User talk:LittleWolf


Welcome, LittleWolf, to BattleTechWiki!

We look forward to your contributions and want to help you get off to a good strong start. Hopefully you will soon join the army of BattleTech Editors! If you need help formatting the pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions go to the Help section or the FAQ. If you can't find your answer there, please ask an Admin.

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the wiki:

  • For policies and guidelines, see The Five Core Policies of BattleTechWiki and the BTW Policies. Another good place to check out is our market of Projects, to see how the smaller communities within BTW do things in their particular niche areas.
  • Each and every page (articles, policies, projects, images, etc.) has its very own discussion/talk page, found on the tab line at the top of the page. This is a great place to find out what the community is discussing along that subject and what previous issues have already been solved.
  • If you want to play around with your new wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you. Don't worry: you won't break anything. A great resource for printing out is the Wiki Cheat Sheet.
  • If you're not registered, then please consider doing so. At the very least, you'll have a UserPage that you own, rather than sharing one with the community.
  • Also consider writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as "LittleWolf" at the top of the page, though only do this if you're registered). You'll go from being a 'redshirt' to a 'blueshirt,' with the respect of a more permanent member.
    • This is really helpful for the admins, as it gives your account that touch of "humanity" that assists us in our never-ending battle with spambots.
  • For your first few edits on the wiki, please do not add any URLs (which can be an indicator of SPAM).
  • Consider introducing yourself on our Discord server.
  • In your Preferences, under the edit tab, consider checking Add pages I create to my watchlist and Add pages I edit to my watchlist, so that you can see how your efforts have affected the community. Check back on following visits by clicking on watchlist.
  • If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random button in the sidebar, or check out the List of Wanted Pages. Or even go to Special Pages to see what weird stuff is actually tracked by this wiki.
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the circled button in this image; this will automatically produce your name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date.

Again, welcome to Sarna's BattleTechWiki!

*******Be Bold*******


Hy LittleWolf, i know you are a new user on, i appriciate your great work on the manufacturing centers section, and give you a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon Award, i install it on your user page.--Doneve 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Substantial Addition Award[edit]

Good job beefing up the Support Vehicle article. It has definitely improved with the well-written text and the frequent use of citations. I present you the Editors' Substantial Addition Award.

Substantial Addition Award

I'll leave it to you to post on your awards boards. Good job. --Rev (talk|contribs) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Hy great Clan Cloud Cobra update, but please can you add any citations or references, thanks.--Doneve 23:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Hy i would to say i fix the copyright information on the images you use, Neuling uploaded this but don't match our policiy, i correct this issue tomorrow, and we have a great writen article by you and fixed image summary be myself. Good Work LittleWolf i appriciate your work.--Doneve 15:06, 28 December 2011 (PST)

Naval Support Vehicles[edit]

Hello LittleWolf, I wanted to let you know i changed the Categories on the big naval vehicle articles you updated. These vehicles like the Raptor, Luftenburg for example are listed by the rules as Support Vehicles are not Combat Vehicles despite their weaponry. Thank you for fixing up articles! I was rookie editor when i added them to the Sarna didn't so as good as a job when i wrote them. -- Wrangler

Sorry, just going through articles and thought I might tidy them up, the fact they're technically Support Vessels just slipped my mind. If there are other changes that need to be reverted please go ahead, otherwise I was just trying to stylistically spruce up the articles.LittleWolf 12:51, 28 March 2012 (PDT)


I saw the careful work you've put into the Clan Cloud Cobra page, and I added to it but didn't really change anything you had done. It flows quite well and covers everything in the early Golden Century. If you wanted to continue work on some of the Golden Century stuff with the Clans, that would be great, because Clan Coyote needs help soon. There are a few associated bios for me to still do for them and their activities so this will be on going. If not, it's cool too. Work on any Clan stuff is cool by me. --Rebs 12:29, 19 April 2012 (PDT)

Thank you. And thanks for the additions. I was thinking of doing a re-write of Clan Coyote sometime soon, in a similar style to the Cloud Cobra page, but these things take quite a bit of work and there is only so much time! If you get around to starting it before me I'll be happy to add on what I can when I can. LittleWolf 12:37, 19 April 2012 (PDT)
I'll do the Manfred Hollifield and Horse Khan Eric Amirault bios then maybe a Corian Tchernovkov and Tobias Khatib. That way all the stuff is gathered and research will be easier to do. Besides, I never know how many more names get dug up by a new bio (like I'll Probably have to do a Coyote Khan Judas Levien page too), and I like to finish the chain naturally, it helps. And only so much time. And likely more Cobra stuff fighting the Coyotes after Tobias Khatib is executed. The chain is long and heavy, then I'll get to the many Ravens and Blood Spirits, and then a Mongoose page revamp with all of the facts gathered in the bios to make that a lot easier. Then find a new chain. If any point in the chain is interesting, feel free to set info down if time permits it, even if it takes a few weeks or a month or two. This will be fun. edit: Did i mention probably have to supply the Fire Mandrill bios for founders and Smyhre-Jewels, events with Tchernovkovs and Amirault... --Rebs 13:14, 19 April 2012 (PDT)
I went ahead and subdivided the history section on Clan Coyote. I think I may finish out all the bios I can for the Coyotes since there is enough info to cover several more of their Khans. I've already added supporting refs to the Khans and saKhans. If the page looks good to you you could start any section. I'll hit the Operation Klondike one soon myself, so the early years, Golden Century and Political Century and later stuff can all be added at any time in any order. Like I said, I'll keep chugging along with bios. --Rebs 13:35, 21 April 2012 (PDT)
Thanks, I'll make a few small changes here and there but probably wont start getting in-depth for a few more days, working on some other content at the moment. LittleWolf 11:45, 29 April 2012 (PDT)
Cool! No problem on adding other content, we all have our roles. I'm reading up on more stuff at the moment to finish the last few Coyote Khans which might take a little more time, but it will be done soon enough. This re-worked Coyote page will be a good one. --Rebs 14:17, 29 April 2012 (PDT)
Hey LittleWolf, hope all is well on your end of the world. Anyway, just wanted to ask you if you had The Wars of Reaving or Golden Century sourcebooks. Respectively, those are the only eras left to write about (except for the Blood Scandal during the political century, but that will be easy to do). Also, we likely will not need the Jihad section since it did not affect the Coyotes or most of the Clans that they deal with on a daily basis. Just wanted to know what you thought, and also what sections you would like to finish. --Rebs 14:00, 14 May 2012 (PDT)
Nope so go ahead and fill in whatever gaps there are, I'll add in parts here and there as I see them. Thanks. LittleWolf 10:41, 17 May 2012 (PDT)
The Clan Coyote page is good to go! (unless I missed something, which could have happened) If you would like to run through it on a massive copy edit spree, please feel welcome to do so. I'll get to the Clan Cloud Cobra Wars of Reaving section soon. That will be two Clan pages updated. Clan Star Adder and Clan Steel Viper (the viper page is anemic) need to be next, due to their prominence in the over-all story. Really, all Clan pages are important, even if they did not survive, but those two should be focused on next. If you have any suggestions, let me know. I'll be doing more bios and filling in red links until i feel up to what needs to be done. Nice workin' with ya. --Rebs 17:30, 23 May 2012 (PDT)
Thanks again. Will get around to giving the Clan pages a do-over as well, but will be splitting my time between that and some other projects too. I think the general outline of the reedited pages is a pretty good standard for future changes (History-Culture-Military) but I think it can be expanded too i.e. Economy. I also think the use of sub-titles has been appropriate for periods of great significance and detail as well (ex. Coyote didn't take part in Revival so that section is small vs. Ghost Bear which could use a more in-depth approach at its actions during the Invasion). But great work on the bios, that's one thing that really needs expansion if anything else. LittleWolf 09:46, 31 May 2012 (PDT)
Ghost Bear would be a GREAT challenge. If you noticed, I have not done a single Bear Bio yet... I'm saving them for later when I need cool characters to pull me through! The Bear page and the Viper page would be great targets as they both took part in Revival, and both have very large parts to play in the universe afterward. At least the Bears get to live to see it. The Star Adder page simply needs organization and fleshing out by comparison. The Wolf page (surprisingly) needs some help too... The Jade Falcon page is pretty good, just some cleanup needed, and the Jaguar page is almost complete too, except for some finishing touches (and a lot of references)...
...if only time could be created from lack of time. Slowly but surely these things will come to pass. Anyway, I agree, the pattern created holds up well to examination, and the subtitling is good too. Take your time and when you feel ready drop me a line, maybe I'll be ready too. --Rebs 00:12, 6 June 2012 (PDT)

Great Output[edit]

Hey LittleWolf. Covering all of the personal weapons and such was a big job, and you waded in and did that easily. New Clan stuff is always welcome too. Your recent additions and corrections to the Clan page and the Clan Steel Viper article (among other pages) are likewise encouraging for me to see. And I remember your help with Clan Coyote, as spoken of at length above. Please accept this award as a token of your devotion to MechWarrior and Team Clan, and Sarna editors in general Smiley.gif. Substantial Addition Award, 2nd ribbon --Rebs (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2013 (PST)

Hey thanks, I'm kinda scattershot in what and when I edit but I appreciate this.LittleWolf (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2013 (PST)

Broken ref. notes[edit]

Hy, please review your edit on the Clan Smoke Jaguar and Clan Mongoose page, there some broken ref. notes, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2013 (PDT)

Thanks, had missed that. LittleWolf (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2013 (PDT)
Nice job on those overhauls, information porting and refinements, by the way. It was needed, and you did well. --Rebs (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2013 (PDT)
Thanks. LittleWolf (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2013 (PDT)

Weapon Redirects[edit]

Thanks for changing all those; I was unsure of what to do, so I kinda left it as is, even with the weird titles. The infantry/BA weapon pages are just a mess; I tried working on that stuff a while back, but I need to dedicate some time later to sweep through and get it all consistent. Maybe we could work together on that sometime. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2014 (PST)

Thanks, I always thought it was a strange format too but didn't want to cut too deeply until the other weapons had been updated somewhat. Probably the two things that really needs to be worked on is for all of the infantry weapons to also have their CBT stats listed and for all of the Battle Armor weapon pages to be completed (because sure as heck the Small Laser on an Elemental is not the same weapon as the Small Laser on an UrbanMech!), just keep the same naming format going i.e. "Small Laser (Battle Armor)" and then make the necessary changes on the BA articles themselves. Lot of menial work but it'll get done eventually. *sighs* LittleWolf (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2014 (PST)
I don't have the CBT sources to update them with those stats, but I will try and go through the Battle Armor next and make sure the weapons are linked correctly. Oh, also, I noticed that you changed the naming of the David Light Gauss Rifle page in the infobox to "Gauss Rifle, Light (David)", and I wanted to know what the proper convention would be for those names, as I had thought it was "David Light Gauss Rifle". -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2014 (PST)
That's the way they're written up in the TechManual but I don't like it, will probably just change them back. Will also make Battle Armor versions of the gauss rifle pages, unless you happen to get around to making them first :), then may take a break from the weapons to work on some other stuff before getting back around to entering the CBT info for them. 10:43, 12 January 2014 (PST)
Hey, I noticed that you added SRM-2 (Battle Armor); I had been changing those in the articles instead to SRM Launcher (Battle Armor), because of the variation in numbers of missiles in the launcher (from a single shot to 5). I thought that that might work better. What are your thoughts? -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2014 (PST)
Sorry about that, was a bit too focused on things. I thought it'd best to follow the same format as the heavy weapons with separate pages for the each of the different launch-tube numbers (SRM 2, LRM 10, etc.), since the stats are different from each other (i.e. SRM-2 BA weighs more than SRM-1 BA). Unless you had a better way of consolidating them into one page while retaining the different stats for each launcher, then by all means edit away at SRM-2 (Battle Armor). LittleWolf (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2014 (PST)
It's fine that you added that, I'm still unsure how to best go about this. I understand where you are coming from about having the equivalents, but for some (SRM-3, SRM-5) there is no equivalent, so the question would be if you'd really want to make a new page just for a weapon mounted on one or two units. I'll get to this once I finish my current line of thought (moving info from Operation Guerrero Unit Deployment Tables to planets). I'll be back to discuss shortly. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2014 (PST)
I think regardless if there are vehicle equivalents or not each separate weapon system ought to get it's own page, since they do have different stats associated with them. The lack of some vehicular equivalents only means is we won't have to add (Battle Armor) at the end of SRM-3 (at least until they come out with a vehicle SRM-3 -_- ). Otherwise a case could be made that the regular SRM-2, SRM-4 and SRM-6 pages ought to be combined into a single page as well, and as I wouldn't know how to go about doing that while retaining the different statistics for each, at least not in a way that would be readable! As I said though if you do find a way to make a master SRM Launcher (Battle Armor) page which successfully combines the different launchers under one heading, then by all means. LittleWolf (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2014 (PST)
Yeah, I understand that reasoning; thanks for being so open and understanding. I'll be over at My Sandbox messing with a BA SRM page prototype. Also, I thought that I'd help you by keeping track of the redlinks that I created in the process of changing the weapons to BA. Those can be found at the top of my To Do List if you'd want to add those. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2014 (PST)
Sure not a problem, thanks for the help. LittleWolf (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2014 (PST)
I Just noticed this: Category:Special Munitions. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2014 (PST)
That's for Autocannons, these ones are for small arms, but thanks. LittleWolf (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2014 (PST)
Okay, at a glance that looked the same, and I didn't want you to waste your whole day adding them if they were redundant. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2014 (PST)
Perhaps something could be included in the category name to denote "small arms"? -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2014 (PST)
I'll go ahead and change/update the category to include "(Small Arms)" if you don't mind. Also, I guess that having individual pages for each of the SRMs would be best; I was tinkering and couldn't get anything better than what you're doing, so just keep going with that. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2014 (PST)
Agreed, however going through TechManual it looks like ProtoMechs have their own version of the same missiles launchers with their own unique stats, mostly how much they weigh per tube. I'll look into it more but for now I think simply labeling all of the BA launchers with (Battle Armor) is the safest route (you never know, Cattalyst just might come out with odd-numbered 'Mech missile launchers in the future, then we'd have more work trying to make unique pages for each). LittleWolf (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2014 (PST)
I doubt that they will ever add odd numbered battlemech-level SRMs, but yes, it's always better to be safe than sorry. Also, should I change the category to "Specialty Ammunition (Support Weapons)"? -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (PST)
I think since it covers ammo for both standard and support weapons you could probably leave it as is, although as long as the category name is different enough I don't know about having the qualifier (i.e. Category:Special Munitions clearly labels itself within the article as relating to autocannons ammo and the name is different from Specialty Ammunition, same for Category:Alternate Ammunition and missiles, Category:Artillery Munitions and artillery, etc.) LittleWolf (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2014 (PST)

"Battle Armor" Capitalization[edit]

I just found out that the term battle armor should not be capitalized (see Talk:Battle Armor#Capitalization), so be sure to keep that in mind when working. -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2014 (PST)

Thanks.LittleWolf (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2014 (PST)
I noticed that you were changing the capitalization within links ( [[Small Laser (Battle Armor)|Small Laser]] ) with no visible change to the page, and I just wanted you to know that that isn't as important as changing the full word of battle armor within the text to battle armor. If you really want, you can keep going with what you were doing, I just think it's not as necessary at the moment. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (PST)

Hermes II[edit]

Hey, in regards to your again editing the Hermes II article to say the original Hermes was "then in use by the Star League," I'm going to revert it again. There was no Star League in 2798; the First Succession War began in 2786. Additionally, and I'm quoting from the Hermes article, "[t]he Hermes would serve for nineteen years on the front lines before reassignment to second-line units and, eventually, be mothballed." If you disagree with this, we can talk it out, but please don't change it again before we do: I don't want an edit war. GOLFisNOTaSPORT (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2014 (PST)

Bah, thanks for catching my goof. LittleWolf (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2014 (PDT)
No worries. Thanks for being cool about it. GOLFisNOTaSPORT (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2014 (PDT)

Remove of Content[edit]

Hello Littlewolf, I'm realy happy that you removed my work from the Invasion corridor - Clan Wolf. It tooked only a lot of time to put it on that page. Next time I will create more text. Then you can remove even more. Seriously why are you removing most of my content of that page. All information had their corresponding references and I think the layout of the page was also acceptable. With best regards Neuling (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2014 (PDT)

I have re-added the removed info. I understand that you may have intended to re-add the info yourself LittleWolf, but straight out removing it before then, especially without so much as discussing it isn't the best thing to do. If you're going to revamp the article, please do so without major loss of info. No hard feelings. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2014 (PDT)
Apologies, that was a genuine mistake on my part and no harm was meant by my edit. Will be more careful in the future. LittleWolf (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2014 (PDT)
That's fine; I don't mean to have assumed too much, but had thought that that was deliberate. Keep up the good work! -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

Movement Speeds[edit]

Hello; I received a request on the forums to include the board game speed (4/6, 3/4, etc.) along with the kph speed on each unit's article. I don't have the means to check these (i.e. the sources), so if we'd go ahead with it I wouldn't be able to help much. What are your thoughts on this? -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2014 (PDT)

Ah, infobox creep :-D I suppose I could help with in, although it would be far down on the list of things to do. I suppose you would create a new field in the infobox to keep the MP speed and KPH speed separate, once that's done and I get to work on any more 'Mechs I can include that info as well.LittleWolf (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2014 (PDT)
It was explained on my talk page why we aren't doing that; it differs by game and would involve thousands of page updates for very little improvement. Also, this forum thread explains how to convert them easily. So you don't have to worry about it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2014 (PDT)

"Battle Armor" Capitalization, Revisited[edit]

I am sorry to report that turning instances of "Battle Armor" in a title to lowercase was all wrong. For some reason I did not use an ounce of my brain when doing that and am sorry to have started that. Normally everything except articles (a, an, the) are capitalized in titles, but I forgot everything in an effort to work as hard as possible. I'll go ahead and revert all of them, but just be sure to in the future make articles with Battle Armor (and for that matter, Aerospace Fighter and Conventional Fighter) in the name capitalized. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2014 (PDT)

Not a problem, I'll keep that in mind for the future, thanks. LittleWolf (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2014 (PDT)


Hi, thanks for your minor update of the Communications System page, i hope you add more content to the page, and i give your second Substantial Addition Award, 2nd ribbon award.--Doneve (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2015 (PDT)

Thanks! LittleWolf (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2015 (PDT)

Present tense vs. past tense in articles[edit]

Hi, in reference to your recent edits to the Excalibur (DropShip) article, I notice you changed the text into past tense. While I admit this wiki doesn't have a proper policy about the issue in place, my understanding is that Sarna doesn't have a timeline viewpoint or "current" timeline. I think we're only writing characters and event articles in past tense because characters die and events pass; by contrast, designs (like 'Mech, vehicle, DropShip, etc.) are covered in the present tense because their stats and descriptions will never become a thing of the past. Frabby (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2015 (PDT)

While I'll try to keep that in mind in the future, undoubtedly many designs do go through changes, switch "hands" between groups, and otherwise experience history in general. It's hard to describe something in a "timeless" sense when for example it started being built during one period by one manufacturer, then production stopped some years later, only to be restarted in a different time period by a third party. I suppose we could have different tenses for different part of an article.LittleWolf (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (PDT)
I've gone with the standard of keeping everything in the past tense because we're always writing from the point of view of the "current" time, which will be ever evolving as they continue the timeline. It helps keep things simpler when you have all the articles consistent, and I've been told to write everything in the past tense. As I understand it, it's meant to be a "historical" look at things, so it makes sense that everything should be in the past tense. Additionally, everything will be easier if you have it in the past tense because then you don't need to worry about updating the grammar of every page that has new information added to it. That's just my two cents, but from what I remember, I was explicitly told by someone to only use past tense. -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2015 (PDT)
Like I said, we don't have a proper policy on this - probably because there doesn't seem to be user consensus on the issue. Me, I'm a proponent of a timeless OOC wiki (why write "the Locust was a 20-ton 'Mech when a Locust will never cease to be a 20-ton 'Mech design?) as opposed to... uh... Revanche I think who was of the opinion that Sarna should be sort of an IC document looking back from whatever is the most advanced point in the BT timeline.
Perhaps we should seek to find a user consensus and draw up a policy or style guide after all. And no, I'm not proposing this now because Revanche isn't active anymore. ;) Frabby (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2015 (PDT)
I've always worked from the assumption that everything should be written in the past tense - I'd write "the Locust was a 20-ton 'Mech" because in that instance, it may be that the Locust went out of production and the design died off as a result. I'm not sure where I picked up the assumption that everything should be in past tense, but most likely from someone here correcting me on the issue, given that this is the first wiki I've worked on. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2015 (PDT)
I know some other wikis also go with a past tense, and a few I believe are present tense, but perhaps then it is time to have an official policy made for Sarna, via user consensus, about which tense to use? LittleWolf (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2015 (PDT)
I agree with BrokenMnemonic on this, but think that we should come to consensus and set it in stone before moving forward. I could make a quick little google survey if you'd like. -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2015 (PDT)
A survey sounds like a good idea, but I think we first have to determine what the questions/options really are that we want to decide. Also, I wonder if Nic Jansma should have a say in this as he's the site owner and Sarna BattleTechWiki bureaucrat. And finally, I think we should perhaps move this discussion to the Sarna forum. Unfortunately I have very little time myself right now; you guys get the ball rolling and I'll be joining the discussion next week. Frabby (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2015 (PDT)
I'll be sure to contact Nic and see what he says. On moving it to the forum, I think that we should rather keep it on the front page of the wiki in the minor news section; then whoever sees it (usually editors/interested readers) can take the survey. I'll try getting a rough outline of it up later in the week, but I'm also going to be busy... -BobTheZombie (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2015 (PDT)
One thing to consider: if everything's written in the past tense, then everything is always in the correct tense. If articles start in the present tense but then the information becomes historical, because the design dies out, the time period advances, etc, then the page is effectively in the wrong tense, and would need to be updated. Speaking as someone updating 3,500 planet articles, that kind of update is either not going to get done or is going to be a massive pain for whichever poor sod has to do it. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2015 (PDT)
I have to agree, with BrokenMnemonic, the "past tense" makes more sense for in-universe writer's pureview on how is written. The universe is alive and timeline hasn't stopped at one particular time for so long that it never changes. Field Manual: 3145 is written from view of named year 3145, not 3025. As long as there publisher who supports the current universe, everything will eventually become the past. -- Wrangler (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2015 (PDT)
Sorry for the long delay; I made a short survey. Tell me if you think any of the wording should be changed. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (PDT)
Perfect, thanks Bob. Let's put that as a link on the front page in the news section, and create a Forums post about it. Nicjansma (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2015 (PDT)
I started a forum thread here. Frabby (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2015 (PDT)
Responded. Also, if you could put a link to the survey on the front page's "Minor News" section, that would be great. Thanks! -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2015 (PDT)

Hiya, just wondering... you seem to have made the same changes to article tense in your recent workover of the Archer article? Frabby (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (PST)


LittleWolf - Impressive start on the Battle of Radstadt article. Question - Did you want to use the Conflict Infobox? You can find examples from Battle of Twycross and other articles. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2015 (PST)

Thank you. I probably won't at this time, but may try and incorporate it at a later date once everything is settled.LittleWolf (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2015 (PST)
Understood. I look forward to seeing the finished work. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2015 (PST)

Combined Proofreading Efforts[edit]

I came up with an idea on WarDog Mike's user talk page to go through and proofread/reformat the most visited pages, because they should be at the top of our priorities (mostly because they're the first impression people get of Sarna), but some of them are pretty shabby. I know you guys (and myself included) like to float around proofreading whatever page you stumble upon instead of being told which ones to do, but I think that you, me and the other active proofreaders need to go through this list and make sure that these pages are up to par on grammar, formatting, linkage, and all that jazz. I don't know what you are busy with project-wise or how much free time you have, but it's an idea. What do you think? -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2015 (PST)

Not a problem, when I have a chance I can give those a closer look and make sure at least spelling/grammar-wise they're okay.LittleWolf (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2015 (PST)
Sweet, thanks! I still don't know how exactly we're going to organize this (I'll have an opening in my schedule in a week or two). In the meantime, feel free to work on whatever or even start on the list if you want. P.S. I can worry about formatting, links, and organization and follow after you guys if you want; just a thought. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2015 (PST)
Sorry for my delay in getting back to you guys on this idea; I started a page here. Let's get started! -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (PST)

Warhammer Article[edit]

Hi Littlewolf, you did a great job updating the article and adding details that have been missed by our fellow editors. I am bestowing you with the Third Substantial Article Award! Substantial Addition Award, 4th ribbon Congratulations and thank you! -- Wrangler (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2015 (PST)

Thank you LittleWolf (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2015 (PST)

Siren Stats[edit]

Hey, I noticed you changed some stuff in the infobox from "standard" to a certain weight and the engine type to the engine weight. After comparing it to some other ProtoMechs, it looks like those stats in particular should have stayed the same (all the other changes looked good). I think it's assumed that you can explain those exact numbers in the fluff, but the infobox is for what type of parts are being used, not the specific weight. I hope that clarifies things. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2016 (PDT)

All Protos use the same type of components, which sorta renders any point in listing them moot. Weight at least allows for a bit more comparison, but I will leave it as is going forward. LittleWolf (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2016 (PDT)
Ah, okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for explaining -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2016 (PDT)

Successor States[edit]

LittleWolf - Impressive work on the Successor States. One question - how did you determine "Notable Personalities"? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2016 (PDT)

Thanks, the Great House pages themselves need major touch-ups though. As for NPs, I limited to the 31st C. leaders and those very close to them/major story roles/etc. Don't need every single family member since there's already a category for them.LittleWolf (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2016 (PDT)

Eagle currency[edit]

Hi, thanks to add this great article, i want to uploade images to the article is this ok for you?--Doneve (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2016 (PST)

Go for it! LittleWolf (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (PST)

ComStar and Word of Blake military structure[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to point out a problem with ComStar/Word of Blake military structure - namely that using a slash "/" character in an article name creates a subdirectory to the article in front of the slash. That's... messy, with regards to the article structure we're maintaining here. Can you rename the article, or merge it into articles for existing militaries such as the Com Guards or Word of Blake Militia? Frabby (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2017 (EDT)

Moved to the ComStar military structure page, didn't realize it already existed :) LittleWolf (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2017 (EDT)