User talk:Dmon/Archive 2009

WikiProject Military Commands[edit]

I created a new WikiProject to encompass all military commands. Since you've done a lot of work in the past with them, please come over and sign up so that we can improve the coverage of all units. --Scaletail 14:16, 14 February 2009 (PST)

Split the Work?[edit]

Hey Dmon, looks like you're going well with the Draconis Combine Commands. I was going there next, but how about I leave it to you and I'll go on to FWL commands next?Alkemita 09:27, 5 March 2009 (PST)

Title typos[edit]

Hey, Dmon. If there is a typo in the title of an article, you can move it the article, rather than blanking and creating a new one. Just click "move" at the top of the article you want to move, then type in the title you want to move it to. --Scaletail 12:13, 28 February 2009 (PST)

Non-canon tag[edit]

First off, I was going to write up to say thanks for adding new articles. Your work continues to be appreciated. As for the tag, I /believe/ it is only intended to be used on source articles, such as the article about the MechWarrior I game. Frabby could better define it's intent, but I think it was meant to be limited to source articles because actual canonicity is not determined by use here at BTW. (In that light, the tag could be better worded.) I'll leave it up to you if you want to continue to use the tag, until the issue is clarified. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Revanche, thanks for taking notice. I will continue to use the Tag if that's OK as I intend to do some re-writing of the computer game related articles so that not every sentence contains either "in the game" or "the player" the Tag puts the source upfront. --Dmon 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think removing the OOC presence is a great idea. Good idea.
Side note: to ident, use the colon (:), not spaces. Spaces create that funky box that was wrapped around your response. To sign, use four tildes (~~~~), or just click on that button to the right of the NO circle (the one that looks like a cursive word).
Just to respond to your comment about using the tag to "[put] the source upfront": tags are generally used to call attention to an article that has a problem needing fixing. You don't intend to say there is anything wrong with the article you write and you've been good at referencing the source article down below. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sadly my info on the game is restricted to the contents of the Wiki but the OOC aspect and the huge amount of info that is repeated makes the articles come across as very sloppy (says me who has never written a decent article from scratch so no insult to Frabby). and thanks for the signature tip I have been confused by that since I joined. --Dmon 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

7th Imperial City Militia‎ Question[edit]

Hi Dmon, like how you added this militia unit to the site. Question: Do you think could add category Militia Commands? I'm trying get more into the category since there not normally listed. I've not had a chance to add more militia profiles.-- Wrangler 00:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Would Category Militia Commands be a sub category of Military Commands or its own Category in effect separating the front-line units and the second-line units. --Dmon 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
These are generally considered secondary commands or world exclusive units. One and only unit I have in there was one of those, but became "front-line" unit of sorts when it came to the defense of exRepublic of the Sphere's Prefecture IX. It still considered militia unit. Only Battalion size unit, that barely has assets, in comparison to regular unit. Your Draconis Combine units have been only seen once since their appearance. As far I know has not been listed anywhere. Some of the author tend to make these one off units. New BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction book has such unit in one its short stories. -- Wrangler 00:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New military command articles[edit]

Dmon, please add to those 10 or so articles you started last night as soon as possible. BTW prefers not to have empty articles, and while I realize you're not intending to just list them because they exist but build them up as complete articles, there is some concern they might have been abandoned. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit soon for 'em to be considered abandoned I would of thought. I will fill them in more over the next couple of days (its my girlfriends bday today so I wont get much done today) as well as doing OrgTrees for as many DCMS units as I can, but their is not much info to be had on the Luthien Defence Regiments at the moment. --Dmon 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

122nd Luthien[edit]

The articles you created were direct copies of the 12th Luthien (see the opening sentence of each to see what I mean). Also, their official names are spelled 'Defense' rather than 'Defence,' which means no one would be able to find them (if you are referring to the canon units). Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I know they are direct copies, Sorry about the Defence/Defense thing... UK resident and that is haw we normally spell it here. I will move the articles and rephrase them a little for individuality but sadly there is not much info on the Defense Regiments as a whole, only one has any specific detail in the Luthien scenario pack. currently trying to dig up a little more info. --Dmon 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I was just looking at the pack. One thing that would individualize them is the experience levels. While you won't be able to say which battalion is green and which one is veteran, you can basically re-state that the division has # green battalions, etc. That would individualize the articles, at least. And, when compared to other sources used by later Editors, they would be compelled to provide similar levels, if provided (which would help show progression). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Empty Articles discussion[edit]

Hey, Dmon: I'd like you to weigh in here, since you probably have a differing opinion. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Hey, check out this. BigDuke compiled this, and it provides the references. Should allow your backfilling to go much quicker. Wink.gif --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Saw you were messing around with your user page. if you're trying to create a clean list, without having to create spaces between each one, I suggest preceeding the link with a asterisk (*) at the beginning of the line. You'll get something like this:

  • line 1
  • line 2
  • line 3

Also, check out that link to the cheat sheet for other hints (see above). Hope this helps you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks bro --Dmon 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1st Genyosha Update[edit]

Hi Dmon, noticed that you updated the 1st Genyosha article with an Org Tree, replacing the previous composition. The "Support Battalion" is outdated for 3059. If you have access to the appropriate Field Manuals, I suggest you use them. Also, if you're going to create TOEs, it might be a good idea to format them using CBT-official military symbology as presented in Strategic Ops. My 2c worth. --Alkemita 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Field Manuals do not state that the "Support Battalion" is out of date, as far as I know they only list the major elements of the "Regimental Battle Group". if you can find info stating that the BattleMech Regiments intergrated support battalion has changed please send me a reference. on the official symbology I will investigate incorporating this into my OrgTree's. --Dmon 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dmon, Support Battalions: Field Manual: Draconis Combine, pg17; "Front-line DCMS BattleMech regiments are typically assigned one aerospace wing, one armor battalion and one infantry regiment." That's the supporting elements for a 'Mech regiment circa 3059.
As for the official symbology, if you need the graphics and layout, I've got most of them I can upload. --Alkemita 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you know how to create a gallery for the symbols? If not, I can show you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I would much appreciate it if you would do that Rev. --Dmon 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, man. Let's see if I can create an example here in a code box. Basically, start a new page and add the images inside the gallery code. If you want a name for the image to appear below it, add a pipe and the name after the filename:
Hopefully that helps. if it doesn't work, talk at me and I'll come over to help. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Added scrollbox template[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I thought you might be interested in the {{scrollbox}} template for your DCMS Commands section. I find it helps to organize long lists on a page. I added it myself to show you how it works, but if you don't like it please feel free to revert the changes. I certainly don't want you to think I'm stepping on your toes. If you have any questions let me know. Thanks. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ebakunin, That helps a lot. One question I have is over the next few weeks as I knock articles off the list will the scroll box still work? --Dmon 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. The box always stays the same size, so if your list ever gets shorter than the scrollbox you can just remove it. Glad I could help. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Generic Forward ARC[edit]

Hi Dmon, how come you have created a page dedicated to your fantastic unit templates? They certainly be worth having in one of the Categories. -- Wrangler 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still working out the layout, If you look through Draconis Combine Commands Category you will find several different evolutions of my OrgTrees, With over 20 hours work tinkering on the template in an attempt to get it just right I decided after a while to move em onto my user page so I can without fear of anyone "helping out" until I am ready to place one on each regiment. As for a category... you really think they are that good? --Dmon 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think visual diagrams are excellent example of showing how regiments are configured. As long it follows what the books stay their are like, i can't imagine not being useful to someone. Personally, i wish the imagines were smaller. Easier to see it whole thing, just click to enlarge. I'm sure if that possible. -- Wrangler 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Dmon, is there way to strink the imagines a little? Graphs are great, but their huge. Their taking too much room. -- Wrangler 04:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
They are not images, they are based on the Template:Familytree we have here on BTW. I doubt there is a way of making them smaller without pretty much starting from scratch and making them a lot less detailed or making them a lot more condensed and probably (even more)confusing to try and read. --Dmon 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Could be placed in seperate page linked to its parent article? -- Wrangler 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
That could work, I am also looking at the idea of breaking off the various attached units and wiki linking them within the tree. There are very few units who wouldn't drop at least one section.--Dmon 13:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be cool if you were able to do it! -- Wrangler 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If you check out the 5th Galedon Regulars and scroll down you will see a good example, its still pretty big but its about half what it was. --Dmon 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think its better put differient page. Its taking up to too much room on the page. This is just my opinion. -- Wrangler 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Izanagi Warrior error[edit]

Hi, Dmon. Your diagrams for the Warriors, says its differient unit. Can you fix that? -- Wrangler 23:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just copied the template from a unit with the same organization ('Mech regiment with no attached units) and I am in the process of changing it and inputting the individual Lance designations from the Luthien pack ;-), not to point out that you put the 1st sword of light units on to the warriors?, dont worry though as I have removed it already.. just need to make a couple more changes before I save it. --Dmon 00:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dig Lord[edit]

Can you look at this? Something wrong with my Dig Lord Article. It has some kind weird code error. -- Wrangler 23:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted, not sure what was up but it was cured by deleting the space at the start of the paragraph. --Dmon 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I tried deleting it, but i guess i didn't eliminate enough of the paragaph to get rid of it. I've been running into these slight errors lately. I know the template for IndustrialMechs needs to be updated little. Again, thank you for helping me in my moment of blunder. -- Wrangler 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem bro, tis the beauty of working in a community ;-) --Dmon 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Solaris Characters from Mechwarrior IV[edit]

Good Morning Dmon. Question- The solaris characters your adding, i thought any character in the game was considered non-canon? There characters mentioned in the Solaris VII map set book, lists up to 3067. I didn't think MW IV followed that. -- Wrangler 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Morning Wrangler, As far as I know the official line about the non-canon stuff is that if nothing in canon contradicts them or over rules them they are considered part of the universe if not exactly canon until otherwise stated. also I don't think having them listed will hurt as there is no exhaustive list of who fights in the arenas of Solaris ;-) --Dmon 13:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to be sure I understand, I want to remind that BTW does not define canon: if its official (i.e., a BT licensee), it is included. However, source citations for the material are always a requirement, and doubly so for issues that are debated. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Widow Company[edit]

I took the liberty to undo the change you made to the Black Widow Company's category entry. You changed it to "Wolf's Dragoons, Black Widow Company" and as a result it appeared under "W" but named "Black Widow Company". I think this is wrong because the BWC as a semi-independent unit should have its own entry, under its own name. When sorting it in under WD (and thereby, under the letter "W" where I daresay most people wouldn't look for the BWC) then you could cut its category entry right away. Wolf's Dragoons article does mention them, too. Frabby 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel its better that way I will roll with it, since I am not even a WD fan... I was just doing a little bit of a tidy in the mercs section. --Dmon 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryuken-et al[edit]

Just being a bureaucratic administrator, and probably don't need to worry about it, but please add something of substance to the Ryuken-series of articles, similar to what you did with Ryuken-ni and Ryuken-ichi as soon as you can. Thanks! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its in the pipeline. Just doing my research. --Dmon 07:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

22nd Dieron Regulars & Question of Era related organization charts[edit]

Hi Dmon, I just added some fluff from Field Manual: Updates for the 22nd. Your organization chart doesn't quite match the unit's makes up. Devil Dogs and 22nd Dieron Infantry only have two companies per formation. Can you adjust the organization for those? I'm little liery of messing with your code/template thing you have there. I did change the Aerospace HQ to 22nd Dieron Aerospace Wing, since thats what their called in Updates. I also had a thought, since Jihad is kinda rolling down hill and leveling the structures of the units. Are you going just adjust the final formations template to reflect downsizing per-era or just do what ever is the current thing. I'm not just talking about the 22nd either. Just as a whole entire unit organization charts your placing in many these units. -- Wrangler 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good morning Wrangler, Just checked FM:U and yes the infantry has lost a Company since FM:DC (the source I have been getting my info) but the Devil Dogs are listed as two Battalions in both, so it is not an error as such but more of an out dated source. I am not 100% sure what you mean about adjusting the templates to reflect downsizing per-era but at a guess I think it would mean having multiple OrgTree's in each article. I think for now at least I am going to try and keep the OrgTree's either as close to current organization as possible or as the "on paper" potential strength of the unit because the era idea could result in an ungodly amount of work. Get back to me and let me know your thoughts on it and I will put any changes into effect later tonight. --Dmon 07:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Good Morning, Dmon. I've been thinking about the problem. Since unit strength differs from era to era. Such as Succession Wars to Jihad for various regimential to reinforced companies. So thing you have basic formation of the Org tree and year its reflecting and we should put back in the old Composition listings with various years the unit strength's differed on. Such as Genyosha as of 3074 was down to 2 Reinforced Companies vs its full regimental strength it was at prior to the Jihad. When your adding new org-trees don't wipe out the Composition listings. Thats what I think. -- Wrangler 11:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Wrangler but this is possibly me being a bit bone-headed after a night shift in work (so please have patience) but at the moment keeping the composition just seems like repeating the same information twice in the same article. Would the "composition be the "on paper" strength of the unit and the OrgTree be the actual strength or the other way around? --Dmon 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Its fine, I know whats like working on night shift. This just my opinion, you do what you feel is right. Org-tree to me is the how the unit is "suppose to be" organized on paper. Where composition list is what unit strength & active formations were avaliable at the Year/Time. Example:The 10th Division (Word of Blake) lost a Level III (aka battalion) in battle against the Dropship Irregulars in 3070. Division in 3067 was 6 Level III, Division was as of 3075 only had Five Level IIIs. If someone comes to the site, your graph tree will given info on how any military unit is organized. Where Composition can tell them what units were attached to formation/regiment/Level/etc per year they were around. Some these units/formations have been around for centuries. There alot room for change. In some cases "regiments" are reduced to two battalions. I think if someone need quick references what there at what year, its easier with Composition verse orgtree. Org Tree great for how organization functions, what auxiliary units would be there support it. -- Wrangler 13:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the 1st Genyosha OrgTree up to 3067. so feel free to add the composition section as you feel it should be done to reflect the units near destruction. Please not however that the Aerospace wing is not listed as "expanded" yet as I simply do not want to get into writing code/template thingies today. the 1st are the best and worst kind of example for this as thay are a full "Forward ARC" with no attached units what so the OrgTree is as big as they come at the moment. --Dmon 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem, bro. I'll take care of it. I just don't have all the units information for all eras. I'll put in 1st Genyosha what I had on the unit. -- Wrangler 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Lyran Brigades[edit]

Apart from lack of detail, specific pages for Lyran brigades are just as important as the Clan Galaxy or ComStar Army pages. More so for the Lyran Regulars considering they both pre and post date the Lyran Alliance so need separate pages to link from both LCAF and LAAF. Cyc 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to standardize the format a little by having the "parent unit" links in the articles directs to the AFFS page in a similar way to all the other nations pages work. Do you think we should do it the other way around and have more Brigade pages? --Dmon 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
IMO the military pages should have brief overviews linking off to full pages for further indepth detail. Look at the FedCom Corps page and FedCom Corps section on AFFS for the style I'm getting at. Cyc 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that will work quite nicely once it is set up and fleshed out. --Dmon 00:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Organization of Draconis Combine minor or secondary units[edit]

Hi Dmon, i've been looking in the Draconis Combine's military listings and its is filling out quite well. However, I believe that the secondary commands/support commands should be placed in a sub-category, without them being listed in 1st tier regimentals listings like. Instead of all the main formations in same place giving confusing mix of units. I think listing big units and secondary units seperate. Frontline units 6th Pesht Regulars, 2nd Sword Light would share main category for the Draconis Combine Commands category, while the the attached secondary commandss like the 2nd Periphery Watchers, and the 101st Pesht Guards. They would be in what i propose to call Dracons Combine Support Commands. This would still be strictly military, just listing for what secondary commands and the militas units. Category Draconis Combine Military Commands would be removed from unit considered Support commands. That are principly listed in the Field Manuals while secondarys don't necessary get individual attention. What do you think? I'm going post this as well to Draconis Command Military commands thing. -- Wrangler 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea.. I sorta suggested a similar thing to you a few weeks ago but I wanted to do it by unit size, keeping the main category as regimental sized units. I knew the page would full up pretty fast once I got going, eventually it would be nice to have all the nations with a high level of detail. --Dmon 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry missing your suggestion earlier. I've been busy, with alot stuff. Only thing I find that maybe difficult, what is name for a supportive formation. I'm kinda want make sure I'm calling them what their suppose to be called. Only thing I was against going with category by size is Battletech's frontline formation sizes are influx. Some Regiments in early succession wars consisted only of two battalions, sometimes even one, thought on "paper" it was considered to regiment. They have been called Frontline units, but the support units such as tank and infantry are part of the regimental team. Thus they too are frontline unit. By the end of the Jihad, they'll end up so mixed up, I don't think be good way describe other than frontline military unit and a support unit. Anyways, For the time being. I suggest we go ahead with re-categorying the approiate units to the Draconis Combine Support Commands category. We should put category in other factions except for minor powers, since they bound to have no support formations like Succession States themselves and Major Periphery states. -- Wrangler 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Draconis Combine Support Commands does seem to be the obvious choice. Nice thing is that the wikilinks in the organization trees will filter through to the support category quite nicely. I agree on the minor powers and I am uncertain about the relevance of the Periphery states at the moment... I cant think of a single Periphery Support command off the top of my head. --Dmon 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Major Periphery do, but like most support units. They don't have much of a history & write up unless it falls under its attached, formation. Such a Periphery Frontline unit is like the 1st Canopian Cuirassiers has support units like the 1st Armor Guard, 1st Air Guards and 1st Infantry Guard. The Field Guide Updates has most of the recent deployment/unit names for the support units. -- Wrangler 23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Another Point I'd like make out. Support Commands aren't Milita Commands. Militia commmand are not attached normally to large regiments or frontline units unless emergency. Militia units usually planetary restricted fighting units. Not counting Blake or Marik units by the same name which are frontline units with modest names. Only militia units i've heard of that become attached to regiments and move around WITh them are usually FedCom Civil War units were snatchup by frontline regiments to reinforce their forces. That was rare. Don't delete the militia category. I really don't believe it should be removed, their differient type of unit. If anything, You should break down milita units as being Draconis Combine Milita units or something. -- Wrangler 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Third Luthien Guards[edit]

Hi Dmon, I was wondering if you could point out where you found the 3rd Luthien Guards in the Field Manual: Draconis Combine. Apparently they were actually mentioned as part early fighting in Jihad Turning points: Luthien. I've updated the article. I wanted to put some more information in it. I don't at this moment have Field Manual, do you happen to remember where it can be found in the book? Page? Thanks.-- Wrangler 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

page 85 as the Armor section of the 2nd SOL --Dmon 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for assist. I'll update article include the references to that. I'm trying add as much as information I have to include them. I do however want say, i'm only filling out supporting units like 3rd Luthien Guards, if they do have fluff and actions they've done through out the sources books and novels. Can you assist me in finding the these supporting "sub-units maybe?" may had appeared in campaign books so-forth?

-- Wrangler 11:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I always keep an eye out for references and titbits of info in novels etc. Only problem is that I have not got a great deal of time at the moment due to real life stuff. In about a month or so I hope to have things a little "up the wall" and I will finish fleshing out the "sub-units". --Dmon 15:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanked pages[edit]

I see you have blanked the subpages for games and I presume you're reorganizing the data. Please don't simply blank pages entirely; delete them when they are no longer needed (or have an admin delete them by inserting the {{Deletion}} tag). Frabby 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am reorganizing the data. Sorry about not putting in the delete tags... I was getting a little frustrated fighting with the redirects (and my temporary stupidity at me keeping screwing em up) --Dmon 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)