User talk:Neuling


Welcome[edit]

Welcome, Neuling, 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 Pillars 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.
  • Also consider writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as "Neuling" 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 we will know you're a human rather than a spambot and we won't block and delete you accidentally.
  • 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.
  • Introduce yourself at the new user log.
  • 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 (~~~~); 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*******


Need help[edit]

Hy Neuling, i send you a pm on the aris forum.--Doneve (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2013 (PDT)

You have a new pm.--Doneve (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2013 (PDT)

SLDF Commands[edit]

Is it ok when i create the categorys, you added to the various SLDF pages.--Doneve (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (PDT)

LCAF March[edit]

Neuling - All this information could just go under the LCAF article. At the time, they didn't use the word "March". ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2013 (PDT)

Maps[edit]

Hy Neuling please add also some links to our BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul/Faction Map Gallery page, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2013 (PDT)

Ullead[edit]

Hy Neuling, where can i found the Ullead System programm?--Doneve (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2013 (PDT)

Maps[edit]

Hy, great work, i love your maps, can you add all to the BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul/Faction Map Gallery from your user:test page, i appricate this, and i think BM love it to.--Doneve (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2013 (PDT)

Hy again, can you create maps from Jihad: Final Reckoning and Field Manual: 3085, this where very cool.--Doneve (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2013 (PDT)
Ok we need also maps from Era Report: 3145, also maps i talk to you above, the years are 3081, 3085, 3135 and 3145.--Doneve (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2013 (PDT)
Hy Neuling,
Following up on Doneve's comments (and my review on my talk page) I'd like to give you this award as thanks for your work on maps to support the Planets Project - it's very much appreciated.
Random Act of Appreciation Award, 2nd ribbon
BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

Øystein's Maps[edit]

Hi Neuling, I see you're ripping a lot of maps from Oystein Tvedten's private homepage. Since these maps are copyrighted, I hope you asked for his permission? Because Oystein complained about his maps being copied to Sarna before...

Also, mind that these maps are technically non-canon because they're his private work, and not published as an official BT product. Frabby (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Hi Frabby,
Jumping in a little - I discussed the canonical maps with Rev back when I started getting involved with the Planets project, and Rev indicated that the maps that were being chopped up, recoloured, resized et al should be fine to use under the Fair Use regs because of the purposes for which they were being used, although all of them needed to clearly indicate the original source.
I've not checked the provenance of the 3130 map Neuling's using (the link won't load for me at work) but I gather the 3130 map from the MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game is canonical and can reasonably be used as well even though it's not been published in a sourcebook or one of the other typical canon sources, because it was issued with the various MW:AOD clix properties. So, if that's the source of the 3130 map, I think it should be ok under the Fair Use terms again, although I thought Doneve and I had already uploaded lots of bits of it as a part of the Project: Planets work.
I'd not heard about Øystein complaining about maps he's made being used here - can you provide a reference or link? I really don't want to upset him, and I'd like to check if there's anything I've done for which I should get permission from him directly that I may not have picked up on. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
Back in April 2011 I got a PM from Øystein over at the BT forum where he voiced being "displeased" with a certain Sarna article, elaborating "More specifically that someone has just copied my map files without asking me, telling me, or even crediting me. As the permission I got from WK/CGL was for me to have the maps on my personal pages, I would prefer it if the links were changed to linking to my map files, instead of being hosted locally." I raised the issue here on Sarna BTW but (of course...) I cannot find the relevant entries anymore. Just grabbing images from the web was never legal, and Mr. Tvedten is among the people on whose toes we definitely don't want to step. Since he asked me as admin, I also feel a certain personal obligation to make sure it doesn't happen again.
As for canonicity, let me word it more precisely: Øystein's homepage is not an official, much less canonical, source of BT information. It could arguably be described as a meta-source if the maps hosted there had previously been published as official BT material. The general rule is that anything and everything that doesn't come from an official, legal BattleTech publication is just fan fiction. Frabby (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
Hmm... I'm surprised that entire maps were being hosted here, which I'd definitely agree is outside the bounds of Fair Use.
Regarding the 3130 map - that was apparently available in hard copy with certain MW:AOD products. Does that mean that to be used here, someone would have to upload portions of a scan copy of an original hard copy, rather than using portions of the copy hosted at Øystein's site? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
Technically, yes. But I admit it's my legal thinking here that demands scans of maps generated from these files, because the paper maps (and not the files) were the official product.
In any case, I'm not concerned about the canonicity of the maps so much as about whether or not anyone bothered to ask Øystein before material from his homepage was copied over to Sarna, something he asked us not to do in the past. Frabby (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Jaguar Logos[edit]

Hi, Alpha, Beta and Delta are in Era Report: 3052. Two of these were also made by Fighting Piranha Graphics. Epsilon and Kappa are from Turning Point Luzerne. While there are descriptions of other logos I am still trying to track down a canon picture. Hopefully I'll be able to add some more soon. Smiley.gif - Dark Jaguar (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

Timeline brigade[edit]

Bring you the page to work?--Doneve (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2013 (PST)

"Pirate" article subject?[edit]

I'm confused; is the Pirate page supposed to be about pirates in general, or just the one Death's Consorts unit? -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2013 (PST)

Clan Stone Lion Military[edit]

Hi, thank you for adding the military section, but I have a question - shouldn't the Guards clusters be the Lion Guards and not the Iron Guards? --Dark Jaguar (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (PST)

Unit Names[edit]

Hi Neuling,
You're doing a great job with updating the garrison details in the Clan Occupation Zones this morning, but can I ask you to change one detail? Doneve and I are updating various garrisons at the moment, and from the talk page over on the Manual of Style page, it looks like the majority favour trying to use the BattleCorps writers style guide where possible. That doesn't affect how units are named when it comes to their articles, but when we're linking to the unit articles, we should try and follow the BC naming convention. It's a bit of a pain, as the detault here was to do it the other way in most cases, but quite a few have been changed already.
As I understand it, the BC naming convention is:

  • Use text rather than numbers unless the unit designation is greater than 100
  • Only the first letter of the designation should be capitalised

So, for example, the 39th Wolf Guards should be written as "Thirty-ninth Wolf Guards" but the 115th Wolf Guards would remain the 115th Wolf Guards.
I mentioned it because I noticed with your update you're already setting up pipes to make the Garrison Military Force/Planetary Garrisons look much nicer and more readable, and at the rate you're working through entries I think you could fix half the wiki for us in a single morning Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2013 (PST)

Hi Neuling, I've just posted a reply on my talk page regarding your DCMS page redesign - I'm sorry it took me a while, I was at work a couple of hours longer today than usual so I've not had much of an evening to reply in. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2013 (PST)

Award[edit]

Hi, I am a long time user (viewer) of this site for information that I can not get elsewhere. I have noticed you are one of the few to actively add useful information to the site. I particularly like your map images that you have put together, these are incredible useful. I would like to nominate you for an award, and as a thank you from an appreciative user. I hope an administrator will agree with me and award you this Image Import Award, 2nd ribbon --Insidiator (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2013 (PST)

Apostrophes in Capellan unit names[edit]

Hey Neuling, just want to ask what the apostrophes in all those unit names is about? I do not own the book they are referenced in but it is not a convention I have seen before, do they have the apostrophes in the source material?

Also if it is not to much trouble could you include the units in the appropriate sub-category rather the general "Military units" one as we have literally thousands of units so it would get messy very quickly if we have just the one category.

Cheers --Dmon (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2014 (PST)

CCAF 3025...[edit]

I was wondering if I could move the pages listed here to User Sub Pages for you. Both Doneve and I were doubtful of its use to the general public, but I was hesitant to outright delete them. Would you be okay with me moving them to sub pages under your username? -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2014 (PST)

I don't think that you got TAF 3025 moved over to a user page. -BobTheZombie (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2014 (PST)

Format of Brigade pages[edit]

Hey man, I removed the repeated information in the Avalon Hussars article because it does not match the established format of the Brigade pages. Most of it is repeated anyway. Edit: I have just gone back and included the information that is not repeated in the correct format.--Dmon (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (PST)

I have replied to your post on my talk page Neuling --Dmon (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2014 (PST)

Brigade page formatting[edit]

copied from User talk:Dmon

I finished my first two tries and I think I'm uncertain which is better for our purposes. Neuling (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2014 (PST)
Hey Neuling, i like what you have done there, it looks good with the unit insignias (I like the second format better). Sorry I have taken so long to go have a look as I have been busy. I think in this format I would be more than happy to incorporate the tables into the Brigade pages. It might be worth checking on the BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands and getting other peoples thoughts before we implement it though.--Dmon (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2014 (PST)
It would absolutely be good to propose this to the BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands project. What you've got is good, and I like it. However, if you just start changing stuff without building consensus first, you're just asking for problems. Please copy it to the project page. (Like I said, you have my support.)--Mbear(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Tables on pages[edit]

Hi Neuling! You know you can add class="wikitable" to all of your tables to automatically make them fit in with the site theme, right?--Mbear(talk) 04:59, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Breaking down army pages (for example AFFS)[edit]

Neuling,

I like how you're breaking the large army pages (like AFFS) down into smaller pages. I don't like that you've just decided to do it without trying to show it to the community as a whole. That way we can talk about it and make suggestions.

Like on the AFFS - Units page for example. You have: "The AFFS is primarily broken down into Corps, though some free regiments and brigades do exist. Only BattleMech units are listed below; conventional forces are considered attached to BattleMech commands for convenience."

If you had asked, I would've pointed out that it would be useful to define "free regiment" vs. brigade. Also many brigade level pages (like Avalon Hussars) have information that appeared on the main AFFS page via the onlyinclude tags. So a visitor to that page could get a quick intro to what the unit's history was. The reformatted page you've provided doesn't include that data, and I think that's a mistake.

One possible compromise would be to include your table at the top and then include the brigade stuff at the bottom.

Ideally, you would put this off your personal pages (which you did) and then talk to the Project Military Commands team to see what they thought. (If you did, I apologize, I just don't see any of it on there.)--Mbear(talk) 05:09, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Hey Neuling, I want to support Mbear here.. I have just attempted to use the DCMS page for a quick reference (even after all this time I still get mixed up with the ramks) and it is quite simply GONE!!!! A really messy skeleton of an article remains but if I was a first time visitor to our fair wiki right now I would never be coming back here ever again. Please sort it out. You have gone off half cocked again and have made more bad than good at this moment in time.--Dmon (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2014 (PDT)
Please hold off reverting any more of the military pages for today; thanks. I'm short on time and will explain later. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

From Dmon's talk page:

I restored both pages and apologize for the action which I took without any discussion. Furthermore I ask if we can change the layout into a standardized version? With best regards Neuling (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

We absolutely can! And I think you may be onto something here with breaking down the army pages into smaller units. My problem with the current layout is how far it goes in removing content to sub-pages.--Mbear(talk) 10:27, 13 March 2014 (PDT)

What Mbear said, I am not against the idea of change as long as it makes things better, concensus on the CBT forum says a mix of the two seems best, so I am happy, sub-pages are fine but back to my original post I was upset due to the utter lack of content in the DCMS page, it seems everybody is right in this instance, now just to make it work :-) --Dmon (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2014 (PDT)
Another question is need we tables in the composition history on brigade pages, we dont discuss this in the past and i think we dont need tables, any opinions.--Doneve (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2014 (PDT)

Rollbacks[edit]

Neuling,

After discussion with the other admins, I've rolled back your changes to the Star League Corps pages and the army pages for the Inner Sphere powers. This decision was made because you just did the changes without even attempting to build consensus first. However, you did put a lot of work in place and we didn't want to just delete that. Once the Sarna community has agreed to it, we can put those updates back.

I've put a note in the chatterweb template that links directly to your "Active Units" heading on the Project Military command talk page. This should bring in more opinions from other contributors. I've also left the LXXII Corps (Star League) page as another example.

Most of these changes I like. The problem is that you didn't really give anyone else a chance to weigh in and make comments. Once you do give everyone a chance to talk it over, you'll get everyone's support.--Mbear(talk) 06:07, 25 April 2014 (PDT)

Federated Suns March Militias[edit]

Hello, was there a reason for making the Federated Suns March Militias page? Should it be deleted? If it was a test, please keep that sort of thing to user sub pages or the sandbox. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (PDT)

Capellan Hussars[edit]

Hi Neuling, I wanted to let you know why I rolled back your edits and deleted the Capellan Hussars category. Frankly, it's completely superflous because there is already an article in place for the parent brigade - Capellan Hussars. While yes, Sarna follows the general BattleTech approach to treat Regiments as the largest coherent military formation (and brigades, divisions and armies more as administrative formations), we do have brigade articles and they naturally do list the associated regiments. We don't need categories for that. What purpose would such a category serve? Frabby (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Unfinished projects and unit articles[edit]

Good afternoon Neuling, It has been a while since you where this active on the wiki. If you are back in force I would like to ask a personal favour of you. As you know there are literally thousands of unit articles on the wiki and even though you have been largely absent for few years there are still a good number of articles that have article formats only ever used by you, and there are a huge number of unfinshed projects mostly concentraiting on breaking up unit articles into era specific tables. Before you innovate and change the way the wiki works do you think you could look at some of your older projects and assess how they fit in on the wiki and let me know what is likely going to remain unfinished. And please do the same with the unit article formats, there are a few different formats that you used but no clear reason as to what they bring to the article. Could you review some of them and make an effort to bring them in line with what everybody else is doing on the wiki.--Dmon (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Good evening Dmon, I read your message and I thought my approach in the past was the wrong way to create content for the wiki. Like you mentioned in your post. My usual method was to provide a skeleton article only with little informations. In the next few week's I check my projects and articles from the past. When necessary I will use a deletion stub or move the content to my user page. I will try to added information that are at the moment missing without a great change of the existing content. The best way to support that wiki is quality over quantity. Time will show if my new way is a good alternative to the past. neuling
Hey Neuling, The dropdown tables are really cool and I think we can use them to engance parts of the wiki with large cumbersome tables BUT I can't help but notice that you are creating "command era tables" with them just like you use to in the past.... So I am going to ask you, please, please, please, I am begging you do not add tables to any command or brigade articles unless you are willing to spend the time upgrading EVERY command article on the wiki or get a consensus off the community first.--Dmon (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Hello Dmon, I learned from my mistakes in the past. I try to get an mutual agreement about my work. I use my notes sites for different projects without changing anything material in the current articles. I will try to update the unit arcticles with the available material. Time will tell if my work is accepted or need some fine tuning. I will wait at the response of the different users in the meantime. Neuling

Idea[edit]

Hey Neuling, I have a very low level personal project that I have been chipping away at for ages. I was just doing a little bit of work and realised that your skills at research and huge knowledge about unit status and deployments would be a great asset. I then noticed that one of the articles that inspired my project was actually yours, Wolf's Dragoons battles.

My intent was to break up that article and comb through TROs 3025 and 3026 and fill out Category:Third Succession War Era Military Operations with all these battles and sort them by world and year.

The Military Operations/Battles articles are very very much in need of somebody willing to invest time in them. Would you be interested in adopting this project?--Dmon (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2019 (EST)

Question: Is there any way to include this information on the year pages as well? For example, the Tiber (Jan 3015) could be added to the "Battles" section of the 3015 page as well.--Mbear(talk) 09:28, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Locust article?[edit]

Did you mean to take half of the locust article down?--Dmon (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2019 (EST)

Whate up?[edit]

Yo man, whats up?

You have been fine for the last month or so and then suddenly the quality of your articles has taken a nosedive in the last week and you are doing tons of REALLY daft mistakes of the sort I expect from a new editor. Are you ok?--Dmon (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2019 (EDT)

Hello Dmon, can you tell me what mistakes I make and I will correct them in a short time.
The new articles your making are in the wrong category, have nothing in the Bibliography section and the titles are using the wrong format, Twentieth Donegal Guards instead of 20th Donegal Guards and the ones you did ths morning have a loads of minor format errors. Is something wrong or are you just hammering them out to quick and making mistakes?--Dmon (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2019 (EDT)
Thank you for the advice. I prepared the unit entries for the First and Second Succession war in an word document. I think it was an error with in my thinking. Can you please take an look at the latest correction of my entries if they are correct. I will complete and correct the new created articles to. I hope that will increase the quality of the new content.
Ah ok yeah that explains it, you where not actually doing the work on the wiki so when you where doing the wrong format etc you couldn't see the other articles to compare. Also explains the other weird thing you did with noting a unit was "destroyed in the war", You should move that line upto the history section and explain what war.
The FW Guards ones you have just done look ok except for the Bibliography needing an update.--Dmon (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2019 (EDT)

What is next?[edit]

Good morning Neuling!

Thank you for going back and updating those articles. Now I would like to ask you how far along with your project you are and do you know what the next stage is?--Dmon (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Good morning Dmon, I have completed 2 houses (Liao + Marik), working at one (Steiner) and then there are rest (Kurita, Davion, Mercenaries and the Periphery Nations). My goal is to update the existing articles with the available informationen up to the end of the Second Succession War. The next step is fill out the missing information from 3025 until 3055. The last step is to finish the huge projetct with the data for 3059-3063, 3067, 3079, 3085 and 3145. I hope my work doesn't create any conflict with any other contributors to that site. Neuling

Battletech CCG[edit]

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

Star League commands order[edit]

Hi Neuling,

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

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

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

Hi Pserratv, can you give me an example what you mean in detail for better understanding? neuling
If we check other Military Organizations, in the main page we have usually Regiments and then in folders Naval Units, Training Units, Support Commands and Militia Commands, but in the Star League we have these sub-folders:
  • Star League Defense Force Commands
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Army
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - CAAN Marine Regiment
  • Star League Defense Force Corps
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - BattleMech Division
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Dragoon Regiment
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Hussar Regiment
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Infantry Division
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Jump Infantry Division
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Light Horse Regiment
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Mechanized Infantry Division
  • Star League Defense Force Commands - Naval Commands
  • General

And also all of them shown also at General Level, which makes sorting out the units a complete mess. There is too many units at General Level, and some big groups like Striker Regiments do not have a folder. Some kind of ramp-up would be interesting to better organize this category.--Pserratv (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

FWIW I also answered this question on my talk page.--Mbear(talk) 09:31, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Wow[edit]

Neuling, I know I've been hard on you in the past. I want to say that since you've come back, the quality of your work is so much higher than it was then. Really, nice work man.--Mbear(talk) 09:30, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

FC commands category[edit]

Now it is my turn to ask... How come you added Category:Federated Commonwealth Commands to itself?--Dmon (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

It was only an experiment. I removed the category. My goal was to create a category like FCAF for the main article of the FCAF. In the next step I would add only brigade category for the brigade sides and in the last step brigade categories for the different sub units. I think with fewer categories to an article the system is better understandable. I hope that give you an sufficient awnser. neuling
I did wonder. On the future stuff... Please do not add Brigade only categories.--Dmon (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
That will not happen, I try to find a way to create a category system which accepted by many users. Perhaps we can build a solution through cooperation. neuling
We already have a system that is accepted by everybody and has been for about 5 years (if you look up your page there are conversations between us dating from 2014 hashing out the current system), It is only the SLDF units that are a problem and they are a problem because they currently use a different system.--Dmon (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
Time passed by and with it my opinion to. In my thoughts it was the effort worth but it did'nt worked out as planned. I have my system which works very well for me. It has no influence on the current category system. I will use my personal pages and also an off-sarna.net source. No fear I changed alot and with it my behaviour. Former me was confrontation and present me is cooperation and find solution without harm to any current content on sarna.net. Have a nice day. neuling

Star League commands order[edit]

Thanks for the help. If I knew how to give you a "banner" or however the "prizes" are given, I would be doing it. Tomorrow I'll review the root surviving elements to see if they can be grouped in "new categories" or not. Not sure, but now they are 44 individual and 22 categories which makes them easier to look and investigate. I feel we are nearly there.--Pserratv (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

I was a pleasure to work along your side. Can we cooperate at other catergories sections to like we discuss earlier. I think the Fed-Sun/Lyr-Alli/Fed-Com is another good working ground. What is your opinion about that topic? neuling
Let's start building here our ideas. You proposed splitting Militia Commands in two: March Militias and Planetary Militias right? That is an interesting point which bears thinking. This should be easy for Lyran and Davion. Any more idea on this point?

Now, for F-C things might be different as we would first need to fix a set of rules to decide if unit is F-C only or also Lyran/Davion. Mi idea is units after 4th Succession Wars unit 3057 (indeed after Operation Guerrero) should be F-C. If they also have duration prior or after this, we should add Lyran/Davion allegiance. This is easy I feel. Tackling the redirects will cause us trouble. In this case what I've been doing is in officers divide periods of officers (Lyran/Davion, then F-C, then Lyran/Davion - or alternatives like mercenaries...). Once done, usually last unit is the one whose Category is in page, while rest should have a redirect and there their own category in order to tackle periods correctly. Which is your thinking...

I think I made this too long and too dense...--Pserratv (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Wolf's Dragoons do not need a commands category.[edit]

Wolf's Dragoons do not need a commands category as they are a single mercenary brigade. They only have a characters category due to high numbers of characters. Northwind Highlanders are the same.--Dmon (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2019 (EDT)

Accepted, but can you explain me the reason for the Galatean Defense Force category. When the Wolf's Dragoons category are unnecessary then after your thinking they are also obsolete or could I be wrong? neuling
I did create it, but was told it was not a good idea... but never deleted it... sorry.--Pserratv (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
Given that the Galatean Defense League is Alcor, Mizar, Syrma and Galatea that is a multi-planet nation thus making the Galatean Defense Force technically a state military. The Dragoons are just a mercenary unit with a one planet landgrant not even a truly independent world like Northwind as far as I know.--Dmon (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
My reason was not to create another sub category for a single multi unit command. The goal was to ad the different units into a sub category. In the battletech canon we have a lot of mercenary command with several regiments. For example we could create sub categories for the Illician Lancers, Northwind Highlanders or McCarrons Armored Cavalry to name a few units. The sub categories could be added to the main category. The SLDF category is a good example for my intention. neuling
That would be a Brigade sub-category, that would be exactly what I asked you not to do with the FC commands 4 days ago and if you look back further up your talk page Frabby asks you not to do it with the Capellan Hussars way back in January. I am fairly certain we have had debates about you wanting this perticular change at least 5-6 times over the last decade.--Dmon (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
Its okay, I use my personal page so make overviews about the diffent armies and how they are organized. Which units were available and which were destroyed. I will change nothing further by the category page for the mercenaries and my page give me enougth room to create an overview for my work. neuling

Planetery Militia vs March Militia/Regional Militia[edit]

Hi Neuling,

Just added queries on 3 categories: Lyran, FedSuns, F-C to gather feedback on splitting the Planetary Militias from the March/Regional Militias. Let's see what we get.--Pserratv (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

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

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

Reference Errors[edit]

Last July I finished the task of correcting over 500 pages with reference errors, leaving only a handful of user pages. Today there are over 50 pages with errors, and that doesn't include those that I have corrected in recent months. When editing articles, please take an extra moment to preview that article and then look at the references section to ensure that there are no errors. "Cite errors" stand out in bold red. They are generally caused by copying and pasting information across multiple pages, or deleting information that contains a reference definition. It is much quicker for you to fix your own errors than it is for someone else to discover, research, and correct them. This is only a wiki if correct citations are used. Otherwise it is simply collection of fan-fiction.

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Help:References

Thank you.--Cache (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2019 (EDT)

I will take an extra view after my latest additions and will correct them if needed the proper way. Tnx for the advice and have a nice day.

Neuling (talk)