.--Talvin (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2022 (EDT)
Maybe I'm not seeing it among the awards people are piling on you... what is your Discord page? Or you can send me an invite, my username is the same as it is here. --Csdavis715 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2022 (EDT)
Probably looking at the talk page rather than the user page. Quote: "If you want to chat on Discord, send a friend request to my username here with #3561 tacked on the end. (Obfuscating that a bit so bots can't just grab it.)" From User:Talvin#Discord--Talvin (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2022 (EDT)

Voice actors[edit]

Hi, a request: When you’re mentioning voice actors for characters, please make sure to insert them as links as they will get their real person article eventually. Frabby (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2022 (EST)

Sure thing. Yea, I was thinking about that earlier and just thought we'd be going down a rabbit hole if we did end up giving them their own pages. Because it wouldn't be fair to only give voice actors their own page... in that sense literally anyone who worked on a BT product should qualify, and that's hundreds of people for just MW5 alone. But I suppose it's also a nice thing to do and if there are people to do the articles, then why not. Csdavis715 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2022 (EST)

Citation trimming[edit]

Hi, Cs.

First, thanks for fixing some of the world articles up. There will never be a lack of work to do on those.

Preëmptively, I'd like it if you left the world names in the Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) citations; with at least two different copies floating around, page numbers alone aren't enough. I'm working backward through the proper copy of the document and it makes it easier to find all the off-by-three entries. Thanks. Madness Divine (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

Will do! Not sure if or how many of that source I've run across so far. By the way, I decided to play it safe and leave the text on citations of front matter pages (or in cases where there is no page number provided- usually a foldout), but feel free to axe them later if you want. --Csdavis715 (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2023 (EDT)
What's a front matter page? Madness Divine (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2023 (EDT)
Almost forgot to mention that the original housebooks have both print and unnumbered PDF versions; the numbering offset is two on most of them. If you feel like driving yourself mad checking all those references to see which the original editor chose... Madness Divine (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2023 (EDT)
Front matter pages: the roman numerals pages. There might be another name for them. Csdavis715 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (EDT)
It's a good day when you learn something new. Thanks. Madness Divine (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2023 (EDT)

Apocrypha warnings[edit]

Hey. I've noticed you removing the apocryphal product template from some of the video game articles, letting the canonicity section bear the weight of denoting their status. Not sure this is a good idea - the templates autopopulate the apocryphal product category, the template is designed to work with that section, and they're the strongest and most immediate notice for something that absolutely has to be made clear to all readers. I worry that their removal makes it easier for skimmers to miss the video games' status. You sure this is the right approach? --Tumult&Travail (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2023 (EDT)

That's for bringing this to my attention! The way I view this, and hopefully I'm not the only one, is that the video games themselves are official products. The games aren't apocryphal—the content within the games is what's considered apocryphal. The mention of canonicity is the first section of all these game pages, and even skimming they should see it (actually, I have a [chat] of someone thinking something was canon despite the apocrypha tag at the top of the page, so nothing is 100% idiot-proof...) And I'm willing to venture the lay reader who comes to the Sarna website will not be searching through categories, so that's more an internal thing. We can put the tag back on if you or someone else feels strongly, though I only started doing this because not all games had the tag to begin with. --Csdavis715 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2023 (EDT)
The very definition of "apocryphal" is "official but not canon", see Canon. In fact, the video games IP is a distinct IP from mainline BattleTech. So yes, these products absolutely are apocrypha. And by our Policy:Canon it is mandatory that they are tagged as such through the appropriate Apocrypha tags which in turn refer the reader to the equally mandatory Canonicity section within the article where the situation regarding the specific article or product is supposed to be explained in detail.
You are right that it’s technically a double warning. But for over a decade Sarna has had established procedures how to treat apocrypha and I see no reason to change it. Frabby (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2023 (EDT)
Addendum: If the tag was missing on any video games then that needs to be remedied too, of course. I'll look into it. Frabby (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2023 (EDT)
Of course, you guys are the admins, so it's your call. The more I think about it, the more I feel placing the apocrypha tag on these game pages, while understandable, is misdirected. After all, they are official BT products. It just looks dismissive of these products and their value in the BT community when the tag is placed there, and I'm willing to bet at least half of our readership (and wiki editors, like myself) came here originally because of one of those game. It's the contents within that are noncanon and all of them should require the tag. If there's a discussion to be had in the future, I'd like to be part of it. --Csdavis715 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2023 (EDT)
Much as I want to be open about this and much as I respect you personally, I fear the core point of your argument as I understand it doesn’t hold water. There is an official ruling on what official products are canon. Computer games, although official, are expressly not canon. The word "apocryphal" isn’t used by the BattleTech IP holders; it is the word we on Sarna use to describe this special group of official-but-expressly-not-canonical publications and their content. And to reverse your argument about dismissing these products, I would argue we’re actually lifting them up from non-canon status by establishing the apocryphal status as an intermediate status.
The official rulings this is based on are quoted verbatim in our article on Canon. Frabby (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (EDT)
What I think you are trying to say is that canon is determined based on source, not content (I've read the Canon link before, but your references to IP didn't resonate with me initially). Through that lens I can understand the tag policy. --Csdavis715 (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2023 (EDT)
Cool. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve or clarify the policy? Frabby (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2023 (EDT)
I think my hangup was the part I mentioned. IMO the Canon article explains it much clearer than Policy:Canon, though it's entirely possible I was just out of sorts that day... --Csdavis715 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

Periphery citations[edit]

Hi cs.

I've run across some Periphery citations that were actually for the second edition but weren't marked as such, so I find it useful to mark it when the edition is definite. I ain't checkin' 'em all, though. Madness Divine (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

According to CMoS, we only need to indicate when it's the 2nd edition Periphery book. Curious readers who want to learn more should be able to find out it's the Periphery 1st edition by clicking on the bibliography link at the bottom. I think it's better that we simply correct the wrong citations when we come across them. I see where you're coming from, though. --Csdavis715 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2023 (EDT)
I'll add that if I'm not already editing an article and my brain isn't on autopilot, I'll try to leave them in for you. Not a problem. --Csdavis715 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2023 (EDT)
All right. Thanks. Madness Divine (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2023 (EDT)
I must have missed the CMoS on that one. Not the first time. Madness Divine (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2023 (EDT)


Hiya, I'm a bit confused about your recent edits with an eye to handling disambiguations. I am a bit behind on current developments so please bear with me here when I raise two points:
1) For many years, we used to disambiguate disambiguation pages. If no "primary" article could be found, the non-disambiguated name would redirect to "Name (disambiguation)". I thought that made sense.
2) Also, whenever there was a disambiguation, I made sure every last article had an otheruses tag link back to the disambiguation page (which would itself be disambiguated as such for maximum clarity, as per above). I see you have kept the tag in some cases but removed it in others, and was wondering why? Frabby (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2023 (EDT)

Good day to you sir! I was under the impression we worked it out in our lengthy group conversation in the Discord channel but I'm happy continue that chat here. I can tell from the edit history of many articles I've updated that you did a lot of leg work on getting these setup, so I appreciate you for making it easier for me!
I'll start with the point we agree on, that some pages are primary articles and typing in a name should go directly there, like Union or Grendel. For these pages and any others that can't be moved like the system pages, I've been doing the disambig as "Name (disambiguation)". I will admit, though, this is more out of necessity than preference; if you take a look at how the original wiki does it, Wikipedia, they do not use that moniker in their disambig pages unless there is a clear cut primary article (like "Rice"), and this is likely grounded in the reasonable belief that if a user is searching for something, they won't type in or click on an article with "disambiguation" unless they are having a hard time finding it elsewhere. And further, countless dozens (hundreds?) of our disambigs have been redirecting "Name (disambiguation)" --> "Name" where the disambig was already set up (like the Gorgon article I just edited before you commented). A redirect to a redirect comes across either as an error or worse yet the impression of disorganization which I'm hoping to help our wiki avoid.
If it weren't for all those darned single-name Clanners, maybe we wouldn't even need to have a disambig format! Admittedly, I'm glad we're having this conversation, as it would probably come up eventually, and better to do it now while we're under 50,000 pages than after we're over 100,000!
Regarding the disambig tag on some articles and not others, I'm using my best judgement based on reasonable searchability. Someone who is looking at Gorgon (Individual Excalibur-class DropShip) or Shawn (2nd Falcon Jaegers) either got there through the disambig page, or clicked on it from the pulldown list of the Search box. So they were clearly going for that page, rather than coming across it from another bigger page/category (like a 'Mech, system, etc). So with an eye toward the presentation of these pages, I felt it was unnecessary to tag every one, which by the way if we did would potentially account for a very large percentage of the database.
Lastly, I try to work closely with our senior editors and for projects as big as this one, I would never attempt to make such large-scale changes without being given some sort of green light. While I take responsibility for my editing choices, I'll just say that I wouldn't do anything that wasn't considered acceptable. Let me know if I can tweak my disambig format moving forward, or if there are any questions. --Csdavis715 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (EDT)
First off, please consider me "just another fellow editor" in this. Your opinion is as valid as mine here. (Also, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Discord isn't a suitable medium for such discussion. Maybe that's just me getting old. :) ) I'll try to explain my concerns; based on the examples you give I think we have different ideas of the "otheruses" tag and the whole disambiguation concept and I would like Sarna to follow a unified approach there.
The Grendel redirect is perfect as it is. But this is not a disambiguation issue, as the name clearly refers to one specific design that has a different proper name which is why the main article has a different name.
The Union example already raised my eyebrow. Do we consider that name ambiguous or not, in the sense of requiring disambiguation? If yes, then we seem to agree the name should redirect to (or be) a disambiguation page. Of course, "Union" is an example of the special case where there is a particularly prominent item going by that name and we agree that in such a case, the redirect can go to that article instead of a disambiguation page. But it would then be absolutely mandatory for the article to have a link to the disambiguation page (typically, through the "otheruses" tag) and "Union (DropShip class)" doesn't have that. Otherwise, if we feel the name doesn't need a disambiguation, then why does the redirect even exist and why isn't the "Union (DropShip class)" article simply named "Union"?
As for why I prefer to invariably put disambig tags on every disambiguated article, think of this scenario: User John Doe somehow comes across the "Gorgon (Individual Pinto-class WarShip)" article. It doesn't have an otheruses tag to indicate there are other things out there named Gorgon, so he might think "Oh I thought this was a Wagon Wheel or an Excalibur DropShip but apparently not". I feel it amounts to withholding information from a user if you don't link to an existent disambiguation page in each and every case where an article name was disambiguated. Even if it's not positively needed it certainly doesn't hurt to have the reference.
As for disambiguated disambiguation pages (eg. "Gorgon (disambiguation)"), I prefer to have them even if they should only be a redirect to the prime article. If everything gets disambiguated, then the disambiguation page too should get disambiguated. But maybe that's just my personal OCD. Frabby (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2023 (EDT)
Hello fellow editor!
1) Regarding Union, maybe that editor did it to differentiate it from the other Union classes, or it was part of a project to eventually give all classes that moniker, I don't know. Anyway, I agree it should have an otheruses tag on it and I just added one. I've only been focusing on articles that I come across while combing through the Clan character pages, so it hadn't crossed my mind until now.
2) Regarding Gorgon (Individual Pinto-class WarShip), again how does user John Doe stumble upon this article? If not the aforementioned disambig page or search bar, then it was through an internal link or category page which provides some context, right? As Dmon said, I think we can give our readers some credit for being able to read and figure things out.
3) Regarding the otheruses tag on every article within a disambiguated page, let me put the sheer volume of this in perspective. According to my history, I've done close to 5,000 edits since I started focusing on the disambigs (let's say 1,000 were for other things). This whole time I've been focusing on the Clanners and I'm not done, which means maybe 10% of our wiki would be saturated with the tag. This is a huge undertaking with the 200 or so hours I've spent being just a drop in the bucket to go through them all and update them. And for the record, I've only hacked the tag off at most 50 articles... the vast majority of them never had it.
4) Disambiguating the disambiguation page? Even if they only redirect back to the primary article? Maybe OCD, but also a time investment above what I said in #3. We are all volunteers...
Is there anything we can agree on or accept at this time? Perhaps we have the default disambig page the one without the moniker? When I finish going through the Clan characters, I'll take a break from this and get back to other interests. After it settles a little we'll be able to see if any adjustments should be considered. While I've done an occasional disambig for a vehicle/DropShip/Mech/etc, I've avoided going to those specific categories knowing full well it will draw interest from more editors. --Csdavis715 (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2023 (EDT)
I have found another issue. Apparently, User:MahiMahi decided to move articles with non-ambiguous names to disambiguated names without need, eg. moving Leopard CV to Leopard CV (DropShip class). He cited our Policy:Article Naming as reason, but the policy in fact states that article names should only be ambiguated if they have to. Unfortunately I've only realized now what he did.
Fixing all the article links that suddenly became redirects isn’t necessary. Instead, if and when I find the time, I'll move the articles back to their proper names. Frabby (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2023 (EDT)
For the Leopard CV example, I don't mind that there is the additional moniker to avoid potential confusion with the original Leopard. I see what you mean with many non-ambiguous names not needing to be moved, but I think now that they are there, we might as well leave them. I can see the other argument that all things equal, maybe they all should have a moniker for the sake of following a unified approach as you mentioned before. Just too much effort to move them all at once, and the ones that have already been moved aren't negatively affecting anything. Plus, we're still expanding our database and maybe many of them will need to be disambiguated later on. So if I had a vote in the matter, I would leave them. I've also spent a lot of time updating the links while in the process of doing other fixes, and it doesn't feel good to have time and work needlessly undone. --Csdavis715 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2023 (EDT)
To be clear, what you're doing is not wrong. It's just different from how I would have done it (or did it a couple years back). At this point, I have just two requests to make:
1) Don't delete "... (disambiguation)" pages. Just redirect them, or make sure you have "create redirect" checked when you move them.
2) Mention the disambiguation in every disambiguated article, for completeness's sake. Intellectually I do understand your reasoning above why it might not be needed in some cases but it still feels like witholding information or providing incomplete information when there is no one-click link to the disambiguation page.
Also, you're welcome to move needlessly ambiguated articles back to their proper names instead of correcting oodles of links to what shouldn't be a redirect page in the first place. Frabby (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2023 (EDT)
I have formalized how we do these a bit more with a help page, an information page, and general changes to both the template and it's main category. I will be making in the near future a Manual of Style page for it, that way all of this is in a way that will surpass us all. --Deadfire (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2023 (EDT)
Hi Deadfire: thanks for creating those documents. I think the help and information pages are super clear.
Hi Frabby: I'll respond to your points in reverse order-
1) I think there's a misconception of what I'm doing when updating links, so let me explain. Unlike Wikipedia, which when you use the search box pulls up potential pages where that term is used (ordered by visit frequency and other algorithms which account for spelling errors), the Sarna box brings up a list based on exactly what was typed in, and then ordered alphabetically. It shows every possible page and redirect, so you end up seeing something messy like [this]. Of those 10 on the list, only 3 are actual pages plus a disambig. The other 6 are redirects, none of which need to be there. By fixing the links and deleting old redirects from the list, it looks much cleaner now when you type in "Vulcan." Of course this is a massive amount of effort to go through the whole wiki, and I'm not saying I'm going to do that. But in the past month while I was combing through Clan names I cleaned out a few of the easier ones along the way, and every little bit helps, right? Also when I move an article to create a disambig page, I update the pages with the new link. Often there are a lot of balls in the air so it might be hard to understand what I'm doing from looking at the wiki-updates feed.
But again I think it's a good idea to just leave articles where they are because once we've added another 50,000 pages to the wiki, some of them that don't need disambiguation now might need it later. Raven's Wing could very well be the name of a short story one day. It doesn't hurt to leave it now and "tidy up" in ten years when the database is more complete.
2) Are we still "fellow editors" or are you putting on your senior admin hat making requests? We are currently at almost 1,000 disambig pages in the category with likely a few hundred still needed, and with a conservative average of 3 entries each, that means you want ~4,000 pages to have the otheruses tag. I'm sorry, but I'm a volunteer and we don't see eye-to-eye on this point. If you feel strongly about it, you're welcome to do it yourself. What I'll do is agree to stop hacking them off the ones they're currently on, and you should also realize that I've added the tag to just as many pages that didn't have them before, so there's been no net loss.
3) Your first request baffles me a bit, and you've given no explanation except to say that your personal OCD wants to see literally every page get disambiguated. What practical use would it be to have a "name (disambig)" page redirect back to the "name"? So that it shows up in the search bar? So that you see a "disambig" link in the otheruses tab? Atlas, Orion, or Dragon don't have to have "(BattleMech)" in the title but all disambig pages need their moniker? Would it help to think of these disambig pages as the de facto primary article?
At this point I'm not only following the community's general concensus on diambig page naming (the ones who spoke up, anyway), but also the format page Deadfire (and you?) created which is also consistent with Wikipedia's method. I realize you started building the disambigs many years ago a certain way and I acknowledge the great foundation; at the same time, I'm trying to help the wiki and you said what I'm doing is "not wrong." Still, these are my volunteer hours, and if there is a risk that some of the work I've done will be deliberately reverted, I'd rather suspend my time with this and you can do it your own way.
Respectfully, Csdavis715 (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
Yes, we're still "fellow editors" and my requests are literally that. :) Feel free to ignore if you feel strongly about it; like I said, what you're doing is different but not wrong.
In fact, yes, you are right about the misconception. I never thought of the autocomplete box. It hardly registers with me as I tend to use the search function instead. So I learned something new here, and I admit that from your viewpoint it makes a lot of sense. So thank you for explaining. I'll have to think about it a bit more then to see if you swayed me. Frabby (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2023 (EDT)
Hi Frabby, thanks for your message. As you probably know, Deadfire has helped a lot these past few days with his text replacement tool. We've just been doing the stuff that was jumbled in the various title formatting changes like you saw in the Vulcan screenshot, and when we finish should cut out up to 1000 redirects from the autocomplete box. The vast majority of them are ambiguous terms, so this serves multiple purposes simultaneously. I'm also realizing how much this sidetracked me and prevented me from building the wiki in other ways.
To clarify and elaborate a little more on the otheruses tag: while we may not agree on how often to apply them (perhaps one day we can create a Discord consensus post for this), part of my apprehension is just at the sheer amount of pages and time it would take to complete that project. It seems easy enough as a one-liner copy/paste, but locating and applying it to all the thousands of pages is more than I can do right now. But in theory it should be an easy addition to make if we can complete the disambig pages wiki-wide first. As there are plenty of other ongoing projects right now, maybe we can come back to this at a better time?
If your disambig formatting preferences change, let me know. I'm fairly close to finishing the Clan pages and I like finishing what I start. Csdavis715 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2023 (EDT)
Addendum- Here's a thought: what if we decide to put the otheruses tag in all disambiguated articles except for phonebook characters and CCG cards? Since that's where the majority of the absent ones are, this would make the rest a reasonable task, and I wouldn't mind doing them. --Csdavis715 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2023 (EDT)
Sorry, yeah, didn’t see your addendum earlier. It certainly looks like a very good idea to me! Frabby (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2023 (EDT)


All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon
You figured out and are following the format I use for image naming and filling out image summary templates. Much appreciated!--Cache (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2023 (EDT)

BattleTech context[edit]

Re: Viper disambiguation page - you’re certainly right hhat everything here is obviously in a BT context. But not exclusively. A viper is a (nonfictional) type of terran snake first and foremost, and as such also part of the BT universe. But in a BT universe context, it is *also*, and perhaps more prominently, one of the things in the disambiguation page. I could perhaps have worded that better; I wanted to make it clear that a viper in BT is of course also a viper, not something different. Um. Hope that makes sense. :) Frabby (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2023 (EDT)

I understand where you're coming from and I suppose it depends on context. Most pages like Irmgard really don't need that disclaimer as this is the wiki of a fictional game and I don't think anyone's going to say "It's also Irmgard Furchner!" IMO, "viper" is one of those words that's already widely associated with the snake/serpent and doesn't require explanation. On pages like Cygnus or Ryu, I can see how that makes sense, as you are clearly explaining how BT is different from real-world astronomical information. In situations like this, I pledge to leave the wording in the page. :) Csdavis715 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2023 (EDT)


All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon Thanks for all your help with getting me into the flow of editing (and the wiki as a whole) and for directly handling all those Elizabeth Ryan edits! Fish(talk) 23:44 31 October 2023 (PST)

Glad I could help! I think you got excited with the awards so I removed one, but very much appreciated! In the future you can just pin them here to the talk page and let the user add it to their user page if they want. I did it on yours this time just to set it up for you. Look forward to working more with you. Csdavis715 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2023 (EDT)

All Purpose Award, 3rd ribbon

Thanks for all your help with Field Manual: Free Worlds League and Field Manual: Federated Suns (ESPECIALLY the assistance with the larger FedCom Civil War articles). It's been good working with you these past few weeks! Fish (talk) 21:06 10 November 2023 (PST)

All Purpose Award, 4th ribbon

Thanks for all of the back-up edits these last few months, the advice about citation formatting, the help with learning how to create disambiguations and redirects, and a couple of dozen other things! Your help has been invaluable! Fish (talk) 07:08 26 April (EST)

Individual vehicle categories[edit]

You have set up categories for individual named naval vessels (Tritons and Monitors). But because of the much-reduced relevance of vehicles compared to 'Mechs or spacecraft of DropShip size and upwards, we don’t usually track individual vehicles (or aerospace fighters).

Small Craft fall somewhere in between as there are articles for individual hulls and there is also a summary Category:Individual Small Craft but the category isn’t subdivided into classes of Small Craft. I guess we can handle articles for individual (largish) naval vessels in the same fashion and would suggest to also keep them in a single summary category Category:Individual Naval Vessels just like Small Craft. Frabby (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2024 (EST)

Good morning, Frabby. Thanks for the background on existing formats. The first category for individual named Naval Vessels was created almost three years ago, after CungrVanck asked Dmon about it and got the green light.
I agree since there aren’t many named Naval Vessels within each class (so far 2-3 at most), we don’t need those subcategories. I’ll remove them shortly.
I’ll just add that saw the need to clean up the whole section on Naval Vessels, which was a mess, and tried to lay the framework for future development for when the time and interest comes to do that. I've done all I planned to do (and more), hopefully you can appreciate it for the potential it has. Csdavis715 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2024 (EST)
Cool, and thank you. Since you were working on this and I was not, I felt I should ping you about it first and not simply derail what you were doing. Since we established that we agree to treat naval vessels in a similar fashion to Small Craft, I'll start with removing the type subcategories. Frabby (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (EST)
Ok, you beat me to it. :) Frabby (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2024 (EST)

RE: Template[edit]

Much appreciated, friend! Thanks! Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon Mage (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2024 (EST)

You are very welcome. We don't have anyone currently updating those infoboxes, so every bit that you do is noticeably appreciated. Csdavis715 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2024 (EST)


I really think we need a proper disambiguation page for Dawn. Technically, Dawn Moffat doesn't have the same name as the non-bloodnamed character or the system; but she got the Moffat bloodname only in a much later product and during her time in the limelight was also simply known as "Dawn" of Clan Steel Viper. When I read "Dawn", the Dawn Moffat character is the first one I think of and it certainly is the most notable character associated with the name. Frabby (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2024 (EST)

A prudent idea, thanks for the heads up. Csdavis715 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2024 (EST)