User talk:Pserratv/Archive 2019

-- New user message (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2016 (PDT)


Hello. Are there any canon sources that specify the logo for the Arms of Thor unit? The artwork referenced in Maximum Tech is in the section for the Command Console only. Also, the color image technically is fan art, being reconstructed and colorized by a member of the BattleTech forums. --Cache (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2019 (EST)

None other to my knowledge. I did indeed take that from this person In think.--Pserratv (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Sorry to butt in (and late), but fan-created art is official acceptable, if it is a quality improvement upon the available source image. For example, if the source image is only b&w, and someone can re-create it with indicated colors, then it is allowed. However, if no logo has ever been depicted--nor described--then this would not apply.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (EST)
Umm, Rev? That's not how I remember it. Back in 2010 we specifically created the Template:ApocryphalImage for this purpose. And to quote Policy:Images: "Please note that any edit or modification to an image technically constitutes fan work, requiring attribution to the last editor (usually in addition to the original artist) and eliminating the image's canon status." Frabby (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2019 (EST)
I mis-stated when I used the term "official", so I've changed it to "acceptable", though I suspect that does not pass your muster. And I'm glad you quoted that specific line from the policy ("Please note that any edit or modification to an image technically constitutes fan work, requiring attribution to the last editor (usually in addition to the original artist) and eliminating the image's canon status.").
Let's move this to the Policy Talk:Images, as I have something rather germane to this issue. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:53, 6 February 2019 (EST)

HexPack rollbacks[edit]

Hi Pere, I rolled back your edits to the Hex Pack pages because they were... wrong. The Classic BT Introduction Box Set you linked is a 2007 product that has nothing to do with the 25 Anniversary edition or the subsequent non-anniversary edition of the boxed set that I meant (with, I'm told, much better quality miniatures) and for which we curiously seem to be missing an article. That's something I need to look into. Frabby (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2019 (EST)

I thought they were all the same.--Pserratv (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2019 (EST)
There are two box sets that came out eighteen months or so apart; one has the product number 3500A (I have 2 copies) and one has the product number 3500B (I have 1 copy). The edition with the number 3500A has the Hammerhands/Battleaxe on the cover (I can never remember which is which, but it's the early FedSuns lookalike for the Warhammer) while the one with the product number 3500B has an Atlas on the cover. To make life interesting, from memory they're both entitled "BattleTech Introductory Box Set", although I need to check that when I get home, but the one with the serial number 3500A has a tagline on the bottom right hand corner of the box front describing it as "The 25th Anniversary of the Game of Armoured Combat". Most of the contents of the two boxes are the same, but there are two exceptions. Firstly, each box contains two premium, high-quality minis that come in multiple parts; one set had (I think) a Loki and a Thor in it, or a Thor and a Summoner, but basically 2 Clan OmniMechs; the other had a Mad Cat and... I think an Atlas? I'm not sure what I did with my premium minis, but I don't think they're still in the boxes. Each also contained some single-piece sculpted minis, and those in the later 3500B box set are of noticeably higher quality. My time's all over the place at the moment, but if someone's going to clarify and expand the box set articles and wants pictures or more precise content details, let me know and I'll see what I can do. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2019 (EST)


Cheers for fixing the image on the Trent article and pre-empting that I was going to ask you about it today.

Have an award All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon

I have also updated your awards board.--Dmon (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2019 (EST)

Ja, ja, ja!! Thanks :)--Pserratv (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2019 (EST)
Actually.. I have nominated you for the Founder's Outstanding Member of the Year Award in the BattleTechWiki:2018 Founder's Awards.--Dmon (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2019 (EST)
Thanks again :)--Pserratv (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2019 (EST)


You had me worried for a second making articles with names like Star Stuff :-p--Dmon (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2019 (EST)

It is a real ship :)... it is true its name is... different--Pserratv (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Officer tables and fluff[edit]

Good work on the officer tables, much quicker than I ever go! But I just want to say that one of the reasons I am slower is I take advantage of the change to Policy:Notability. Don't be afraid of stub character articles rather than using the notes section, part of the reason I supported the change is so that we do not lose those bits of fluff ;-)--Dmon (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2019 (EST)

Good point. I'll remember that for next ones. Skipping them is though what makes this editing quick. I prefer to work in phases. First tables, then officers, and so on :). In the end it is a way of working.--Pserratv (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (EST)
I thought that might be the case so just a friendly nudge to make sure. Some of the stuff like the CO of Devil's Brigade is certainly worthy of an article even without the policg change.--Dmon (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2019 (EST)
Are you going make this a template? I don't think i could have made these wonderful officer tables by hand like you can! -- Wrangler (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2019 (EST)
Hey, I'm wondering why you're using tables for formatting this at all. The reason I ask is that they look great on my laptop, but when I visit them with my phone and tablet table-based layout tricks like this tend to break and look terrible. Not trying to badmouth your work; I'm honestly curious what advantage you see to using the tables. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (EST)
Hi Mbear, the first thing... I did not check on mobile or tablet based systems. I liked how Dmon ordered them and decided to help him formatting the officers list. It makes though easier to look at them.--Pserratv (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2019 (EST)
Hi Wrangler, the tables... this is copy past ability :) Once you have the table once, it is easy to copy past it at amend it for every command.--Pserratv (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2019 (EST)
Indeed wrangler, I made the first table by hand but afterwards I have just copy/pasted. Mbear, I created them to try and solve the mess of what I call "wikisms" where consecutive authors and sources have resulted in something that is correct but makes no sense in terms of reader flow. I edited a bunch that said "Between 3025 and 3050 Colonel xxxx commanded the unit, he was still in command in 3067, and also 3085" the table is purposefully short (3 sections) in an effort to control the breakage... as such they look ok on my Samsung Note 8, but that is quite a big phone so maybe further feedback is required.--Dmon (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2019 (EST)
OK. Those are all logical reasons. I think we can do better though. By setting a couple CSS classes on the table it should be possible to make a table that presents information without breaking and forcing me to scroll horizontally. (I'm thinking of the vast tables on the Awards page, which make me cringe every time I visit the page.) And it may be possible to create a template that can be used to create the table. And add the caption "Commanding officer of Unit Name" without requiring a four-column colspan. I'd also like to remove the hardcoded 'width=200px' because that seems to be what's causing most of my problems. Let me do some more research and I'll try to get an example up sometime later this week.--Mbear(talk) 07:01, 6 March 2019 (EST)
Then I'll stop changing tables and wait untill a new version is made "official" to continue on this.--Pserratv (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2019 (EST)
I am more than happy to have the code improved Mbear :-)--Dmon (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Sub-unit Categories[edit]

Hi Pere, I'm a bit non-plussed by some categories you created, such as Category:Stormhammers Commands, Category:Bannson's Raiders Commands, etc.. Should the sub-units that you categorize not simply be listed in the main article? After all, it's only ever going to be a handful of units in the first place, the number isn't going to increase, and since those factions weren't proper states, I don't think we need (or should) treat them like the militaries of established major states. Frabby (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2019 (EST)

My reasoning to create those categories is that all military units belong to some command category... except for a few commands which finally ended in a "proper" big unit, I feel they need to be categorized. We already have small categories from "dead" states like the proto-estates of the past. Maybe they should be inside the Republic of the Sphere as factions, but I would then point them to Republic but keep their faction categorization, I feel it gives something. Which is your feeling?--Pserratv (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2019 (EST)
I do not understand: Why would all military units need to be categorized into a command category?
The core of the problem, I think, is the fact that personally, I want to keep the number of categories as low as possible, and that Sarna doesn't (yet) have a proper policy in place about how to organize military units.
In my opinion, since the BT universe militaries are essentially organized as regiments, regiment articles should be at the core and they should be categorized into their respective state military (only). Most regiments don't even have another command that they belong to - there are only few actual brigades, and most of these, like the Davion Brigade of Guards, are not field commands but rather purely administrative bodies.
In any case, since there is a rigid structure you can always put the next higher organisational level (if any) into the article, and by the same token name the individual battalions or companies of a given regiment in the regiment article unless they're so notable that they have their own articles (in which case you provide a link in the regiment/battalion article). With such a rigid structure, I guess I simply don't see a need for categories. Frabby (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2019 (EST)
I have no problem deleting the categories. I've linked them already as parent unit the Stormhammers, Steel Wolves... DO we make this official?--Pserratv (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2019 (EST)
Not sure. I've been thinking about rewriting Policy:Notability for some time, and wanted to include organisational issues like this one. But I'm just one of Sarna's many contributors, and as such would like to build a broader consensus first on wether or not (and how) we should adress this issue. Frabby (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2019 (EST)
Let's raise it there then, and see how we tackle this. Factions are mainly because of the Dark Ages miniature pack... not many more.--Pserratv (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2019 (EST)
A small handful of stuff like the Eridani Guards, Knights Defensor and of course the "Dark Age" units has always been a bit of an issue under our current system. This realy annoys me because the current system works pretty damn well for most other types of command. It is one of the things we have managed to hammer out over time into a really effective system.--Dmon (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2019 (EST)

Image Sources and Template[edit]

Hello, you and I seem to be uploading the most images lately. I was wondering if you could make sure you add the image's source when you do: Policy:Images. I am adding Template:Image_summary to all images that I can, and any help is appreciated. If you add the template and the information is unknown, leave the line blank. The image will show up in the [Images Missing Copyright Information] category and someone else may be able to add the info. If there is no template on the image, it does not appear in the category, and can only be found by chance. Thank you! --Cache (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2019 (EST)

I'll try... most of the images I've added as of late are from collectible cards. Who can I put as reference? Topps?--Pserratv (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2019 (EST)
The simplest would be BattleTech Trading Card Game plus the card set (Limited, Unlimited, Counterstrike, etc.) for a source.--Cache (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (EST)
Point taken. While I'm reviewing the images and other topics I'll complete it.--Pserratv (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2019 (EST)
A good number of CCG images already exist on Sarna (picture only, not the whole card). Please make sure there are no double uploads. Frabby (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2019 (EST)
I'm replacing images most of the times. That created a possible issue with other pages using the same image as the card that I'm trying to amend too.--Pserratv (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2019 (EST)
Thank you for adding the template. It really helps to avoid duplication of effort. I added a little to the cards that you have edited recently, to include the Works by Artist category and to get correct style with italics. If you wish to use those as a template for the future, all you would have to do is change the Mech name, artist name (twice), name of the card set, and (if appropriate) change BattleMech to OmniMech. example: File:Albatross_ALB-3U_CCG_Mercenaries.jpg I usually work out of a text file and copy/paste to the page--fast and easy.--Cache (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
I'll use copy & paste, is my favourite tool for this kind of mass uploads. Thanks for creating a "complete" sample of the template.--Pserratv (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

Aris Memorial Yards[edit]

Hey PS, I am pretty sure the actual name of the shipyards is Aris Memorial Yards so if anything all the redirects should point there unless there is a reason for them to point to Necromo Shipyrds?--Dmon (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

I'll arrange it... the original page was the Necromo Shipyards... and I'm lazy today it seems :)--Pserratv (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
Haha, I am yet to see you do what I would term lazy my friend :-p--Dmon (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
I'm like everybody, but thanks! :)--Pserratv (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

Restored edit[edit]

Hey PS, How come you restored the duplicated information in the William Baranov article? The sentence immediately before that one states that they killed eachother.. The only information it adds is that a warehouse exploded for unknown reasons... And anything with the "unknown reasons" is pretty much useless information.--Dmon (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2019 (EDT)

I corrected the spelling, just that. Feel free to delete. Fredericmora never says were the information cames from, making his edits hard to sort out.--Pserratv (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2019 (EDT)
Ah ok you must of had an edit window open at the same time as me. No worries, sorry for having a grumble. The Fredericomora thing frustrates me.--Dmon (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2019 (EDT)
Most probably. I took a step on my review of the Kurita line to play again with the card game and saw his edits... I tried to contact him in the spanish forum, no luck.--Pserratv (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (EDT)
The CCG is one of the few BT things I know absolutely nothing about, it seems you are the first person to touch half those articles in about 10 years!--Dmon (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2019 (EDT)
Exactly like me... no knowledge at all. I'm following card descriptions and a site where people uploads cards to trade... once that is done I'll try to see how to follow with it.--Pserratv (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2019 (EDT)

Snord's Irregulars DropShips[edit]

Hi Pere, good job about checking the roster in the sourcebook and finding the Diamondstar and Majestic Defiance! I had simply taken the unit's 3055 roster from the Mercenary's Handbook 3055 and assumed the five "captured" Clan vessels there were the same ones taken from the Dark Wing Cluster in 3051. I've updated all seven DropShip articles. Frabby (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2019 (EDT)

I was rereading the book yesterday and found that out :). I saw you were amending the articles and just made a small name change on the cluster.--Pserratv (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2019 (EDT)

Baby arrived earlier[edit]

I've been a bit disconected as of late. Nearly seven weeks ago my first little girl came to this world in her 29th week. Though it has been hard, now, nearing week 36 everything is ok.

I'll keep posting, but maybe at stranger hours (I'm taking the 1am shift to feed her).--Pserratv (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

Congratulations on the little one Pserratv, and commiserations on your sleepless nights!--Dmon (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Today has been one of those nights... I love my girl, but my sleep cycle doesn't ;) --Pserratv (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
Congratz by the way, good luck with the sleep! Wrangler (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2019 (EDT)
Man, I thought I had congratulated you but apparently not. Belated Best Wishes to you and your family. Are the nights better now? :) (Our son started to sleep through the night at age 4 months. Our baby girl is now 14 months and nights are still short and interrupted, which is why I'm also less active around here these days...) Frabby (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

Battletech CCG[edit]

Hi you left a message regarding the Collector Card Game for Battletech. The Art is uploaded here. Category:CCG_CommandersEdition and Category:CCG. Not sure if that what your looking for. Wrangler (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2019 (EDT)

I'm trying to find the card screenshots, full card screenshot, no just the image itself.--Pserratv (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

Reference Errors[edit]

Pserratv, you recently added to the Black Widow Company and 3rd Davion Guards articles. There are several reference errors in the additions and I am unable to determine what the correct references should be for them. Can you please make the corrections? Thank you. --Cache (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

The Black Widow book say 3rd Guards, and the only 3rd Guards unit in House Davion is the 3rd Davion Guards. Nevertheless I've asked in the forum.--Pserratv (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
I'm not talking about the validity of the information you added. If you look at the references section at the bottom of both articles (Black_Widow_Company#References and 3rd_Davion_Guards#Reference), there are three different errors, shown in bold red, that popped up with your changes.
"no text was provided for refs named TBW"
"no text was provided for refs named BW"
"no text was provided for refs named WD"
You did not correctly enter the references, and I do not know what they are in order to correct them.--Cache (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Amended. Once I unerstood I remembered where the original links came from. And now the reference issue is solved.--Pserratv (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Higher quality pic[edit]

Hey PS, Hope you don't mind but I uploaded a higher quality version of the File:JustinAllard portrait.png image straight from the game files.--Dmon (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Not at all. How did you get it? I used F12 inside the game, is there any other way?--Pserratv (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Inside the steam files there are character portraits. C:\Steam\steamapps\common\BATTLETECH\BattleTech_Data\StreamingAssets\sprites\Portraits, try that in your windows explorer bar.--Dmon (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

thanks for the tip!, though in windows 10 the starting place is a bit different, the rest is the same--Pserratv (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2019 (EDT)


Hey Ps, Just looking at the Chong Vong article and want to ask, where did you get the spelling "Chong"? Vong's Grenadiers article uses the spelling " Choung", not near my books atm but it might be worth double checking.--Dmon (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

I created it using the link to the Mech Commander 2: MechCommander 2/Characters, no checks.--Pserratv (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
Might in fact be my mistake! Cheers man.--Dmon (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
I'll try to find some walkthrough on the game and see...--Pserratv (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
just found one on Youtube and the name is spoken by characters but does not appear to be written in mission briefings etc. I think it may of originated in the Mech Commander 2/Search and Destroy-Bandit Convoy article. Corrected now though.--Dmon (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2019 (EDT)
It was, I did the article starting from there. Thanks.--Pserratv (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

Splitting units from themselves?[edit]

Hey Ps,

Why did you split the SLDF units from themselves? I can understand the ambiguity of the Clan unit (but I do disagree with the split) but the Eridani Light Horse you are actively going against the units own fluff buy splitting the article into SLDF and Merc. The whole point of the ELH are they are the same unit and carry on all the SLDF traditions.--Dmon (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Sorry, what do you mean by split. the differentiation on the officers table between SLDF and Mercenary time? It was maybe arbitrary, but was my idea on how to split them, by who are they serving.--Pserratv (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I just double checked and thought you had taken off category tags from the 21st Striker, turns out I was looking at the 19th, and that unit never had them anyway. "smacks self in head" I need to stop doing overtime in work, It is really effecting my perfirnance.--Dmon (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
I know exactly what you mean :).--Pserratv (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Star League Defense Force Commands question[edit]

Pserratv, I've answered your question on my talk page. (At least I think I have.)--Mbear(talk) 09:08, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

I know i'm late to the response party, here my answer. Sorry, i've not had alot to do on the sarna lately so i haven't been checking in as often. As for your question, it's difficult to say. Category: Military commands were setup handle all formation sizes. It was designed to do it by size of the formation. I'm not sure if the top admins would want additional categories by size. You could try make a such as Category: SLDF Sub-Commands. Aside from the SLDF, there few to none that are listed as massively as SLDF. Only ones i would think of off the top of my head that get's into brigades and divisions (SLDF style) would be House Steiner from listings in Field Reports 2765 series. It wasn't mentioned again in the Succession Wars books them operating as divisions. -- Wrangler (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2019 (EDT)
I was thinking on reviewing "The Liberation of Terra" (volumen 1 I think), where it explains how SLDF commands are organized, anb maybe use that to organize the sub-categories. And once done and with all units correctly assigned, I feel that general consensus is to put in root Regiments and Divisions. But first I want to clean-up it as much as possible.--Pserratv (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

Misleading Categories[edit]

Hi Pserratv, perhaps you can help me. I know that the 2nd Bolan Guards were never an Federated Commonwealth unit. Only the Eleventh FedCom RCT was an FedCom unit until the split of the realm in 3062. There are many other units which make a silmilar transition. How can we chose the right category for the corresponding article entry? neuling

The criteria I'm applying is: If the unit existed prior to 3039 it is Lyran or Davion. If it exist between 3039 and 3057 (more or less they year it is broken the realm), it is Lyran or Davion + F-C, and if the unit is past 3057 it is Lyran or Davion. Now, units with a lot of history like the Davion Brigada of Guards regiments will be both Davion + F-C as they served under both "realms" in different years. Now, if a unit changes names because something, we have redirects from older names to new names. In this cases I make the analisis for both the final name and all the redirects. It can be that one redirect is Lyran, another is Lyran and F-C, there is one that is F-C and the last one is only Lyran. I'm going case by case.

Just made a good example: Winfield's Brigade 1st Winfield Guard --> Lyran 2nd Winfield Guard --> Lyran Winfield's Brigade --> Lyran + F-C Winfield's Regiment --> Mercenary

--Pserratv (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

I find an example for my question. 4th Alliance Guards and also 12th FedCom RCT are mentioned in the Federated Commonwealth catergory have you an explaination for that circumstances? Neuling
It is an overlook/mistake made by me. The 4th Alliance Guards are a Lyran Command while the 12th FedCom RCT are a pure F-C command. Also note that at this time I have not yer finished the Davion commands.--Pserratv (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
I've completed my review. I expect there can be some mistakes. Anybody can amend them directly.--Pserratv (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
What do you think to add categories only to the redirection links ,when need, and then you have only the corresponding article in your category. I will show you what I mean. look at the Skye March Militia. The brigade exist only during the Federated Commonwealth era and after the split units of the command were integrated in the Skye Province Militia. neuling
In this case Skye March Militia should be F-C while the Skye Province Militia is Lyran. And then, per command as they are F-C during the corresponding years, for me those unit belongs to both cases. That is of course an opinion. It is easier when the redirects are clearly of different affiliation, but I feel we should be able to find a consensus on this.--Pserratv (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
This one is amended, but definitively, the March Militias of the F-C need to be reviewed as there are errors quite for sure.--Pserratv (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
I think I have a good solution for the category issue. We can create sub categories and delete the categories for the main category like Lyran Command and can use Lyran Command - Arcturs Guards. With the creation of the sub category page we add an link to the main category. The SLDF category is a good example how can it be better organized. What is your opinion about my thoughts? ~neuling
I'm not thar sure that is wise. All the Lyran Command has like less than 100 entries in the page + Militia, Training, Navy and Support Categories. This makes them manegable in a single page. So more sub-categories might not be needed and we should really analyze if it is worth of. SLDF on the other hand had more than 800 (now less). Which makes grouping interesting. Though the idea is interesting, I'm not sure it is worth all this effort.--Pserratv (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
How can we seperate the planetary militas from the march militia. My suggestion was to add the corresponding category to the matching articles.Then we had a subcategory Lyran Command - planetary militia and also Lyran Command - march militia. neuling
Oooo, I didn't understand it that way. That sounds interesting. We will have to do it also for Lyran, Davion and the F-C, but seems a valid option.--Pserratv (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

Absolute Machine![edit]

PS, you absolute machine! You have powered past 25,000 edits, almost 4,800 of them in the past month! I confess that I admire your work ethic to the point that I feel like a total slacker around here in comparison!

Have an award for 25k, Edit Count (25,000), and one for the huge impact you have had on the wiki. Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon. (I will add them to yiur board for you too).--Dmon (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Thanks! I'll try to do my best. The "team" is excellent, and that helps. In a way the wiki is a "well oiled" machine.--Pserratv (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Carter's Chevaliers[edit]

Pserratv - Read your article, Carter's Chevaliers - its strong overall, but some of the details don't seem to be supported by the novel, Wolf Pack. I wanted to ask if there was another source you were using? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2019 (EDT)

Hi ClanWolverine101, I built this article basically cross-referencing existing data + a quick review of the novel.--Pserratv (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2019 (EDT)
Okay - i might make some edits later for clarity, but i'll be sure to carefully reference anything i do. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2019 (EDT)
No problem.--Pserratv (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2019 (EDT)

Arc-Royal Defense Cordon[edit]

Hey PS,

Can't help but notice that you have gone utterly category mad lately and you are starting to venture into some areas I am a bit unsure about. The ARDC is one of them, I am not sure if it should have its own categories as such, was it ever declared an independent nation?--Dmon (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2019 (EDT)

Not to my knowledge, but the category if you see is related to a Faction, and Factions do not require states behind them, like "Democracy Now!". So the category groups a sort of semi-independent region/faction that existed within the Lyran Alliance and Lyran Commonwealth behind the wanning days (and not that waning) of the Clan Invasion. After completing the ramp up, I'll try to explain in the core page of Factions the rationale behind the changes.--Pserratv (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2019 (EDT)
I think I suggested on a talk page recently, maybe even to you that I think the time is drawing near where we need to seperate and define the difference between faction and nation because to me the ARDC, Democracy Now! and Black Dragon Society etc are all sub-factions within the larger faction of the nation state if that makes sense.--Dmon (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2019 (EDT)
Maybe this is the line between Factions and Organizations: Factions are Countries/States while organizations are social movements; sample: Lyran Alliance vs Brotherhood of Circinatus. A thing that needs its own thinking. Now I'm basically aligning the treatment of Factions: if they are there keep there unless they are individual planets and if they have their own "sub-categories", create a new one to group them. Once this is aligned, maybe I'll review against Organizations. Now I'm with Periphery and next is Minor Factions... and I don't like minor.--Pserratv (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2019 (EDT)


Way back on 9 January 2018 I gave you an Award for how much I appreciate your work on adding minor characters, I am giving you a second ribbon to that award for exactly the same reason. Random Act of Appreciation Award, 2nd ribbon Thank you Ps for making the character categories look like there is more than just characters from the great houses on the wiki.--Dmon (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2019 (EDT)

Category:Heat-Inducing Weapons[edit]

Pretty sure you have just re-created one of the categories that was purposefully deleted. Did you mean to do that?--Dmon (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

I did in on purpose, trying to remember if there were more weapons that increased heat... but there aren't, it is ammo, so we could delete the category and the link in the flammer entry, no problem.--Pserratv (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
There is also the Heavy Flammer... maybe we can save it. But when we delete categories we should also delete the link from the article, otherwise it is listed as a wanted category :).--Pserratv (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2019 (EDT)
The weapons categories are such a mess that I think we should cut them right back to absolute basics, Ballistic, Energy, Missile and an Equipment one and then start over.--Dmon (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2019 (EDT)
It would not be that bad idea to start them from scratch, and with some "plan". Do as you feel.--Pserratv (talk) 06:56, 25 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.

Thank you.--Cache (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2019 (EDT)

Sorry, some of my late edits creating new characters have deleted a link here and there. From some time I've been more careful and I think the number nearly dropped to zero. I've amended all the ones that made sense and discovered an interesting page to check this kind of issues.--Pserratv (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2019 (EDT)

Tyco toys[edit]

Good work on that product line! But I have to ask, did you photograph them yourself? The image attribution doesn't actually say where the image files come from. Frabby (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

They come from here: WELCOME TO THE TYCO BATTLETECH ARCHIVE!--Pserratv (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
That's a problem. Please don't just take images from the web and upload them to Sarna. Someone, somewhere presumably has a copyright. Ownership of these images is unclear - but that doesn't mean that they're in the public domain. The fan website even notes at the bottom that (copy/paste) "ALL IMAGES PRESENTED ARETHE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS". The Fair Use doctrin may apply; but then again, maybe not. We simply don't know. And we don't want Tyco or anyone else to start legal troubles for Sarna. Frabby (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
So for example it would be OK if I found them in auctions from ebay as they are public selling?--Pserratv (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
By the way, I stopped uploading them but created the possible image, but I've mostly completed the work, so what do I do with the ones I've already uploaded?--Pserratv (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
And by the way (2), the pictures come from the web's owner collection, so he did them himself... not sure if it is enough.--Pserratv (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
I've myself copied product photos from online auctions in the past, because to the best of my knowledge they fall under Fair Use and are not normally protected by copyright. That said, keep in mind that basically *everything* on the internet has someone's rights attached to it. See also our Policy:Copyrights.
That said, if the web owner made those photos himself and gave you permission to copy them to Sarna then we're good. In that case, please mark the image files accordingly with the "used with permission" tag and cite the homepage as the source. Frabby (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
I'll contact him to get specific rights for that and I'll wait for his answer. Depending on it, I'll take action.--Pserratv (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Second Succession War[edit]

Hi Pserratv,
I noticed you're adding details from the Second Succession War sourcebook, which is a good thing, but in the bibliography for the articles, you need to pipe Second Succession War as "Second Succession War (Sourcebook)|Second Succession War", otherwise the bibliography link takes them to the Sarna article on the war, not the sourcebook. (The same is true with the First Succession War sourcebook...) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

I saw your change and applied it to the other warship I had added. Thanks!!--Pserratv (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Jade Falcon DropShips[edit]

Hi Pere, you just added a number of Jade Falcon DropShip articles starting with the Jade Cadge - but unfortunately you forgot references and bibliograpgy entries so the new articles cannot be checked. Frabby (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

Sorted that for you.--Dmon (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Thanks guys! I needed to make sure "Jade Cadge" wasn't a typo. Frabby (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Dont worry, Cadge is a proper falconry term. It is the name for a special frame that the birds sit on so you can move them around.--Dmon (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Didn't known that! :) You beat me in amending that point.--Pserratv (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2019 (EDT)


Yo PS,

Just a heads up that it might be worth holding off on the Engines for a bit. If you look, the system that has been used to organise them runs contrary to pretty much all other equipment on the wiki.--Dmon (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

OK, I'll stop on that. I only did because it is in the wanted pages :).--Pserratv (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
No worries man, you can do it if you want but in reality it needs a massive overhaul of the kind that I would not wish upon you because it is going to involve a couple of hundred redirects from what I can tell :-p.--Dmon (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
It does not worry me. It is just time and sometimes fun. I'll do slowly what I feel might be needed.--Pserratv (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Yo PS, I see that you are going ahead and are taking on the Engines as a project. First point of call then is that I saw you redirecting stuff like the Ford 350 XL to Ford (Fusion Engines). This goes against all other components on the wiki and realistically needs to be brought back inline with everything else not continued. So the redirect should be to a Ford section of a 350 XL Engine article.--Dmon (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
I did them because they are in the missing pages. Now the question is on how we really tackle this. There are several brands that do engines, sensors, weapons... In this case, Ford I understand is Ford Military Limited, if we do this we should reddo the page itself?, I'm not sure on how to tackle this huge change then. Now this pages are most centered on their actual full products and not that much on the components they build for others.
That said, it would be good to have an idea/template to go forward, as it is one of the wiki points we are missing most information.--Pserratv (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Looking at the Ford Military Limited article I do not think we will need to really do anything to it, so it is just a case of flipping the component pages themselves. I am in work at the moment but if you want I will show you what I mean when I get the chance.--Dmon (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes please!--Pserratv (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Hey PS sorry I have taken a few days to get back to you. I wanted to do the work on my PC rather than my tablet. Now I have a very basic template set I can explain what I am thinking.

The existing weapons articles use a system like this: Light AC/2 type, pretty much just game stats and where they are manufactured. New system I have slowly been rolling out adds individual brand models like the Mydron D.

However the current system for engines has the brand Nissan 275 XL redirect to Nissan (Fusion Engines) but 275 XL or 275 Extralight as a type does not even exist. Only Engines and Jump Jets seem to work this way. So I am proposing to switch the system into a unified system that matched the way we handle other components.--Dmon (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

  • Brand (Engine) pages should disapear. It's content should be in the main company page, and then we need to create one article per fusion engine: 200, 200 XL, 200 Light, 200 XXL, and there explain where this specific type is being used, as this is how the weapons are being done. Can I make a suggestion: In XL and XXL we also need to have Inner Sphere brands and "Clan" Brands (mainly because their rules are different. Do you agree with this last comment?--Pserratv (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes the Brand (Engine) should disapear. A lot of work for sadly something most people will not even notice. I am hoping to find the time to develop a new infobox that should be able to incorporate stats for both IS and Clan in a similar way to how we do Weapons, Things are just a little busy on my end right now so not entierly sure when I will get to it.--Dmon (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
So something like this for the 195 engine:
Perfect!--Dmon (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Just one thing and in advance of the template for IS/Clan, maybe we should add a column saying which technology is built to.--Pserratv (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Late to the party (as usual), and only working from my stupid smartphone which is a pita to work with. I saw Pere's deletion tags on brands - and I disagree. I think it is worth keeping them as middle ground articles between the large manufacturer articles and the individual component articles. E.g. Brand (Fusion Engine) should list all individual fusion engines associated with a given brand (as links to their articles); there are usually several. Also include a link to the manufacturer, and any generic info we may have on this particular brand of fusion engines. At the very least, redirect to manufacturer. Frabby (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
This can be done too, no problem to do that. Just one thing. Not all the engines have a company officially building them.--Pserratv (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Not exactly sure what you mean. The BattleTech 2nd Ed. rulebook had a table listing the tonnage of every fusion engine rating up to 400, in steps of 5, and stated a brand name for each one. Some ratings have several brands/manufacturers because a different brand was introduced in a TRO, I think. Also, the original Objective Raids sourcebook names additional brands/manufacturers iirc. Frabby (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Hey PS, I finally have some time off work first week of November so I will be having a crack at developing that infobox. Not sure if I should build a dedicated engines one or a more general component one so your thoughts are welcome.--Dmon (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
That is a complex point. I've seen that weapons have already their own infobox. I think we could have an infobox for other equipment (Engines, Jump Jets, ECMs...), and maybe a second infobox for engine brands.--Pserratv (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Rather than an engine brands one I was thinking we need a company one, we have manufacturing sites but not one for companies, If done right that could be used for brands. Maybe have one of the sections as "Division of:"--Dmon (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
That is a good idea!--Pserratv (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
I will likely develop the company one first as it is more a redesign of the nanufacturing one than a new infobox. Maybe at some point also redesign the manufacturing one to be a "manufacturing site" infobox so we can better keep track of individual factories.--Dmon (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

As a side note when you get the the GM engines, could you create the articles as General Motors instead of GM.--Dmon (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Point taken and confirmed. GM will be one of the last, but I'll create a General Motors page and use it.--Pserratv (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

Hector's Hooligans[edit]

Hi Pserratv,

I originally meant to just fix the reference in Hector's Hooligans (It was citing the Rondel entry in TRO:3150, which seemed odd as there wasn't a Rondel mentioned in there) but I ended up making more changes than I planned, and I thought I should mention why in case you thought I was marking your homework or something. The major points were that while it's strongly implied that the Leopard CV was destroyed, the wording was a bit ambiguous, and I wasn't comfortable with the statement that the Hooligans had kept the two Behemoth DropShips because while they captured them, having been hired to raid the Brigadier Corporation plant, it's likely that those two Behemoths and their cargo went to their employer as loot from the raid - after all, if they didn't, then what did the Hooligans do to achieve their mission, once they'd achieved aerospace superiority? Anyway, I thought I should let you know so that you can point out where you think I went wrong Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

Just went through your changes and they are very good. AS per the Rondel copy, it must be some copy & paste thing. It is from the "White Hammers" entry: RDL-01C RONDEL--Pserratv (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2019 (EDT)