User talk:Neuling/Archive 2010


Placeholder articles[edit]

Hi Neuling, and thank you for the mercenary command articles. Two points though: You have inserted a "cleanup" tag, but I think the template you really want to use is "stub". Which brings me to the second point, do you intend to expand these placeholders into full articles? If so, great; but if not, then be advised that we have the List of minor mercenary units article specifically for the purpose of putting down such data. If and when you have enough material on a merc unit to warrant their own article, go ahead and create the article (deleting the unit from the List article). But please do not create essentially empty placeholders. Frabby 09:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


As a courtesy for other editors, it is a BattleTechWiki guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.

Use NEW Merc template[edit]

Hello Neuling, there have been recent changes to Sarna's website. As you are placing high number of mercenary articles on line. It appears your still using the OLD template that has problems. Recently a new ones has been made, please use; Help:CreateMercenaryUnitArticle. -- Wrangler 12:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Operation Guerrero changes[edit]

Hi. I'm the guy who wrote the Operation Guerrero page, and I was wondering why you removed so much of the article. Several of the elements that you excised, particularly the Capellan operations, were needed to properly set the stage for the invasion in my opinion. --Mbear 13:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored most of my original article text. I've also included the summary tables you created. I did this for several reasons:
  1. You removed information that was important to the article. (Pre-Guerrero Capellan operations)
  2. The text you included was confusing.
  3. Some of the text you had (units, etc.) was incorrect.
I really like the tables you created and wish I had thought of them first. I think that between your summary tables and my original text the article is great. I hope you agree with me once you've reviewed the article. --Mbear 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Question[edit]

Hy, Neuling, weist du zufällig wo ich Unit Emblems etc. in farbe finde, hab zwar alle Sourcebooks und etc. aber das meiste in pdf. also keine farben ;), ich möchte mein Image project aussweiten, währe nett wenn du mir da weiter helfen könntest.GrüsseDoneve 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sign (IRT Talk:Battle armor equipment)[edit]

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a BattleTechWiki guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.

DCMS Unit tables[edit]

Hey bro, Not to be a killjoy or anything but looking at your new unit tables in the DCMS article I think we should possibly consider rolling them back to the old way as IMHO they are a little "squashed" looking now. --Dmon 15:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

and looking at it again it also removes the individual brigades from the contenst at the top of the page. --Dmon 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Clan Goliath Scorpion page update[edit]

Neuling, I finished making the Goliath Scorpion rank insignia. After I put them on the appropriate rank pages, I also updated the Clan Goliath Scorpion page with to use the images. I've also moved the Rank insignia to near the bottom of the page so the unit organization information can stay together. Hope you like it!--Mbear 18:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbear, I overworked the clan articles for you. You can put your images/files direct in the table. The ranktable is only a shell for your work. Great that we can work together and yes I like your work. Neuling 00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Award: Image Import[edit]

Neuling, normally I would wait to see how someone uses the images they imported before providing this award, but I have confidence you'll be placing them all in their respective articles or a gallery very shortly. So, in light of the sheer amount of uploading of new imagery you did today (95 at current count), I award you the II ribbon:

Image Import Award, 1st ribbon

Congratulations and keep working on your project. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you might want to take a look at the Automatic Awards. I see you are entitled to two of them, already. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Warrior House logos[edit]

Why did you upload the Warrior House .png pics when there are .jpg files available already? Frabby 20:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This fact was unknown to me. Where can i see which logos are availabe? Neuling 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Warrior Houses, they can be seen in the individual House articles (i.e. Warrior House Imarra, Warrior House Kamata, Warrior House Hiritsu, etc.). Frabby 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All Purpose Award[edit]

You get the All Purpose Award for your work on improving the listing of the armed forces of the succession states:

All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon

Keep going! --Neufeld 11:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Good morning, Neuling. Please review your recent contributions, such as those for Word of Blake ROM‎‎ and Tmi, as well as others. Other Editors have noted that the articles don't meet BTW's standards for informative articles and don't have the criteria for proper formatting. I'd prefer you complete some of these articles, by providing wikilinks and references and describing what they are [what is 'Tmi'? I've never heard of it.], before adding more articles. Since they are notable enough to be included by you, I hope they're notable enough to be saved by you, as well. Thank you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tnx for your advise, I will rework my articles and add more information + pictures to them. The evidence with the reference will also include in my work. Give me one day and post me then your thoughts about the rework. Neuling 01:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking forward to it! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Revanche, I hope you are satisfied with my workover. The other articles wil have the same layout and extend. Neuling 13:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you have met the minimum requirement of information for making stub status, yes. I made some comments on 2 of the articles, for areas other Editors could fill in. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ComStar ROM[edit]

Evening, Neuling. Please consider merging Rom comstar‎‎ with the pre-existing ROM. Its been decided that there shall only be two articles: ROM (which deals with ComStar ROM from its inception, thru the Schism, to the current Jihad era) and Word of Blake ROM, which starts at the Schism. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have no problem with your decicion. I put the two articles from me in to the existing ROM article. I can't decide which information are useful for the community and I have uploaded the logos for all agencies. It is your decicion now. Make it a hole cohensive. Neuling 07:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The WOB ROM article was fine. We just didn't need two different articles about ComStar's ROM. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Good morning Neuling! I took the liberty of updating the DMI and FIC pages to move the insignias into a gallery. I did that because the images were breaking the layout of the article and making it harder to read. By putting the images into a gallery, the flow of the article remains intact and people will still be able to see what branch uses which insignia.

In case you want to start using galleries, you can find the info on the Policy:Images page, but here's a quick how to:

1. Create a header that reads Agency name insignias.

2. Paste this code underneath your new header

Image:filename.jpg|Descriptive caption of image.
Image:filename.png|Descriptive caption of image.
Image:filename.gif|Descriptive caption of image.

3. Replace filename.jpg with your file name.

4. Press the Save Page button, and you're done!

You can also insert a gallery from the image based toolbar. Press the fourth button from the right side to have the editor insert a gallery tag for you.

Thanks, and keep up the good work with importing images!--Mbear 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Princfield Military Academy[edit]

Hello, Neuling. Your (slightly misspelled) article is duplicating information. Is possible to move your content to REDIRECT that has correct spelling. Right now its just re-direct to FWL list of schools with Princefield Military Academy listed.— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Wrangler (talkcontribs) 06:47, 2 April 2010.

All-capital letter article titles[edit]

Hello Neuling, please do not create articles with all-capitals titles, like AITUTAKI ACADEMY‎ --> correct title Aitutaki Academy, NAIS COLLEGE OF MILITARY SCIENCES (NAMA) --> correct title would be NAIS College of Military Sciences (NAMA).

I do realize that the BattleTech font often appears to be all capitals, but that is not the style we use here on BTW. There are only a few cases where the correct article title spelling would call for all-capitals, usually in abbreviations/acronmys such as NAIS, AFFS or MIIO. Frabby 09:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Neuling, Can you changing the name from AITUTAKI ACADEMY‎; to Aitutaki Academy. Nothing on Sarna, has itself spelled in CAPs. Thanks! -- Wrangler 11:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(I moved this into my All-capital letter message because it covers the same general issue.) Frabby 09:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Humor Award (a.k.a. "We're not picking on you")[edit]

Neuling, I know you've been getting a lot of comments recently about changes to your articles and requests to modify them. As one of those people, I'm giving you a Good Humor Award for listening to us make these comments and not throwing a temper tantrum.

Good Humor Award, 1st ribbon

We're not picking on you or saying your work is poor when we make these suggestions. Speaking only for myself (but I think the others would agree) your articles are adding a great deal to BTW, and I'm trying to hold you up to a higher standard so your articles become even better.

Keep up the good work, and remember: Keep smiling.--Mbear 14:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor?[edit]

Neuling, can you please start putting references in your articles? You have a lot of good information, but I can't find it in my source materials because I don't know where to look. Thanks!--Mbear 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem can you make me an overview please, were I have forget the source of my information to put on. Tnx Neuling 15:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Most of it appears to be in the AFFS unit pages. I've split each command into other pages, so you'll have to follow a few links to get to the pages. One example is the Avalon Hussars page.
"At its zenith, the Avalon Hussars defended the entire Combine border with 26 BattleMech regiments and 32 conventional regiments."
Where did you find this fact? That's interesting, and I want to know more. Stuff like that appears in a lot of the AFFS military units you've created.
Thanks!--Mbear 15:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Work![edit]

Neuling, I just logged in with the intent of continuing to replace the tables on the FWLM page with a heading and list when I discovered that you'd beaten me to it! Way to go! These look good and make the page flow a lot better.

Excellent, Excellent, Excellent work! Keep it up!--Mbear 12:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Odysseus[edit]

Guude mal wieder ne gute arbeit von dir, ABER mal wieder keine references, oder bibliography, denk mal bitte dran ansonsten good job.--Doneve 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Belatedly - I concur! Sorry I missed this when it first came up. ClanWolverine101 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thumpers Reference.[edit]

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. (Automatisch von Google übersetzt, so dass, wenn es nicht sinnvoll, eine Entschuldigung.)--Mbear 16:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Ice Storm[edit]

Hi Neuling, I like some of the improvements to the article. However, i think that listing Ice Hellion's Clutters with the Galaxy in beginning of the article is un-necessary since there are already wiki-links through Galaxy wiki-links, it just makes the page more clustered. I'm uncertain listing all the naval assets on the top is good idea either. I listed them as they appeared in the campaign, that should enough without being too cluttering. -- Wrangler 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Neuling, I love how you colored map for Operation: Ice Storm. Do you think you can make a second picture? Namily one that high lights (lightly, like faded yellow) the area where the fighting was happening? The map you colored has borders for where Ice Hellions were fighting with Falcons and Horses. -- Wrangler 00:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I can make another 2 pictures, 1 with border of 3067 and 1 with the invasion corridors. Sometimes the planets were conquered and reconquered several times but this is difficult to integrad it in my work... Neuling 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
We only need the Ice Hellion's Invasion corridor version, from Jihad Secrets. I thought if you can take your map you already made, just highlight the invasion area of Ice Hellion's fighting in yellow or light color, it would help reader looking at article get idea where the invasion happened. If its too much, don't worry about it. -- Wrangler 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice Job! Thank you so much for making those maps! I'd like present to you the [[All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon All-Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon. I would like give you one that better. Its what all i can do thank you for enhancing the article! -- Wrangler 19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tried to answer your question.[edit]

Neuling, I tried to answer your question.--Mbear 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

CCAF Actions during Operation Guerrero[edit]

As promised, I will now post what little I found on CCAF actions during the Guerrero. This will take a few days. Aldous 02:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

  • During the period of Operation Guerrero, the CapCon secured 19 worlds. FM:CC, p.13
  • Judging from the 3058 Map, the CCAF advance started along the point of the Liao/Marik border and moved outwards following the CC/FC border with attempts made to link planet Liao to the rest of the CapCon.
  • The 1st Wave hit 9 worlds. Shattered Sphere, p.68
  • Planets believed hit during 1st Wave:
Old Kentucky
Second Try


As a courtesy for other editors, it is a BattleTechWiki guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.

--Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture upload[edit]

Hi Neuling, when uploading (or re-uploading) picture files please remember to provide source data, especially stating the Artist, Source and Licensing. All files need to provide these. Frabby 11:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Read and aknowledge Neuling 11:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking over the images on BTW and noticed that many of your picture uploads have misspelled names (Romani-liao, Takeshi Kurita, etc.) - please be more careful here. Not only does it look unprofessional, it also makes the files hard to find for people who are looking for pictures of a given character.
The other thing is that many pics you uploaded are not actually used in any article. I suggest uploading a picture only if you need/want it for an article, because otherwise people may believe the picture doesn't exist yet on BTW and will upload yet another version of the same pic. Frabby 09:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Me again. I've just noticed your picture galleries and I like what you're doing here, so congrats on that. These galleries do adress the problem I spoke of above - now users can browse them to find pictures for their own articles. Very good. As a suggestion, it would be very useful if you added subtext or some descriptive text to the pictures; that would make the galleries easier to work with. Frabby 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hy Guys, i jump in. I agree with Frabby, the Uploads from Neuling gives the wiki better quality images, but please add a descriptive text to your images, roll on, roll on, goood work.--Doneve 11:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Double Creations[edit]

Hy warum erstellst du The Furies noch mal, die haste doch schon erstellt???Doneve 13:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Da habe ich nicht auf gepaßt. Lass mich bitte die bilder hochladen und in die jewiligen artikel einbinden. Oder was meinst du dazu. Die historie zu jeder einheit kommt im verlauf der woche dazu. Ich bin meinem endziel schon nen großen schritt weiter. Was hälst du davon die Dismal Disnhertef in einem artikel zu lassen oder auf zuteilen? Neuling 13:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Ich würde die Dismal... in einen artikel zu packen, ich besser nur deine kleinen fehler bei den Mercenary Commands aus, und erweiter die --Composition-- ein bisschen.GrüsseDoneve 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Kein problem danke. Und was hälst du von meinem kleinen beitrag... Neuling 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vintain's Vigilantes[edit]

Hi Neuling, I see you're taking merc units out of the List of minor mercenary units and creating full-blown articles on them. Thanks for that! But there is one unit - Vintain's Vigilantes - which you removed but for which you did not (yet) create an article. I even doubt there is enough information on that particular unit to warrant their own article. I suppose you mixed them up with Vinson's Vigilantes? If that is the case please say so, so that the entry for Vintain's Vigilantes can be restored to the minor mercs list. Frabby 18:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiny spelling error.[edit]

Neuling, I just looked at your Clan Territory Wars page. Looks incredible! So much information. And thanks for using tables to only present table data. I know you're not really comfortable doing that, but you're doing good work by listing the information as a list, and using the tables to present stuff that should be in tables. (I'm not really saying this well. What I'm trying to say is you're using the tables and lists appropriately, and if I could get the people in my office to do the same thing I'd be happy!)

One thing though: You're using "loose" instead of "lose". The first means not tight or not restrained, and the second means not victorious. (Don't feel badly though, there are a lot of English speakers who mess this up as well.)

Some examples that may help: Loose as in "to unleash":

  • "Once Wolf's Dragoons turned loose their firepower, the Ryuken were bound to lose the conflict on Misery."
  • "The Smoke Jaguars' loosed the firepower of the Sabre Cat on Turtle Bay. This was the first step to their annihilation."

Loose as in "to not restrain":

  • "The FRR loosened the restrictions placed on mercenaries in 3050, after the Clan invasion."

Like I said, it's a minor thing, but it's a pet peeve of mine. And if you're going to learn English by using the wiki, you may as well learn the correct words, right?

Have a good one!--Mbear 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Tnx for your advice. I need help to recheck my data when possible. My next step is to put the information from the field manual update in the correct sub articles. I'm a native german speacker, my english is not always good , but i do my best. Mbear, what are you thinking about my work for the merc area? Neuling 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Objective Readout 3067[edit]

Hy du kannst Mat Capllans Objective Raid benutzen, nur musst du die dazugehörigen references aus den offizellen BattleTech Büchern raussuchen, ansonsten werden die beiträge mit sub-stubb getakt und nach einiger zeit gelöscht.--Doneve 20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hab noch was vergessen, i hab deine links auf Mbears seite gelöscht, keine Shared file links, ansonsten sperren die dich,. hier ist der link für den kompletten Objective Raids 3067,61707.0.htmlDoneve 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Objectiv raids 3067[edit]

(Copied from Mbear's talk page) Hy Mbear, I find a pdf created from fans. This book contains all available information about parts and products for the entire is military. What are you thinking. Can i use this information for some projects in the future or not.
The link for this pdf is:,7014.msg159695.html#msg159695
and for the sub articles:
Neuling 20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hy Mbear i removed the added links from Neuling, there not relevant.Doneve 20:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Neuling the short answer is "No." Please see the Objective Raids: 3067 page. It describes the reason for not using the file.--Mbear 13:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Tnx for the awnser Mbear. Neuling 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Guude moie, kleiner tip in Masters and Minions: The StarCorps Dossiers sind die meisten images in farbe die du hochgeladen hast, nicht alle aber ein teil davon.Grüsse--Doneve 08:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

KungsArmé Edits[edit]

The military articles are intended as an overview, not date specific postings. Such specific detail as postings based on date are better placed on each unit page not the brigade or military pages.Cyc 12:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Neuling, you had a couple images that appeared on pages that were flagged as sub-stubs. So we don't lose them, I've put them here on your page.

Like I said, most of these pages were sub stubs, meaning they had almost no content. If you want to add them back into the wiki with more content, please do.

Thanks!--Mbear 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Added the Steel Viper Jade Falcon War image to this page, deleted sub-stub.--Mbear 18:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Added Federated Industries insignia so I can delete Sub-stub page.--Mbear 18:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Order of the Faithful[edit]

Hello Neuling, i saw your pirate article Order of the Faithful. Why don't you use existing template for military commands to put your article? There is already Pirates Commands category as well. -- Wrangler 18:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Vegan Rangers Regiments[edit]

I see you've created articles named "Alpha Regiment" etc., referring to individual regiments of the 12th Vegan Rangers merc division. Cyc already pointed out that they need to be renamed (everybody and his dog has an Alpha Regiment, so that name is hardly distinctive) but I'd go one step further and suggest merging them into a single article to cover the entire merc unit. There is no reason to break it down into its regiments (or battalions, companies, or lances, for that matter). Frabby 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've created Disambiguation pages for Alpha, Beta, and Gamma regiments that point to the relevant commands.
We've been going around and around about the Brigade level vs. Regimental level for a while now, and FWIW, I think Neuling's on the right path. Each regiment in the larger units has its own history, organization, and specializations. IMHO, these multi-unit formations should be treated like the multi-unit formations from the House militaries: You wouldn't put all the Davion Guards or Sword of Light regiments on one page, so these units shouldn't be there either.
(But the more information you can add to each of the regimental level pages, the better!)--Mbear 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hughe Project[edit]

Hy Neuling take a look on this BattleTechWiki:Project Military Commands, i think this gives the answer.--Doneve 18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be the place to have this discussion. There is already a standard format for military command articles, which I see you have used in 1st Aragon Borderers. Is your suggestion to use the official BattleTech eras as sub-headings, or is there something more that I am missing? --Scaletail 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Please don't edit other user's pages. If you wish to open a discussion with an editor or just drop a note, please use the talk page. Thank you. --Scaletail 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you wish me to review, the link you posted is not a live page.Deeppockets 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The link you provided (1st Aragon Borders) is blank. What exactly do you want me to see?--Mbear 00:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Military Commands Project[edit]

Neuling - I am interested in helping you make the unit pages uniform, but first I'd like to discuss details of the format you're looking at. From what I can tell above, other people share my view. Perhaps if you posted this to the Military Commands talk page as Scaletail suggested, we can come to an understanding? ClanWolverine101 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Hy, bitte adde deine references zu Fourth Succession War, und deinen anderen posts, damit man nachverfolgen kann was für eine source du benutzt und es für andere klar ersichtlich wird.--Doneve 10:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DCMS Unit Formatting[edit]

Neuling - With all respect, the Ronin War came before the War of 3039. Just an fyi? ClanWolverine101 22:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tnx for the advice, I will changed it. Neuling 04:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be a bother, but its also an issue on the Ghost regiments you're editing. ClanWolverine101 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DCMS Unit History Stubs[edit]

Hello Neuling, i noticed in the 10th Ghost you added a stub for Fourth Succession War and other conflicts in 31st Century. I wanted ask you if your doing this for all units? I don't think its a good idea. There was reason why i had put history section in place then empty wars that unit may or may not fought in if had existed at the time. If you looked up the Ghost, you'd noticed 10th Ghost didn't exist in the Fourth Succession War. I don't think its good idea putting conflict entries into a unit's history. -- Wrangler 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I will rework all units were I make a mistake. I know the Ghost regiments are formed after the 4th succession wars. I wil change this immedatly. It is easier for me in the next step to integrated the information for this time period when the sub section exists. Neuling 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Succession War[edit]

Neuling - Hope I don't seem petty, but your section headers for the Fourth war use Caps. That's not really standard? Just a thought. ClanWolverine101 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing Imagine[edit]

Hi Neuling, i was updating your maps of the Federated Suns. I appears that FedSuns 3025 is not working. Is possible to fix it? -- Wrangler 14:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't it be AFFC? ClanWolverine101 14:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unit Name Conventions[edit]

Hello, as per BattleTechWiki:Project Military Commands, due to large volume of similarly named Clan units, Clan unit articles need the Clan name in brackets on the end. The two articles you've created as well as the military overviews and events generally don't follow this and create redlinks for articles that BTW has had for awhile. When creating articles it always pays to search and check redlinks in case something is spelt differently or is rendered differently. Cyc 13:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Count Award[edit]

Neuling, you've been exceptionally active and made nearly two thousand edits, but nobody has awarded you your Edit Count Award. I have therefor remedied that. Edit Count (1,500) ;) --Peregry 07:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your deployment tables[edit]

Neuling - Let me say, first, that I respect amount of work you've put into those faction/year deployment tables. Having said that, I think myself and a number of other editors have certain concerns about the policies and formatting of these tables, and how it impacts the site as a whole. I would ask that you start a policy discussion on the appropriate talk page, so we can find common ground. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 04:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your unit history revamps[edit]

Neuling, you have been really active re-formating alot unit histories. You have be more careful, you steamrolled over someone else edits while you putting those generic sub-sections in. Your not only person editing on Sarna. Take care -- Wrangler 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Neuling, As for better format, i think having "history" as section will have to do. You have to remember, each regiment/battalion/company in Battletech universe has unique histories, they didn't all do same thing or fought same wars. ALSO, there alot missing information on alot of house/merc units because no one wrote anything about it in canon. Mass-editting you been doesn't work, if it did, sarna be done along time ago in my humble opinion. I would recommend look for units you have information on, just work on ONE unit at a time. Just put information you have on it into the article. Example: You doing something for a 1st Army of Word of Blake (I made this up), they only fought in Invasion of Terra, then you just write under the history section a new sub-section called Invasion of Terra. All you add, until you would find more. I work by just add sub-sections when information is FOUND. Do add more when i find more. There are Lyran units for example that never fought Operation Revival (the Clan Invasion) or Operation Bulldog. Don't add more sub-sections to histories of the units, let someone who going work on it do it. -- Wrangler 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Table of organization images[edit]

Neuling, I want to thank you for using the gallery tags to organize your images. It's really a great way to keep things orderly. I do have a request however. When you put a gallery in place on a page, could you please include captions for the images? If you look at the Task_Force_Serpent#Smoke_Jaguar_BattleForce_Defence_Forces images, the lack of any text on them is really confusing. I realize I can sit down and puzzle out the unit name from the file name, but that's a pain if I want to see the units quickly. Thanks!--Mbear 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization Structure[edit]

Hy Mbear, I jump in, then I add the gallery's of Neulings Organzation Structures, but i must say, i talk with Neuling every day in the ICQ, you know we are german natives, and nice to see it comes a notice for Neulings edits, he makes a really good work about the newly added Organization structure, he added it and i fix little thinks (gallery, tags, etc), a hand to hand cooperation, you are the first admin to bring a statement to his last work, ähm sorry for my rough englisch ;), but i think you know what i say..., and again sorry for my grammar ...past and tense failurs in the conversation grml. Greetings --Doneve 04:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember both you and Neuling aren't native speakers of English. (And I respect your efforts to learn such a messed-up language!) And I agree, Neuling has made a lot of very nice improvements to the Wiki. If I implied otherwise in my message to him, I'll apologize for that. Neuling's work strikes me as being a "diamond in the rough" as we say over here: A few cuts and trips to the polishing stone and it's great. That's all I meant about the Organization tree images.
If you're working in the gallery I mentioned on the Task Force Serpent page, please realize that my comment wasn't "This sucks, get rid of it" it was "This is a great start, but could be so much better with just a little more effort." It was like seeing someone run a marathon and then deciding to drop out at mile marker 25 instead of finishing the race.--Mbear 14:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Key Planets Gallery‎[edit]

Hello Neuling. Your pictures for your Key Planets Gallery‎ are way too dark. I don't have reliable paint program, but do you think you can light them up little bit? -- Wrangler 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Andurien Succession[edit]

Neuling, you left this message on my talk page but I don't see that you read it. Just to be sure you see it I've copied it here to your page.--Mbear 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mbear, what is your opinion about my extension of the Andurien Crises. My next project will the Ronin Wars and after that the Anton Marik Revolt. Both Project in two days... :) Neuling 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should change your formatting
  • so it's written in sentences rather than this list format
  • so it doesn't use the "+" sign in the lists, but does use a comma as the separator
  • so it uses the correct referencing system (<ref>''Historical: Brush Wars'', p. 54</ref>)

So instead of this:

MAF Forces
Taskforce Duo (2nd Canopian Light Horse + 2nd Canopian Cuirassiers + 2nd Canopian Fusiliers)
CCAF Forces
Kincade’s Rangers
The numbers count for the invaders but the Rangers had some training cycles with the Death Commandos. The used every possible tactic to soften the Canopian forces up. The Rangers went in the underground.
Brush War p. 54

It would read more like this:

On Repulse the Taskforce Duo (consisting of the 2nd Canopian Light Horse, 2nd Canopian Cuirassiers, and 2nd Canopian Fusiliers) faced the CCAF's Kincaid's Rangers. Though outnumbering the Rangers three to one, the Rangers had trained alongside the Death Commandos and used every possible tactic to soften up the invading Canopian forces. They then went underground to continue their resistance.[1]

There's no point in reinventing something that already exists (referencing system), and the lists you're using here are just one step away from a sentence based layout anyway.--Mbear 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical Event Formatting[edit]

Neuling, please have a look at Operation: Ice Storm, Operation: Sovereign Justice, and Operation: Thunderstrike to see some examples of what I mean by using a sentence based structure. These articles are well-written and well-organized. Don't worry about grammar and spelling, I or another editor can help with that. The sentence based structure makes the articles into something more interesting than a series of lists.--Mbear 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbear, I read the articles. But that is not my way. Facts is more important to me than to write a well written text. In the short time of my membership to this site I have put a huge amount of information to this site. I always respect your work and ask for help when a where on a wrong way. I have changed once my way from tables to a other form of articles but for another change it is not the time. Let me think about it. Neuling 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you want to add just the facts, that's fine. The thing is that the accepted format is to use full sentences. Would you mind if I rewrote your stuff so it used that structure?--Mbear 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And I'm not saying I'm unaware of the work you've done. I am, and yes, there is a lot of it.--Mbear 19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I had think about your offer. We can make a deal, if you rewrite the text and I have the chance to put this fact in a overview or summary in someway in the text. What are you thinking?Neuling 04:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you're the only one using the lists/table approach, which is not how any other article was set up. In addition, the lists and tables are disruptive to the flow of the text. At the same time, the tables/lists do provide a good format for skimming (just the facts).
How about this: We consolidate all the information about the event into a single table placed at the end of the article, like an appendix. In the introductory text (first paragraph) we let the users know that a table with the information can be found at the end of the article.
I picture the table itself looking something like this:

Force Deployment Summary[edit]

Forces Deployed during Operation Name
Wave World Attacker Defender Outcome
Wave 1 New Avalon 45th Shadow Division New Avalon CMM New Avalon CMM lost 10% of forces. 45th Shadow Division driven off world.
New Aragon 4th McCarron's Armored Cavalry New Aragon CMM The New Aragon CMM was destroyed by the 4th MAC.
Kathil Death Commandos Kathil CMM, 1st Kathil Uhlans Death Commandos lost two companies on way in. AFFS defenders destroyed rest on world.
Wave 2 New Avalon 45th Shadow Division New Avalon CMM New Avalon CMM lost 30% of forces. 45th Shadow Division driven off world.
Another world Attacking force name Defending force name
By putting the summary tables in a single appendix at the end of the article, we gain consistency across all articles. Users know they can jump to the end to see the summary, and can go back up to the top to get more information. This is also similar to the table format you originally used, but the tables are not scattered through the article forcing users to hunt for the information.--Mbear 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Neuling, Mbear suggests a compromise. Its not the preferred one I would go with (i.e., we have the established policies agreed upon by the community at large), but it is clear he is trying to find some middle ground.
I also like the approach you suggested: start a project and have a partner to finish it. However, I don't think it needs to be Mbear and I don't think it is appropriate to do it on a public page, but move it over to a public page from one of your sub-pages. I suggest you find a partner who likes to write, but avoids research. You do the research, he does the writing and when its ready to be unveiled through mutual effort, you transfer it to a new article.
That gives you three options: 1) the standard way of complete sentences with proper formatting and references by yourself, 2) Mbear's idea of standardized tables or 3) a partner and you completing an article (similar to #1). Which one do you prefer? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

New Gallery[edit]

SDLF notice[edit]

Hi Neuling, i see you've started a Star League era project. I'd like let you know, that your getting initials of the Star League Defense Force backwards. Its SLDF, not SDLF. I've corrected some of the articles with problem, but you did alot. Take care -- Wrangler 20:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FedCom Civil War[edit]

Neuling - could you please explain your reasoning for what you did to the FedCom Civil War article? It looks like you gutted it, and left only the deployment tables. ClanWolverine101 19:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please accuse me, I saved the article but my browser make a mistake and I didn't realized that this process cut most mof the article and tnx Doneve for your quick help to rebuild the former version of this article. Neuling 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


I have removed the lists of units you added to Clans, Clan Blood Spirit, and Star League Defense Force. This material was copied directly from Combat Operations. According to BattleTechWiki:Copyrights, in order to add written content to BTW, you must own it, which means that you must have written it yourself (unless the text was published under a GFDL or other free license, such as Creative Commons). --Scaletail 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tnx for your advice, I find another way to show this information without Plagiarism.Neuling 06:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing attribution[edit]

Neuling....whoa...slow down. That is a lot of images and none that I reviewed had any source information added. Remember, unattributed images can be deleted without warning. I'd hate to see all your work deleted with just two clicks of a button. Maybe you should go back and add it to the 86 images you've uploaded just today? Also, each image has to be embedded within an article, also per Policy:Images. I do know that (now) over 1000 images are due to be erased this weekend. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading new, better versions of various images! However, a request: Could you please use the opportunity and provide the source of the image while you're at it, plus artist/licensing information? I realize most of these pics didn't have that information before, but we're trying to establish this as a rule for each and every picture upload. Even the older images need to be updated with such information. Frabby 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Images[edit]

Hi Neuling, there appears to be a problem. Some of the images you uploaded, specially in the maps are from non-canon sources. Columbus Cartographic Services was done by someone who became a Battletech freelancer, but his stuff before that wasn't declared canon. This going cause us problems with folks looking for canon info. I'm going need put non-canon labels on those. Sorry -- Wrangler 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW is not an image repository[edit]

was: "CBT Companion images"

There are a few issues regarding your recent upload of images from Classic BattleTech Companion, per Policy:Images. First, Guideline #2 states that "BTW is not an image repository". Images are to illustrate existing articles. BTW is not and should not be a place to store copyrighted imagery.

Second, when you upload images (per Guideline #5), you must include a page number. I did not see page numbers in the description of any of the pictures I viewed.

Finally, the images are not utilized in any articles, which Guideline #2 states. That fact that a copyrighted image is not used in any way could call the "fair use" argument into question and potentially places this website in legal jeopardy.

I thank you for your attention to these matters. --Scaletail 00:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on Category talk:Galleries. In lieu with the Policy and Nic Jansma's statement, we don't do gallery articles here. Only upload images if/when needed for an article (and not merely a picture gallery). Frabby 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Hey, Neuling: just a quick reminder. Don't forget to add wikilinks to Nobility. The bibliography would be a great place to start. Orphan articles (those that do not connect to other articles) are almost worthless and are easy targets for database cleaning. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to wikilink to other relevant articles, such as for Heavy Battle Claw.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation Rat.png[edit]

Hello Neuling, I have a question for you. File:Operation rat.png you posted, what is its source? Since i didn't know where you got it from i had to put a fandom template on it since i could account where you got it from. Revanche ask me remind you that (i didn't realize either) modified-images like Operation Ice Storm, are not suppose be in official canon articles. Can you tell me where you got that operation rat.png? Thanks -- Wrangler 12:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Policy lvl 1:[edit]

Emblem-important.svg Please Follow our Image Policy
Welcome to BattleTechWiki. You may not have been aware of our Images Policy, but your recent contribution of File:Clanhomeworlds.png violated one or more of the four basic image rules intended to protect the site from legal issues in regard to copyrights. Please review the policy, refrain from uploading any non-official images to the site and always document verifiable official sources for allowed imagery. Thank you.

Casual Edit Award[edit]

Hi Neuling, thanks for inserting the references (which I plainly forgot - d'oh) into the Hesperus II Battles. I have given you a Casual Edit Award for that. Keep up the good work! Frabby 08:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Variant formatting[edit]


The accepted standard for variant formatting doesn't include boldfacing the text, as you did on the Lightning (AeroSpace Fighter) page. It's just plain text. This is based on the formatting used on the BattleMech pages.

"In the variants section, list the whole designation again. For example, if the HCT-3F Hatchetman is the primary article, in the variant section, start off each entry from the hyphen, followed by a space, another hyphen and one more space. For example: " * HCT-4M - The variant entry looks like this... " So if you could remain consistent with the other entries, that would be good. Thanks!--Mbear 21:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Question and Information[edit]

Neuling, please see Frabby's comment below.--Mbear 14:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Hi Mbear, I have complete my projects: with the war of 3039, the ronin wars, fedcom civil war, antons revolt and the andurien session/canopus war. Fell free when you want to put this information in a unique article. Operation Revival and Jade Falcon incursion article will be modify also in the near future by me. And now my question: which program did you use to create the fantastic looking rank insignia or know you some other good ways to create the smoke jaguar galaxy insignia...Neuling 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I used PhotoShop to make the images. If you don't have lots of money to pay for it, you might try Paint.NET or GimpShop.--Mbear 12:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be a canonicity jerk here, but please keep in mind that re-creating rank insignia or other imagery by oneself constitutes fan work, i.e. non-canon, and must be marked as such. Technically, only images taken from an official website (namely or photocopies/photographs of existing canonical material can be considered canonical for the purpose of BTW. Frabby 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You're not being a jerk, you're advising us. There's a difference.--Mbear 14:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Marik/Liao Ofensive page moved[edit]


Since you're building tables with the Operation Guerrero information, I've moved the Marik/Liao Ofensive page you created to Operation Guerrero Unit Deployment Tables. I've also added a Seealso link on the main OpG page after the Military Actions header that will take the user directly to your table page. This will leave the text intact, but allow users that like tables to find the information quickly.--Mbear 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New infantry unit pages[edit]


Good work on starting this. Could you do me a small favor though? Just start adding some content to the pages. Even a sentence or two in each section would greatly improve the articles. (And prevent the pages from being marked as deletion candidates or sub stubs!)

Thanks!--Mbear 17:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling on recent image uploads[edit]

Hi Neuling, what's the matter with the curious uppercase/lowercase spelling for the recent uploads? Not sure to what extent BTW is case sensitive, but the... unconventional... spelling might cause problems down the road. Frabby 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub-stub deletions[edit]

Morning, Neuling. You will porbably want to review Category:Sub-stub very soon, as there a lot of articles you've created that will be deleted in 7 days if they are not brought up above sub-stub status. As someone with over 3,000 edits on BTW and almost 12 months, I'd expect you'd be rather familiar with the Notability policy by now, but if you need it to be explained to you in finer detail, please ask Frabby, who is also a native German speaker. Right now, it really appears that these articles have been abandoned, and since they don't yet meet the standards on remaining on BTW, I fear they will be lost according to that policy very soon.
Good luck. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ian McKinnon[edit]

Neuling - With respect - You should probably change the format of the pic to a thumbnail, to make it consistent with other bio-articles. Also : The article probably qualifies for sub-stub status, so you might want to expand it. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 18:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ian McKinnon[edit]

Neuling - With respect - You should probably change the format of the pic to a thumbnail, to make it consistent with other bio-articles. Also : The article probably qualifies for sub-stub status, so you might want to expand it. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 18:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Burgoz[edit]

Could you please do not make a article for this character in the Sword and the Dragon? I am about write up a character bio for her, I haven't had time to finish it. Thank you. Wrangler 19:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Weapon Article Format[edit]

Template Help:CreateInfantryWeaponArticle exists for creating infantry weapon/man portable weapon article... best to use it since the game stats such as Technology Level, Availability Rating, Legality, Cost, etc are a side bar item rather than what should be in the article. Suggest that If you have no text for the Article, hold off on creating it if you only have Side Bar items. --Cameron 22:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC) That Being Said, glad to see someone else getting into the infantry Scale. Also, cannot figure out how to get the side bar to show the stats for Tech, Availability, & Legality Sections --Cameron 22:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Platoon[edit]

Thinking of doing a TOE Format for infantry platoons... while the newer units in the TOE forget about the concept of Line Squads and Support Squads, the ones in BattleTroops more closely followed what you would actually see... I am definately thinking that all of the different infantry images that you have found would be perfect for this... what is the source of them? --Cameron 22:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


  1. Historical: Brush Wars, p. 54

How to do multiple uses of the same Reference[edit]

Neuling, pls take a look at my edit to Brion's Legion, 2nd Regiment to see how you can use the same reference multiple times. It'll save you time from having to type the same reference more than one and it really cleans up the article too.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Hey, what do you think would when we cooperate by the personal equipment, or what doyou think about it. I have to many items the sources and pictures. Neuling 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche
Zusammenarbeiten klingt gut, sollten Infanteriewaffen das gleiche Niveau der Abdeckung haben, dem BattleMech und Träger Waffen (Schlachtfeld-Waffen) tun anbrachten. Wie Sie denken, dass wir BattleArmor Waffen behandeln sollten… Unterschiedlicher Artikel für BA & Infanterie-bewegliche Waffen (einfach und frei) oder der gleiche Artikel mit den unterschiedlichen Abschnitten (erschwert aber frei), der gleiche Artikel mit gemischtem Notfall (einfach aber Verwirrung, BA betrachtend IST, BA-Clan, Inf IST & Inf-Clan.)--Cameron 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Working together sounds good, infantry weapons should have the same level of coverage that BattleMech and Vehicle Mounted Weapons (BattleField Weapons) do. How do you think that we should handle BattleArmor Weapons... Seperate Article For BA & Infantry Portable Weapons (easy and clear), or same Article with Seperate Sections (Complicated but clear), Same Article with blended Stats (simple but confusing, considering BA IS, BA clan, Inf IS & Inf clan.)--Cameron 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche Ja Template:InfoBoxWeapon ist, damit aller BattleTech Spiel-Notfall für Infanterie-Waffen passt, einschließlich Technologie & modernisiert; Verwendbarkeit. Ich plane, zu redigieren Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon damit aller BT Notfall Kopie/Paste vom BattleTech Blatt mit den RPG-spezifischen Feldern ist, die hinzugefügt werden.--Cameron 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, The Template:InfoBoxWeapon is updated so that all of the BattleTech Game Stats for Infantry Weapons will fit, including Technology & Availability. I plan to edit the Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon so that all of the BT Stats will be copy/paste from the BattleTech Sheet with the RPG Specific Fields being Added.--Cameron 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, use the Tech Manual stats and the Template:InfoBoxWeapon template for the main page of each weapon, the RPG stats from A Time of War would use Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon, the A Time of War and Tech Manual Technology Rating, Availability Ratings, and Legality Rating are set up in wikipedia already, please use the letter code--Cameron 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Bitte verwenden Sie den manuellen Notfall der Technologie und Schablone: InfoBoxWeapon Schablone für die Hauptseite jeder Waffe, der RPG-Notfall von eine Zeit des Krieges würde verwenden Schablone: InfoBoxRPGWeapon, eine Zeit des Krieges und Technologie-Handbuch Technologie-Bewertung, Verwendbarkeits-Bewertung s, und Legalität-Bewertung werden im wikipedia bereits gegründet, verwenden bitte den Buchstabecode--Cameron 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Project Infantry Weapons[edit]

Da es nur drei gibt - vier von uns arbeitend an infnatry Waffen, (und Sie und donve sind das aktivste), wird es vorgeschlagen, dass Sie Ihren Namen hinzufügen Project Infantry Weapons#Members--Cameron 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there are only three - four of us working on infnatry weapons, (and you and donve are the most active) it is suggested that you add your name to Project Infantry Weapons#Members--Cameron 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Academy - overview[edit]

Neuling - I respectfully disagree with the structure you used here. Nearly all the major academies are already addressed on the appropriate military page. For example, the Wisdom of the Dragon academy is addressed on the Draconis Combine Mustered Soldiery, and people can just link there. Most academies do not have the amount of published material needed to eventually make their own article, aside from the NAIS and a few others. Care to talk on this? ClanWolverine101 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic time reference[edit]

Hi Neuling, ich schreibe mal auf Deutsch weil ich das Problem sonst nicht gut erklären kann. Du hast in einigen neuen Charakter-Artikeln einen zeitlichen Bezug zur Gegenwart (z.B. "Marcus Baxter is the current leader of MAC"). BTW existiert aber nicht in einer bestimmten Zeit. Man kann nicht sagen ob gerade 3025 oder 3052 oder 3072 oder 3135 ist; es ist halt OOC 2011. Deshalb immer absolute Zeitangaben verwenden (also z.B. "Marcus Baxter was the leader of MAC as of 3052" oder "from 3050 through 3067", und relative Worte wie "current", "incumbent" usw. vermeiden weil sie quasi immer falsch sind. Gruß, Frabby 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Stub Articles[edit]

Neuling - I'd like to talk about some of your character articles. Is it wise to create articles that are below the sub-stub level? Honest, many of these characters don't have enough material published to warrant their own article. There are others who do, but instead of using it, you just threw in one line from a single sourcebook. Please don't be offended, but I intend to apply the sub-stub banners where warranted. We shouldn't make articles for the sake of making articles. We should make them because they improve the quality of the wiki, and provide interesting info to the community. If the articles we're putting up don't do either of those things, why bother? ClanWolverine101 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Operation Bulldog Tables[edit]

Neuling - I love the new tables for Operation Bulldog. These are exactly the kinds of improvements I like to see. Have a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon. ClanWolverine101 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Hy Neuling, great work with your tables, i pick it up like your Quikscell example, and second i have no problems with you, i install on next day skype, then we can talk. I send you a message on your talk page.--Doneve 17:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hy Neuling, i give you this All Purpose Award, 3rd ribbon Award for your great, wikitable improvements on the Manufacturing and Planet articles.--Doneve 12:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


Neuling, please rename the articles so the proper name is the leading word, followed by the item type. Example: Nambu (auto pistol) instead of Auto pistol (nambu).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A Time of War reverses that, Neuling appears to be using the A Time of War nomenclature, that is the authoritative book at the momemt (even though it has some buggs)--Cameron 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that there is no weapon class called nambu, right? Apparently there is. Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
A Time of War uses the Class of Weapon (Proper Name) standard for Infantry Weapons. Weapons have traditionally been using the Class of Weapon standard because, with the possible exception of the LB-X (rumored LuBalin-eXperimental in TR2750) all that we have is the Class in the BattleTech Name of the weapon. I would be the first one to do proper names of Battlemech Weapons, but when you go down to the Manufacturer & Model Level that is more the RPG than BattleTech. With Infantry Weapons, the case is the Opposite, you have a Class leader Generic weapon that representative of a broad range of weapons that are produced on all or most of the inhabited worlds in the BTU, then you have the Brands of Weapons that each manufacturer that has significance of use & commonality. Tech Manual tracked each of these with a Parenthetical Proper Name. Even in the Case of the Nambu Type 4 and the Nambu Type 14, the Nambu refers to the designer of the original weapon rather than a general class of weapon and would be considered a Proper Name rather than the Class.--Cameron 21:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The Difference is that the Stats Published in BattleTech Books for Vehicular Weapons are for the Class, and, when taken down to the Proper Name Level, the Stats on the BattleTech Level would be the Same, for each of the Proper Names that fall into that class fireing any where from 1 to 100 shells, a weapon that falls into the AutoCannon/20 Class does the same amount of damage and has the same range bands. Infantry Weapons are different, the Classes are loose, and based on is it a Machine Gun, a Rifle, A Sub-Machine Gun, a Machine Pistol, an Auto-Pistol, A Pistol, etc. Each particular Weapon with a proper name has different Stats on the RPG Level which translate to different BattleTech Stats. It appears that the Powers that Be wanted to make the table Similar to the Larger Weapons table, and put the Class Name First to aid sorting.--Cameron 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Community Service Award[edit]

Neuling, good job with the new table designs you've designed & started to incorporate into articles such as Operation Bulldog and Luthien Armor Works. For that, I'd like to award you Sarna's first Community Service ribbon.

Community Service Award, 1st ribbon

These really help to enhance areas that needed tables, but had not yet had standards developed. Great creativity and please keep up your efforts to bring these tables to the industrial, planetary and other similar articles. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your 'Mech Variant wikitables[edit]

Hey, nice idea with the tables for the variants, but I think the fixed width is a rather big problem. Right now, they push the variants beneath the Infobox even at a resolution of 1280x1024. And on my widescreen monitor (1920x1080), the table looks rather squished. How about using 70% instead of 800 to make it fit better?

Alternatively, if it was your intention to squeeze it beneath the Infobox, I'd suggest using class="wikitable center" for a more consistent width. Dirk Bastion 11:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just making suggestions, is all. Have a look at the Sandbox. I think 70% would be better instead of a fixed width, because you have actual text in the table.
And if you use width, it would be better to use a measurement unit, because some browsers really don't deal well without one - so width='800px' instead of width='800' is usually better. Dirk Bastion 11:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at variant #4. Is that what you were going for?? Dirk Bastion 12:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hy Dirk, the #4 Variant looks good, and i think we can use it as format.--Doneve 12:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Variant format[edit]

I started a discussion about using tables in BattleMech article "Variants" sections at BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Variant_format. --Scaletail 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Capellan Confederation Armed Forces[edit]

Neuling - I like the tables on the CCAF page, but might I suggest not centering the text? Left aligned should be sufficient for most of those. ClanWolverine101 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i will chnage this in the evening.Neuling 05:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Owner History Table[edit]

Hy Neuling please take a look on this User talk: Doneve#Owner History CSS and use the new CCS code for the Owner History table. Greetings--Doneve 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Periphery outposts
Outpost Days to
Jump Point:
Star Type
(Recharge Time):
Facility Defending Forces
TRANSFER FACILITY 4 2.5 M411 (205 hours) Surface cargo way station Puma Garrison Trinary
15 BattleMechs
SUDA BAY 0 (Nadir jump point) F21 a (1 73 hours) Fleet base Lynx Pouncer Star
2 Fredasa Class corvette/raiders
1 Yok Class
1 Congress Class frigate
GHENT 8.5 G2111 (1 83 hours) Garrison 11th Provisional Garrison Cluster
30 BattleMechs
15 Elemental Points
10 Fighters
NOUVEAUX PARS 6 G91V (190 hours) Occupied colony 304th Battle Cluster
45 BattleMechs
15 Elemental Points
30 Fighters

A response[edit]

Hello Mbear, i will think about it to include the css formating in my side. And about the tables. I will include tables in articles which are created by me and when I think it looks better. I understand that by larger pages it could increase the bandwitch a little bit. Tables are also a personal taste. The user like it or not. I will always listen to the other users and will think about their arguments. But I reserve the freedom to me to act on creation and will find a solution when problems arise by cooperative works. Sometimes my behavior is unsual, but I have put a lot of information in articles and categories which were orphans before. Neuling 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I want to be clear: I understand your position. I just have a problem with it when you start changing pages to suit your preference without making any effort to build consensus or involve other users, which is what I think you've been doing (although I could be mistaken about that).
A related issue is that I don't know where we would have a discussion about some of these topics. The Chatterweb hasn't been updated recently and I don't know if it covers the topics we're talking about here anyway. Anyway, good luck and happy editing.--Mbear 15:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DCMS Units[edit]

Hy Neuling please stop your Composition History editing, i revamp the Composition history completly on the next days, (surprise, surprise), thanks--Doneve 15:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Biography Project[edit]

Neuling - 90% of the characters on your "to-do" list are so minor that writing a quality article about them is not feasible. Please reconsider giving each of them their own article. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 16:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Table captions[edit]

Hey Neuling. Just wanted to let you know something about your tables (and no, I'm not going to give you a hard time about using them. Smiley.gif ) Currently you're using a standard table cell with a colspan attribute and special formatting, like this:

! colspan="3" style="border-bottom:2px solid black"|Battlemech TO&E

You can actually get the same effect by using this:

|+ Battlemech TO&E

One advantage to this is you don't have to remember to change the colspan value if your table grows. It will also save you a few keystrokes.--Mbear 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. Explorer Corps p.56