User talk:Dmon/Archive 2012

Dieron Brigade[edit]

I agree with your thoughts that the Brigade page should an quick reference site and disagree with you about the outlay of it. All units are mentioned but not in which time they exist and think about it. The Brigade increased and decreased (at 3079 only 4 commands are exist). Even the quality and loyality varried considerable. I chose an alterniv way and the references are good for further expansion. The way how the brigade should be displayed are not excatly discussed. I have the problem that the brigade page or the military organization pages show the development of the military. You can't compare the DCMS of 3025 with DCMS of 3067. Many thinks have changed and withthem the way to fight. Further more the long pages should be more splite into smaller sub pages like one for the academies, the ranks, the awards, the brigades, the command structure, military industries, table of organisation and equipment, uniforms, camospecs (examples) and deployment. Some times its a mess to go through the long pages and find the right information. I reworked my articles that way to and splite the large pages into several smaller with links to the main article. Neuling 13:36, 8 January 2012 (PST)

I believe the progression of the individual units is covered in the Regimental articles and the progression of the DCMS as a whole should be covered in the main DCMS article. TheBrigades as with all the house brigades are actually fairly static with regards to tactics and organization etc. --Dmon 14:39, 8 January 2012 (PST)
Hello Dmon why have removed my link at the Dieron Brigade. What is worng with that? Its only a link with further information about the composition of the Brigade and I think you use only my work partly (mention only the date of destruction, nothing more). Its frustrating to me to put my link at the page and discover that he is removed. I hope you can now understand me better. Neuling 11:14, 12 January 2012 (PST)
Hey Neuling, Although tempted I did not initially remove the link when I incorporated what I believed would be useful information without clogging up the page and more importantly all those lovely references that I must thank you for. Doneve removed the link after I had finished editing, I do not know Doneves reasons for removing the link but when you re-added it I decided to go with my initial thoughts of it being a list added to an already existing list that achieves nothing that the articles them selves do not already do. The brigade article gives you a list of what regiments are in the brigade, the regiments articles tell you everything else you need to know... I do not see the need for your list? personally I feel that articles on the wiki are much more enjoyable and informative if they are actual written articles rather than list upon list of facts and figures. This is obviously just my opinion though and I apologive if i have caused offence. Some of your work on the wiki is fantastic, just not this particular innovation. --Dmon 19:14, 12 January 2012 (PST)
Tell me which link i had removed and i give you the answer.--Doneve 19:25, 12 January 2012 (PST)
The link on the Dieron Regulars page to Era - Composition. --Dmon 19:56, 12 January 2012 (PST)
I think this link was irrelevant, era specific data or info can we add to the various regimantal pages of the Dieron Regulars, i don't know why Neuling create Brigade Era Pages, i notice this was his own reference page, i favor to add content direkt to the page, with references, and when i take a look on there some broken ref. links on the page and don't match the policy.--Doneve 20:03, 12 January 2012 (PST)
Broken links are fixed on the composition site and let me explain that is not only a ref site as you suggest. The site is more an quick overview which unit is available at the corresponding time. The Dieron Brigade has eleven units in 3025, in 3054 eight and in 3079 only 4 exist. That is a huge different and should give the common user an impression how different the times for the brigades were. As a side not all entries have their references. Neuling 20:39, 12 January 2012 (PST)
I want to suggest we have the Dieron Regulars main page, as overview, and all era specifice data must added to the provided unit page, thanks.--Doneve 20:45, 12 January 2012 (PST)
That was the reason for the link and the and the site, because it changed nothing from the overall outlook. And remember in every sourcebook about the various faction the deployment tables show the strength of the military but not the brigade and its annoing for me (and I think for ohters to) to search the various pages. Neuling 20:52, 12 January 2012 (PST)

I disagree.. The page is just a reference page and adds very little to the wiki except an excuse to have more lists. There is no flavour or real information to add to the page other than the actual list that would not be better being put into the main brigade article, Why? because TPTB do not focus on the brigades as such and there is virtually no era specific information about them. I am not exactly sure why it is important to know how large each brigade is at any point in time... They do not fight together as a unit, what is wrong with listing information on the units in the actual articles about said unit? --Dmon 21:06, 12 January 2012 (PST)


Hy Dmon, i think you saw Neuling's new creations, i dont know why he ignoring our reference policy, as example House Steiner refered as source ,i don't know i indicate this as the House Steiner and not the sourcebook House Steiner (The Lyran Commonwealth), i know its the source but other users don't know this, i talk so offten to him, and iam become really pissd of, he don't follow talks to him by help links etc., i don't disagree his work but the most is throwing in, and the most don't follow our wiki standard, i don't know what i can do, thanks--Doneve 12:23, 14 January 2012 (PST)

I noticed the message from Doneve, I take a look at the policy page and read that is enougth to write |refHouse Davion p.9 /ref|. How I write my references is my way how long it meets the overall policy style that there is no problem for me. I will mention further in my next round of composition update the corresponding books at the biblography. Most users don't have a problem with my references, because I get no messages about it. And as some other admin write to me the formating style is in a flux and no cohensive is meet at all article. Neuling 12:41, 14 January 2012 (PST)
The problem is you have stated references, and throw the same reference on the page, but we have a link with the same page nr, but you don't use this (example: ref=HKp135Handbook: House Kurita, p. 135, "Handbook: House Kurita", p. 135, "Deployment Table") or other pages, i don't know why you dont do this, at first i look on the page what content can added and how i can integrate this on the added soures, or fix the references, then all is integrated and follow one standard.</ref>--Doneve 15:29, 14 January 2012 (PST)
But one question Neuling, why must all new created pages become a cleanup tag there created by yourself, they don't follow the Wiki Military Commands standard, you throw the articles on the wiki, but where is a template on the talk page etc. ect., this is a example i fixed 6th Defenders of Andurien take a look on your new created page and on the clean upded page, thoughts.--Doneve 12:56, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling - Doneve is not the only one who feels this way. We have heard from Rev that in the Btech community at large, is not held in high regard because the references are poor, the standards of the wiki are weak, information is plagiarized, etc. I think most of us are committed to correcting these perceptions. When I see that you continually ignore the standards that most of us are trying to uphold, I grow concerned that you do not hold that position. ClanWolverine101 16:05, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Great example, the CBT Forum take a critical view of us, and how we can held our contributions, yes some CBT Forums member disagree, but we are the contributors (editors), and want to mess this out, we like all BattTech, we have sarna as a great stepp stone, thanks Nic :). I follow my sarna policy..., dont't make content destructions, but i want feel free i do this on Neulings contributions, you have my talk page talk to me, if you dont agree give me an examples etc. etc.., if i see content that don't match any wiki policies i deleted, iam pissed off, thanks--Doneve 17:20, 14 January 2012 (PST)16:49, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Good evening folks, As much as I do not wan't to say this I agree as well Neuling, I have been a contributor to the BTwiki since 2007 and have seen exactly what Rev means about the BT community at large having doubts as to the quality of our work. I would say possibly 10 or so of us keep this site going as it where... contributions from the BT community seems to be fairly slim for reasons unknown to me. Luckily over the last year or so I have seem what I consider a good rise in the number of people talking about things on the BT forums referencing the BTwiki, BUT with such a small number of us who are actually regular contributors I feel it is important for us to all work together.please do not let this discourage you from working on the wiki, sometimes things just do not work out how you want them... Remember my OrgTrees from a couple of years ago? I wanted them to work but in the end it just was not possible. This is the same thing now, Your "data dump" style and your unusual style of referencing just runs a different course to what I feel is the common goal. --Dmon 17:04, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Great goal, i love your org trees but there a minimum of us (i hope we can integrate this in next future), but Neuling don't follow any policy etc. he is with us over 1 or 2 years, had some talkes, but don't follow this in different thinks for the policy.--Doneve 17:18, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Well said. ClanWolverine101 20:54, 14 January 2012 (PST)
I see that I'm at the moment in the center in an ongoing discussion. I will explain my thougths at this place. That I doesn't follow policies is wrong, because I respect the policies of the site and follow them like to not put plagarism at the sites or to place references at the right place. Many of the users are consider my work as data dump and without a comcept behind it. Lets take for example the dieron regulars pages. I doen't know if the site should be an overview of 3079 or earlier because by the unit entry it is not split beween active and former units. Further more I put only 1 small link at the page which shows the strength at the different time periods and it was removed several times. And for me it is important to know the strength the brigades at the ages. My work improved over the last months serious. I nearly finished the 4th Succession war or operation revival as a few examples. And when you wrote about data dump they are enougth articles from other users with minimal content. I follow the work of the publisher, because they are splitting the entire military into brigades and handle them induvidual througth the ages. I put a large portion of inthusiam and energy behind my work. Neuling 00:58, 15 January 2012 (PST)
Seriously when i take a look on the 4th Succession War page this is a mess and don't follow any policy.--Doneve 10:25, 15 January 2012 (PST)

CSS Settings[edit]

Hy again, i use the Marik settings, and use a CSS code, here is it, copy the code in your prefered settings, Marik, Kurita, etc., this fix some table and other problems, oh i forgot you see the code correct when you open the edit field, if you are done, please delete the code from your talk page.--Doneve 08:26, 17 January 2012 (PST)

I have no idea what all that does but I assume it is good things so thank you Doneve. --Dmon 11:56, 17 January 2012 (PST)
No problem, the code fix some minor problems.--Doneve 15:16, 17 January 2012 (PST)

Rasalhague Regulars[edit]

Hello Dmon, please explain to me why are you thinking that is not important to know the planet where the unit were destroyed or surrender. I think for my self the information is relevant on the brigade page.Further information could be find by the entries of the induvidual command pages. Neuling 11:43, 27 January 2012 (PST)

Right now I am going to reverse the question and ask why it is important to include what planet any said unit was destroyed/disbanded on in the brigade article? --Dmon 17:38, 27 January 2012 (PST)
It gives an short overview and the explanation can be found on the individual unit page. I think when all brigade pages are updated to 3079 and later to 3085 it will be much easier to understand the erosion of the strength over the decades. For me it is important to know where an unit was destroyed/anhilliated. We can discuss that also at the Project page. Neuling 17:45, 27 January 2012 (PST)
Why do you not explain who destroys the unit and how then? --Dmon 17:47, 27 January 2012 (PST)
This question is good, and can explained in the separated unit articles, good catch.--Doneve 18:20, 27 January 2012 (PST)
That is my point. I personally find the brigade articles format satisfactory... We just need to improve the referencing in most of them. I can see the value of putting the date of a units destruction in the article (and wish we had enough dates to impliment formation dates aswell) but what world the unit was destroyed on? To me that is strictly in unit article stuff.--Dmon 18:35, 27 January 2012 (PST)
Agree fully to your statement, why we have the unit articles, to put all info from sources what we found, the brigade article is a overview of the included units, not more.--Doneve 18:46, 27 January 2012 (PST)

Belial (MechAssault)[edit]

Dmon, did you intend to improve Belial (MechAssault)? I noticed it was re-added to the wiki the other day with a block of text that described something not seen (read like a caption from a picture) in an apparent drive-by posting. I've added the sub-stub tag to it, but if you're actively working to improve it and find it distracting, feel free to remove. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:54, 30 January 2012 (PST)

Yeah I saw it this morning after work and decided I would do some research and see if I can improve it (and the Hackman article) But not right then as I wanted t go to bed. I don't own either of the games that it is featured in but I intend to see what I can dig up.--Dmon 15:43, 30 January 2012 (PST)
Got it. thank you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:53, 30 January 2012 (PST)
BYW Rev I still want to look into doing this but I have been very busy lately. --Dmon 10:49, 12 March 2012 (PDT)


Hello Dmon, I read your message to Revanche. Perhaps I can help. You can jump to specific points with in an artile. User talk:Revanche#A bit of minor help. You need only # and the name of the page because the sub section. For example User talk:Revanche#A bit of minor help. I hope that helps in some way. Neuling 10:44, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

Thanks Neuling, Rev beat you to the punch but thank you never the less :-) --Dmon 10:47, 12 March 2012 (PDT)


Hehehe...things you might have wish to have known earlier in the process: make sure you don't have any self-referential redirects. For example, Iron Will redirects to the "3059" section of 1st Ghost, where there is a link to...Iron Will. That link should be removed.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:57, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

Don't worry there is a method to my madness... I am going through all the units in the field manual. then I am going to go through all the untis in FM Update (and filling in any extra info in the the main article at the same time) and then go through FM 3085. I know FM3085 is stull under memorandium but I will rwite up starter articles n keep em on my computer until needed.. In the mean time any support unit that has served with more than one battlemech regiment or has a more substantial history will be picked up n have its own article. then I will remove the unneeded links etc. Does that make sense? lol --Dmon 14:05, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
Sure does. However, superficially others may not see it. Personally, a self-referential redirect is not that big a problem, so it will probably go unnoticed between the time you make them and then solve them. But, as long as you stay active on this project of your's and can do it with minimal confusion, I have no issues.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

1st Sword of Light[edit]

Holla Dmon, i fix some little things in the 3067 composition entry and added ref. notes, i hope you like it.--Doneve 15:10, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

Redirects 2[edit]

Dmon - I support your redirects policy 100%. The overwhelming majority of conventional units have scant information, and should be treated a subsections of the 'Mech regiments they are connected to. Let me know if I can help with this at some point. ClanWolverine101 18:11, 3 April 2012 (PDT)

Thank you for the offer. At this point there is not really anything I can think of that will help much, right now it is simply a case of doing the leg work and creating all the redirects and then crossreferencing everything. (I must admit I could speed up the provess for myself if I didn't start reading the rest of the FM but that is half the fun) --Dmon 18:41, 3 April 2012 (PDT)

Year Pages[edit]

Hy Dmon, i see you edited the 3134 year page, i removed the reference links, we don't use references on year pages, and every entire must supported by an article, take a look on this Policy:Year Pages, greetings.--Doneve 09:53, 9 September 2012 (PDT)

The references where already there Don, All I did was add in the year section headers. Thanks anyway though. --Dmon 10:31, 9 September 2012 (PDT)

I have just had a look at the history of the article and am a little put out by the fact that the references you are telling me off about where actually put in by you back in November 2009! --Dmon 17:19, 9 September 2012 (PDT)

Gotcha, you hit me Wink.gif, i do this mistake on my first steps on sarna, i came August 2009 to this wonderfull wiki, but good catch.--Doneve 17:40, 9 September 2012 (PDT)
No worries, welcome to the wiki :-p --Dmon 17:44, 9 September 2012 (PDT)

Noble Houses[edit]

Is there any solid, objective criterium (gut feeling doesn't cut it) as to what differentiates a "major" noble House from a minor one? My opinion is that this differentiation creates an artificial distinction where none exists. Suggest to have one single category, "Noble Houses". Btw, how would House Mailai factor into this, given that they may not even be a 'noble' House in the literal sense? Frabby (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2012 (PST)

Not really, the nearest I have come up with is possibly a family that has ruled an independent interstellar state, thus covering what we as BT fans already know as the Great Houses and extending it to Cameron and Amaris etc. Truthfully I have been thinking of creating the Noble Houses category for a while and when I looked today I found somebody had already created Minor Noble Houses based on stuff from HB:HD so I just rolled with it. As for House Mailai.. In all honesty I have no idea yet, same with the Ozawa clan if the project gets that far. Input and guidence are welcome as I have been away for quite some time. --Dmon (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2012 (PST)
Malai could possibly be grouped into the start of a category for merchant houses.--Dmon (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2012 (PST)

Independent Worlds[edit]

Hi Dmon,

If you're converting the owner history of worlds to mark them as independent worlds, can you add the Independent Planet category as well please? Doneve and I established that a year or so ago to solve the problems with using the former Periphery designation (the issue being where does the Periphery actually start) and to make sure we could account for all of those Free Worlds League worlds that went independent after the breakup of the League. The definition we use for tagging a planet with the Independent Planet category is that it should be a planet that has operated independently from any multi-planet state or nation. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (PST)

Yeah no problem. I would of already done it if I had known the Category was there.--Dmon (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2012 (PST)
I had a think about the Chaos March worlds, as I noticed you were editing them. I had a conversation with Rev a year or so ago about Independent worlds, because I was trying to work out how to categorise the various worlds that ended up joining the Capellan Confederation when it formed up. Given that that Chaos March worlds were independent worlds confined to a specific region of space, I think it may be worth me creating a category called something like "Independent Chaos March Planets", to identify that it's planets grouped within a particular region of space, rather than planets that have chosen to become independent. The category would work in the same way as the Independent Capellan Zone Planets category does. Does that seem like a reasonable idea to you? It would allow the wiki to answer the question "which worlds were in the Chaos March, but stayed independent?" BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2012 (PST)
Right now although it seems correct I don't like the "feel" of it, I am not sure why.. I think it might be better to just keep with the "Independent Worlds/Planets" as it is a fairly versatile category and have a list of all worlds in the Chaos March Region listed in the Chaos March article separated out much like the CM sourcebook into minor states and independent worlds.--Dmon (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2012 (PST)

Independent Commands[edit]

Hy Dmon, great that you create some minor expect. independent units, i make some minor changes on the Balatine Guard page, i change the category link and remove the Objective Raids link, i hope it is ok.--Doneve (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (PST)

Stirling's Fusiliers[edit]

Hi Dmon, I just added a few paragraphs to the Stirling's Fusiliers article before realising you were partway through cleaning the article up. I wasn't trying to steal your thunder - I've just been working my way through update needed tags that relate to the various Merc Supplemental books, and it came up on google. I don't think I've overwritten anything you've changed - or at least, I hope I haven't. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2012 (PST)

Not to worry, I am still working my way through all the source material anyway so you have probably helped out --Dmon (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2012 (PST)