User talk:Frabby

Archive 1 (created 04 January 2012)
Archive 2 (created 01 January 2013)
Archive 3 (created 03 January 2014)
Archive 4 (created 04 January 2018)


I'm glad that you found the wrong co-ordinates for Gotterdammerung. I was wondering if you could take a look in your atlas of the Inner Sphere for Hunan. It's placed on the map here to the northeast of New Avalon, but it's listed as being part of the Capellan confederation and as having been part of the Terran Hegemony. I think this must be wrong, but I have no way of checking it. If it's possible, could you take a look?

Follow up: The co-ordinates are listed as: (X: 333.04 Y: 333.04)

Thanks, --Workerbee 09:41, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

It is located in the triangle formed by New Aragon, St. Andre and Foochow, fairly exactly "north" of Zaurak and Kaifeng. The Atlas gives the coordinates as X: 73,04 Y: 96,76
Btw it is a known problem that the planet's X/Y coordinates are wrong. When the entries were auto-generated, the X-coordinate were erroneously put into both the X and Y slot. Nic is aware of this and it will hopefully be corrected in a future update. (See Category talk:Planets# Major Problem with Coords). Frabby 13:10, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks again. --Workerbee 15:24, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Wouldn't that be (73.04, -96.76?), as Hunan is "south" of Terra? Since you've become the planetary coordinate guru, would you be able to check and make sure that the master file has as that data correct? I've already corrected Menkent, Blue Diamond, Gotterdammerung, and Hunan. Specifically, could you check out Sakhalin, Scituate, Cartago, and Chamdo? Thanks! --Scaletail 17:42, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Yes, you are absolutely right: Hunan is at Y -96.76, sorry! Regarding the others:

  • There are in fact two systems by the name of Sakhalin: One is a CapCon/Sarna Supremacy world at X: 62.33 Y: -142.92, the other a Lyran world at X: -24.25 Y: 153.09. The one on this wiki is the CapCon world, Sakhalin (LC) is missing as of yet. I had already noted it on the article some time ago (CC/SS world is spelled Sachalin in German material, but not in the original English sources).
  • Scituate has X: 88.67 Y: -221.94 in my Atlas. The wiki apparently used a positive Y coord, as it is erroneously shown at approximately the same altitude as Mannedorf (which is Y: 228.98).
  • Cartago placement seems to be correct (at X: 141.09 Y: -10.17)
  • Chamdo placement also seems to be correct (at X: 10.43 Y: -153.61); however, in the immediate vicinity Yunnah seems to be slightly misplaced. The correct coordinates for Yunnah are X: 27.67 Y: -124.13. It should be halfway between Corey and Second Try but here it is erroneously shown on the same altitude as Tsinghai and Chamdo, at Y: -153.61.

Checking the big file? I am honored, but it is a daunting task. It will take time. (Add the fact that some names were actually translated into German, i.e. Second Try is named Zweitversuch (lit.: Second Try) in German. That one could be guessed, but it literally took me a year to figure that Rand is meant to be The Edge...

Oh, and then there is that issue with "missing planets". It grew to quite a collection on the CBT forum, and there are other cases. This wiki, for example, has Ferris (Outworld Alliance) but there seems to be another Ferris in the Oberon Confederation which as of yet is not mentioned here. Frabby 18:17, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

The file does have Sakhalin (LC) at the correct coordinates. It has Scituate at 88.67,221.94 so that is incorrect. Yunnah is a tad off at 27.64,-154.13. Both have been corrected. It is daunting, I agree... but something does need to be done about the planets that are not represented, especially the planets of the Marian Hegemony and Circinus Federation. I also feel like Clan planets should be added, as well as those in the Deep Periphery, but that's a whole separate issue. --Scaletail 18:46, 1 June 2008 (CDT)


Frabby, please review the discussion that developed after your opposition statement in regards to doing away with coordinates. The question needs to be settled as to from where these coordinates should reliably come. It's not as clear as simply providing printed canon coordinates.--Rev (talk|contribs) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Planets Project[edit]

Hi Frabby,

Following on from the poll results, I'd like to get the Planets Project moving again. Rev's life has clearly kept him from being able to push the project forward, and the current state of play is that I posted up the revised proposed template here here two-and-a-half years ago, and the result was just three of us commenting. Do you still have a fundamental objection to the affiliation list with dates remaining in the article? Only since you and I had that conversation, the editing history of planets is basically Doneve/me adding more data points, me adding narrative detail when I work through books, and nobody else really doing anything specific to planets, so at the moment we're not getting the narrative you want, the narrative and data points I want or much participation beyond the normal jogging. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2014 (PST)

Good question BM. Iam in work to update the owner history, but very slow, i hope we can found a clear consensus.--Doneve (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2014 (PST)
Frabby, I've started testing the new article layout by working through the planets starting with A. I think I've managed to get half a dozen or so done this afternoon. The new article layout has the interesting side effect of turning a lot of planet articles into system articles. One of the problems I'm running into is lack of detail, though; if you look at an article like the one for Abbadiyah, you'll see that the required text for the article overview encompasses almost everything known about the system - I had to scratch around to find anything to put in the system history section. It might be worth thinking about whether the requirements for each narrative section need tweaking, given that the vast majority of the planet articles on here will probably have very little detail in them to begin with. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2014 (PST)
Turning the planet articles into system articles was the whole idea behind the exercise, wasn't it? ;) I don't mind the lack of detail at all. Changing planet articles into system articles is a huge and important change to boot, and it doesn't make much difference if the item you're lacking detail on is a planet or a system. Also, look at it this way: Unimportant, un-detailed systems are bound to be less interesting to users whereas high-profile systems tend to have a lot of detail on them available. It's really systems like Hesperus that should shape the article layout. That said, if certain text headers remain empty then you don't have to have them in the article. Think of the layout as a tool to make your life easier, not a form to make your life miserable. Ignore it where it doesn't help you. Frabby (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (PST)
It seems to be working fairly well at the moment - Doneve and I have started rolling the template out, and I've changed a few minor things as I get more practised. Where there's nothing in print about the system, I've started marking them as having one habitable world or construct rather than simply at least one habitable planet, because I don't think we can be certain that they aren't significant systems in the same way that the Gulf Breeze system is, with it's inhabited mining station, or the Periphery system where the settlement is built around a recharging station with DropShips stuck on it. I'm not entirely comfortable with having an "as at -current year-" statement in the header, but it does make it easier for casual readers to work out where the world is, particularly for those that we don't have maps for yet - although in practise, I'm using either 2750, 2765 or 3145 as the current year. One specific problem I hit is Achernar, though - there's a lot of information in the planetary info section in the current article with no citations. Some of the detail looks sort of right from what I could find in texts like Dark Age Republic Worlds (3130), but there's a lot of information I can't find a source for. I don't have a lot of the novels though (or any of the Dark Age novels) and I've only got a small percentage of the BattleCorps shorts. Could you take a look and see if you can identify the source information? I've checked and it doesn't look like it comes from BattleTechnology, which was my first thought, but I think that the Call to Arms novel might be set on Achernar, and I think there's a Decision at Achernar short that I don't have a copy of that may have supplied the detail. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2014 (PST)
The Chaos Irregulars short story is actually titled Decision at Acamar and has nothing to do with Achernar. A Call to Arms is indeed set on Achernar, but I haven't read most of the DA novels yet including this one. I suspect most information comes from this novel though. Frabby (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I checked A Call to Arms, and you are right Frabby, the most info comes from the Novel, but i know iam not a fluff writer i hope any other can step in and add some infos and references from the source.--Doneve (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I hate to say it, but I'm not going to rush out, buy A Call to Arms and read it for the sake of the article. I know my commitment is lacking, but so is money... and I'd rather buy the new Succession Wars books that are coming up ;) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I can added the info from A Call to Arms (but from the german novel), i hope anyone can check the speeling and grammers ;).--Doneve (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I can do that! I'm off out to a Christmas lunch (and have been drinking a very agreeable Cabernet Merlot blend all morning) but I'll take a look at the article tonight or tomorrow. Remind me to give you an award for assisting an admin in a time of need (and intoxication!) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I think I have the english Epub version of A Call to Arms on my HD (I got a bunch of DA novels in print and an even bigger bunch as Epub, and legit I may add but like I said I didn't read them all yet). Maybe I'll make that book my next novel project then.
BrokenMnemonic, what new Succession Wars era novels are you talking about? Did I miss anything? Frabby (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2014 (PST)
Not novels, I'm afraid - I'm thinking of Historical: First Succession War (and hopefully others to follow). I love their Historicals series with a passion, and now we're getting ones for the Succession Wars, so it's going to be like Christmas over and over again. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2014 (PST)

Planet/System article names[edit]

Evening, Frabby. Volt has a favor to ask. I told him about how articles will be named after the most prominent system member (such as Sol redirects to Terra). He's asking if there might be some master list you have that he could peek at, so that he could change the names in the impending SUC Kit to match. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2017 (EDT)

If there's a master list, I'd like a copy of it too - I'm going by what I find in the text of the articles as I'm updating them when it comes to renaming the articles. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
That's great to hear, because Nic just informed me he's very willing to run a script to replace all current coordinates with the ones from the...ahem...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit. So, we'll need to make sure every entry in the...Sarna Unified Cartography Kit...lines up with an article name. I figure you and I can finish off the Phase 0s (get the coordinate templates added) and go from there.
But, yeah, if there is a master list, that would rock.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
Hi guys, sorry for being off the radar - I just returned from a four-day trip to Denmark. (And I'll be travelling abroad again for the entire upcoming week.)
Rev, nice to see you're back and bringing the band together. [Insert favorite quote here - among literally dozens, at this time it's a tie between "Fix the cigarette lighter" and "No Ma'am, we're musicians" for me.]
About the issue at hand, sorry, there is no master list. All I ever did was jump on the bandwagon of cool projects like Volt's. But I'll gladly help compiling a list of systems with multiple names, or names different from the name of the primary inhabited world or construct. Frabby (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
Would you please? That would be excellent: one effort to update the kit and then all of the articles will benefit via script. Thanks, mate.
I announced the release on gruese's HBS thread. Fo you have a recommendation as to which section of CGL's forums I should do the same?
Enjoy Denmark!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:03, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
Denmark was great (including a short rowing and sailing trip on a viking ship at Roskilde - Yarr!) - and now I have three days to do the last two weeks' work, plus the upcoming week where I'll be traveling to Austria. So don't expect too much contribution from me until after the 21st of August.
That said, where shall be keep the master list and where should I add the list of alias names for systems as I work on it? User talk:Gruese#Coordinates looks like a good place to begin. Frabby (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Sounds like a plan. I know Volt is looking forward to those. After he incorporates your changes, we'll ship them off to Nic, who will run a script updating the system articles, and then Gruese will be able to scrap those to update the map. Voila! Collaboration! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:05, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Welcome back, Frabby. If you haven't started already, just a reminder, several of us are definitely interested in your work on this. Ill keep an eye on User talk:Gruese#Coordinates. As a reminder, Volt will take your completed report and updated the SUC Kit. From there, we'll share this with Gruese and Nic. Nic will then run a script updating all coordinates to the latest and then ("there's more!") he's going to see if he can create new local map images based on that. Additionally, Gruese is looking into possibly updating his code to enable us to create more traditional images based on 30 & 60 lys, centered on the systems in question.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
Don't wait for me. I only find time for a few odd bits here and there at the moment, and the next week is going to be murder; don't expect me to have much time for Sarna until the week after at the earliest.
Gruese has created fantastically helpful scripts and the results can be seen here. Looks like the Clan Homeworlds are all shifted by a dozen or so light-years. I'd like Volt to look over the data; I presume one of the two projects used an outdated set of data and Volt should easily be able to tell which data set is more up-to-date. Frabby (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
The thing is, Volt needs your names, so that his list matches up with the right article names. He's going to modify his planet names from what you compile. Nic's script will require parity. However, we are also not time-dependent...when you can get it done (or make headway), Volt will progress. I will share Gruese's results with him right now. Thanks, Frabby.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:01, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Pserratv Articles of Solaris Champions[edit]

Question, do we need quanity of empty articles about Champions? I know i'm as active recent years i used to be, but won't it be better unless these characters had fiction behind them or some kind write up somewhere to be just on a large list of Solaris Champions instead? -- Wrangler (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2018 (EST)

I am for the articles, they may be stubs but as with many things on this wiki, smaller details often weave together to create a greater picture over time. Previously the Solaris games section of the wiki has been left alone. Thanks to Pserratv there has been a burst of activity in the area from various authors. In addition I believe this has been well timed with MWO releasing their Solaris expansion soon, instead of deleting the stubs crack open your Solaris box, re-read those BattleCorps stories set on Solaris or even break out your MW:DA minis sets and join in the action. On the front page of this very site right now we have an interview with the man in charge of getting BattleTech things done stating the writers use our site. That stub with a one liner about some former champion could be the catalyst for the next book set on Solaris! Just my thoughts obviously. But I believe Sarna should be EVERYTHING BattleTech, your thoughts might be different. Dmon (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2018 (EST)
The articles have been completed. I hope all the champions names are correct... the font of the champions has a letter type I dislike and I might have made mistakes on them. I'm only pending a small review on links to ensure they link back to the Solaris VII Champions list so they can be used to go back to that list. I know most of the articles are not giving much, indeed my original idea was to create the list and also the articles of the big champions (4 championships at least; which have at least some info on Solaris VII boxed set, plus maybe some of the ones that have some (if not much) info, but once I was in, I could not stop, and then decided to create an article for them all, regardless of information under the assumption that better a stub than nothing.--Pserratv (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (EST)
I tend to agree with what Dmon wrote. Stub articles aren't inherently problematic, and the Solaris Campions are certainly important in-universe even if only a handful of them ever got mentioned in another source. This wiki does track individual starships even when they were only mentioned once in a single source; I don't see why characters should be treated differently. Frabby (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2018 (EST)
For me the most enduring thing about working on the wiki is the weaving of the threads into something larger. Due to Pserratvs articles I recently discovered that the chief instructor of the Banshee Stables in 3054 was the last commanding officer of one of the planetary militias destroyed in the early stages of the Clan Invasion (Another bunch of notouriously spartan stubs). I would never think to go looking for unit commander names in a Solaris book and vice versa looking for Solaris characters in a book about the Clan Invasion. So to me that little bit of story weaving is exactly what this wiki is for and that is the value it holds above just copying out the information presented in the books. Dmon (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2018 (EST)
I was told by the previous editors that unless it has content, it should only be listed. To save space was what they were looking at. Empty articles do look bad. I can understand Regiments or large military formations having stub articles since they will eventually do something. Then you have significant ships, like Warships, which are almost unique units in BattleTech universe, since what they do sometimes effect things even in later days. However, you have warriors, champions who may not have anything written up on them or maybe ever. I am minority in this view, but List of Solaris Champions in chronological order in same vein as List of minor Mercenary units, would be better way show them until they're given fluff to warrant a article. If their on a list, they happen to get fluff a link can be made to the individual article. It would make bit easier to search through sarna at glance. -- Wrangler (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

1992 Update Flyer[edit]

Any reason why there is no article on this product?? It is not even in the list... is it non cannon maybe?--Pserratv (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Oh, it absolutely meets the criteria for canon. Problem is, I haven't been able to get my hands on one so far, and apparently nobody else has. So no article could be writte. If you happen to have one, feel free to create the article, using the 1993 Update Flyer article as a template. As for why it's not in the product list, basically same reason - I know it supposedly existed, but without actually seeing one I wasn't going to feed the rumor mill by putting a ghost item into the lists. Frabby (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Ok, I lost my original copy long time ago, but I think I still got it scanned somewhere. I understand that is valid.--Pserratv (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Yes indeed. And if you find that scan, I would be thankful if you could pass on a copy... :) Frabby (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Of course. Back at home I'll do some checking--Pserratv (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (EST)
I would also appreciate a copy if it is not too much to ask. Dmon (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2018 (EST)
No issue, just an e-mail address :)

I'm searching for the 1991 flyer so if you get it... I'm interested :) --Pserratv (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Vandal Cop...again[edit]

Frabby, I know you don't display the awards you get, but given the level of effort you've been putting in on herding the spambots, I wanted you to have this. Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon You probably have more than a few, but wanted you to know that I appreciate the work you're doing.--Mbear(talk) 07:54, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Well, thanks for a pat on the back. Just tryin' to keep this place clean. Having the tools for blocking and zapping spammers is one of the perks of being an Admin. Frabby (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2018 (EST)

Changes not correctly tracked[edit]

I've seen that some times the changes I do are seen only in contributions, but not in watchlist nor in Recent Changes. Usually is when I do the changes logged but from hotel wifis. Any idea what can it be??--Pserratv (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

Just testing with an unknown user and outside the hotel wi-fi-- 05:42, 13 March 2018 (EDT)
Any idea why this might be happening??--Pserratv (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
Nope. Categories aren't updating since early February and I suppose both problems are rooted in the same software update. Nic Jansma is aware of the problem. Since he's running this site, only he can fix the software. Frabby (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
Ok, I'll re-change all I've been changing these days so it is visible--Pserratv (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
Nic believes the categories will update normally (including the backlog) once the error is fixed, so there is no need to undo your edits. (At least not until Nic says there is. ;) ) Frabby (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Planet Articles Template[edit]

Hey Frabby, I would like a little assistance, across the wiki we have several versions of the System/planet article template but I am not sure what is the most up-to-date version. I would assume the Project Planets version but even that is missing the Military deployment section. Dmon (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

I'm actually somewhat out of the loop concerning this particular project. User:BrokenMnemonic should be able to help you better than I. Frabby (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Good catch on Liao.[edit]

Cheers for catching my mistake there, Saw an unknown IP change the faction loyalty, checked the change history and read it backwards.. They where changing it to the Confederation, for some reason I read it as being changed to Fed Suns and assumed it was somebody trolling! --Dmon (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

One User:BradGB who has also registered here on Sarna pointed this out over at the Paradox forum (for the HBS BT game) in a thread about User:Gruese's map project. I even checked the reference given in the article, and yup it's pretty much a CC system on the map on p. 40. Probably an old error that carried over from the inception of this wiki - Nic used an outdated set of data from the IS Cartography Project to set up Sarna, and we're fixing stuff to this day. Incidentally, I started fixing the position of Hunan and its nearby systems only recently... a mere ten years after it was first pointed out to me on my talk page, the very first item on the list for a decade now. Frabby (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I actually checked the reference as well, I just misread what had been changed somehow! As long as it gets sorted it is all that matters.--Dmon (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Lost the quick link to actions[edit]

It has dissapeared. The quick link for bold, links, italics... no idea why!!Pserratv (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (EST)

This happens from time-to-time. I can't tell if it's an error from the mediawiki software, or some data loss error, but it doesn't seem to hit everyone at the same time. However, it will return. (It happened to me today, on one of my earlier edits, but the buttons have returned now.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:17, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Sorry for not getting back to you on this. I never had that issue, so I figured it was a temporary glitch when NicJ updated the software. Is it still persisting for you? Frabby (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
It has been working again for the past 3 days... but from Revanche's comments, who knows... :) --Pserratv (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

InfoBoxMercUnit Template[edit]

Though there are not many, some mercenary units do not have mechs... I feel we should add 'Mech as an option here in order to make this more visible. It will a huge effort amending the mercenary units afterwards, but I feel it would we worth of it. Unfortunately I have no idea on hoy to change infoBoxMercUnit.

As a counter-proposal, why not introduce a sub-category Category:Non-'Mech Mercenaries instead and sort the few special cases into that? Frabby (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2018 (EDT)
Interesting option... I think it will be a winner. Let me take some time to review this option and I think I'll buy it :)--Pserratv (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2018 (EDT)


Just saw you tinkering with the magazine articles and had a bit of a brainwave. Do you think it might be worth migrating the Magazine and Comic categories out of the books category placing them a bit more prominent than they currently are?--Dmon (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

I agree that they probably don't belong under "books" but I'm unsure what to do with them otherwise, so open to suggestions. Frabby (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
I have decided that a bit more of a top down view of the BTU product range needs to be done. Category:BattleTech Universe Products is my new starting point.--Dmon (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

Recent Changes missing edits again[edit]

On a different note, this edit of yours doesn't show in Recent Edits for me and I'd have overlooked it if not for the notification box. Looks like something is still (or again) broken. Frabby (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

This happens to me to depending on the LAN I'm in. In hotels for example any change I do does not appear in global tracker (though yes in Personal one which is also weird; I would expect and all or noting).--Pserratv (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
I don't think it's the network environment. I get the same (incomplete) result on my smartphone and at my desk computer. And now that you've commented Pserratv it gives "2 Edits" in the Recent Changes where there should be 3 (4 after this edit). Guess I'll have to go and inform NicJ. Frabby (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
I am on my Android Tablet and it appears that all work stopped on the Wiki some time this morning per the Recent Edits page--Dmon (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
Poor Dmon - my system ignores you completely. To the point where your intermediate contributions to this talk page don't show up on a "compare recent edits" screen. That's a bit worrisome on the database end. :( Frabby (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

Codes and Procedures of the Warrior Caste[edit]

Frabby, have you ever seen/heard of this? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:13, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

That's the manual for MechWarrior 2. Cyc (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
Thank you! That was bothering me that it was unfamiliar as a product.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
Always glad to help out. :)(Thx Cyc!) Frabby (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

Pick up this ball, please?[edit]

Frabby, as I indicated to Will here, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to give him the decision he seeks. Would you take the helm on this for me? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:33, 2 July 2018 (EDT)

Done. :) Frabby (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
Thanks!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:33, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

New stuff in the news section![edit]

Hey Frabby, any chance we could get a bullet in on the news section of the home page about the new fiction and book released last week? Just to give the first releases for our beloved universe that fractional little push ;-) --Dmon (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (EDT)


That's great to hear about the addition to your family. Keep developing your private lance; I'm sure your merc unit will be formidable.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)

Congratulations! Make sure you set up the paperwork for your 'Mech ownership correctly, so that it passes on from you without being stolen by the government... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
Thanks guys! I'm happy to report that our baby girl is pure joy, just like her older brother. Nights aren't what they used to be be, but hey that's to be expected and will normalize in due time. My internet connection and phone lines also got fixed by now (took two days, which felt like a week). I'll still leave the message on my userpage for the time being but things are shaping up here. :) Frabby (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
If you're ever stuck for present ideas for daughters, I've got four nieces aged three or younger, and a fifth arriving this month, so I have some gifting experience... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

Welcome back sir, we even managed to not break much whilst we where without adult supervision! Also congratulation on the baby because I forgot to congratulate you earlier. --Dmon (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)


Hi Frabby, I'm not sure where your magazine archive of BT-related is up to these days, but Noble Knight games have a copy of Ancible Magazine #1 on sale for $3.40 - less than half price. It allegedly includes house rules for Classic BattleTech. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

I'm actually somewhat interested... but at a quick glance I've been unable to determine the shipping costs to Germany. Frabby (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Field Manual Updates Artwork WarShips[edit]

Hi Frabby,

I noticed while wandering through random pages that at some point in the past, you added in a stack of WarShips such as the Linsenmayer from a conversation on the CGL forum about WarShips that had appeared in artwork. I did a little digging; while the electronic PDF edition of Field Manual: Updates has a truncated version of the picture, the original FanPro edition of Field Manual Updates, with the serial number 10976, has what looks like a full version of the artwork in. I'm sitting here with my hard copy and a magnifying glass, and I can see all of the detail cited in your notes on the individual ship articles. I thought you might like to know, because it gives us a concrete canon version of the detail. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2018 (EDT)

I wrote the articles based off the FanPro book - wasn't even aware that the PDF has the picture truncated. Just looked it up and ayup, the image is significantly smaller (omitting the entire left row on the screen in the background). Funny enough, it's the PDF scan of the FanPro edition of the book. Not sure what happened there. In any case, were there any specific omissions you found that I hadn't covered in the articles? (Sidenote: re-reading the articles I noticed I wrote the picutre was without "capture" when I meant "caption". D'oh.) Frabby (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2018 (EDT)
Sorry, I forgot to reply to this at the time - work stuff eating my brain. I didn't spot anything you'd missed, although it seems a shame that the artist no longer appears on the CGL forums, so we can't ask for a full version of the image. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

Product Images[edit]

Hi Frabby,

As I've not been able to concentrate much lately because of work, I've been fiddling through some admin stuff. I'm currently trying to hack down the number of things showing up as either articles without categories or files without categories, and there are a lot of pictures of BattleTech products without categories. I think it would be useful to group them together, but I thought I should check with you first, as you tend to have clear opinions about such things. A lot of the products don't have a listed artist, and I think it'd be useful to have a category for such things beyond just the artist category. I thought what might work is a master category, called something like "BattleTech Product Images", with subcategories for e-books/non-physical images, sourcebooks with physical versions, and physical items that aren't sourcebooks (like lance packs, box sets, etc). What do you think? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

(Traveling and very limited internet access so just a quick reply) Since you asked for my opinion (which is really only that, my opinion - and let's be honest, you're the heavyweight lifter on Sarna these days), here goes: I approve of the idea and your suggestion. I don't have a better solution or suggestion at this time, and what you wrote seem solid. ;) Frabby (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2018 (EDT)

Reaching out[edit]

Hey Frabby... I am going to formally ask you to put your Admin Hat on. The BattleMech articles due to the nature of what BT is, are our premier series of articles so I believe they need much tighter quality control than other parts of the wiki. User talk:Fredericmora, User talk:, User: and at least one other I can't currently find are all the same person as far as I can tell based on the nature and common format of their edits. (almost all notable pilot updates and no references).

The general quality of the content is good but the lack of references is an issue. I have reached out to this user a couple of times about their updates to no response.

I have a further concern, way back in 2010 Notable Pilots was a hot issue, with some of the notable pilots not being very notable this user has added not being very notable or more confusingly, whilst a notable pilot, they are strongly associated with a different 'Mech. Although I feel "minor characters" is bad for the wiki, I still believe that some characters deserve to be considered "Notable". I do not want to reignite this issue nor potentially start an edit war, however I feel we need to find a way to reach out and get this person on side. Maybe encourage them to create character articles or reference their work at a very minimum.--Dmon (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2018 (EST)

Article bloat is becoming a problem in a number of fields on Sarna, 'Mech articles being one of them. From my perspective the problem is that there is no formal framework for the articles, so any user can add anything he/she feels is relevant. The "Notable Pilots" section in the 'Mech articles is a sub-problem of that overarching problem. But on the other hand I am decidedly unsure if it is even desirable to limit articles in such a way.
Perhaps we need to install either a full-blown obligatory article template with guidelines for using it, or at least formulate a proper policy for "Notable Pilot" sections. Then we could expect users to follow that formal policy.
Regarding the issue at hand, I'll try to explain the problem to the user(s) in question. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Frabby (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2018 (EST)
Hey Frabby did you have any luck reaching out to They have been adding some very large additions to articles and still not a single reference.--Dmon (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2018 (EST)
Hey Frabby, I'm unsure who this user is, but so far all they've done is deleted stuff from the Notable Pilot sections. User: there's been no reasons mentioned as to why they were removed either. I'm not sure whether to revert their 3 edits or not. It could be if he has a rotating IP. (In fact, I'm almost positive. Looks like he removed one of his old edits, but then subsequently removed another from another 'Mech and a preexisting pilot.) So far he's erased 3 pilots, 2 from the Devastator and one from the Cerberus. Admiral Obvious (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2019 (EST)
I've seen it, and Dmon even raised the issues on the Administrators page. Yes, I've been remiss of my admin duties and haven't properly adressed the issue yet, for which I apologize. I'm just so busy that I find it hard to meet my goal of making at least one Sarna edit per day right now. You're right in that the additions are too wordy, lack references, occasionally stray too far from factual wiki style and generally probably need to be reverted for the most part. On the other hand, this user certainly does seem to be a dedicated person and I'd prefer to offer some guidance over reverting his edits, so as to not scare him/her off. Of course, in order to help the editor needs to accept help in the first place... Frabby (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Sorry if I jumped the shark a bit when I raised it on the Admin page in the hopes one of the other admins would possibly pick it up. I guessed you where busy with RL. I agree that the person seems dedicated, and have made a point of saying the content for the most part does seem correct (I remember having read parts) it just needs a lot of polish. I believe this person can be an asset to the wiki with some guidence, but currently is not hence me pulling the disruptive editing card in the hopes that the issue is taken more seriously.--Dmon (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2019 (EST)
A potential route to solving the issue is speaking to Pserratv, All the IPs are based in Spain so it might be somebody active in that community.--Dmon (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Do we have more than just an IP? I can ask to the spanish group I know and from there maybe we can get more. Not sure thoubh, but I can give a try?--Pserratv (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Ah, good, you already saw this discussion. :) Yeah, we'd be grateful if you could do that. No harm in trying. Frabby (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Question raised. Let's see if I can reach him.--Pserratv (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Notable Pilots[edit]

Since four of the most active users as of right now are partaking in the discussion above: Should be create a Policy for notable pilots? It's a recurring issue here on Sarna BTW thanks to the prominent and popular section in the TROs. And since it's a very BattleTech-y thing I'd like to keep a Notable Pilots section on general principle, but I realize we need to establish some rules as to what counts as notable and draw a line somewhere. We may also need to draw up rules on the length of individual entries in a 'Mech article (I'm thinking of the rules we have for the year pages here - one-liners only, with typically only a single link to the article about the pilot). Thoughts? Frabby (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2019 (EST)

I am very much in favour of keeping the notable pilots section as it brings some flavour to a series of articles that tend to be quite stat focused. Maybe a two line limit and a single link to a character article. Also maybe a limit on how many can be included. This serves the purpose of attempting to prevent bloat but also forcing out the not so notable pilots. (This is an odd one for me as I am of the line of though that one day I would like every BT character ever mentioned to be on the wiki but notability still is a thing).--Dmon (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Thanks for deleting all the typos I generate[edit]

Just thanks!!--Pserratv (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (EST)

Heh. Thanks for the nice words. Just to be clear, all I'm doing is come cleanup here and there. There is no master plan involving you and your typos. :) Keep up adding good info to Sarna. (Oftentimes, a new edit makes me revisit an older article and that in turn often makes me give said article a polishing workover.) Frabby (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2018 (EST)

Reasons for additional sub categories[edit]

Hello Frappy, I'm a little surprised by the deletion of the Capellan Hussars category. My reason for the addition of the category to the different unit entries was to get a better understanding which unit belongs to the different brigades. At the moment most brigade articles contains to much information in my opinion and with the sub-categories it would be easier to create articles for the different time frames. For example: Take the Syrtis Fusilier at the start of the First Succession War and the shape after nearly 300 hundred years of constant fighting. What is your opinion about it? neuling

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the reasoning. The Capellan Hussars article lists (and links to) all regiments belonging to this brigade, just like a category would. Only, it even offers sorting by timeframe, so it this respect it is superior to a category. Conversely, every individual regiment has (or at least should have) a notion stating that it is part of the Capellan Hussars, providing a link back. There is also a field "Parent Unit" in the InfoBoxMilitaryUnit for exactly this purpose. As such, I don't understand what information the category provides that isn't already there in the articles? It's not like there are so many regiments in this category that they bloat the article. Frabby (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2019 (EST)
My intention was to provide a way for better understanding the different composition of the brigade during the different time frames. I accept that my idea is not the best solution. I will think about that topic and perhaps we can find a solution that is widely accepted. neuling

Request about layout for military articles[edit]

Hello Frabby, I compare the different articles for the major military organisation like DCMS and AFFS. They don't follow a standard layout concept. I will not change the existing structure. My intention is how we can make it better without a huge rework of the existing material. I will create an example for the brigades at my user page. Feel free to take a look and your opinion is welcome. With best regards neuling

I am working on an overhaul of our Policy:Notability, and as currently intended this will include a paragraph or two about military units/formations. It basically goes like this: The BT universe notably uses the Regiment as the basic formation (whereas in the real world, Battalion is the typical unit size), that's why Sarna has articles about Regiments and only covers smaller formations (Battalions, Companies) if they have a specific unit identity. Larger formations (Brigades and larger) are rare and usually administrative formations. They get short articles, with links to their individual sub-regiments. Frabby (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (EST)

Image policy inquiry[edit]

Moved the discussion to here. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:32, 7 February 2019 (EST)


Just want to say thanks for making the Thelos Auburn worth something, Currently doing lots of overtime at work and my contributions to the wiki are way down on what they should be. I appreciate you picking up where I am dropping the ball.--Dmon (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2019 (EST)

I could say the same the literally same things to you, so thanks - and keep up the good work! Frabby (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2019 (EST)


Hi Frabby, thanks for the citation for my DropShuttle Article. We may have issue with new editor. Fredericmora‎, he doesn't seem known how to do ref to stuff he posting, he doing other things Dom has mentioned to him. I'm not sure if he knows how to respond on the the wiki. -- Wrangler (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (EDT)

Maiden names and birth names[edit]

Hey frabby, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to reverse the change you made to the Candent Sortek/Septarian article because I use the character maiden/birth names as article names in order to make family trees easier to handle.--Dmon (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Now you've got me confused. There's a redirect in place, so either name can be linked just fine. Can you elaborate on the problem? Frabby (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
There was a redirect in place anyway so I am equally confused as to why you changed it in the first place. Simple answer is I just find it easier to work on the family trees if wives have their own name rather than their married name. Most of the time a wife with the same surname becomes a dead end unless we are explicitly told who she is, I lucked out on discovering Candent this morning.--Dmon (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
I moved it because I thought we covered subjects with different successice names (WarShips, merc units, systems, and also people as showcased by the Anastasius Focht article) under their last/latest name and use redirects for older names. But it's not a policy or a hard rule, and I don't feel strongly about the subject. Frabby (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

WarShip bombardment in BattleTech (2018)[edit]

Here is a video from the mission. The mission summary refers to a WarShip, and the bombardment has the appearance of a vertical laser beam at least a hundred times more powerful than a BattleMech's PPC. It seems to have been added with the Flashpoint DLC. Omeganian (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for posting the video. I can now see where you're coming from.
But I still contend that there are no active WarShips in the 3025 era. WarShips are a big deal. And in CapCon hands a WarShip would have made all the difference in the world in the 4th Succession War. The matter seems to be treated pretty casually in the video clip, when in-universe it would have been an absolutely groundbreaking thing. To me, this is another case of sloppy factchecking on behalf of HBS, or maybe a deliberate taking of liberties with the main BT canon as they're free to make up stuff as they please for their game. The video game license is distinct from the boardgame/sourcebook/novel license, though I regard the latter as the authoritative (canon) universe wherever computer games deviate.
In the good old tradition of the "FASA Two-Step" approach, a possibe way to reconcile this video game event with canon could be to assume "WarShip" doesn't refer to the usual definition of a multimillion ton (well, at least 100,000 ton) combat JumpShip with a compact KF drive, but instead simply means "combat spaceship". You could then reinterpret the purported orbital bombardment as a ground attack by a DropShip such as the Avenger, a class incidentally known for being used in such attacks. Frabby (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
By the way, this video says Artillery Bombardment, but I've played the game and sometimes it says a more global bombardemnt, by I agree with Frabby that this must be a Dropship thing and not a fully functional warship, as only Comstar has them in this era (and very well hidden.--Pserratv (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
The problem is that it destroys a 5000 HP structure in a single attack, in a game where a PPC gives 50. Not many vessels can perform such an attack. Omeganian (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
Since HBS heavily fudged the armor and weapon damage stats anyways (not to mention the construction and modification rules), this comparison isn't worth much though. I do agree with you that HBS apparently tried to evoke the concept of WarShips and orbital bombardment for this mission; but at the same time, in the game's timeframe these concepts are so outrageously anachronistic that I consider it an error, and would try to explain it away with a less canon-breaking explanation. Frabby (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Search for recent changes is Mobile platforms[edit]

Any idea on how to do that Frabby? PSERRATV (I don't know either how to add the tag on user.

Not sure if it is any help but I tend to find the mobile interface virtually unusable for editing so if you scroll down to the bottom of any page there is a tab that says "Use Desktop site" or something to that effect. (just checked, it is just the work "Desktop" highlighted in blue like a wikilink)--Dmon (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
And I have just checked on how to do it on the mobile version, again right at the bottom of the page you want to look at, just above the GNU.FDL stuff is a grey strip that says "Last edited x days ago by x" click on it and it brings up the edit history.--Dmon (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)
I agree it is useless to edit. But what I need is the list or Recent Changes, like in PC... I have Contributions and Watchlist... but not Recent Changes. PSERRATV 25 - 15:38
My second comment tells you how I found it on my Android mobile.--Dmon (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

I guess Dmon has already answered your question. Personally, I never use the mobile interface because I hate it; it's useless for editing. When you go to the bottom of any page there's a "Desktop version" button. One possibly useful tip that I can add is that I have bookmarked the "Recent Changes" page and am using it as my main Sarna page whenever I call up the site. That works, even when the system for some arcane reason decides to switch to mobile version between sessions (happened several times). Frabby (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Citations for sourcebook fiction[edit]

Morning Frabby, I have something I am not sure how we handle, as the title says Citations for sourcebook fiction, Do we have an official stance on how we handle them? I want to create some articles that treat them as short stories rather than just part of a sourcebook as they are an oft forgotten source of lore, the catch however is I want to treat such stories as fully fledged short stories in terms of Citations and Bibliography as well but feel this might confuse people. --Dmon (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

There is no "official stance" but plenty of precendent. If the story was ever made into a product of its own (i.e. published standalone via BattleCorps or as an EPUB) then the article should use the Template:InfoBoxProduct. If it's a story within a larger product, e.g. individual stories from an anthology or sourcebook fiction, then use the Template:InfoBoxStory. Case in point: Think like a Liao, from the Shrapnel anthology.
As for citations, this is the format I've used in the past: Threat the short story as its own product, and include it in the bibliography section under its name, appending "in: (source)"; also, put the source product into the Bibliography section. Frabby (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
Thank you, I knew you would know the answer :-) --Dmon (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

Battletech CCG[edit]

Hi Dmon. Want you have by any chance the Battletech CCG cards? I'm just in my last phase of the "project" which includes uploading the missing images, and I'm missing a lot.--Pserratv (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2019 (EDT)

Howdah Edits[edit]

Hi Frabby, why did you remove the notes section from the article? The information about the records sheets only being only found in once source book was valid. Also, i'm unclear why a category was created for ships named for the Howdah, while currently there are NO canon named ships right now. -- Wrangler (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

While the information about the record sheets being in only one book is accurate as far as I can tell, I feel it's simply not notable. After all, one official record sheet is plenty enough, isn't it? I could understand if the note said there was no official record sheet for the unit... but there is one. So what's noteworthy about that?
The category is presumably superflous, and I did consider deleting it. But it's currently standard procedure to create such a category for every spacecraft class, even in cases where there's only one or even none entry in the category. It's kind of expected from the article structure that such a categoy be in place. And it's always possible that the name of a Howdah-class vessel gets published somewhere, somehow.
I don't have strong feelings about either aspect though. Feel free to revert or change as you see fit. ;) Frabby (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2019 (EDT)


Hey Frabby, I was still editing that article including an extensive explanation of why I changed the name of the Despiser article, but got an edit conflict and you had removed my work. I believe the name is an error but if you want to remove my work without speaking to me first, thank you for having some trust.--Dmon (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Sorry for the editing conflict, wasn't aware of this. I just saw that you had been the latest editor, and your work normally doesn't require any corrections. I hadn't checked the recent changes and didn't realize you had just moved the article and were working on it. When I saw the Despiser article links to a WarShip not a DropShip, I looked the name up in my BC edition of the novel and found it to be a Fury and always to be spelled as two italicized words, with only one instance of it being names simply "Despiser" - the chapter 19 epigraph. So I figured there had been an oversight on the part of the initial autor. So, again, apologies - no disrespect intended. But now I am curious to see your reasoning why the two-word name might be in error? Frabby (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
I have cooled off now, sorry for having a go, I was out of order. Having a very rough day in work so doing some wiki edits on my break was meant to be something chill and you just got the back end. I based the name off the initial epigraph giving the ships formal designation coupled with naval naming traditions pretty much never including "The" as a singular article within a name. I assumed the "The" being italicised was likely a mistake in editing.--Dmon (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2019 (EDT)
Normally I would agree with the naval naming traditions approach, but in six out of the seven cases where its name is spelled out it is called "The Despiser", fully italicized and with a capital "T". The epigraph is clearly the odd one out here, and I thus surmised it's the epigraph that is in error. Btw, I pulled out my ROC print edition to double-check, and the difference is still there between the epigraph and the rest of the chapter so it wasn't altered (I previously used the "prefinal" text provided via BattleCorps). Frabby (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Sarna Not New User Friendly?[edit]

Hi, Frabber. I don't know if you saw this post in thread titled "Very disappointed with new Kickstart", i wasn't sure where to post this. So i'm kicking it to you for direction. In course of the user's concerns, they felt was NOT user friendly. Do you think there could be a special page for new users or ask for someone schooled in doing it. I work on wikis, (noticed it's sort of fading thing) i've seen that newer users aren't using wiki as much due design issues. Here the link to what person was saying.

As for, as a new player that page is literally anti-user. The design of that page instantly removes the desire to find out about the lore that everyone says is so good, so it keeps me away from Battletech. Things should be attractive for new and old people, a page that looks like 1995 where I have to look for lore among tons of text and links is not a good idea to attract a player.
-- Wrangler (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
I saw that too (thanks for bringing it up though). Outsider opinions are always interesting. But this one here wasn't terribly helpful. The argument boils down to complaining about a wiki being a wiki. Sarna is a specialist tool for people who have at least a basic understanding of the BT universe. It is not meant or designed to serve as an intro source. Frabby (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

Star League commands order[edit]

Hi Frabby,

I've seen that the Star League commands order is different from the rest. Units assigned in sub-level commands do appear also in the root (something that does not happen in other Military Commands Categories. Am I right if I consider this Category incorrectly done?

I also think there are categories missing that should help reorganize this a bit better? The level of sub commands can be huge, and I do not even know which is the best way to order them.

I tried to make this a general query, but have no idea on how to do it.--Pserratv (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

The SLDF is a tad bit bigger than other armies. It is an outlier, so I reckon it's not strictly neccessary to give it exactly the same category strutcure as other militaries. Use your own best judgement on how it should be sorted. Frabby (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Proposed Organization of the Star League Forces (final)[edit]

I've created and explained a proposal here: Category talk:Star League Defense Force Commands, could you review and share your insights?--Pserratv (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2019 (EDT)

Characters vs Real People[edit]

Hey Frabby, saw you moved the Chris Lewis character article. I have had a look at the Naming conventions and we do not appear to have a specific policy for this situation but can I recommend that we follow what I did last year when I tidied up the real people category. Just to have everybody on the same page.--Dmon (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for reminding me. It boils down to a disambiguation problem - we have characters and real persons sharing the same name. Obviously the articles would need to cross-link to each other via {{otheruses}} tag, and a true disambiguation page isn't required. I.e. one article named "Name (character)", one article named "Name (person)", and one article simply named "Name".
The real question in each individual case is, who gets the non-disambiguated "Name" article? My own gut feeling says we cannot have a rule for this because in some cases the real person is vastly more well-known and important to BattleTech than a canon character by the same name, and in other cases it's the reverse. Especially with that Kickstarter situation coming up (where ~3000 backers are going to name a canonical character).
However, to me it's something of a non-issue because the problem will always only concern two articles that have to be disambiguated. Do we really need a rule for that? Frabby (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
Do we need a rule, in all likelyhood no we do not, I was more than anything thinking of internal consistency on how we handle the matter. How important a real person is to BT and at what point they become the primary "name holder" is a little like the debate on minor characters and down to individual judgement. Now that you mention the 3000 backers, my thoughts that we need something in place as at least a guideline on how we handle things are strengthened. Out of those 3000 people I think it is a fairly safe bet that at least some of those people will want to bring their character onto the wiki. Not a bad thing by any measure but we have precident with Merc units (The Wylde Cards and TekTeam Technical Services) of additional material creeping in. So maybe this is an opportunity for us to formalize some guidelines for how we handle canonization before the potential flood. Nothing draconian, just something to point people too as part of a polite nudge to do things the sarna way.--Dmon (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

Ebooks Republications[edit]

Hi Frabby, i know i've been inactive for a bit. I wanted to talk to you about a new trend we haven't quite addressed. Republications of Serial Battlecorp stories as full Ebook/Print On Demand publications. Essentially, i have found formating of these serial BC not really good because the re-release it as a actually full-on novel is very different format. Question of the day is, do we make seperate entry for the fullnovel/pod/ etc or do we rework the serial entry. Example is Redemption Rift. Thanks --Wrangler (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

It's the same story, so it should have only one article. Print-on-Demand is considered a print product and print products are generally treated as the "lead" product in combined articles. Looking over your edits to Redemption Rift, that's pretty much exactly how it should be done. Only the Moratorium does not apply on re-release. Frabby (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Stuff to be deleted.[edit]

Good evening Frabby, could I please call upon your Admin powers to delete these pages for me.

Cheers.--Dmon (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

My pleasure. Is there a reason why a level-headed longime user like you isn't an admin? I can suggest to NicJ to raise you to admin status if you're interested. Frabby (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Much appreciated, That is a big chunk of my to-do-list finally done and dusted and I think the war on "Minor" is mostly over :-)
No idea, I think it might be a case of I have never asked and back in the day we had a full admin staff. I know a few of the admins are a lot less active than they use to be so if you think it would be a benefit for the wiki to promote me I won't mind, I spend enough time here after all.--Dmon (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Kickstarter Products[edit]

As part of our efforts to capture everything BattleTech related where we can, would you have any objections if I created a Sarna article about the recent Kickstarter campaign, and pages detailing the various products that were offered throughout the course of the campaign? I'm aware there may be some changes to the final line-up, but it feels like there are a lot of "things" associated with the campaign like dog tags and coins that might slip from the collective memory once the campaign is over, that we should record as part of BattleTech's history. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Each and any individual product should get its own article, and I reckon most of these would end up in Category:Accessories. I am opposed to the idea of creating a category for Kickstarter products, but maybe the Kickstarter warrants its own "Event" style article where its associated products could be listed (it's a finite and not overly long list and as such more suitable for an article than a category anyways). We have "Event" articles about the individual WWEs, and a summary section about them in the Demo Team article. Kickstarter projects - and I suspect there will be more - should perhaps follow the same approach. Frabby (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
That's essentially what I was thinking; I think that the Kickstarter events are notable in their own right, as they include things like re-release dates for existing products (such as the various digital stories released, and the announcement of new stories) and demonstration of new products that should be recorded as BattleTech items within the existing product categories (as well as potentially creating new Vaporware, which is a fun concept in and of itself) and I think treating the Kickstarter as a subject worthy of an event article would provide a useful index article for someone trying to identify where products originated. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Good to see we're on the same page here. Seeing how the Clan Invasion Kickstarter will be blazing the trail for future articles, let's talk about good article names. Because all article names for the Kickstarter that I can come up with right now somehow sound bad. For starters, can we avoid "Kickstarter" (as that is one specific enterprise) and use the more generic term "crowdfunding". My current least-bad proposal for an article name would be "Clan Invasion boxed set crowdfunding project". Which is obviously too long. Or is it? Help! Frabby (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Presuming that there will be future crowdfunding efforts for BattleTech products, I think I'm moving towards the idea of avoiding recording them as individual event articles, and instead tracking the events by year. So, for example, we could have an article entitled "BattleTech Crowdfunding Projects: 2019", with the "Clan Invasion Kickstarter" being a sub-heading on that page, possibly referenced by date, as in "July-August: Clan Invasion Kickstarter." That way, if TPTB decide to run multiple small crowdfunding campaigns in a year, they could all be on one page, rather than on multiple pages, and it establishes the crowdfunding events as effectively a series. The downside to this approach is that we could end up with some very long pages though, depending on the amount of detail its considered appropriate to include, but we could consider that a formatting issue... Most companies working in the boardgame area don't seem to run that many Kickstarter campaigns a year (CMON, which is the first comparison that came to mind, runs something like 2-3 KS campaigns a year), but a year-based format would allow us to link all crowdfunding campaigns in one area, whether they're million-dollar campaigns for new box sets and a range of other products, or much smaller campaigns for something like a series of novels or an art book. What do you think? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
I've put together a skeleton format for a possible article on the Clan Invasion Kickstarter, although it's at an early stage; I wanted to get my thoughts down in some kind of coherent form. There are areas that I haven't captured in a satisfactory fashion yet, such as the Merchant caste reward level, and some of the products where, having read through the main page several times, I still don't understand what the criteria were for getting them. I did notice some inconsistency in product names as well, and I'm not certain what should be done by way of citing references. I'm going to go through the update posts for the Kickstarter over the next few days and try and work out if there was additional information in those that would be relevant to Sarna, although it may take some time. If you get a chance, could you take a look and give me your thoughts on it, please? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Nice article BM, and it gives us a template for the future if any other similar crowdfunding that is done by CGL.--Dmon (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for the example. Since you asked for my opinion, here goes:
1. Why the year pages? I find that both unintuitive and not useful. As a counter-proposal, can't we just have a generic "BattleTech crowdfunding projects" article listing/linking to the individual project articles? These would be listed in chronological order just like the List of BattleTech Products, possibly even a sortable list featuring date, product, company.
2. Your sample article is way too long and detailed, imho. If a user wants hhat level of detail he can, should and likely will check the Kickstarter project page directly. Further, I think much of that information is irrelevant to BattleTech. For the purpose of our wiki, I'd include the timeframe, context, and outcome, namely a rundown of products associated with the KS campaign (and if they're exclusives). Each physical or Epub item gets its own article page for details; other rewards (e.g. beard-off matches) gets a writeup in the article. Pledge tiers or stretch goals, on the other hand, are irrelevant after the KS closed. Either they materialize as products or they don't. Goals that weren't reached may warrant a mention. I may create a sample page along these lines if and when I find the time. (My loving wife decided we need to renovate parts of the house first. Sigh. ;) ) Frabby (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2019 (EDT)


Hi Frabby.

I've redone page for Edasich Motors (Fusion Engines). Can you please take a look at it and tell me if you like it with these format?--Pserratv (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

Perfect! This is exactly what I had in mind. Thank you. Any chance to include years when production started/ceased/was known to be active, wherever these dates are available? Frabby (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Are you guys planning to create brand articles for all components?--Dmon (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
On the dates, that is a complex topic as we might only have them mech by mech, which could be just "complex" to organize it in start - end only as it would be different per 'Mech. As per the brand articles, let's start with engines, for which there is already a good support on data, and then we can see if it makes sense to go the next level with other components of the war elements: weapons for example. Step by Step.--Pserratv (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2019 (EDT)