User talk:Frabby/Archive1


Warrior House(s)[edit]

Why did you move Warrior Houses to Warrior House? Shouldn't the article title be plural, since it discusses all of them? --Scaletail 19:13, 8 December 2007 (CST)

I guess that was my first impression, too (admittedly I did not consciously think about it). However, when mentioned in other articles you can expect single Warrior Houses to be adressed and the link would then be used in singular form, i.e. [ [Warrior House]] [ [Imarra]]. I noticed that when updating my Kaifeng article.
Btw I considered making Warrior Houses a Category but thought it pointless for only 8 entries. In the future the individual Houses may have individual entries, but for now I felt there just is not enough material to warrant this. If and when that happens, a singular title for the main article will be even more important. I am not against moving the article to plural form but then a redirect from the singular would be neccessary imho. Frabby 19:20, 8 December 2007 (CST)
No matter which way you do it, you'll have a redirect. It was just my impression that the plural was more accurate. Any help you could contribute to the "Warrior Houses" section I created at Capellan Confederation Armed Forces would also be appreciated. --Scaletail 19:39, 8 December 2007 (CST)

Thanks for cleaning up the various Warrior House Re-directs! Alkemita 09:40, 12 March 2009 (PDT)


Wanted to tell you how I think you've /really/improved the article. Exellent job! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:39, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the flowers. However, to be honest I think the article (and others) still require a lot of work on their references. I often fail to provide references myself because sometimes I do remember certain bits and pieces of information but cannot recall where they are from, and most of the time do not have the novels or sourcebooks anymore. So unfortunately, somebody else will have to do that part of the work... Frabby 17:09, 18 December 2007 (CST)
Agree. It'll happen in time. (What would we do with our lives if this encyclopedia were comple?) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (CST)

MechWarrior I[edit]

Great job on the MW I page, Frabby! I really liked how detailed you made it, especially given all of the links to the other elements. Great job and it definitely brought some old memories to the surface for me. :) Thanks! Bdevoe 15:55, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Planets and their coordinates[edit]

Thanks for the help on the planets. It's a bit of work and you're doing a great job adding in the extra data! Bdevoe 20:13, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Glad it's appreciated! But I have a number of points: Some of the source material is ambigous Canon, how do we treat that? (For example, data from roleplaying scenarios like the stuff I have on Suk II) Also, the X/Y coordinates of systems are obviously wrong. Are these based on the 3031 Atlas of the Inner Sphere (which I have here, in German)? If so I could start to correct the coordinates. Frabby 05:09, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
I've noted to Nicjansma that the coordinates were incorrect. The entries were autogenerated and obviously there was an error when it posted the entries. I believe the info came from the Inner Sphere Cartography Service maps (which are correct except for two planets) and that data was based on the 1987/88 House Books. I think the plan is that he'll correct it using some script when he has time to deal with it since it's every planet that's wrong. To your other point, I would tend to think that if the information was published by FASA/WizKids/FanPro it's canon, even if it's from a scenario pack (like the Black Widows Company book). I guess it's up to you as to whether you're willing to go through all of the planets and fix the coordinates - it seems a Herculean task and would probably be easier to wait for Nic to do it automagically. :) Bdevoe 12:10, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
Hi Frabby, sorry to jump in and resurrect a old conversation. I noticed there a missing planet that is alive. Von Strang's World, was a world that Clan Jade Falcon currently holds, its on Periphery border of their Occuaptional Zone. It was invaded 3071 by Clan Ice Hellion, during their little attempt to hijack Falcon's worlds. Was the planet not original published somewhere, that its was left out of Sarna's planet list? Its slight north of both Botany Bay & Last Chance. -- Wrangler 19:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, BTW was set up with an obsolete version of the Teamspam IS Atlas. A number of worlds are misplaced and lots are missing altogether. Von Strang's World is actually one of the better known periphery worlds even though it's missing here as of yet. Sooner or later we'll have to redo the maps anyways. In the meantime, I have this project over at CBT forum seeking Unnamed, lost or misnamed planets. Frabby 19:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Would be out of the question to setup a place holder page for the planet? I believe there enough basic information on it justify a planet page for it, with exception of actual numbers on where it is. I actually thinking Coordinates in future publication is likely a thing of the past. Way I see the Writers are trying streamline things and avoid having be errant for them, don't think we'll get new Coordinates or planet data like there were in the old books. -- Wrangler 11:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
By all means, go ahead! I plan to add each and every one of those unmapped, lost or misnamed planets to BTW eventually, provided that nobody else does it first, but I really don't claim them for myself and help is appreciated. As for the coordiantes, there are maps in canonical sources from which you can guesstimate the coordinates with reasonable accuracy (which is the case for most periphery systems anyways); it is suggested that if you estimate the coordinates, this should be indicated in a footnote when presenting the data in the article. Frabby 01:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


A bit late, but good work on the article. I was surprised to see an early product with such an extensive article. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:35, 4 July 2008 (CDT)

Again, thanks - it is nice to see that my work is appreciated. I intend to eventually create pages for all the BT novels I have and provide a plot synopsis, timeframe, list of characters, list of major events for each. The intention is to give a full (yet reasonably brief) content rundown for each product on this wikia. But that is a huge undertaking, and currently queued behind Canonicity debate/policy (something I hope will be hammered out between Scaletail and myself), and stellar cartography. Frabby 01:25, 5 July 2008 (CDT)


Gotta ask you: is the mis-spelling an affection of your's or just somehow a common mistake you make? I've seen you spell it both ways here, but now came across the k-spelling on CBT, as well. Just curious.

Also, I was waiting on your input on the Canon talk page, before I move forward on a section-by-section discussion/development. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

I have to say common mistake. "Charakter" is German. Being a GM, I use (and write) the word so often that the German spelling sometimes creeps through even when I write in English. Frabby 03:11, 18 August 2008 (CDT)
Good to know. Your English is impeccable, if that is the only evidence of it being a second language creeping in. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:38, 18 August 2008 (CDT)


Good find, on the errata. Especially since it was an old thread. I went ahead and made a reference for the link you provided, to prevent and calls of doubt in the future. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (CDT)


I just sent you an e-mail thru the BTW system. Please review when you get the opportunity. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:13, 30 August 2008 (CDT)


Thanks for fixing all those links. I meant to get around to it, but you beat me! --Scaletail 13:15, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

Unsuited Content[edit]

Hi Frabby. Would you please take a look at Seraphin and Seraphin Mechwarrior? I think they're articles better suited for the Fanon Wiki. Thanks for the help. --Ebakunin 21:29, 30 November 2008 (PST)

Technically, this kind of fanon articles is allowed on, provided that it is marked as fanon/non-canon. This goes back to the origins of this wiki, which started out as a fansite. I will, however, add the appropriate Non-Canon flags to the articles. Thanks for spotting. Frabby 06:37, 1 December 2008 (PST)
Should we start encouraging members to move fanon to the Fanon Wiki? --Ebakunin 06:59, 1 December 2008 (PST)
Personally, yes. But the Policy to allow fanon stands, and I feel uncomfortable with changing this all by myself. Consider that this was originally a fan-site for Neveron, and only later evolved into a true BT Wikia. I also thought that providing a dedicated fanon wikia should channel fanon away from this wikia. Anyways, I suggest you try to drum up support from Scaletail and especially NicJansma. They are the ones to decide on this matter as far as I am concerned. Frabby 07:30, 1 December 2008 (PST)

List of minor mercenary units[edit]

Yeoman's work dude! Locis 06:49, 3 December 2008 (PST)

Lock the Main Page[edit]

Hi Frabby,

The Main Page was hit by vandalism again. Since it's the public face of the site, I really believe it should be locked to all but administrators. There's really no reason anyone else should edit it anyway. --Ebakunin 06:56, 8 January 2009 (PST)

Makes sense. I had anticipated it would be locked anyways, so I'm going to do it now. What worries me a bit is that these spambots actually created user accounts. Will bring this up with the site owner, Nic Jansma. Frabby 07:36, 8 January 2009 (PST)
I wasn't there when it happened, but I approve this request, as it is really important to not see our favorite site spammed with viagra offers. --FIVE-one 07:37, 8 January 2009 (PST)
Update: The front page is already protected (against edits by non-registered users I presume). If I have an admin button to lock it beyond that then I have not found it. Nic should be able to help. Frabby 07:41, 8 January 2009 (PST)
You'll need someone with "sysop" access. --Ebakunin 12:15, 8 January 2009 (PST)

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)

I have deliberately avoided signing into any specific Projects, and stick to my own to-do list instead. Well, sort of... Of course that does not mean I don't approve! It's just that I feel there is no point in me pinning my name to any particular projects. Frabby 14:50, 16 February 2009 (PST)

Thanks for the Help![edit]

Hi Frabby, thanks for helping me with my problem. I'm very new to wikipedia use. I'm uncertain on how to use the other command such as move. I suspected that i won't been able re-name article i had created for security purposes. Thanks again for helping me and opening my eyes to the move function. -- Wrangler 14:06, 24 March 2009 (PDT)

Category Creation[edit]

Hello Frabby, I'm uncertain whom would be person to speak with regarding this. I've added few vehicles to the which aren't new in some respects. I've added the Ibex RV civilian vehicle from the Handbook: House Marik. This is a civilian vehicle, is it possible to add a Civilian Vehicles category? There are other civilian vehicles listed in the handbooks as well as Vehicle Annex.

Also could category of Naval Vessel Support Vehicles be added? It is a geniune battletech vehicle listing. I've added two support vehicle which happen to fall under sub-directory of Naval Support Support Vessel. Thank you for your time! -- Wrangler 16:37, 24 March 2009 (PDT)

To the best of my knowledge, categories are auto-created when articles (at least two) are sorted into a given category. You can then go to the category page and edit in some explanatory text if you want. I think this is how I created the Category:Alien species. If you run into problems, let me know.
As for Naval Vessels, there are so few designs that I would put all canonical sea-going ships into one category; suggest you name it Blue Water Naval Vehicles (but really, if you can find a better name then use that instead!). Frabby 13:34, 25 March 2009 (PDT)
Wet naval vessels already have a couple of categories reserved for them already, based upon the chassis, as is consistent with other combat vehicles. Check out the Combat Vehicle Portal for them. --Scaletail 16:55, 25 March 2009 (PDT)
Support Vehicles offical classification of Battletech. Their own class. Naval Support Vehicle is sub-class. My only thing since their not used for regular play, then they won't be listed as general combat vehicles. Hense why I'm hesitant to giving them classification "combat vehicle". Naval listing are only for the 100 tons and below stuff, not the massive support vehicles that can get into the 100k range. I'll list Argo and the Luftenberg as combatvehicles if you want me too but i think its wrong category for them. Can we least have the Civilian Vehicle Category thou? == Wrangler 17:22, 26 March 2009 (PDT)
I started a discussion at Category talk:Support Vehicles --Scaletail 17:50, 26 March 2009 (PDT)


I saw your post of the BC forums. Just so you're aware, I did start and wrote a couple of articles: Destiny's Call, Tears of Blood, & Isolation's Weight. --Scaletail 17:09, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

Clan Nova Cat Characters category request[edit]

Hi Frabby, is possible for the creation for category for Clan Nova Cat characters? There has been number of exclusive character profiles created for that clan, but there is no category listed yet. Can it be created? I am little fuzzy on what process is to have category created or to whom i need speak to. Thank you! -- Wrangler 07:47, 9 May 2009 (PDT)

Unholy Union[edit]

Good job, Frabby, with that article on the BC story. Well-developed article, provides the facts with out removing the impetus for reading the story oneself. I'm really glad to see this type of article making its way here. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:22, 31 May 2009 (PDT)

BattleCorps II[edit]

I just created a new article called Echoes In the Void, using the How To template for BC stories, which includes the category for BC stories. However, when I went to visit the category, I saw it had been deleted by you. Is there a reason we are not to categorize BC stories? If you could point me to that discussion, if it exists, I'd appreciate it. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:30, 18 June 2009 (PDT)

The category is essentially still there. "BattleCorps" was deleted because we have expanded its scope and re-created it as Category:BattleCorps publications, to make it clearer that it also includes other publications with important information, like scenarios or the essay from Ardath Mayhar. I was not aware of this How To template or I would have updated it accordingly.
(I have just looked for the template you mentioned to update it but couldn't find it...) Frabby 10:20, 18 June 2009 (PDT)
I was talking about this one, which I've gone ahead and updated. Thanks for the quick reply. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:38, 18 June 2009 (PDT)


Thanks for Covering My Backside[edit]

...on this. Sometimes I forget that not everyone was awake for reading comprehension lessons back in high school. Not only did you catch this, but you explained it much more clearly than I had. I can only imagine how the rumor would have spread out of control in you hadn't stepped in as quickly as you did. (Makes me think of another ribbon award idea...) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MM-1 MiningMech[edit]

Hi Frabby, I know have article regaring MM-1 MiningMech, but i suggest to rename it from MiningMech to MM-1 MiningMech since its name conflicts with Dark Age MiningMech. Since someone going to this article, well be confused on which miningMech is what. I plan add the MiningMech to the list of article. However, its going be called MiningMech (Dark Age) since the conflict with your article. -- Wrangler 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When I created that article I followed the naming scheme for 'Mech articles, but you are right: MiningMech denotes a type of 'Mechs more than an individual model. MM-1 MiningMech is like naming a BattleMech the BM-1 BattleMech. I'll move the article as per your suggestion and will create a disambiguation page of some sorts under "MiningMech". Frabby 11:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Canon Article Question[edit]

Hi Frabby, question. I wrote some months ago regarding to subject of Canon Rumor. Which is another thing they write about. I'm no where near writer you are, do you wish me to remove the article? SOme of newer fiction in the sources book have this un-offical explaination. I'm not sure if your Canon article covers it. Since i'm using crude wording to describe the subject. -- Wrangler 12:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The Canon Rumour article seems sound, and I see no reason to remove it. It covers essentially the same subject that I included in the Canon article under "optional canon" though. Is "Canon Rumour" an expression that was ever officially used? If so then the "Optional Canon" section needs to be renamed accordingly. I can see two ways to proceed, either the Canon Rumour article is merged into Canon (with a redirect put in its place) or simply a "see also" link from the Canon article. Opinions? Frabby 13:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Only reason why i've used the "Canon Rumor", its been used by various individuals in describing certain articles since creation of the Interstellar Players source books. Though, its be described as being rumors that are canon. Meaning, in the game itself urban legends, anything described by being in game rumors are considered Rumor, that are canon. Thus my usage of Canon Rumor. I'm not so hot on using the Optional Canon as description. Since canon rumors are all over the Jihad Hot Spots books and their not necessary optional. I'd think having them merged into one article with your Canon would make sense. I believe name "Canon Rumor" should be retained. -- Wrangler 20:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


I am afraid that Herb is suffering from a severe case of NIH (Not Invented Here), ie, if it wasn't written himself or by one of the 'cabal', he doesn't want any part of it since he can't twist it to fit his particular vision of the BT Universe. There's just no room for really fresh blood or out of the box innovations that still make a lot of sense like having real combat DropShips larger than 20ktons (Someone's arm had to be twisted really, really hard to allow the Tiamat to be published) Tekteam26 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's the Line Developer's privilege... he gets to decide what's what. As for the reasons, I was more under the impression that legal rights to the BattleTechnology publications were unclear, and thus a problem to be avoided at all costs following the Macross debacle. Seems like the BT brand learned a painful lesson there (an not neccessarily the right one, but who am I to judge their decisions). On the bright side, there's people like User:Cray in the BT writing staff with impeccable knowlege of scientific workings. By the way, I assume you're the same Tekteam26 as over at the CBT forum, right? Frabby 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I learned from hard experience that the legal rights are unclear about material published in BattleTechnology and MFQ, until you want to draw from something that you had published in those magazines for the CBT forums, then TPTB quickly take ownership of the rights and say 'NO! you can't post material from those pubs.' even if you were the original author of the article.Tekteam26 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'm one and the same. Mind you, Cray isn't the only one with quite a bit of knowledge of scientific workings (BS Engineering Operations, NC State University but taking lots of coursework in Aerospace Engineering), not to mention my 27 years of service in the military between active duty and reserve components doing a job that I really don't want to mention in a public posting due to its sensitive nature. It was a bit curious that the Tiamat was virtually identical to a design proposal that I had shared with Herb about a year and a half ago. (and yes, I still have a copy of the email that I sent to Herb with the design data)Tekteam26 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I updated the listing for the articles that I have had published in BattleTechnology and MechForce Quarterly.Tekteam26 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

TekTeam article[edit]

Hello, Frabby. I've been updating the unit page for TekTeam Technical Services. It is based on the published work but I have also expanded upon the unit history. I hope to continue to fill in the blanks and expand upon it. What do you think of the unit profile so far?Tekteam26 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I would prefer if only published material (whatever information is found in MechForce Quarterly/BattleTechnology articles) is used as a source for the article, as that is the formerly canon, now apocryphal material that is more than mere fan fiction. By contrast, expanding the unit history beyond those published articles is just fan fiction at this point and should be segregated into an article section of its own or even a separate article. (see our Policy:Canon Frabby 07:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about timeline[edit]

Hy I adding in last time some stuff to the timeline and yearlist....I think the organisation structure of the timeline and yearlist sites can be right date times(i hope it is the right word) and give the site a structure!?!? What are you think or the other members....????

I want to do this work....but it is a lot to do...!!

Doneve 12:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the timeline could be improved, yes. And even more yes, it is a huge task. Personally, I have no idea how it could be done, nor have been active on the timeline, so I suggest you raise your point on Talk:Timeline. That should bring the people who are also interested in the timeline to comment and help you. Frabby 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer hopefully I becom some support!!!!

Greetings Doneve 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Template colors[edit]

Hey, Frabby: I will say I like some of the source-specific templates (Nevron, games, etc.), but dislike the color schemes. In my perspective, using the Sarna gold for non-warnings is best. Templates -when used sparingly- will bring the eye directly to themselves. The other colors clash, in my opinion, with the general site layout. And I definitely feel that the red (of fanon) should only be reserved for personal talk-page warnings of the lvl 3 & 4 variety. My recommendation is to set all templates back to either Sarna gold or white. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly did not realize there was any Sarna coloring scheme, and even now that you pointed it out to me my feeling is that the Canonicity issue is more important, and should be color-coded. I was going by the old traffic-light scheme: Red for "Bad" aka Non-canon & Fanon (the latter is actually a tad bit "redder"), Yellow for Apocrypha and Green for other (since blue would make the links disappear). But I really do not have a strong opinion on this and could live with it if there is a consensus that the templates should be de-colored. Frabby 14:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, there is no policy (or even written discussion) about this, that I know of; its just in my early design of the site, I went with what Nic had established (via presence) and designed the warning templates based on my 'pedia experience. As always, I'm open-minded regarding changing my POV, but the hurdle is the clash of the colors. What value do you see in color coding by non-canon source? (As an aside, I've seen the newly revealed policy, but haven't commented because nothing has leapt out as counter to the original intent of the policy. I'm working from the assumption that you've cleaned up the policy to address what we've agreed upon in the past, so haven't yet taken a critical look. I will give you feedback one way or the other.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fan Stories being posted[edit]

Hi Frabby, I've spotted someone posting lengthy fan-stories on the boards. Litterly going from Chapter to Chapter. Is that something allowed? It has seperate article pages per chapters. Its pretty lengthy. [1]. -- Wrangler 19:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's allowed (see our Policy:Notability and Policy:Canon). The stories are appropriately marked as Fanon. I would prefer pure Fanon content to exclusively go on the BT Fanon Wiki instead, but owing to BTW's origin as a fansite, Fanon is expressly allowed here. Frabby 07:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lost Worlds[edit]

Hi Frabby, hope things are well with you. I remember you were on a thread on Classic Battletech forums regarding lost worlds. I recently wrote up profile for the Raventhir's Iron Hand which shows unit had fought on world of Cranston in 2580 which earn them actual name of Magestry Guard (older name). This from the old Field Manual: Periphery. Anyways, Cranston appears to be not listed on Lookin at Handbook: Major Periphery States, i've noticed that the world indeed shows up maps for 2571 and then in 2750 as part of Free World League. Do you have a project or someone have project where were going add these dead worlds to the Sarna? -- Wrangler 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a big thread ongoing over at (Unmapped, lost or misnamed systems). Within this wiki, I always wanted to include that data once I get round to finally working on systems/planets proper. But I have not yet started anything. Frabby 10:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Frabby, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) And a Happy New Year to you as well! Frabby 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Would you please take a look here? Thnks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Ebakunin beat me to it. Although the altered spelling is interesting to note. Will do some research if the DA spelling is in error, and include the result in my list on the CBT forum. Frabby 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Objective Raids: 3067[edit]

Frabby, 1) I feel like the new tag you applied to the article is nearly the opposite of what it should say. It does provide (maybe not 'contribute') canonical, but is not official. That and your comment regarding meta-sources leads me to think maybe we should discuss setting up such a tag.

2) Curious: why did you delete the address to the original release venue, CBT forums?

3) Also, didn't mean to step on your idea to create the article, but I was inspired by MadCap's confusion on how to upload a file and thought best to get it going. You made good edits to it. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Yeah, maybe the NonCanonProduct tag needs some tweaking. It is essentially supposed to say "You cannot cite this source as a canonical reference". The bit about official crept in because the first article I did where the tag was actually used was Critter-TEK - which does technically fall under official products, but was never even intended to be canonical. Wheter or not it "provides" canonical data is irrelevant imho, because if it does that then it must have taken that canonical data from somewhere and that somewhere is the real source.
2) As for the adress reference, I have included links to the CBT Forums quite a lot recently but haven't yet come round to actually write that article. I felt it would be appropriate to add that redlink in that case. Links to external sites should generally be restricted to sectinos like "See also" and "References".
3) Knowing myself, I would not have created the article for a couple of months down the line. It means nothing to me who created a given article, and I certainly would not want people to refrain from adding content because they wait for me. It could be a long wait... :) Frabby 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
1) Got it. Putting it that way (" must have taken that canonical data from somewhere and that somewhere is the real source.") I can't help but agree. I think the new tag represents that position well.
2) Got it. Agree with you that it should be in the below sections. I'm tempted to do just that, to help facilitate the latest revision always being present here.
3) Got it. Glad to see I didn't step on any toes. I also thought about responding to BH-whatever's comment about you hosting Sarna, but thought it would look snarky coming from me. Thanks, man. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Founder's Honorable Mention Award[edit]

Hi Frabby! I wanted to award you a Founder's Honorable Mention Award for all of your contributions over the last year. It's great to have you part of the community! Nicjansma 06:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks Nic! Frabby 22:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Short stories[edit]

I'm trying to come up with an appropriate name for a category of short stories from canon publications other than BattleCorps, such as those in rulebooks and similar titles. Your Category:BattleCorps publications is a good name, for it defines something specific. How do I grab a name for those opening short stories? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentially, I've been mulling this problem over as well. This is my suggestion: As long as a given piece of fiction is only present within another product, it should be covered in that product's article (give it its own section). I suppose prominent stories should get redirects. Only when the short story gets published separately it should get a separate article.
BattleCorps has begun to release those short stories separate from their original products, which turns them into individual BC publications and then they should get their own article as such. (Like Life in the big city from the CityTech rulebook). Frabby 15:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can work with that. Might want to write a policy up regarding articles on short stories. I'll support it. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Update on this issue: I have meanwhile begun to create individual articles for each and every short story, and linked to the stories from their sources (see Shrapnel for an example). Frabby 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


You can always give him a second Casual Edit ribbon. The gallery in that link shows the system is designed to grow! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I took the liberty of correcting the ribbon display for XJ90‎. When someone receives a 2nd (or later) award, they replace the existing ribbon with the more senior one. How's that shin? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Field Manual Terran Hegemony[edit]

Hy Frabby i found the Field Manual: Terran Hegemony, is it a fancreation or a meta-source.Doneve 01:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, treat it as a fan creation; remember, meta-sources are only those which compile canonical information with some reliability and omit fan-made content either completely or have it clearly marked. Can you provide a link? Frabby 08:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hy, it is a pdf with 252pages by John Luther, and looks very pretty, i became it from a friend, i talk to him about the link, but i think you find it in the CBT forum.Doneve 13:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Infantry weapons and Battletechnology Mag stuff[edit]

Hi, I have a lot of information about Infantry weapons and equipment from different sources. How could I integrate this material in . Tnx Neuling 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC) neuling

Anything that has to do with BattleTech warrants inclusion on the wiki, as per our Policy:Notability. Be Bold and use whatever format you feel is appropriate for your article.
As a personal opinion, I wouldn't create an individual article for each and every handgun that may ever have been mentioned in a BattleTech source though. Rather, I'd suggest group them together in summary articles/list articles.
User:PerkinsC started something similar some time ago. He created a number of articles on infantry weapons such as "Light Machine Gun (infantry weapon)", but at a quick glance it seems they are without content so far and flagged for deletion review. You're very welcome to work on these if they fit your idea. He also created the Category:Ballistic Weapons where you can find Help:CreateInfantryWeaponArticle; similar stuff seems to exist for other infantry weapon systems. Hope that helps. Frabby 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of master category[edit]

Frabby, IRT Template talk:Fanon, what about 'Fan Submissions' for the name of the master category? Fan fiction seems to me to imply stories...and only stories. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't see your entry on the talk page. Answered there. Frabby 12:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Structure of brigade articles and army overall[edit]

Hi, I think all major brigades need an overwork. I find the structure of the field manual is good an I will change every brigade to this structure. Also the army articles need a revision to the better. Tell me, thats my thinkingwrong or right? Neuling 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it is opinion more than logic here. Personally, I am actually quite unhappy with the state of affairs. I dislike the approach that was taken (create an article of every single regiment). Some of these articles are too short, some are way too overloaded with trivial information. Really, what's the point of creating separate articles for each and every regiment of McCarron's Armored Cavalry when there is next to nothing special about the individual regiments? The entire formation (arguable a brigade) could and should be covered in one single article. Conversely, sometimes even individual companies warrant an article (like Sorenson's Sabres or The Fox's Teeth). It's really a question of gut feeling.
One particularly problematic issue is TOEs and personnel rosters. These aren't set in stone, they change on a weekly bases (sometimes literally). We have seen it on the mercenary unit articles that it is an ardous task to follow the changes here as they wax and wane over time, especially considering how many units have virtual centuries of history to be covered.
My own vision is perhaps best exemplified in how the Warrior Houses are now depicted: There is an article about the Warrior Houses as a concept, with a general description of the concept and links with brief description for each individual Warrior House; details do not belong into the master article and are instead found in the individual Houses' articles. Frabby 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Translate please[edit]

Morning, Frabby. Would you please talk with Doneve about this post on my talk page? I'm not sure what he is asking for and since he doesn't provide links (and he makes so many contributions), I really don't have anyway of determining it on my own. Thank you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Crescent Moon[edit]

That seems to be the perfect solution, thanks for clearing things up! RagTag 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop award[edit]

Thanks for reverting and blocking the repeat spammer when he struck Essay: BattleMech Technology‎‎.

Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon

It appears he assumed a registered user would be able to get by undetected, but wasn't able to grasp that we have a strong corp of vandal cops. Well, at least he completed three captchas before he could do any harm; more effort on his part.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Frabby, I need your help finding something. A few months ago you persuaded me to change my referencing style. This was after I wrote the Help:References page. I want to update that page with the 'proper' method (as well as example citations of existing sources), but cannot find our conversation. IIRC, Scaletail took part in it, as well. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find it either. (Though I dimly remembered something...) You do realize that an advanced search for "pp." on article and user talk pages brings up your talk archive and some other stuff where pp. vs. pg. came up; you put a link to something from wikipedia there somewhere. But beyond that, sorry, can't help. Frabby 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
That was helpful; thanks. The "pp." was a great search term afterall and, while I knew about the material in the 2010 archive, the same search showed me the WP you mentioned. I think the discussion I remember was in BattleTechWiki talk:Project Biographies, which you didn't take part, but I did mention you. Again, thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Material from Tactical Handbook[edit]

Hi, i read the Tactical Handbook again and discover that in this book are many equipment fluff with manufactur and availability. Where can i post it and in which form as overview (table) or in the single articles.... Neuling 23:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Tnx

Most individual pieces of equipment have their own article, and that is where the information belongs. If an article for a given item doesn't exist yet, create it yourself. :)
As for tables, I don't like the idea of creating tables with game data, because that kind of stuff sells books - I fear it might be illegal to put it online, and not covered under the fair use rule. I even recently suggested we delete articles consisting of such tables (see Talk:CBT Tables). Frabby 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Providing sources[edit]

Nudge --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Great work with that article. Did you write is as you were reading the novel or go back and actually research that entire plot? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Both, in a way. I read the novel to get a general impression, though it was one of the best BT books I ever read, and decided I needed to get an article up on Sarna. Then I re-read it, writing the summary along the text. I feel it always helps when you have read the story before, and know what's important. Still, the plot summary in the article is too long for my taste, but compared to the book it's actually too short; I left out a number of minor scenes for brevity's sake. Ah well. Fair article overall, a tad bit too long, but it does do the job of giving the english-speaking audience an impression of how the story goes. Frabby 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I have a huge project in the near future. I ask you and any other user how is interested for a cooperation effort. My goal is a overall update of the entire unit section. When a user take for example take the DCMS and a other the AFFC it would make it easier for us all. What is your opinion about it. Let me know it and I will discuss the task. Neuling 19:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

to but into somebody else's page.. but kinda like this? BattleTechWiki:Project Military Commands --Dmon 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle Value worksheet[edit]

Frabby, please have a look at the template: User:Mbear/BVWorksheet. Comments welcome.--Mbear 14:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Harvest Trials[edit]

I will wrote abour the Harvest Trials / Wars. What is better. Making a break down of every clan how looses and how gaines troops or to descrip the unit an from were it came... Neuling 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What would a BTW user expect when he followed a link to "Harvest Trials"? I reckon that article should provide a broad overview first of the wars in general, and then very brief overviews for each individual Clan. Because of the sheer scope of the issue, details probably belong into sub-articles so that the articled doesn't get overly long - remember, it's about the entire topic and not all minute details. Just a suggestion, but perhaps it would be good to put the details into each Clan's history page, and link to that article/subsection from the Harvest Trials article like this:
Over the course of the Harvest Trials, Clan Sitting Duck lost the Bazillus Omega facility on Disneyland and their entire holdings on Nowhere to Clan Rabid Vermin, but seized the Neverland holdings from Clan Fish-in-a-Barrel in return.
:''For details, see [[Clan Sitting Duck#History]] (section on Harvest Trials)''
Frabby 21:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Planet Infobox[edit]

Hy Revanche, can I update the Planet Infobox, like the Planetary Data posts on diverse planet pages, then we have all the data in the infobox!I make a test in the sandbox, can you take a look?--Doneve 13:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Doneve. Two things:
1 - I'm reluctant to 'authorize' changes to infoboxes, because its clear that there should be a consensus regarding these issues and I am an Editor, just like you.
2 - I do support it, as I feel that the planet articles really need some formalization, such as BattleMechs have enjoyed.
I recommend you bring it up at BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Planets, and bring Frabby into the discussion. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thats fine. I expanded the sand... infobox with a refernce example, where the data comes like the heading reference --Planetar Data....--. Doneve 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hy Frabby, i copyed this discussion from Revanches talk page to you, i write to Rev. about the Planet infobox.--Doneve 08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply. I was touring the past weekend with my wife's band and came back with a serious cold and a big office workload carryover, so I'm not much use currently. That said, I do have plans for a Project:Systems and will be back on the topic eventually. (I seem to recall I wrote stuff about my vision, but couldn't find it at a quick glance.) Frabby 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hy, ok i notize this, if you need help when you start your project talk to me.Greetings --Doneve 16:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dechan Fraser...[edit]

Uhm, Frabby? Dechan Fraser was never the Bounty Hunter. Michi Noketsuna was, with Dechan riding shotgun. I took out the line you put in there. Just letting you know. ClanWolverine101 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for clearing this up. Frabby 18:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Hey, can you handle some of the emergent issues? I'd appreciate it. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Get well soon! Frabby 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, man. I'm back now. Came down with a fever right when I was preparing for my family to leave for overseas and I had to take command of my unit for a few weeks. Got my new CO in last Friday, might be catching up on delayed work this next week and should be home well before 9pm most nights, so will be on here more often. Thanks for looking out for my talk page. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see you're back! :) Frabby 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable pilots: Possible answer[edit]

Please review: BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Notable_Pilots_Sample_page. Thanks!--Mbear 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Creating category for German & UK Publications of Battletech[edit]

Hi Frabby, i know this maybe odd suggestion. Is there any thought to creating a for listings for UK & German publications? It maybe give distinction for readers using I wanted ask you since your one leading folks on internation publications for Battletech on Sarna from what i've read. -- Wrangler 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this should not be done. The difficult question is: What makes a German publication? I could not be bothered to list each and every product that FanPro translated into German, and would restrict the list to original foreign-language products. The problem is that there should be no original foreign-language products in the first place, but a small handful do exist. The only truly original foreign-language products I know (besides the German-only novels) are Ronin! and Die Welt des 31. Jahrhunderts; then there are compilations like the Atlas der Inneren Sphäre or Mächte der Inneren Sphäre (article not yet written). I have treated these like any other apocryphal (official but not canonical) product and added them to the List of BattleTech products accordingly.
FanPro did far more than simply translate material - they frequently added new content in the process and many scenario books have errata or slight expansions. I have treated such cases through mentioning these official-but-not-canonical expansions in a separate section on the original article for the product in question (see Solaris VII: The Game World#Arena-Planet Solaris VII or Technical Readout: 3026#Notes for examples - and I just saw that I need to expand the Hardware-Handbuch 3031 entry a fair bit...).
I am not aware of any (original) UK publications except those by the MFUK, and they are arguably not even official. So not worth a list of their own imho, except perhaps as part of the MFUK article. And that has yet to be written by someone who actually knows something about the MFUK (i.e., not me). Frabby 06:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My intentions is to bring to note of some products that were translated to german may be so changed that they run into official-but-not-canonical expansions problem. With so many people adding things from across the world, i'm concern that they maybe adding things to existing articles that maybe from such alter sources. There was discussion regarding the Jade Falcon's Khan Irregulars which were known by differient name in the German translations. -- Wrangler 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly worthwile, even desireable, to ferret out such alterations/expansions. For canonicity purposes on this wiki, however, keep in mind that German translations are not Canon - only the (original) english text meets the criteria. Because of this, I tend to work exclusively from original english sources and only buy translated German items when I can get them very cheap on Ebay.. It is sometimes fun to compare them with the originals. Frabby 11:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Creating single entries for larger merc formations[edit]

Hy, I created all larger merc formation at brigade level with singel entries, because all regiments have a colorful history. Only article isn't enough to cover all of the facts. All sourcebooks break the formations down at regimental level. I think this is best suited. The Kell Hounds (2 regiments), Blue Star Irregulars (2 regiments) and all other large formation should cover. I think I make a good job with the coverage of these units. Ask the other admin about their opinions and let me know it. The former articles were insufficient. Neuling 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Hy Frabby please block EmmaWatson..., thanks.--Doneve 15:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Zapp! :) Also deleted the picture uploads. Frabby 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, we dont need this ;).--Doneve 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hy Frabby please block Lester984016, he makes some spame links, and violance, thanks.--Doneve 22:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Zapp! Frabby 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that was nasty Spambot. I wish there was better way to prevent from that from happening. I'd be angry as heck if that gotten to the some of the main articles.-- Wrangler 11:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hy Frabby, please block User Lambert386619, he added a Spamlink to external site, thanks.--Doneve 11:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Frabby 11:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hy Frabby, please block User:ArchiHagan3, he added a Spamlink to external site, thanks.--Doneve 12:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting tips[edit]

Thanks a ton!!! That's really useful to know, there are a few things I'm planning to write that would involve redirects. Porty1119

Question Regarding[edit]

Hi Frabby, question: I was going write up something based on the Jihad - a Soldier's Tale. Are you working up to write that up? I don't want take away if you have this in the works. -- Wrangler 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. I was just browsing the thread when I came across the Vrikk and decided that I should write this article before I forgot about it again, especially as there was so little information that it would be quick to write. I planned to create the article for Jihad - a Soldier's Tale eventually because it's fully canonical, but haven't really started so go right ahead. Btw when writing, keep in mind that the protagonist was revealed as the man who became Spectre Precentor Berith. Frabby 10:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thats why i wanted to write up the article regarding the story. I wrote up the Berith and its would be easier to have the story on hand. Since it was free, i was going to put it on a word file and upload it to the site later. Part of me wishes they had written more in his diary/journal. -- Wrangler 11:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much the same plan I had. :) Though I strongly recommend that you don't simply copy the thread without asking, both as a matter of courtesy and because it is a copyrighted work even when freely available on the net. I have a lot of freebie downloads from on my hard disk that I haven't uploaded to Sarna (yet), such as the Lawyers, Guns & Money scenario. As far as I understood NicJansma, file upload on the wiki should only be done for pictures that are needed for articles. Files for download should go to the download section. Therefore I plan to contact him about revamping the download section eventually, and and adding a lot of stuff like Objective Raids: 3067, the LinkNet files, some free download stuff, and also Jihad - a Soldier's Tale. Frabby 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine. I was going to ask Rome about that. I was under the impression that articles/informationt hat was posted freely on the Forums were consister open. I do feel it would be best to ask before i did that. Please let me know what NicJansma says about the free canon Battletech files/stories. For the moment the Jihad - A Soldier's story is just referring article with link to forums. -- Wrangler 15:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of PDF Files[edit]

Hi Frab, looks like Nicjansma has gone to delete some files we were using. I realize this is his site. This mass deletion making me think twice working on a site like this. Example, i had uploaded Republic of the Sphere maps which were PDF forms since that all existed as. He outright deleted them saying they were unused. I know he has to make space, but still unnerves me were loosing stuff we worked on. Has he setup policy on how is going to be? No PDFs, no pictures unless it somehow link already to the article? I'm not sure how to find the CDN files if wherever their being stored. Please forgive me i'm fairly upset at the moment. -- Wrangler 12:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No Panic. Everything was saved, nothing was deleted permanently. What I don't understand is what purpose non-image files serve in article links? Stuff like documents for download really belong into the download section, and the wiki should have an article about this file if it is noteworthy enough. Case in point: Objective Raids: 3067 is a BTW article; the actual file for download now sits in the download section where most people would go look for it anyways, plus a link to the download can easily be included into the article. Frabby 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of the PDFs were free maps produced by WizKids and CGL, shows the Republic of Sphere. Some of the files are dossiers, which show case character not yet profiled by CGL. They have information of mercenary, splinter groups, and so forth. They are important. Recently they came out with PDF of LinkNet and other online content from the old WizKids website. They are considered Canon by CGL. Some of the articles here, refer to them. Which why i'm having slight panic when Nic started whole saling removing them. My concern now with articles is wiki-links that were connected to them. Nic restored the maps of the Republic of the Sphere, however there others may have linked to the articles. -- Wrangler 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BattleCorps PDFs[edit]

Hy, Frabby at first falls the published BattleCorps Pdfs (BattleTech: Hawke's Horde)...etc. under a moratorium, and second is it usefull i create a (book, electronic book article, from this publications), I have all pdfs on start , or we put the content summary with the pdf cover image to your at last new created pag.Thanks--Doneve 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Now that you ask, I think they do fall under the Policy:Moratorium. However, the Unit Digests as well as their entries in the summary article BattleCorps Unit Digests are so short that I don't think the Moratorium policy is applicable.
Another, separate, question is what to do with the BattleTech: Hawke's Horde article. I think it should be removed now that we have the summary article; "full" articles about short BattleCorps Exclusives would effectively copy the entire content to Sarna and put us dangerously close to copyright infringement, imho. Frabby 11:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Doneve: just wanted to weigh in and indicate agreement with Frabby on what he said regarding summaries for these BattleCorps Exclusives falling under the BattleCorps Unit Digests article. And, while I agree with him, too, that the article you wrote should be deleted and added to the Digests article, I want to say I was very impressed with the quality of the article you wrote. While not much can be said about such a small product, I appreciated your notes section, especially since I know English is a second language for you. Thanks for hitting the smaller products.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hy Rev, thanks for your interest, the question is, can i put the cover images and the content summary, with links on the BattleCorps Unit Digests page, like the BattleTechnology article, i have other BattleCorps stuff like that, i hope so, and i think it is a good idea, thanks.--Doneve 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the value of adding the cover images. They'll identical, except for the title. An example one (maybe for each of the three types of reports)?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Rev - there's not much of a cover image page there, not enough to warrant one for each publication anyways. Frabby 14:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok guys, here is a example User:Doneve/Example, please take a look on it, when it came some response, i talk to Frabby or Rev to delete the page.--Doneve 15:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've gotta admit, Frabby: I'm kinda partial to Doneve's example. The images are still iffy to me (too similar to warrant expectations that a writer should incorporate them into each entry), but I wouldn't complain if they did. What I do prefer is linking all Unit Digests together, in the reporting style he's provided (i.e., allows for links to character and unit articles). I tend towards lumping like articles (Unit Digests) together as report types, rather than just one article on all BattleCorps Exclusives. I wouldn't have the same Contents note for each entry, though. (Just sharing my opinion...not meaning to push you off the path you started, if you're preferential to it.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hy Revanche, thanks for your quick response, i wait of response from Frabby what he thinking about of it, but i can agree with the reasen to linking all Digests together.--Doneve 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not totally opposed to Doneve's vision. It's just that I can foresee some problems with his approach: The page is going to be very long, and most of its content is going to be very repetitive. Add to this that you can't really expect many crosslinks, because the digests specifically target minor units/stables and the ship reports are extremely narrow in their scope. Finally, regarding pictures, I agree that maybe one sample cover for each type is okay, but like Rev I think including each and every cover is pointless as they all look alike. Frabby 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hy Frabby, your permission the article becomes very long, what is with the BattleTechnology page, she is very very long!!--Doneve 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There's only a limited number of BattleTechnology issues that were produced. But we don't know how many unit digests, ship profiles and stable reports we're going to see.
For the time being I'd suggest to use Doneve's more complete writeup for the summary article, but without cover images (or at least, no more than one sample for each type of report). Frabby 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
How about this idea: modify what currently exists for the 405th at BattleCorps Unit Digests? It's not as 'clean' as Doneve's example, but it is compact, adding only 3 more lines (counting the space). Also, Frabby, how do you feel breaking them out into like articles? The first section of each article would describe the intent of the series (stables, units, ships), with an image of the first product, and then each additional section would focus on the specific products, in the same modified style you established.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not totally opposed to your (or Doneve's) editing. The one thing that's important to me is that we don't create a pointless mess of substandard articles, and with so little content, the digests therefore need to go into one summary article imho. So go right ahead. Frabby 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll wait to see how Doneve leans: the full-scale sections (as from his example page, but with one image) or mine (the 405th example).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok Frabby, what do you think about this, at this time, the number of published Unit Digests...etc, is not so much, we put only one Image from some sample type, and used my Content example.--Doneve 22:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I tried to say. :) Frabby 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Okidoky, at next i upload the Stable image and content to it, thanks.--Doneve 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Hy Frabby, please can you delte my User:Doneve/Example page, thanks.--Doneve 00:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Battles of Hesperus[edit]

Frabby - Excellent work. I was actually looking at those myself, but couldn't find info on many of the earlier ones. I grant you the Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon. Congrats. ClanWolverine101 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Looking over the section again, there's certainly room for improvements, especially with the recent BattleCorps scenarios and ship profile published for the 6th/7th/8th battle, adding some detail to the naval side of things there. Frabby 23:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Upload Pic Problem[edit]

Hi Frabby, sorry to bother you. Neuling has upload a large quanity of pictures of Project Phoenix reseen 'Mechs. The problems, he did it little sloppily, i'm currently fixing info of these pictures, which has almost nothing but template saying fair use, that about it. Name of the pictures are messed up, he must been typing mighty fast, has cRd.8 cRusadeR, for exmaple. Can you fix these names? or whom could move them so the names would be fixed? -- Wrangler 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I noted the weird spelling on the uploads and sent him a message; it seems he stopped randomly mixing uppercase/lowercase letters in the filenames after that. As for fixing the problem, I shall see if I can simply move them. The problem with pictures on the wiki front is that nothing is ever completely deleted, any change (even a deletion) just stacks up data detailing the change. Hopefully moving pictures doesn't simply duplicate them in the database. Frabby 15:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I see, well i would have moved them to fix their names. The majority of these pictures were new to when uploaded. I can't say that i wasn't upset he was doing it and doing so neglectifully. I was worried about copyright issues that crop up. Thanks for my your help with this, i don't believe he would listen to me if had said something to him. -- Wrangler 13:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I did move them. Though I'm not happy with the case-sensitivity of BTW, nor with the naming scheme adopted for the files now (first letter is uppercase, entire rest strictly lowercase). It's not good, but at least it's consistent. Changing all file names beyond that would have been too much hassle, at least for me. Frabby 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for straightening it out, with it being least uniformed at least it will be okay if someone tries to search the file. Thank you alot for helping it out! I'd like to present to you the Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon -- Wrangler 11:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Hey Frabby - Thanks for the awards! Much appreciated! ClanWolverine101 02:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

The edit on Michael Gilbert looks much better than I could have done, thanks Wookiebear 22:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. It is a most curious situation; I wonder how it happened. Do you and Michael Taylor know each other? Frabby 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but I know a lot of people by nic-names and aliases due to some of my other hobbies, so maybe, just not as Michael Taylor :) Wookiebear 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

News Update Requested[edit]

Hi Frabby, is possible you can include that on 24th of January that Forums came back up? Thanks -- Wrangler 22:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm... I think I did. Kinda. See first news item (dated 27 Jan). The new forum, which for all intents and purposes replaces the now-defunct old forum, went live on the 26th I think (maybe it was still the 25th in the US), but not on the 24th. Frabby 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
hmm, i wonder why that didn't show up. My fault. Sorry to bother you about it. -- Wrangler 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Solaris VII Map[edit]

Hy Frabby, please change the File name of my uploaded Davion (arena) Map, it is the Steiner (arena), ;), thanks.--Doneve 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Frabby 08:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 Founders Awards[edit]

Hey Frabby! For the last four years, you've been consistent, well spoken and an incredible organizer. You've really helped guide BTW to what it is today -- which, I can say, is a lot more than I ever dreamed it would be. I realize you may not think yourself as such, but you're a great ambassador for BTW. This is why I think you're deserving of two Founders Awards, and I think your fellow community members will agree: the Founder's Consistent Service Award and the Founders Exceptional Ambassador of the Year Award. It's been a pleasure working along side you. Nicjansma 06:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder's Consistent Service Award Founder's Exceptional Ambassador of the Year Award

What can I say... Thanks! :) Frabby 08:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Cop award[edit]

You were clearly busy today with some of the less creative members of society.

Vandal Cop Award

--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply about uploaded images[edit]

I'm quite appalled that you called the images "inferior" that’s just insulting both to the images and the artist who worked very hard on improving the old Clan emblems. 99% of the Clan images we have here on are of very low quality, and hi-res versions of the originals are extremely hard to find.

If you want to go ahead and search the internet for days on end looking for the one hi-res image of the originals by all means go right ahead, I simply don't have the time for that.

You shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, because all you’re going to see is the inside of gift horse. Punakettu on Deviant Art saved the wiki a considerable amount of time my recreating the images, lets just use them and be done with it.


Jake — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Jake Command Wolf (talkcontribs) 13:42, 15 February 2011.

I stand by what I wrote. I grant you that the images look better than the previous ones. But they are fan creations (unsourced in any case), and technically should be marked as fanon. A wiki, imho, should be about authenticity, not about fancy pictures. Frabby 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Frabby, on a related note, I'm not sure we're even allowed to display these images. There is no licensing info attached (Jake left legality regarding uploading or using the imagery blank) and the fair use only applies to instances where the item being used (or displayed) are the focus of discussion. Since the linked articles are about canon & official items of interest, the use of the fanon images implies only a tangential relationship (i.e., "Look at these images...they're homages to the subject article."). I'm not sure I want to put Nic at risk of a cease & desist (or stronger) just for non-canon, fancier images.
Are we really getting enough complaints (or even any) from other readers for using canon imagery (which are protected by fair use), to require opening ourselves up to complaints from an artist over the use of his artwork without his permission? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To wit, I respect Jake as a contributor to BTW and by no means wanted to belittle his contributions. But he's falling into the same trap that Neuling (?) fell into - grabbing unsourced, unverified stuff from the internet isn't the kind of contributions we need on BTW, though the reasons why this is problematic aren't immediately obvious. I feel my point is an important one, so I pointed it out. Frabby 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This may shock you, as I was a big supporter of fanon articles, but I'm really becoming solidly onboard with making BTW about non-fanon material completely. I think allowing the fanon articles on has lead to the confusion as to what is and is not appropriate. If you're interested in dicussing this further, we can open a top-level discussion. Let me know. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


I find all of this rather pointless and mortifying,

Frabby the pictures are authentic, from what I read the artist used the base images and merely improved there appearances, he restored them just like a artist would do to an old piece of art to bring it back to its former glory, its not like he took the Clan Wolf emblem, repainted in pink and replaced the stars with hearts and unicorns.

On a side note I know the artist Punaketta works with MekTek, the company that made a free version of Mechwarrior 4 for free release, given permission Microsoft. His artwork is also used in the studios original game remake of Mechwarrior 2/3/4 called Assault Tech 1.

If this is about permissions I can simply ask Punaketta via Deivant Art if we have his permission to use his emblems on the wiki or not, which I have, he has yet to get back to me, but he hasn't been active on Deviant Art for a while so it may take a bit for him to get back to me.

I'm still in disbelief that we are having a dispute about such a pinprick subject, I mean seriously, his work is fan made but it’s not fanon, its refurbished canon artwork, nothing more nothing less.


Jake, 19:56, 16 February 2011


I wanted to let you know I recieved a reply from Punaketta on Deviant Art, he said his artwork is free to use by anyone, I hope that will end the dispute over this.

Regards, Jake, 14:42, 15 February 2011

Jake, what process would you recommend to decide if a fan-produced piece of art was more appropriate than an official one? In other words, how do we apply your individual process for these two pieces to other pieces that other posters may want to use in substitute for official images?
Second question: should this extend to other fan-produced works? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have time....[edit]

Frabby - Please give Talk:Isle of Skye when you have some time... as well as its accompanying article. It was an absolute beast to write. But more relevantly, there are some things I'd like to do with respect to redirects that I wanted your advice on. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 08:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Will be back on this. I'm away over the weekend with sporadic internet access (like always when Herb calls for a CBT chat :( )Frabby 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look... and I'm sufficiently awed to have granted you another Superior Article award. If only all BTW articles were of such quality... Frabby 22:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Plagarism Concern[edit]

Please see Talk:Operation Bulldog. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Hy Frabby, can you take a look on the new created Winfield's Regiment, i think he merged with Winfield's Brigade.--Doneve 11:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Canon Warship List[edit]

Hy Frabby, can you give me a working link or a another linke how i can get the Master WarShip List, the link there you posted on the Talk:Canon WarShip Overview page bring my only to the CBT forum and i can't found a link to download the Warship list, thanks.--Doneve 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This post within the thread links to a download of the most recent version of the list. As the thread continues, a yet newer version may be posted. (The user keeping the list is BlackAce.) Frabby 22:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Battlecorps[edit]

Frabby, The Battle Corps article has a tag that indicates it is apocraphyl and points to a nonexistent canonicity section. But the BattleCorps article indicates the unit is canon. As the resident expert on these two articles, can you please clear this up?Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting. The tag on the article says "Apocryphal content" because the Battle Corps is one of those units where much (probably most) of the available information is apocryphal or straight non-canon. There's a huge section about the Corps on the BC site's forum but none of that material is expressly canon; only the bits and pieces from MercUpdate/MercSupp are truly canon. Will write a Canonicity section for the article shortly to make this clear. Frabby 09:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha, got it. Thanks, Frabby. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this unit is canon because it exist extensiv information in several publications Let's see:
Mercanery Supplemental Update p.30
Jihad Hot Spots Terra p.36 + 74 + 96 + 102

Neuling 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. I personally believe the tag should be dropped, or if there is material that should be removed and posted elsewhere, we should do so. ClanWolverine101 03:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kinda surprised. Do you realize that we have two different yellow tags, one saying "Apocryphal article" and the other saying "Apocryphal content"? When you read the tag, it says that "some" (as opposed to all) information in the article comes from apocryphal sources and the Canonicity section explains this in great detail.
The Star Wars Wiki (Wookiepedia) does it a bit differently. They have a pair of tags saying "Warning - apocryphal information begins/ends here". I suggested that for BTW originally but others voted it down because they felt the tags made the article look incomplete and under construction, and were generally off-putting. Perhaps we should re-open that discussion? Frabby 07:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Replacement of the infobox[edit]

Hi there, it seems that you deleted the faction-infobox. Where can I find the proper replacement? ROM secrets 23:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, mistake on my behalf. Fixed now. Thanks for pointing this out. Frabby 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Date Error on MUL[edit]

The MUL's release date was in March. You listed it as February on the front page. Moonsword 12:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for spotting. Move on, nothing to see... :) Frabby 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

MUL: Battle Values[edit]

Hi Frabby, i being vague and not so smart didn't realize you posted your own MUL explanation. I've posted the released version of Master Unit List: Battle Values. Do you think this is a case of me having delete the article since its sort of a duplication, or should they some how be intergrated into one another? -- Wrangler 23:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they're two different things and should thus have two distinct articles imho. The MUL is a very big project, and the MUL: BV is only one small fraction of the whole, one of many different MUL products. I believe we will see additional similar products, and they should all have their own articles. Frabby 23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright then. By the way, would you mind looking at the article i wrote, see if my explaination wasn't clear? I sometimes end up writting jumpled explainations without realzing it. -- Wrangler 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Retractable Blade[edit]

Frabby - Please take a look at my edits for Retractable Blade when you have a chance. I made some addition that I wanted to make sure met current policy. ClanWolverine101 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, although I admittedly don't know the first thing about this item or its associated rules. What specific parts of the article do you have in mind where policies might be an issue? Frabby 09:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I know we have certain rules regarding what "Game Rules" could be reproduced here and what couldn't, as it would be considered plagiarism. I rarely take on equipment articles, so I wanted someone to look it over. ClanWolverine101 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Zeta Battalion[edit]

Frabby -- If you could give Zeta Battalion a look, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 15:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Scenario Question[edit]

Hi Frabby, i had question for you. I've added 4th Assault (Clan Star Adder) as a unit profile, using what information i have. I do not have Rivers of Blood, the scenario describes the Clan Star Adders sent the elements of the 4th Assault to fight a trinary of the 17th Crimson Guard (Clan Blood Spirit). Is it possible you or someone else could fill in the missing Canon information on it? I have no idea where the Trial accrued and i don't feel good about filling in stuff i don't own. I've add just little to it. -- Wrangler 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. The scenario is about the hydroelectric power generators for the Delphyne factory on York. I saw that the factory itself is described as a Fire Mandrill facility, but was defended by the Blood Spirits which I thought might be in error. Turns out the Delphyne is a joint Fire Mandrill/Blood Spirit design so it does make sense after all. I have updated the scenario entry as well as the unit profile for the Star Adder unit. Frabby 20:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Template Infobox Books[edit]

Hy Frabby, i notice you don't have a page row in your infobox, any thought.--Doneve 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean. If you're referring to the Template:InfoBoxProduct, it does have a line for page count ("Pages", line 7). The older InfoBoxes "book", "novel" and "BattleCorps" should not be used anymore and will be deleted soon. I am still in the process of upgrading all articles to the unified InfoBoxProduct and will have to change/remove references to the older templates from the main page. Frabby 06:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


Dude, I saw your edits, commentary and deletion reviews for that one unregistered poster and I (now) agree with you. Originally, you were opposed to fanon on this site and I'm definitely leaning that way now. People don't come here to read fanon [my unsupported impression]. If I get Nic's nod of approval, would you be with me in opening a discussion on whether or not fanon should be retained?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I can see where Nic is coming from when he welcomes fanon and some bits and pieces are quite good. But the overwhelming majority is... superflous at best. And at worst, it is damaging this Wiki's reputation. I'm all for purging Fanon, pending Nic's approval, and I even have a plan:
    • Step 0: Create new Notability policy saying Fanon must be (very) notable to warrant inclusion here (well-known stuff that the BT community knows, such as the LaCasse list, might deserve a mention but Bob Smith's Daishi Overkill variant doesn't).
    • Step 1: Announce Fanon purge in x months time, remove Fanon creation templates from front page and Help section
    • Step 2: Create an announcement template and tag all Fanon articles accordingly ("All Fanon content will be moved to...")
    • Step 3 (after a month or two): Copy all Fanon content over to the BattleTech Fanon Wiki (that somebody else already set up, but which - so far - isn't being used)
    • Step 4 (after half a year or so): Delete Fanon content on BTW (mind this will be some 8-10 months after the articles were tagged with a warning in Step 2)
This should give a smooth transition to a wiki without Fanon content. Frabby 19:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
*Pulls out a lighter and waves it back and forth* Testify, brother! Testify! (I am 100% behind this.) ClanWolverine101 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Very good hot spot, agree agree.--Doneve 19:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, Step -1: Summon the Nic. I'll get back to you. Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the wiki has evolved in such a way that hosting fan content here no longer makes sense. In addition, there is now a wiki devoted exclusively to such content. I support removing fanon from BTW. --Scaletail 23:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Though i am reluctant in seeing some of the more polished stuff that clearly marked as fantom, such as Objective Raids: 3067. I agree sarna should be all-canon content. I'd hope there isn't a backlash. -- Wrangler 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Distinction note, Wrangler: the article about Objective Raids: 3067 is not fanon; ones such as Searchlights for Less , WillCorps Manufacturing Company, Bandeirante and Alternate, 4th Succession War History most certainly are. Works by fans such as Frabby's example above on the LaCasse list and Objective Raids: 3067 are not hosted here (per se), but are notable enough to warrant articles.
However, we're waiting for Nic's guidance before we pursue too much discussion. I think Frabby has a great plan above, if we do get permission to entertain a divestment of fanon.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Definitely approve, and the process Frabby has outlined gives more than enough warning and notification of what is occurring and where to look. Cyc 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Follow-up : I differentiate between "Fanon" and "Non-canon product" (such as the video games, and the books only published in german). I'm reasonably comfortable leaving the "non-canon products", though maybe we can change how they are presented. ClanWolverine101 03:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm in general agreement about removing (or moving) the Fanon, though I think we should try to elicit feedback on the main page from others. I'm not sure that is the best place to move the Fanon to, considering it was "almost completed" in 2008 and now has 19 articles :) Nicjansma 06:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear that you're not opposed to the proposal Nic - this is your site after all. I have put an invitation to this discussion up on the front page's news section.
Content will only be deleted here only after it was migrated to BT Fanon Wiki. I think we owe that to the contributors. As for the BTFW, I reckon it never quite got off the ground because it wasn't needed; people turned to BTW instead. When we separate the BT Wiki from the BT Fanon Wiki I guess the BTFW will see a surge in content and contributions. Plus, why create a fanon wikia all over again when the groundwork has already been laid by someone... Frabby 11:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created a dedicated discussion page for this here. Please indicate your support or non-support for this suggestion there.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Frabby - I don't know if this is affecting other people, but a whole bunch of things look different to me. The front page has been moved around, and more notable, the infoboxes on the weapon articles look very different. Instead of being a sidebar on the right, its appearing on top, pushing the rest of the article down. Is that just me? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, I happened to notice your message. Yesterday I updated the site's CSS in anticipation of allowing "House"-style themes (colors) for the site. If you are noticing specific things off, can you show me the page that you're looking at, and what browser? Then I can investigate further. Nicjansma 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm afraid I am not much help to anybody on coding issues - I'm woefully clueless in that respect. But seeing how Nic has already seen and dealt with the problem I suppose this is settled now anyways. Frabby 09:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Nic - This is ClanWolverine101. The problem (isn't) one article. Its EVERY article that has an infobox. I have a Firefox browser. Now, I can't do anything at all because when I login, the screen goes blank. Please change back whatever you were doing? You can contact me at my account's email addy. 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(Copied over to Nicjansma's talk page; also emailed him about the problem below. Frabby 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC))


Frabby - Its ClanWolverine101. Whenever I login to my account, the whole screen goes blank. I've tried this on multiple computers, and nothing will pop up. Is it possible I was blocked somehow? I can't even get in to change my settings. Please contact me at my account's email. Thanks. - CW 18:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Neuling seems to have similar problems. Something is obviously amiss. Personally, I can log off and log back on fine, and I don't see any problems on the pages. All infoboxes seem to work fine. Like I wrote above, I've sent an email to Nic. Frabby 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Frabby - Thanks so much to you and Rev for clearing up the login issue. Have an Assistance Appreciated Award on me. Assistance Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon ClanWolverine101 13:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Hy Frabby, i note the most contributions of (Autor: BattleTech Muse 3056) are always plagarized material, in the major Inner Sphere factions section, i dont want to remove content, but can we found a way to correct this, you know i am not the fluff writer, i hope any can overwrite, correct this missere, thanks--Doneve 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Commando Quarterly Question[edit]

Hy Frabby, i have some stuffe from Commando Quarterly (i hope you create a whole article about this, you know i am not the fluff writer), how we can handle this, is it cannon or apocryphal content, i think not fanon, i want to bring up some content from this source, but i want some support in this tricky terrain.--Doneve 14:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A year or two ago I downloaded a couple of issues of Commando Quarterly, and I was well impressed with its content and quality. When I asked him, Herb said it wasn't canon; it's even arbitrary if it is official given the Commandos' unclear status, but I reckon it is definitely among the apocryphal sources (not merely Fanon) and I've been meaning to write an article about this online magazine for quite some time.
The really funny part comes when I create articles about German fan-made magazines... I got a couple on Ebay. Even under the revised Fanon policy (and I think it's coming), articles about these sources are fine. Frabby 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this helps, thanks.--Doneve 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Creature Infobox[edit]

Hy Frabby, you fix the Creature Infobox, when i added a species image, ok it is shown in it, but i found after the save a broken infobox, take a look on the Ghost Bear (species) page, thanks. --Doneve 00:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The InfoBox doesn't look broken to me - can you specify the problem? Frabby 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The horizontal closing line in the top of the infobox, i don't see it.--Doneve 09:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I see what you mean. Problem is, this is the same for all new infoboxes we have (and I think it was always like this). Only, on most of them you don't see it because very few images are pure white, most have a dark background. The frame is there on the (old-style) BattleMech infoboxes though so it is possible to have hone. I have no idea how to arrange a frame atop the image, perhaps ask Nic or Mbear? Frabby 20:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, i talk to Mbear, and copy our discussion, to his talk page, thanks.--Doneve 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbear's response

It looks like the top border of the infobox is missing. To confirm or disprove Frabby's theory, I substituted an award image for the ghost bear image and saw the same problem. The borders to either side of the image appeared, but the top didn't. Still investigating.--Mbear 11:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The creature infobox is using the infoBoxNew CSS class, while the battlemech infobox is using the infobox CSS class. infoBoxNew has explicitly set the border-top property to 0px, which makes it disappear. When I changed the creature infobox to use infobox the border appeared. (It was in the wrong color, but it was progress.) So it looks like the infoBoxNew class needs to be updated to remove the 0px top border. I don't know what infobox templates are using that class however, so I haven't made the change or requested it.--Mbear 11:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Apocryphal Question[edit]

AA BattleTech Box.jpg

Hy Frabby, please tell me if this (uploaded image of japanese BattleTech i put it on your talk page, please delete it if you give me the answer) falls in the apocryphal category, i thinks so, i have some 'mech images in colour from it, and want to put it to sarna, is this japanese version of battletech, a good indicator to the Unseen 'mechs, if is my question unclear, please tell me in german back, thanks.Doneve 00:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)--00:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you're right: Foreign-language-editions of BattleTech are non-canonical according to Herb (i.e. apocryphal), and so would be the (altered) images of the Japanese edition. Frabby 04:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hy, i have a question about the update need template, i want to expand some update needed tags by BattleTechnology tags, i know it is a apocryphal source, but when i take a look on the Nekakami article he can become a little kick off, and i found some content on BattleTechnology.--Doneve 01:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a friend of the Update Needed template anyways - why bother to insert the template when you can go ahead and directly insert the information in question? Apocryphal information would require the article to get an {{ApocryphalContent}} tag and a canonicity section, and needs to clearly differentiate between canonical information and apocryphal information within the article. See Jimmy Lee as an example. Frabby 08:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam Bot spotted[edit]

Hello Frabby, we had multiple a spam bots attack us, by the names of User:Sunkaceamar‎, User: Cosilksara User:Cynonabnie produced a article for some movie. I've marked the Downloading Aadukalam film‎ for deletion. Can you or someone band this thing please? Thanks - Wrangler 02:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Revanche was quicker that I on this case. :) Generally, please don't bother to edit, blank or deletion-mark these pages - the Admins will spot them quickly and deal with them with extreme prejudice. Frabby 09:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Please block User:Tedextplanyl, new spam bot attack, thanks.--Doneve 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Another burst of spam botsCyc 06:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

other spam bots:


Neuling 06:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Zzzappp! :-) Frabby 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
New spambot User:PeyahiMiceko‎.--Doneve 13:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

MechWarrior PC Game[edit]

Hi Frabby, i noticed that you uploaded image of a Japanese version of the game. With the Victor Music style art on the cover (Shadow Hawk IIC), do you know any details about that game? Were the images of the 'Mechs changed to Victor's versions? -- Wrangler 03:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the pic somewhere on the internet (Ebay I think), but I never owned the japanese edition myself, nor played it. Anything I wrote about it was information taken from other online sources. Frabby 16:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question. I'll try find out more. -- Wrangler 01:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fanon, Essays and Rules[edit]

Hey Frabby, before you hash out too too much ironing out definitions of Fanon feel free to join Revanche and I here. I would love to hear your thoughts on what we have been working out ourselves. -- LRichardson 20:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New Spam[edit]

Hy Frabby, please kick out LidaDeleon9, new spamer in work.--Doneve 00:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please blocke user: HazelHurst5 Neuling 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BattleCorps Storys[edit]

Hy Frabby, i want to create a page, where all at this time published BattleCorps Storys listed by name and author, i know the page have some red links, and as second can we create a BattleCorps products page like the products page, or can we integrate this in the existing product page, thanks.--Doneve 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for already exists, as Category:BattleCorps publications. :-) Frabby 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ups, thanks.--Doneve 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

German book covers[edit]

Hy again, need the uploaded images a Apocryphal tag?--Doneve 20:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Phew - good question. I'd say no, but that's just gut feeling. It could be argued they should, because the books are apocryphal. Then again, a book cover as such is very much an OOC thing and not in-universe information (most German book covers have nothing at all to do with the books' content...). Frabby 07:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for answer, i notice some of the german covers are a various mix of the american covers, i want to leave a note to the uploaded covers.--Doneve 08:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Please Block user Dedicatedhosting. The user created spam. Tnx Neuling 20:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block User:LiyonuGaqetu‎, spambot on work.--Doneve 21:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please block User:VejizeDuxiza‎, spambot.--Doneve 14:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay discussion[edit]

I've been giving the role of essays some thought the last few weeks and I think I've come up with a solution to my issues with them. I've put it here and would appreciate your perspective. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

IS Atlas content integration[edit]

Hy Frabby, hmm i think the question make some problemes with the policy and other thinks, but i hope you can help me and you like the idea. I want to contact Chris Wheeler, how we can move some planetary description content from [[2]] by her permission, and embeded that in, with cannonical references, i know there is a lak of some source infos on IS Atlas and it is a meta-source, i want to make the meta-source content to a cannonical. It is a crazy idea by myself, what you are thinking about this, and i hope the ball rolls.--Doneve 20:08, 7 July 2011

Chris Wheeler is "Chinless" on the CBT forum. However, taking information from the IS Atlas is not a good idea because any and all planetary information there is taken straight out of a sourcebook, i.e. directly plagiarized copyrighted material, mostly from the old housebooks and the MechWarrior RPG. It wasn't written by the IS Atlas team. This is apparently tolerated by CGL but here on BTW it would cause us no end of legal headaches - we cannot use these texts for
Mind that I do like the idea of taking a more informative and descriptive approach to systems here, but we'll have to write the texts ourselves (plus provide the citations). Frabby 07:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--Doneve 10:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What should I do...[edit]

...with these?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Case by case basis, although most articles look fine (i.e. aren't in and of themselves fan products). I haven't looked them all through yet. The category itself can be removed, though, as far as I'm concerned. Frabby 12:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Sometimes I'm so tired, I can do things by rote but take better direction than think on my own. ;)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

New Fanon[edit]

Frabby, shouldn't we be enforcing a ban on new fanon as well? I just reviewed the policy and didn't see it specifically say that, but why accept new fiction up until 30 September? What do you think?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth the hassle for now to actively quell new Fanon - there's only one single instance that popped up. For now I'd just leave it be, include it in the general Fanon purge by including the appropriate tags, and only delete such content after 1 October. Following that date, I'd tag Fanon articles with a link to the Fanon policy to make it clear the article violates the policy, and delete it after a couple of days. Frabby 19:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I just didn't want it to grow even more than it has, though I suspect the delta will shorten due to the information efforts.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Frabby, I've just seen that you've zapped the four spambots that appeared this morning. Did I do the right thing by tagging all their pages with the spam template and breaking their redirect links? It's not something I've had to deal with here before. BrokenMnemonic 08:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong with tagging, but personally I think the tags should be reserved for ignorant real users instead of bots. I don't know much about coding, but I have this suspicion that the bots may monitor spammed pages for activity to judge how active a site is. That's why I have advocated total ignorance in the past until an Admin can delete the spam wholesale (which usually occurs within less than 4 hours); I suggest not to tag them, delete their content, or otherwise modify the affected pages in the future. Frabby 10:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it[edit]

Thanks.--Rev (talk|contribs) 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One good turn...[edit]

Holy Chinese Spambots, Batman! Six in one morning!

Vandal Cop Award

Thanks for being there.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


I'd like your opinion on this one (or at least guidance in the right direction). The PDF files regarding the Dark Ages: I don't recall their pedigree, other than they are canon. However, I saw something in the PDF file (where, under 'Properties', it is self-titled as 3132-3134 ComStar INN) that I wanted to include within an article, but I'm uncertain as how to cite it. What is the proper name for the file? Since there are no page numbers, should we go with the PDF page number, or simply the dateline from the article? Ideas? If there is already a standard in place here, I'm open to it.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oookay... with "PDF files" I reckon you mean the summary files which are now officially offered as free downloads from These are thought to include every bit of canonical information that was ever published on the LinkNet site for MechWarrior - Dark Age. The actual LinkNet site has been down for some time already. That means we need 'Product' style articles for each available file, using the file name as given in the download section: "Dark Age INN Articles 3134", "Dark Age LinkNet Articles 3136", etc., and when you cite the PDF files, I'd go with page number. The files are OOC, after all. Frabby 16:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait, OOC: Out of Character (how so?) or Out of Canonicity (really!?).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Out-of-character, in the sense of a product article covering a real-world file offered as canonical game content. I don't think we should (or even can) make this wiki a self-referring IC resource. Or perhaps I'm being dense and am not understanding your question? Frabby 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I want to reference one of these Dark Age news articles on the Damien Redburn article, so I want to be able to cite it correctly. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd still treat the (real-world) PDF file as the source. Something along the lines of, "A newsreel item from 3134 claimed that Redburn dyed his hair <reference: LinkNet articles PDF, p. 7>". Frabby 21:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Much as you do for the (very similar) news releases on BattleCorps; got it! We'd never quote BC as the source of the canon, but instead a news release from "Umpty Squat News", as released on BC. Ok, thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Planets Overhaul Phase 4[edit]

Hi Frabby,

Revanche made some comments about Phase 4 of the overhaul over on BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Planets/Planet_Overhaul#Phase_4 with a view to getting the test articles up to the same standard and agreeing what that standard should be. I've responded, but no-one else has yet, and I was hoping I could persuade you to weigh in with your opinions - I know that you're not officially in the project team, but you've made a big impact in terms of getting the project running and agreeing templates, and I'd like to get the standard template nailed down so that work can start on expanding it beyond the 3/4 test articles before Rev gets back. I don't think that we can have the standards all agreed and every planet article here on the wiki rewritten before Revanche gets back, but I'm sure we could arrange a surprise... BrokenMnemonic 07:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the later reply, but I'm a bit out of the loop on the Planet/System Overhaul proceedings. It was one of my major fields of interests when I registered as a user here but the sheer size of the task was daunting and beyond a few scribbled notes on how to do it right I didn't do much with it. Now that you guys are pushing it forward I find my own spare time too limited to be of any substantial aid (workload and family stuff spiked in the middle of the year and while it's getting better, I don't think I'll contribute much here for the rest of the year). Which is quite frustrating for me, but there you go. :(
On the topic at hand, I need to find a day off to go over what you have done and decided so far (and why) to get an impression of what's going on. Honestly, I tried to look it over but it made my head spin. And I hardly get more than 30 minutes a day spare time for BTW, and not neccessarily in a row. I would love to help out more, and perhaps also have more input on the proceedings, but don't count on me for now to provide any helpful input. Frabby 08:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Double Redirects[edit]

Hi Frabby,

I found the Double Redirects page yesterday, and spent some time clearing most of the 50 or so that were there. The remaining dozen are all a bit weird, though - they're either redirects ultimately to non-sarna articles (Topps, or the author Patrick Larkin) or they look to be redirects for fanon equipment or essays out of the main wiki and into sub-pages of user talk pages. I'm not sure what to do about those, so I've left them alone, but it might be worth taking a look to see if any of them can simply be deleted, particularly with the fanon purge looming. BrokenMnemonic 12:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The darkest corners of the BT world[edit]

Frabby, I just want to say thank you for all the hard work you put in detailing so many of the more obscure parts of the BattleTech product line and real life history such as your article on Berserkerbanden. Without you I would know so much less about what is out there in the darkest corners of the BT world.

As a thank you I would like to present you this award. All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon

(This seriously cant be your first ribbon??) --Dmon 14:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I was pretty surprised myself when I saw this book in an auction, and snatched it for only 2 €. Still waiting for it to arrive, and will update the article then. In the meantime, I wrote the initial article from stuff I gathered on the internet while trying to figure out what the heck it was I had bought. And judging from the plot summary and the review by that other guy, it must be hideously bad. Frabby 22:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I read the stuff in the links myself and I agree it sounds like it must be pretty bad. Still it will be fun to find out just how bad --Dmon 23:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Received it, read it, updated the article. The book is hideously bad. I hardly know where to start... I do harbor some sympathies for aspiring BattleTech writers, being a published BattleCorps author myself, but frankly, trying to sell this book for money is outrageous. It's definitely not worth 11 € (or even 2 €) as a novel. I'll treat it as a collector's item, so if somebody is willing to pay through the nose I'll sell. :) Frabby 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Morning Frabby, need you help to transfer the Fanon sites?--Doneve 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated. Here's what I'm doing:
1. List of Fanon articles: Go to Template:Fanon, then select "What links here" to see the Fanon-tagged articles. I am working top-down, so suggest you start bottom-up.
2. Create a new article on BTFW with the exactly same name, using the "Blank page" option. Atop the article, toggle "Source" (instead of "Visual", which is the default setting and will ruin your formatting when copying over).
3. At the very top of the new article, insert the {{SarnaFanon}} template to make it clear where this article came from.
4. Copy the Sarna article over, minus the Fanon & Fanon Purge templates on top of course.
5. Add {{Fanontransfer}} template to Sarna article to tag the article in question as transferred. Deletion will happen following 01 November. Frabby 09:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
6. If there is a Talk page on the Sarna article, don't forget to copy that over as well.
7. Pictures: Copy any Fanon (and only Fanon!) pics to your hard disk. Click on the redlinked file tags on the new BTFW article and upload the pics there. I've usually commented "Copied over from BTW" and indicated them to be from another wiki in the licensing dropdown menu. Unlike articles, delete Fanon pics here on Sarna BTW immediately (because they aren't tagged as Fanon, we'd have to search the whole database later to find them.) Frabby 09:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks for this litte guide line, i think we transfer step by step, (BattleMechs, Vehicle, Aerospace Fighters) at first, then weapons, etc. etc.--Doneve 09:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hy again, i moved the Alternate, 4th Succession War History‎ page to the fanon wiki, but the two fanon templates dont work (red links), can you take a look on this, and please tell me what was my failur,thanks.--Doneve 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind BTFW is a different wiki. The templates simply don't exist over there. (For the same reason, I had to copy all the relevant infobox templates over as well...) They aren't needed, either. Simply delete them when transferring articles, but please don't forget to include {{Fanontransfer}} in the article here when you have copied it over. Frabby 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Hy Frabby, i think we are done with the transfer?--Doneve 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing a couple of 'Mechs and vehicles yet. Also, we need to decide what to do with all the tagged Files. But as far as transition to BTFW is concerned we're almost done! :-) Frabby 19:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Responses for Future Reference[edit]

Hi, Frabby. I recently tagged a page for Vandalism (the one about Pancreas Disease Symptoms). In this case you took care of it about 2 seconds after I marked it, so it didn't much matter. For future reference though, does marking an article as spam/vandalism automatically alert the admins or should I go ahead and contact one of you folks directly whenever I see something that is OBVIOUSLY spam/vandalism? Also, a minor thing, but one that should be fixed, on the Policy Page for Vandalism for #2 of how to respond, it doesn't actually say what one should leave on their page, lol. I assume it was supposed to say a vandalism tag.

Highlander 21:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The tags don't alert the admins and actually don't do anything in particular - they work just like any other tags on this wiki. Personally, I'd prefer if spam articles weren't modified or marked in any way because typically, an admin here will see and delete them in short order. I don't know the first thing about spambots, but am vaguely afraid that maybe they're tagging page hits and/or page edits, in which case tagging spam pages would actually be counter-productive. That's why I request they be left alone until deleted.
Which doesn't mean we don't appreciate your efforts, of course. :) So I'm giving you a Vandal Cop award. Frabby 06:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I'll keep that in mind for future reference. If I see that kind of spam again, I'll just make a mental note of it and let you guys know if the issue hasn't been fixed after a couple days if it looks like you guys missed it. Thanks, Frabby.

Highlander 07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Naturally it seems as soon as I checked the recently changed pages again, there was another spam bot active. I couldn't help but laugh. But since they've kept you busy today and you've helped me out, I think you've earned an award yourself. So, here is an oakleaf cluster for the VCA. Vandal Cop Award, 4th ribbon Highlander 09:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Why, thanks! Just trying to keep this place tidy. :) Frabby 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

BattleMech sub-page[edit]

Hi Frabby,

On the Administrator talk page, the formatting's been a bit messed up because someone created an entry under outstanding admin tasks entitled "BattleMech Sub-page" and got the indentation wrong - it was set as a level 2 entry, rather than level 3 entry. I've modified it to the correct level 3 times now - basically, whenever I notice as I'm posting up spammer alerts - but when you revert my spammer warning edits, you keep rolling them back far enough that you also revert the edit where I fix the indentation. There's a certain comedic element to it at this point, but it's probably worth watching out for it next time... BrokenMnemonic 13:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of maps[edit]

Hi Frappy, it was not my intention to make Mr. Oystein angry and blank all of my fan made maps. When their other maps which are also considered as a problem please remove them to. I will not make trouble and hope the actions are spoke for them self. On this way I apolizige to Mr. Oystein and I hope, he is satisfied when his work is removed from the gallery page. Neuling 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame, really, because these maps *are* good and useful. But simply stealing them from Oystein Tvedten's page isn't right. That's why we have something like a form to fill out when uploading images, one that asks "where does this image come from, and do you have the right to upload it here?". Our Policy:Images is also pretty clear on the issue, though admittedly I wrote this only after Oystein complained about his maps having been put up here without asking him.
If somebody feels artistic enough to do all the work for BTW, we're looking for a cartographer here... :/ Frabby 21:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing loads of map work for the planets project, alongside Doneve, which is why Rev made me the planets project cartographer... although I've not had to actually make many for the individual planets yet. If you look at the Faction Map Gallery that Doneve and I are updating for those working on the planets project to use as a reference, you can see where both of us are modifying existing maps to create more specific ones. Doneve specialises in maps that are cropped and edited to show just the state or region, like this map of the Capellan Confederation in 2367:
Capellan Confederation precursor states, 2366
What I've been specialising in is cropping, scaling and colouring maps for particular areas, either to show all of the states, like in the Chaos March 3058 Map:
Chaos March States, 3058
Or I've been cropping, scaling and partially colouring maps to highlight particular regions, like this map focussing on the Sarna March in 3052:
Sarna March as at 3052
While the planets project has been quiet, I've been working on updating the Outworlds Alliance areas of the wiki with detail from Historical: Reunification War, and as a result I'm looking at writing a new article specifically on Operation UNION HOLD, the SLDF invasion of the Outworlds Alliance. To facilitate that, I've already started creating maps by taking the 2571 map of the Alliance from Handbook: Major Periphery States, modifying it with a slice of the map from Historical: Reunification War that shows the slight border change between 2571 and 2581, and then using that to generate attack, raid and conquest maps for each of the five years of the war, although I'll be breaking the 2583 map into two seperate maps because it's easier to read (and I spotted a slight mistake).
[[Image:OA RW 2583.png|2583|left|400 px]]
So, there's at least two of us who can do map work, depending on what's needed. A lot of the time, it depends on whether there's a quality source to work from - I had to recreate the maps above by modifying two existing maps because the map in H:RW had text on it that got in the way and couldn't be removed, but the earlier map from HB:MPS had a slightly different border - Tancredi IV changed hands - and I was able to plot the troop movements using a combination of the text and the deployment tables. Even with that, I had to restrict myself to showing just the movements that resulted in a raid or attack, because when you include admin moves as well, it gets horribly cluttered. BrokenMnemonic 08:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree fully to BM statement!--Doneve 15:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Game Notes[edit]

Frabby - I'm interested in expanding the information and Game Note sections for various equipment articles, such as the Laser Anti-Missile System. I wanted to know, under current policy, what I am allowed to include from the books. I think i have a good track record of relaying and referencing information without plagiarizing it. Let me know. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 21:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how I haven't answered here before, just go ahead. Personally, I need to see the expanded information and the format it is presented in before I can form an opinion on it. Just keep in mind that you can't plagiarize rulebooks/sourcebooks verbatim, and that Sarna doesn't seek to provide the game rules for free that are being sold as a commercial product in those rulebooks (as that wouldn't be covered under the fari use rationale and put us in dangerous copryight problem zones Where There Be Dragons). Frabby 12:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Spammer: Tewton58Pratt[edit]

I noticed you've blocked Tewton58Pratt, but you've not deleted his fascinating article entitled "Amsterdam Escort Girls - Amsterdam Girls‎" - I thought I'd mention it in case it'd slipped under your radar. BrokenMnemonic 12:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, yes, overlooked that in the flood of recent spammers. Thanks for the heads-up - taken care of with extreme prejudice. :) Frabby 12:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

German Book covers[edit]

Hy Frabby, i want to help out, and add the missing german book covers to the novel list, i added at this time 2 Covers In Ungnade and Katze unter Bären.--Doneve 13:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Btw, you wrote "missing artist" - but the cover artists are mentioned in the preface. I've added Swen Papenbrock for In Ungnade, but don't own Katze unter Bären yet. Frabby 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

German Book found[edit]

Hy again, i found this [3] and this [4], can you integrate this in the novel list, thanks.--Doneve 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Die Zweifel des Ketzers is Heretic's Faith, and thus not an original novel. Präludium is listed on Amazon, but so far isn't actually available (as far as I could find) - given how good Karma was, I think I'm going to buy this book at full price (normally I pick up Ebay stuff for 1 €...). Frabby 19:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Frabby,

I hope you don't mind me raising this with you, but you're the admin who seems to be around the most at the moment. I don't know Drakensis, but from his contributions, it looks like he's been here for a couple of years and works on character bios. There's a bit of a problem, though - he doesn't use references or citations in any of the articles he writes. I've written a comment on his talk page suggesting that he does and giving an example of a character bio I've done, but I noticed that a couple of other editors have asked him to do the same over the last couple of years, and the comments don't seem to have attracted a change or a response. That makes me worry that either Drakensis doesn't like being the subject of criticism from other editors and perhaps takes offence at it, or isn't bothered by the wiki's standards on references. Hopefully, he'll respond to what I've said in one way or another, but just in case he either needs a tactful comment from an admin in one context or another, would you be willing to keep an eye out and maybe talk to him? I don't want to upset Drakensis, but at the same time, it's a pain if none of the articles ever get any references or citations because someone else has to go through and add them all in seperately. BrokenMnemonic 15:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, but near the end of the year there's just too much going to that I need to look after. Checking his edits, my impression is that he's working through the Periphery sourcebook and adds all those high-profile characters who are mentioned but have hardly any known information pertaining to them. I don't have a problem with that, as long as there is at least a single bibliography reference that makes it clear the information isn't just fanon. As it stands, I don't see a need to intervene with admin hat on (I'm guilty myself on charges writing articles without any references whatsoever - I was editing here for a year or more until I realized the importance of references...). That said, I'll keep an eye on how things develop. Frabby 15:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meta Images[edit]

Hello Frabby, First of all, thanks for the welcome. I read the sections on Canon, Fanon and the "Jake Command Wolf" incident. While I understand the concern regarding my images, I believe they may fall under the exception for lack of suitable artwork. I quote:

"In the absence of suitable canonical/official art, fan-made art is permissible if it was created by the same user who uploads it, and is required or at least highly useful to explain the subject at hand (for instance, a user-created map to illustrate the course of a border war in an article about the same, or user renditions of rank insignia which have been described, but never actually depicted in Canon). Such user-created images should be tagged with the Template:Fanon."

I am willing to argue that with at least the images I created replace pieces that are described and depicted, but not fully, which is in the spirit of this exception. If you disagree, I of course have no recourse but to follow your requests to decease. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I appreciate being made aware of my faux pas so promptly. Mwhayden 15:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you took the comment as I intended it, i.e. not offensive. And honestly, I don't have a clear-cut opinion on the matter myself. Just make sure to mark those images that were originally canonical but then modified by you as Fanon, using the appropriate tags. Frabby 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

More Spam[edit]

Frabby - Good work on this! Vandal Cop Award, 5th ribbon ClanWolverine101 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really getting tiresome though - I'm deleting something in the order of 10 spambots daily, and there seems to be no way to actually delete the fake accounts (I can just block them). Need to raise this with NicJ. Frabby 15:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Shadows of Faith[edit]

Writing up an article for Shadows of Faith had been on my to-do list for a long time, but I kept putting it off. Thanks for getting it going! All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon ClanWolverine101 05:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. After reworking the List of BattleTech novels and whipping it into shape, it was only natural to go for BattleCorps publications next. I don't have many of the earlier stories, but I have Roosterboy's great list to go by and I guess having stub articles without plot summaries is still better than having no articles at all. Frabby 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BV Question[edit]

Hy Frabby i hope you can help, the BV's are listed in Record Sheets: 3039 and Record Sheets: 3039 Unabridged are BV1 or BV2, i found some differences, please take a look to the Guardian (Conventional Fighter) page, thanks.--Doneve 12:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think they are BV2, because BV1 had already been upgraded to BV2 by the time these products were released. It seems that BV produces arbitrary values anyways because the formulas aren't entirely clear. The ultimate, canonical BV values are those presented in the MUL.
However, I think it's not worth the effort to include BV numbers here anymore, given that the official word is that BV is going to die soon. Herb stated in the last official chat that BV will be abandoned and replaced by a different, yet-to-be announced (and supposedly much simpler) system. Frabby 12:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
A ok thanks for your quick response.--Doneve 13:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

BC covers[edit]

Hy Frabby, i want to uploade some BC Unit Digest, Stable and Ship, front covers and want to intgrate the images like your List BatteTech Novel page, i know you think we don't need this, but a idea from me.--23:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Simonson's Cutthroats[edit]

Hey Frabby - I rewrote Simonson's Cutthroats, and wanted your feedback. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Great article! Nothing to add, really. Though admittedly, the Cutthroats were somewhat below my radar so I wouldn't immediately spot errors or oversights; I can't honestly say I fact-checked the article. Frabby 10:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi Frabby, I spotted that one of our users was updating articles in part by bolding the article name throughout the text of the article - see Primitive engine as an example. I thought I'd drop them a note explaining that the convention is to only bold the first use of the article name within that article, as you'd picked me up on that months ago. I went looking for a reference to quote, and found that the convention isn't cited either in the Sarna manual of style, or the wikipedia reference of style that's linked to in the Sarna manual. As it is a Sarna convention, can you possibly update the Manual of Style or an equivalent to show it, or point me at an authoratative source? I like being able to use citations when I'm quoting anything... BrokenMnemonic 08:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

BM, hope this will help.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! BrokenMnemonic 18:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up Rev. Frabby 10:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BC Scenarios[edit]

Hy Frabby can you provide me a link to Roosterboy's Exel sheet, thanks.--Doneve 05:53, 17 December 2011 (PST)

It's an attachment to this forum posting. Frabby 14:00, 17 December 2011 (PST)