User talk:MahiMahi

Mechit-Lube

Thanks for adding this article. Are you aware though that this is actually a reference going back to The Crescent Hawks' Inception (which is set in 3028)? Frabby (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2024 (EST)

Added, the missing hyphen concealed two hits. MahiMahi (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2024 (EST)

Clan character pages

Hi MahiMahi, just a heads up that if a single-named character is the only one in the wiki, it doesn't need to have parenthetical disambiguation. For example, if there is no other character named Jayden, the page can be exactly that, without "(362nd Assault)". This is part of our MoS and we had a Discord discussion about it just this past week to confirm we want to continue doing it this way. Best, Csdavis715 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2024 (EST)

Vaporware page/BattleTech film

Great find regarding the New Line film! I'd had trouble finding much concrete about that project - thanks for digging up that bit. --Tumult&Travail (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2024 (EST)

In-universe year for Hot Spots

Hey MahiMahi, I saw your contribution to Ruschegg from Hot Spots and I was just curious how you were able to determine it was in June 3056. The introduction says it's a companion to the Merc Handbook 3055, so most pages I've been updating has shown a year of 3055. But if it says somewhere it's June 3056, I'm happy to go back to update the pages accordingly for accuracy. Thanks, Csdavis715 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2025 (EST)

Page 6 "The Hiring Hall uses this number to categorize and record each contract. The number includes the realm from which the contract originates, the date on which the contract was recorded, the numerical order in which the contract was recorded on that particular day, and a validating code number." This is contract FWL 56603-001-3 MahiMahi (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2025 (EST)

The lack of two digits for the month threw me off, plus all the contracts of the book were therefore issued in the first 11 days of June. Still, I think that's good enough to cite given that the book is now 42 years old. Thanks, Csdavis715 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2025 (EST)

Carver IV and Carver V

The quote in IKEO only says that the Carver shipyards were sometimes erroneously reported as orbiting Carver IV when they were in fact orbiting Carver V. That is the only thing this quote says. Unless I missed something, that means it's an overreach to postulate all references to Carver IV should be about Carver V instead. That's not what it says. Frabby (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2025 (EST)

True, IKEO only references the shipyards. But the only other references to Carver IV were the UrbanMech reference in TRO 3025, which have been redacted to Carver V ages ago and the HL(tCC) profile of Elizabeth Jordan Liao. While the EJL thread remains, Wolf's Dragoons references only Carver which isn't something they'd do if there were two populated planets in the system. The planet profiles in Star League, Chaos March, and now IKEO give no indication there's two planets. MahiMahi (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2025 (EST)

I feel you’re drawing a conclusion that isn’t sufficiently supported by the data. The existing corrections/retcons are very specifically tailored to counter two out of three mentions of Carver IV. They're so specific that they cannot (imho) be read to mean all mentions of Carver IV should be read as Carver V. The Mandrissa of Carver IV position was never adressed directly so we cannot treat it as redacted. It may be a vanity title and Carver IV may be a lifeless rock; but it’s still there in canon based on the info we have. At the very least I would like to see a dev level ruling/clarification. I'll try Ask the Writers. :) Frabby (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2025 (EST)

Good morning, gentlemen. So, given the visibility and prominence of Carter, this probably should have been discussed on Discord beforehand. The Note could have also been worded better that clearly explains how it was "retconned" (see Lincoln (system)#Notes for comparison). However, after looking at the sources I think I would have to agree with Mahi. With 2 of the 3 sources clearly being updated from Carter IV --> V, and the lone holdout being a 38-year-old mention in HL(TCC) which was released just 1 year after TRO:3025, I'm inclined to assume that it too was implied to be updated. We can wait on an AtW thread, but if we were writing the Carver page today, I don't think we would have created a Carver IV entry with what we know now. Csdavis715 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2025 (EST)

We got an official answer! :) All references to Carver IV are indeed considered to be in error and should read Carver V instead. That’s a ruling that leaves no doubt and satisfies my desire for clarity. :) Need to update this on the Carver article though, once I get access to a real computer. Can’t get anything done on this smartphone. Frabby (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2025 (EDT)