Sarna News: Bad 'Mechs - Hoplite

User talk:Revanche/Archive 2012


Rev - I'd like to nominate Doneve for Image Import Award, 5th ribbon. He has helped me with dozens of images, most of which he uploaded himself. Its really contributed to the work of myself and others. ClanWolverine101 21:03, 25 December 2011 (PST)

Done!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (PST)

Review : Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth[edit]

So I was reflecting on my work on Sarna up until now and asking myself : What would impress them at this point?
So - I redid the Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth.
I chose this one for several reasons : First, sentiment. I started following BTech with the Clan Invasion. Blood of Kerensky. TRO3050. To me, the FedCom was an appealing faction. They were the quintessential "good guys". The ones who might have a shot to stop the Clans if they got their acts together, as they did on Twycross. I NEVER liked the idea of the Lyran Alliance, or of an AFFC reduced back to House Davion. Second, none of the existing articles (AFFS/AFFC) reflected the actual UNITED AFFC. In my mind, that military had its own identity, if only temporarily. I feel, in fact, that identity is easier to pin down. Our articles on, say, the DCMS should reflect literally hundreds of years of history. A unit that was killed of centuries ago should be listed alongside one that was just formed in the latest publications. Since the AFFC had a beginning, middle and end, it was a story that could be told in its entirety.
Third, the greatest compliment Rev (or anyone) paid me for my Alpha Regiment article was that it set a standard for unit articles. I wanted to do the same for an entire military. The format I used is my submission for that new standard. I realize such things require discussion, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. So I did this, to show what such an article COULD look like.
Fourth, I wanted to prove to myself that I could do this. I had a very clear idea of what a comprehensive AFFC article would look like. I feel I've met that, and applied the standards I set for myself.
As usual, thanks go to Doneve for his graphic help. I obviously didn't write all of the material I used, though I rewrote most of it.
So - that's all I have. Give it a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 18:41, 26 December 2011 (PST)

Rev - Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 16:31, 1 January 2012 (PST)
Let me look at this tomorrow at work, CW. It's gonna require some time for me to consider and I see I'm already making stupid mistakes here tonite.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (PST)
Hey Rev - Whenever you have time. I did some things differently for this one. ClanWolverine101 10:52, 20 January 2012 (PST)
Shocked.gif Okay, I'm printing this out (so it appears I'm working). I'll comment on the page's discussion. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:43, 20 January 2012 (PST)


Hello revanche, I'm working at several unit pages and have the goal to update the composition part to 3067. I consulting Field Manual Update for that task but can't remember the meaning of Tech C/SL/O(R) or the place where it is explained. Perhaps you know the exact location of someone you have the corresponding information for me. Tnx Neuling 10:14, 1 January 2012 (PST)

Sorry for not responding sooner. Can you please give me some context? What page in Field Manual Updates?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (PST)

Welcome back![edit]

Welcome back, Rev! You were missed! ClanWolverine101 16:21, 18 January 2012 (PST)

Absolutly, i hope you don't have to much trouble on your work, and calm down, best wishes.--Doneve 16:30, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Thanks, guys: I really haven't 'gone' anywhere in the real world, just am snowed under with work, since I farmed an assistant out for a special project. I'm trying to be 'here' and will do what I can.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:23, 20 January 2012 (PST)

Front Page Vandalism[edit]

Hey Rev, someone vandalized the front page of BTW. The person also linked the post back to your profile. I can not fix this, so I thought I would let you know, so you could remove it. You may also want to change the password on your login just in case someone got a hold of it. I hope all is well with you!--S.gage 21:49, 18 January 2012 (PST)

It's not vandalism, S.gage, but thanks for the concern. I've been a Farker for a long time, but I've never been able to successfully submit a news story there before. Very early in the morning of the 18th, in a parody of the SOPA/PIPA actions taken by other large sites, (which would be heavily distressed by either of those bills) relaxed their submission standards greatly. Since I had no new stories to submit, I submitted BTW's url instead...and for some reason it was accepted on their 'Geek' page. The comments on that page about BTW were hugely supportive of all our efforts here, so I thought to share them with everyone here.
A bit of free advertising for us, in the end. Wink.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:27, 20 January 2012 (PST)
That's a relief Smiley.gif--S.gage 10:31, 20 January 2012 (PST)


Hello Revanche, please take alook at User:Neuling/Example page‎ and give me your impression. That is only an example for possilble structure pages in the future. I could also expande the content with information from the technical readout 3085 about convention infantry. I had also on mind to mention the producer of military hardware only by name for the mechs,armor,figher,dropship and jumpships but perhaps that is to much for such a specific side. Neuling 05:52, 22 January 2012 (PST)

If you're seeking my input, these are my thoughts:
  • Is this a repeat of material already presented? Or is it an expansion? If the second, then links to these articles need to be provided in the original articles.
  • I'm somehwat fine with the general format of the article, but would urge the article to be titled "Organization of the FWLM" rather than just "Free Worlds League Military", as the format provided here appears to focus solely on organization and not history, training, awards, etc.
  • I would not include manufacturers as a section (or major part) of the article, as (again) its about the organization.
I like the simple nature of the format, but please accept this as my uneducated opinion. We have Project Military Commands for decisions about articles that fall under that jurisdiction and any opinions gathered without seeking consensus there would not be indicative of the overall views of the commands team. I myself would defer to that project's consensus over even my opinions here. I hope that helps!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:37, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Old Fred's moving eyepatch[edit]

Hi Revanche,

This is and I am the bloke who made the comment about the flipped image on Anastasius Focht/Fred Steiner.

How does one go about registering? I cannot find a link to that, anyway,

I shot off an email to Randall Bills and got the reply as below.

Cheers, Matthew Gruba

From: Randall Bills <> Date: 24 January 2012 7:04:00 AM AEDT To: Matthew <> Subject: Re: Regards image in Era Report 3062

Sigh...someone the image got flipped. Yes, can change it.

Thanks for the catch!


On Jan 23, 2012, at 2:02 AM, Matthew wrote:

Hi guys,

Just making an enquiry regards an image of Anastatsius Focht in the Era Report 3062. Not sure on which page this occurs however there is a fine portrait of Anastasius, which shows a patch on his left eye. Umm he lost his right eye. Anyway just wanted to know if you guys would be ok with flipping the image to make it more correct. Apparently they required your permission to do so.

Cheers, Matthew Gruba

Sent from my iPad

NOTICE: This e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, contains privileged and/or confidential information. It is intended only for use by the named addressee(s) who have a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement on file. Examination by any other individual(s) is strictly prohibited. All ecipients are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by email or fax and permanently delete this e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, and destroy any printout thereof. InMediaRes Productions, LLC, d.b.a Catalyst Game Labs, Lake Stevens, WA fax:253-835-2129.

  • LOL, okay...good job, Matthew.
First of all, you should be able to see the Log in/Create Account link at the top right of any screen.
Second, I'll work on flipping and noting the change (with your provided canon say-so), or at least providing a note as to why the image is actually a mirror-image. The issue I may run into (and it's a valid one) is that your email was private communication, rather than the typical public indication of the error. However, I don't think anyone would doubt that a) a mistake was made or 2) the email from Bills is genuine.
I'll work it from home, where I have software to assist. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:03, 23 January 2012 (PST)
  • Matthew, don't know if you've registered yet, so hope you find this.
It just occurred to me that flipping the picture will not solve the problem, for then it will appear that we just have a mirror image of him, with other items in the picture now being flipped as well. His uniform, for example, would have the ribbons on the wrong side, where it is well-established in canon that they are on the left side. And now it would be Sarna 'changing' an image that was not corrected in the canon sources.
What I'm going to do is take the material you provided above and put it on the picture's page, so that we at least (properly) acknowledge that not only was it determined by a fan to be incorrect but that TPTB agreed. Now, if they re-issue the PDF of Era Report: 3062 with a corrected picture (or even the flipped one), we'll be golden and can change the pictures here. Again, thanks for catching this.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (PST)

Unit Entries[edit]

Hi Boss,

I wanted to check something out with you before I plunged into a pet project too deeply. I've been working my way through Historical: Reunification War, originally as a way of adding more owner history details and backgrounds to the planets, but then I expanded into adding units. That means I've generated a hefty number of articles for SLDF divisions and brigades that only really existed in the Reunification War-era and from the one sourcebook. Where I'm generating an article that only really has the one source, I've rather gone to town - take a look at the Pitcairn Legion, for example, or the 58th Brigade). Because Historical: Reunification War has records of which units fought on which planets, alongside which units and against which units, and the result of each battle - sometimes with extra details on the battles - I've been including the details in the entry for those Reunification War-era units, in part because that's likely the only detail we're ever going to have on those units.

Where my concern lies is that I'm now at the point where having added in almost all the short-lived units from the Outworlds Alliance and Magistracy of Canopus campaigns (I just spotted an SLDF brigade I missed, plus there are some smallfry and weird units from the MAF) I'm up to units that largely still exist. I made a start with the 1st Marik Militia yesterday, but having added the background in the same level of detail I've been using for the Reunification War era units, I'm feeling like I've rather swamped the article. I don't know if that means that I'm adding too much detail and should scale back, or if there's a lot of detail on units from sourcebooks covering the Succession Wars and later that hasn't been added in yet.

If I keep to the same format I've been using, will I be making the articles too wordy and overblown? I've had a look, and I can't really see a policy that seems applicable. I'd be grateful if you could give me a steer. BrokenMnemonic 00:08, 24 January 2012 (PST)

There is no policy on this, BM. What you will end up receiving is opinions, and of course they'll differ. I'm absolutely fine with really fluffing up an article with as much detail as can be gleaned from one source, in spite of other sources (even those set in later periods) being stingy. I would petition for article sections having a lot of detail getting a child article (ex: "1st Marik Militia in the Reunification War") if that subject unit was noteworthy enough to deserve more than one article...and I don't think the First deserves that honor. If anything, the First was a very active and engaged unit...during the Reunification War, and therefore their article will (unfortunately) appear lopsided when that period is compared to later ones. But we're not here to over- or under-emphasize a subject for the article's sake. We're non-aligned researchers reporting what we've uncovered; nothing more, nothing less. That's my opinion.
And I am impressed with the details you've used to make this article valuable to a reader.
I would ask that you take another spin at the sentences in the "First", though. The example paragraphs I read to understand your problem were in the Tetski section. They come across as awkward, especially with the complex, overrunning length and the continuous use of 'Magistracy'. My personal test is to read my works out-loud, breathing at commas and pausing at periods, to see if it 'sounds' right. Its often how I discover I've used the same word in neighboring sentences.
Hope this helps.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:42, 24 January 2012 (PST)
Thank you for taking a look at the articles - I'm reassured that I'm not drowning readers in extraneous detail. I've tidied up the Tetski section on the 1st Marik Militia - I think I was suffering from a combination of a late night and copy and paste syndrome!
I've worked through all of the units that took part in the Outworlds Alliance campaign, and none of the units that survived into the modern era actually did a lot during that war... possibly because it was only 5 years long, so units like those in the DCMS contingent only tended to fight on maybe two or three worlds over those 5 years. I'm seeing more happening in the Magistracy campaign because it was 11 years long, but the FWLM units have largely taken a back seat in the fluff to the SLDF VII Corps forces, so I think again it's not going to really throw up any units that merit seperate articles on their wartime activities.
With Historical: Reunification War, there are a lot of planetary conquests where details of the attacker and defender are given in the deployment tables, but the planetary campaign itself doesn't receive a write-up or is mentioned only in passing. That's particularly the case with the closing years of the Magistracy Campaign, after Canopus had been taken. I ended up seguewaying sideways into doing the units because it seemed the next logical step after updating the planetary ownership history based on the tables and text, but it does make me wonder if the same thing needs to be done for books like the two NAIS volumes on the 4th Succession War. That's one reason I'm keen to get it right now, rather than having to go back and change a lot later. I am guilty of cutting and pasting a lot though, as a lot of the planetary conquests seem to have been pretty similar in the Reunification War - the defenders are a militia and maybe a regiment or two from the MAF or OAM; the SLDF responded by landing a division on the planet. It has thrown up all sorts of problems with MAF units, though; I've been lucky to get Chris Hartford answering questions about the pre-Star League era MAF regiments and reconciling some of the problems linking old units with new equivalents in the modern era.
Planetary ownership dates are a lot easier to update than reconciling unit histories, it turns out! BrokenMnemonic 01:21, 25 January 2012 (PST)
I know what you mean about being tired: I started to respond to this in the Summary field!
If you've got a PTB like Hartford willing to answer constant questions, that's great!
I had originally envisioned BTW becoming a bible for the canon writers and editors. Now I understand how difficult that will always be, because of the sheer breadth of information out there and contentiously arriving. However, with editors such as yourself making the honest attempt, at the very least some articles will achieve the status of "knowing everything" and many others may help the canon writers to locate what source materials will give them the info they seek. That's gotta mean something!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (PST)
It must be time you got some sleep Wink.gif Don't forget that if you don't get enough sleep, you won't dream of Marissa Tomei. You wouldn't want to upset Ms Tomei, surely?
I really like the idea of the Wiki becoming a bible for writers and editors, but datamining just the Outworlds Alliance chapter of H:RW has shown me just how much of an elephant task something like that is. I knew that trying to be comprehensive takes time - the work I did on updating the Crater Cobras entry here involved working through a dozen books and took about six hours of research and then about four hours to type up. I expected the Outworlds Alliance campaign to be relatively quick by comparison, but it's taken me four months and I'm still not finished. Every world shown on the pre-invasion map needed it's history updated to show it's status at the start of the invasion (or that it existed, for those worlds on the 2822 maps in the handbooks but not on the 2571 maps, as the H:RW maps fall between those). Those worlds actually conquered and then annexed needed dates for both. They all needed the garrisons updated, cities and descriptions added where they were mentioned. All those planetary governers needed minor character articles, as did militia commanders, and the SLDF/DCMS officers involved in attacking them. And the FedSuns officers named during the defence of various planets. Then all the unit articles needed to be created - 18 SLDF brigades, 6 divisions, and the Corps needed to be updated - as did the DCMS regiments. Some DCMS regiments need new articles as they hadn't been mentioned before, and all the OAM units needed articles as they're all new. At least one FedSuns regiment is mentioned too, along with it's CO, and then there's the Pitcairn Legion - more new articles, more updates. Then there are the other characters mentioned, the ambassadors, the unit officers, Alexander Davion's children, the authors of the in-universe books quoted in sidebars. I still haven't finished because I haven't yet worked up the energy to write a few more minor articles, like one on the Outworlds Alliance Army of Occupation, but also some really big articles - ones that I can't face doing just yet. Alexander Davion has a pretty bare article here given that there's about four or six pages on him in Handbook: House Davion alone, dealing with the FedSuns civil war, the reformation of the Marches and the restructuring of the AFFS. Hehiro Kurita might be a quicker article to update, but I still have to write the articles on Elias Pitcairn... and Amos Forlough.
And that's just one chapter from H:RW, plus some detail from the odd pages in the first Periphery sourcebook and the Star League Sourcebook - I've also got to go back and try and reconcile the discrepancies, noting differences between the older sources and the new in the Notes pages of the unit and planet articles, and so on. It's definitely given me a new perspective on just how complicated trying to fact check everything must be for the editors and fact-checkers when they're producing new books.
I think that Sarna is starting to prove it's worth, though - you've only got to look at the ATW forum over on the CGL website or the errata thread for H:RW where I've ended up asking questions and listing corrections that I'm picking up because I'm having to go through with a fine-tooth comb and do things like compare the deployment tables to the text, because there are inconsistencies between the two.
But I still think updating planetary owner histories is easier Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic 03:59, 25 January 2012 (PST)

Fluff writing[edit]

Holla Rev, please can you take a look on the Jalastar Aerospace arcticle, i want to add step by step more fluff writing by myself, but i don't know if my first step match the policy, and i do plagarisem on the article, can you take a view on it and give me a response, thanks.--Doneve 17:12, 25 January 2012 (PST)

This will take me some time, Doneve. If you want me to check for (unintentional) plagiarism, I'll need to get out my source materials (counting 9, from the biblio) and do a thorough review and I'll have to do it at home. Since family comes first each evening, this will wait until the weekend (maybe Saturday).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:48, 26 January 2012 (PST)
No problem, family comes allways first :).--Doneve 10:04, 26 January 2012 (PST)
Okay, done. It took a while for me to do once I sat down, but I think I improved it. Refer to my summary notes for what/why I changed.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 06:15, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Excellent, thanks, do you think we need a policy for Manufacturing Centers, to meet one standart.--Doneve 10:55, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Maybe not a policy (yet), but guidelines, would be my suggestion.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:33, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Ok good compromiss, have you any ideas, how we handle this.--Doneve 12:36, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Updating Composition[edit]

Hello Rev, tnx for your advice I will follow them. I hope my latest work to updating all military forces to the level of 3079 are meeting the overall policies. Further more I cleaned my references from earlier when I discover them and the [actual] reference should be after the common reference format. [Additionally] I will bring all brigade pages to 3079 mention only when a unit was destroyed/disbanded and will include [closer details] in the corresponding article. All [mercenary] forces include also the information of the [employer] for the time. What do you [think] about all [of] that? Neuling 04:46, 29 January 2012 (PST)

I really appreciate your recently-renewed attempts to meet established policies and formatting standards.
As for mercenary force articles providing the unit's employers in chronological format, that sounds great and should be expected. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Formating okay[edit]

Hello Rev, again, I ask you for your opinion. Please take a look at the 19th Galedon Regulars and 21st Galedon Regulars pages. I will know if the [formatting] for the 3067 sub section is understandable and okay for you as [a] reader. Neuling 06:20, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Hey, Neuling. The format is just fine, in my opinion. However, take a look at my changes to the 19th, specifically the citation:
  1. First of all, to help the reader find the specific information (especially on a messy page like the deployment pages in Field Manual: Updates), add a section addition to the citation. Ex: Field Manual: Updates, p.118, "Tabayama Prefecture"
  2. Next, you'll like this one: when you use the exact citation more than once, you can create a shortcut. Just take the initial part (ex: <ref name=FMUp118>) and add a slash ( / ) following the last character (ex: <ref name=FMUp118/>) everywhere following that first use. It also helps clean up the code for other, later, editors.
  3. Lastly, don't forget to add the reference source you used to the Biblio section.
I've made all these changes to the 19th myself. Why don't you try them out on the 21st, ok? Good job with the formatting.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Sorry for my late response. When you take look at the 23rd Arcturan Guards then you see that I have incorporate most of your changes. I will apology later to doneve for my offensive comment. The point was I put a hugh amount of time to bring the composition to 3067. I saw several times that my wok was reformatted only with the comment: looks better. I talked to Doneve and explained my thoughts about the format. I hope you understand me now better.Neuling 09:46, 3 February 2012 (PST)

New format for Manufacturing Center pages[edit]

Hy Rev, take a look on the Sandbox, Neuling created a new format for the Manufacturing Center table, the table looks cleaner and i want to adopt this for all manufacturer pages, what is your opinion to this new format, i support it.--Doneve 11:43, 29 January 2012 (PST)

I will, when I get a chance. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:34, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Actually, having dealt with it some much on the Jalastar article, I have to say I do like Neuling's new table format much more.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:36, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Great, it was a really good improvement from Neuling.--Doneve 12:38, 29 January 2012 (PST)


Hy have this award Random Act of Appreciation Award, 5th ribbon from me, for the Jalastar Aerospace improvement.--Doneve 12:23, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Thank you, Doneve.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:34, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Welcome Messages[edit]

Hi Rev,

I've been adding the welcome message to talk pages for IP addresses for the last week or so, and it just occured to me this morning that I might be stepping on your toes - I realised that I don't generally see anyone doing the same thing other than you, and that it might be a mod/admin only thing. Is it ok for me to carry on adding the messages, or should I wind my neck in? BrokenMnemonic 23:41, 31 January 2012 (PST)

LOL! Feel free, with my blessings. The welcome message is (now) purposefully uncredited, as its primary purpose is to give basic starting information to new arrivals. I've also been meaning to put it under a review, see if its outdated or missing information. Would you mind looking at it from a (relatively) new arrival's perspective? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:55, 1 February 2012 (PST)
The Welcome message looks to be current and relevant to me, although I think there are a few omissions; it doesn't make any mention of the Policy Pages or the existence of the various Project Teams, and I think it would be a good idea if it did. While it might be intimidating to see all of the policies, they are all relevant, and some like the new naming policy are very relevant to new editors. The Project Team pages aren't all that active, but I know when I started I had to do a lot of hunting around to confirm that I was editing unit articles correctly because a lot of things are discussed or agreed on the project page that aren't full-blown policies but which do represent a standard way of doing things for Sarna. Added to which, pointing new editors towards the Project Teams can help them get a start by talking to people actively working on areas they're interested in.BrokenMnemonic 05:08, 1 February 2012 (PST)
Great ideas! Thanks!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:17, 1 February 2012 (PST)

SLDF Task Force Outworlds[edit]

Hi Rev,

I've just written another article about an SDLF Task Force, in this case, SLDF Task Force Outworlds. I'm a little wary of the fact that I feel like I'm breaking new ground here, because while the various Task Forces were military units with COs and a chain of command, and effectively the precursors to the later Star League Army model, there isn't anything here quite like them other than the two articles I've written. Reading through the SLDF TF Outworlds article, I'm a little wary that it's crossing a line between a unit article and an operation or war historical article, particularly with the pictures I've added at the bottom. I'm not sure if that means I should cut the article back to the very basics and then draft a new article on Operation UNION HOLD, which was the campaign against the Alliance, or if the Task Force article is ok as it stands. If you get a chance, could you take a look and let me know what you think? BrokenMnemonic 04:36, 2 February 2012 (PST)

Morning, BM. In a service station getting maintenance on my car; decided to bring the laptop so I could get caught on my Sarna taskers.
On the surface, I thought the article was excellent. But then I started considering your concerns. I, myself, am all for filling up an article with all that's pertinent to that subject, but I agree that this article reads a lot more about the operation than necssarily the task force alone. You could use a lot of it to write an article about the operation to secure the OAS itself and then maybe focus on the raw facts for this article...such as deployments, TO&E, command structure, etc, linking (obviously) to the OA article.
But, again, I don't have a problem with the way it is now. Its only if you're trying to create a philosophy of what goes into a command (even one as temporary as this one) that matches other commands that I see where your concerns lie. In the end, I'd say the judgment was your's and what ever you can glean from the Military Commands project.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:30, 4 February 2012 (PST)
Checking sarna while in a maintenance bay? That's dedication!
I'm glad you think the article's excellent Smiley.gif:) (Can I be cheeky and ask if it merits an award?)
You've summed up a lo tof my concerns about the article. It feels almost as if it's halfway towards being an article about the unit and an article about the war. It has detail in there that isn't anywhere else in the various updates I've done so far about the Outworlds Alliance war, detail that doesn't fit anywhere else - like how the task force was formed, the role VI Corps played, and the like. It's difficult to talk about the deployments though, because every deployment is a -sub-sub unit of the Task Force - or a -sub-sub-sub formation. Ok, those sub formations are divisions, brigades and regiments, but they're still minor units.
I had a look around to see what else was there, because it struck me that if the Task Forces merit a unit article, rather than a campaign article, operation article or something similar, then there were other formations out there that probably deserved the same. The Star League armies have some basic detail, but not a lot yet - I expect that will change dramatically when the two volumes of Historical: Liberation of Terra come out, though. I couldn't find articles written the same way for things like Task Force Serpent, which was the first example I thought of, but it made me wonder if there should be articles written that way.
The Military Commands project seems to be a bit of a bag of snakes at the moment (I've seen lots of arguing about composition formats and the like) so I might keep my head down, write up the other two Task Forces quietly, and hope no-one picks fault with them... BrokenMnemonic 07:25, 7 February 2012 (PST)
The last plan of action seems rational to me. Wink.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:08, 18 February 2012 (PST)

Image request[edit]

Hy Rev, ok i uploaded two new version, but the quality of the pdf cover is really poor, in the articles infobox it look good, but when i click on the image it looks blurred, if you don't like it please revise my edition a delete the images, thanks.--Doneve 08:28, 3 February 2012 (PST)

That is way better than it was before. Thanks, Doneve!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:48, 3 February 2012 (PST)

Composition History[edit]

Hy again can you take a look on this talk BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands#Composition History section layout an give me your opinion, what a format looks better, thanks.--Doneve 08:54, 3 February 2012 (PST)

Done.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:18, 3 February 2012 (PST)
Thanks, Rev. ClanWolverine101 09:19, 3 February 2012 (PST)

tnx for support[edit]

Hy, please take a look at Operation Götterdämmerung and tell me your opinions about it. I think I had incorporate all available facts, Should some of the information are missing please inform me. Tnx again for your support yesterday. I use a spell cheker to improve my writing. I hope that helps.Neuling 06:35, 4 February 2012 (PST)

Neuling, the summary needs a lot of work. For example, it doesn't indicate who is involved, when it happened, why the operation. I understand writing in English isn't your forte, but maybe you could take a spin at it and someone may edit behind you? Right now, the article is mostly just a list. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:42, 4 February 2012 (PST)

Critical question[edit]

Hy Revanche, i want to delete the double uploaded images on sarna, there is a lot of them, i know its a hell of job, but i would do this, give it any way to open this crital field that i can do this, i have a lot of time at the moment, and want to messing somthing out, i hope you give me a response when you find time, greeting.--Doneve 15:08, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Ugh. I wish I could say you could, but I think it's only available to the admins. What I see is a delete tab next to the history tab at the top of each page (want to see me destroy the Main Page?). You don't have that, do you?
The best way an editor can get a duplicate image deleted is to add the {{deletion}} tag to the the image page he wants deleted. I'd recommend you copy & paste something like {{deletion|duplicate image}} into each of them. That way, when one of the admins gets an urge to be highly destructive some day, we'll go into the deletion category and destroy everything that you (a trusted editor) has indicated is a duplicate image. The {{deletion}} tag puts that banner on the image and adds the image to the deletion category. It's not as clean as you'd like, but it does work. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:48, 5 February 2012 (PST)
Ok thanks, i think in the next decade no admin have the time to do this, i know the procedure to adding the deletion template, but it's a lot of for tagging the doubles, and i don't want to do this, but thanks for your quick response, best wishes.--Doneve 15:55, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Ailette typo in picture file[edit]

Hello Revanche, sorry to bother you. Can you do me a favor? I messed up on the spelling of a exskeleton picture for the Ailette. I stupidly named it File:Ailetto.jpg. I tried replace/upload replacement image by the correct spelling but site's software wouldn't let me. Can you rename it to Ailette please? -- Wrangler 19:13, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Long time, no see! Welcome back.
Not a stupid mistake, just a mistake. Thanks for letting me know. Done.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (PST)
Thanks Rev! -- Wrangler 19:13, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Bot on the Attack[edit]

Hi Rev, I'm little rusty on this. What appears to be a Bot, User:WiyecaMakezu, was created and left a political message on its user profile. In the future, where do i report said problems too? -- Wrangler 19:29, 5 February 2012 (PST)

Report it to one of the admins, if it was made more than 24 hours previously. Otherwise, we're rather good at squashing them on our own. Recent Changes is my first stop, each time i get here, and I suspect the same for the other admins too. Thanks, though.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2012 (PST)


Hello Revanche, I had thought a lot about the topic how we could make the mech variant site better readable. I think I find a good solution: User:Neuling/Variant Formatting‎. My arugmentation is the text is better to read and the common user find the specific variant much easier with the use of the quick links. Nothing is bold and the induvidual entries can be handled better. What do you think? Neuling 11:53, 7 February 2012 (PST)

Can you point me to the discussion you're having with Project BattleMechs? I'll weigh in there, so that the discussion can be easily found at a later date. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (PST)
BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Variant_format— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Neuling (talkcontribs) 17:06, 7 February 2012‎.
Sorry Rev, i undo my corrected revisons, but, Neuling talk to me i interupt his additions and talk, iam tired to handle or fix neulings contributions, my way is follow a strict policy on sarna's way, and undo destrutive content from sarna or other thinks, but i follow a strikt way to Neulings contributions, i don't know of he understand what we do her, we talk talk to him, but he follow any way, iam done with this theme, hopefully other users fix his thinks, i concentrate me to my hand in hand work with BM, and the manufacturing center section, i hope you understand me, yes i write poor english, but i don't write fluff text, my strength is to do other thinks her, and i think after 2years i learn a lot from you and the others, and don't must pissed of from Neuling, sorry. --Doneve 17:49, 7 February 2012 (PST)
Take a break. Whether it's a break from BTW or a break from policing Neuling...take a break. This is supposed to be fun; when something is not fun, stop doing it. Wink.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (PST)
Neuling, the topic you linked to was from February 2011 (last year) and doesn't seem to be about your latest variant project.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:23, 18 February 2012 (PST)

Spell Checker[edit]

Hello Revanche, please tell me whether my last article AFFS training & education contains errors. I used an online checker and don't know if it works reliable. When not please tell me an alternative. 20:20, 7 February 2012 (PST)


Thanks for protect the page, i talk to the user and undo 3 times his edits, but at this time i don't became a answer.--Doneve 14:55, 9 February 2012 (PST)

I understand. I assume good faith, but when actions are taken that run counter to community consensus and efforts to engage in conversation are rebuffed, it is sometimes best to set up protective measures.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (PST)
This was the best way what you can do, i have a eye on this and talk to you when we have other critical changes on the pages, thanks.--Doneve 15:12, 9 February 2012 (PST)

Janesek Industries[edit]

Morning Rev, why you undo my revision on the Janesek Industries page, i set it back.--Doneve 04:00, 12 February 2012 (PST)

My apologies, Doneve. Fat fingers. I'm patrolling Recent Changes right now on my phone and I must have accidentally done that. :(. -Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2012 (PST)

User Knightmare[edit]

Seriously i don't se any evorts that this user do on the wiki, any thoughts.--Doneve 15:33, 13 February 2012 (PST)

He was critical in getting the code we needed to stop the spammers. He made my job far, far more pleasant. -Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:15, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Les Dorshied or Les Dorscheid[edit]

Hy Rev i created a category of Les Dorshied and found there is also a category with Category:Works by Les Dorscheid i think (Les Dorshied) is a typo sources like The Black Thorns and other sourcebooks use Les Dorscheid as artist, when i hit the nail please delete the Les Dorshied category, thanks.--Doneve 17:05, 17 February 2012 (PST)

I'm a bit uncertain on which is which, so I'm waiting to hear from Frabby.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:27, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I don't know if this helps, but Les Dorscheid is an illustrator - I've seen his work in a fair number of comics (I particularly like the Aliens and Predator work he's done for Dark Horse). Google only comes up with about two pages of hits for Les Dorshied, most of them not in English - and the top-listed one is sarna. BrokenMnemonic 11:38, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I think I found an evidence about the [[1]] question above. Neuling 11:46, 18 February 2012 (PST)
I think they are both pretty obvious typos for otherwise well-known BT artists/contributors. The FASA era books are full of misspelled contributor names. Though admittedly I don't have any hard evidence. Frabby 12:36, 18 February 2012 (PST)
Got it. I think we should go with one spelling and stick with it, and if/when its officially made clear we're wrong we can change it. I'm happy to go with the spelling provided by the links BM and Neuling provided (Les Dorshied)(Les Dorscheid).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:10, 18 February 2012 (PST)
Hm, i think there go with (Les Dorscheid) and not (Les Dorshied) or i read it falls ;).--Doneve 14:15, 18 February 2012 (PST)
Shoot! That's what I meant...ugh.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:19, 18 February 2012 (PST)
No doubt, but it was a good shoot Smiley.gif, i think we set up a note section.--Doneve 15:52, 18 February 2012 (PST)
Yes, indeedy. A note section is worthy.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:05, 18 February 2012 (PST)

BattleMech Technology essay[edit]

Just a heads up revanche; I did what I'm deeming to be my last major edit of the BMTech essay (mostly for clarity and coherency with a little bit of new content)... I will start filling in wiki links and references as time permits.--Pht 14:31, 22 February 2012 (PST)

Great! I'll take a look.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:33, 23 February 2012 (PST)


Hi boss,

I thought I'd let you know that with Doneve and I slogging through the 2596 map from Historical: Reunification War recently, we're now up over 3,000 registered planets here on Sarna. 3,014 in fact. BrokenMnemonic 13:25, 24 February 2012 (PST)

I have exactly unique 3060 systems at this time, and I still have to go through the 2nd half of FWL and all of LC on the 2765 map. I'm only counting star systems & clusters, and not the specific planets. I hope to be able to release the list to you guys, along with the coordinates by the end of the week. As for the distances array... mmmmmmaybe in one or two more weeks. Oh and the 3060 systems doesn't count the three Nebulae/Nebulas-Volt 01:18, 13 March 2012 (PDT)


Hy Rev, i see you delete the Monsoon entrie on the year page, by not supported by article, the year is added in the infobox.--Doneve 13:18, 27 February 2012 (PST)

Got it, and also another mistake on that page. Apparently I used the wrong year in my search. Thanks for looking over my shoulder. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:31, 27 February 2012 (PST)

McCormack's Fusiliers[edit]

Hello Rev, I read your message to Doneve, perhaps the following information could help you. In Housebook Liao (The Capellan Confederation) p.80 stand that they were founded together with the Marion Highlanders in 2377. In the Mercaneries Supplemental page 55 stand again created in 2377. I think that is clear. Neuling 13:54, 27 February 2012 (PST)

Thanks for jumping in. Can you please share this with Doneve? I agree 2377 sounds correct; where does the 2372 date come from Is it possible they did go on a mission in 3072, but not as the Fusiliers? Let's get these facts (and questions) to Doneve, so we can come to a good conclusion.
Oooh! Better yet! Can you post your facts on the article's talkpage and then point that to Doneve? Thanks!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:58, 27 February 2012 (PST)
Ok, there is really some contradiction House Liao (The Capellan Confederation) p. 80, say the Fusiliers inception is 2377, but in the next paragraphes it's mentioned there capture a Kurita officer on Rio in 2372, i think this is a big mistake by the old FASA writers, and must confirmed by Ask the Writers on the CBT Forum, good catch, i don't found any info also for the introduction year of the Fusiliers.--Doneve 14:00, 27 February 2012 (PST)

Parker Kurita[edit]

Hello Rev, I found at House Kurita (the Draconis Combine). pdf no pcitures at page 33, second column, that the year was correct when Parker Kuria was born as younger brother of Robert Kurita.Neuling 14:08, 27 February 2012 (PST)

Understood. However, it cannot be added to the year pages (per Policy:Years) unless it is supported on the article to which it is linked. The article Parker Kurita does not mention his birth, so the Year page was unsupported. If it gets added to the article, then I have no problem if someone adds it to the Year page.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (PST)


I have finished a nice slow reading of Op Klondike, absorbing everything I could. The Elizabeth Hazen article is now completed, unless something was left out. Check it out and let me know. Also, for the sake of uniformity, let me know what I could do to make my biographies look even better, since Doneve suggested that it would be awesome if I went through all the stubs of Clan Founders and brought them up to date. A suggestion I like. Anyway let me know. Rebs 20:26, 3 March 2012 (PST)

I'll do just that, Rebs. I may be a bit unresponsive over this next week, but I will get back to you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:26, 4 March 2012 (PST)
Not a problem. I know you guys are busy with several colossal projects being balanced at once. Rebs 11:03, 4 March 2012 (PST)

Unfinished Book Project[edit]

Hy Rev i make some little copyedits on Battle of the Kyoto Zen Arcology Project and added the template to the talk page, this is my job as copyeditor Wink.gif, i want more to finished the project hehehe, best wishes.--Doneve 17:37, 5 March 2012 (PST)

Thanks, Doneve. Smiley.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (PST)
Doneve, I reverted the two edits you made to the date:
  1. The proper suffix for 23 is 'rd' rather than 'th'.
  2. The suffix is only used when the word 'the' precedes it. Ex: I met her on the 23rd of the month. The crash happened on 23 August.'
Does that make sense?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:49, 5 March 2012 (PST)
Yep you are right, thanks boss Applause.gif.--Doneve 15:40, 7 March 2012 (PST)

Year page[edit]

Hy Rev i see you add the UBP template on the talk year pages, ok we can do this, but my opionion is we leave a note on the talk page which date or event is for the UBP, not all events, battles etc. follow the UBP, does that make sense.--Doneve 13:19, 9 March 2012 (PST)

I'm kinda kicking around the idea we shouldn't put the template on there at all. I'm not sure why we should. Theoretically, my UBP factchecker (you in this case) should be independently checking that I'm adding all the right information to an article/page and the template doesn't really help in that regards.
The template does help when a new article is written, because you review the article and then take off the 'new' tag when you're done with that. But Year pages are something different compared to regular articles.
What are your thoughts?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:35, 9 March 2012 (PST)
You give me a new point of view, iam with you we put the UBP template to new created articles, there fall under this, i go in next time to check all pages there fall under the project, but iam heavy involved in the project planets project, please give me some time to double check the infos, best wishes.--Doneve 13:48, 9 March 2012 (PST)
No problems, my man. Planets is much more important right now. UBP is a very loooooong-term project, by design.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2012 (PST)


Hy Rev, how i can send you a email to you from sarna, i don't use this function on sarna, thanks for help.--Doneve 17:16, 11 March 2012 (PDT)

On a user's page or talk page, you'll see -in the left sidebar at the bottom- a link that says "E-mail this user". Click on that.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (PDT)

A bit of minor help[edit]

Hey Rev, I want a little help if you don't mind. How do I create a link to a specific section of an article from another article (or as a redirect for what I am planning to do). Cheers --Dmon 10:31, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

Relatively easy, Dmon. Let's see if I don't make it too complicated. For our example, let's say we want to create a wikilink to the "Capellan Civil War" section of Kai Allard-Liao.
  1. Click on the link for Kai Allard-Liao.
  2. In the article's table of contents, click on "Capellan Civil War". You're now transported to that section.
  3. In the URL field of your browser, copy everything from Kai_Allard on: "Kai_Allard-Liao#Capellan_Civil_War"
  4. Use this in your wikilink brackets ([[ ]]). For example: "Allard-Liao's involvement in the war..."
Does that help? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:40, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
Thank you, That is exactly what I needed --Dmon 10:46, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
Great! Good luck. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

BattleTechWiki:Project Unfinished Book/JTP:New Avalon/New Avalon (hexmap)[edit]

Hy Rev, i updated a little bit the New Avalon hexmap section, can you take a look on, and talk to me if the contrib. is ok, thanks.--Doneve 15:41, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

Hey, Doneve. You know I appreciate your enthusiasm. However, I'm trying to be very methodical in my process for this project, so that it is very clear who is to do what. Right now, the three of us are to focus just on the first section: the short story. So, the order of events for the short story are:
  1. Fact Checker (Revanche) identifies target articles: completed
  2. Research Writer (ClanWolverine101) writes material: progressing
  3. Fact Checker confirms material addition: holding
  4. Copy Editor (Doneve) checks for style compliance: holding
So, for you that means when you see the second Fact Checker graph (not the first) has an article added to it, you go in and make sure the whole article meets BTW standards. When you have, then you add that article to your graph. Does that make sense?
For the meantime, let's clear out the other areas and just focus on the first section.I don't want to leap ahead, especially since the atlas section comes well before the map.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:38, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
Ok, i make some edits before you talk to me, i added some content, and became this message at this time, i know step by step, i hope i don't crunch this, but i created some city etc. articles there fall under UBP, and added it to your new created page, fell free to remove some content.--Doneve 16:51, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
Nah, I don't need to remove content from article. But thanks for letting me test this.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:20, 13 March 2012 (PDT)


Hy Revanche iam done with the Battle of Luthien UBP, and i think the project is finished Smiley.gif.--Doneve 11:05, 13 March 2012 (PDT)

Excellent. News-worthy, if I do say so myself. Thank you.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:18, 13 March 2012 (PDT)


Oh i forgot to say, can you create a category for the UBP missions and the other UBP articles, it's much easier to find the pages and we don't surf during many pages, thanks.--Doneve 11:12, 13 March 2012 (PDT)

Hmmmm....that's a good idea. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:18, 13 March 2012 (PDT)


Have this Random Act of Appreciation Award, 6th ribbon from me, for your UBP efforts.--Doneve 13:00, 13 March 2012 (PDT)

Thank you for this, Doneve.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:47, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Geological features[edit]

Hi Rev, I have some reservations about these articles. See Talk:Shaidan Basin. Frabby 15:03, 14 March 2012 (PDT)

Ohha, the old discussion is started, my point of view is this article fall under the UBP project, one subject one article, i became in the past some talks why i create some stub city articles, but i like the city etc. articles, i know there must become a place on the planet page, but the pages follow the Unfinished Book Project and would accepted i hope so.--17:55, 14 March 2012 (PDT)
I understand your perspective Doneve and I too like the simplicity of one article per subject, especially as it relates to the interconnectedness of wikis. However, we absolutely need a better position than just "because that's the way the UBP does it." I think there's room for compromise. Check out Talk:Shaidan Basin to see what I propose. It would actually make out work that much easier.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:36, 14 March 2012 (PDT)

Federated Commonwealth[edit]

Hy Rev, can you take a look on the end of the Federated Commonwealth page and all other pages, ther is a new box [This side estimate], added Nic this new feature.--Doneve 13:57, 15 March 2012 (PDT)

Doneve, I'm not seeing anything new, much less a box. The last edit on that page is from last month, to an IP address.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:00, 15 March 2012 (PDT)
Nic give us the answer, on the main page ;).--Doneve 14:04, 15 March 2012 (PDT)

Cropped images[edit]

Wow Rev, thanks to provide cropped images to the places category, this give me a new point of view for other place pages.--Doneve 16:02, 17 March 2012 (PDT)

I know, right? It just occurred to me. If the feature is easily identified from those maps, let's jazz up the articles!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:08, 17 March 2012 (PDT)
I uploaded a second map, give me some response if this is ok, when you don't like it please delete, thanks.--Doneve 19:55, 17 March 2012 (PDT)
Yeah, I think that looks fine. It has about the minimum number of features needed to make it relevant. The desert and Basin Lake sold it for me.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:59, 17 March 2012 (PDT)
Ok i look what i can do for the other pages Wink.gif.--Doneve 20:07, 17 March 2012 (PDT)

References on 'Mech pages[edit]

Holla, i became a headache when i cleand up the King Crab page, and more when i do as next the Highlander page, i would to follow my way to delete some sources there have not a ref. note in the article, the bibliography section is filled up with sources but no citations in the article, i can data mine on sources i have to hand, i would to suggest there is some messed up on the biblio. sections on many pages and hope my point of view is ok.--Doneve 18:45, 17 March 2012 (PDT)

Doneve, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying but I can say that articles are allowed to list sources in the bibliography, even if they're not used in the article. The reason is so that future editors can choose to read that source (or remember it) and then add that material to the article. Now, the references section must make use of every source, even if they're not cited in the text, but the biblios are fine.
If I messed that up, can you ask another way?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (PDT)
Ugh you're right but when i can't found any info in a soure there is providided in the biography section source i delete the source.--Doneve 19:17, 17 March 2012 (PDT)
And that's the right thing to do, yes.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (PDT)

Replied: Unfinished Book[edit]

Responded [here]. Give it a look. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 12:31, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

UBP is ??[edit]

A Philosophical question, is sarna not a Unfinished Book Wiki, i must smile when i write this, but it's the right question, i think i want some brain storm, best wishes Smiley.gif.--Doneve 18:35, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

Well, I'll answer it a different way. Sarna's BTW is not Wikipedia, which has a much stricter notability policy than we do. I looked back at the initial discussion regarding notability we had in 2007. At that time, we weren't yet positive we wanted to record every fact about BattleTech. Fortunately, in my opinion, consensus was strong for allowing anything BT-related to find a place, which allows for concepts such as UBP to get to the degree of granularity that it seeks.
Very meta question, though, Doneve.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:53, 23 March 2012 (PDT)

Clan character[edit]

Hy Rev, I don't know it whether too early but i nominate Rebs for his great Ethan Moreau article, and want to give him a good article award, he write really great clan charcter bio articles.--Doneve 16:54, 23 March 2012 (PDT)

I'm reviewing it now. You should rate it, also.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:43, 24 March 2012 (PDT)


Hy Rev, i found this pretty page [2], can you added it to the Links page, the page have some content and refered to canon sources, thanks.--Doneve 12:48, 27 March 2012 (PDT)

Doneve, I just opened it up to see what kind of site it was. It appears its a forum for RPG use, but the last post made was in November 2010. Do you know more than I?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:54, 28 March 2012 (PDT)
Ah ok, but when i look on the Links page, there some of not really up to date sites at this time, i thought it is interesting to mention the page for other users.--Doneve 13:19, 28 March 2012 (PDT)
Two things: #1) if there are dead or links in the links page that are not providing a resource to BT fans, we need to remove them. If you can point out the ones you found, I'll follow up. #2) It seems this Minnesota Tribe site is primarily a forum. If it's dead and no one's using it, then what are we providing to BTW readers? A chance to read what other fans have said years ago? I'm just not seeing the advantage in making our Links page less relevant. (I had a rather active BT-centric forums that started in 2003 and ran for about 5 years at top speed, but I wouldn't link to it here.) Am I missing something about this site?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (PDT)
Yup you are right, but it was my felling to talk about this and become a response if i right or not, you give me the answer, thanks.--Doneve 14:05, 28 March 2012 (PDT)
Its always good to discuss it. I really appreciate your skill in asking for consensus or guidance.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:57, 29 March 2012 (PDT)

Title and Position Box[edit]

Hello Rev. Do you know where I could possibly find a 3 tiered box to track someone who was a Loremaster/saKhan/Khan? I recieved an answer at the BT Ask the Writers forum for Gerek Tchernovkov, he was indeed elevated to Khan in 2845 after serving as saKhan (still waiting for confirmation on this last bit) since Dana Kufahl stepped away from reality for a bit. :) I'll also use it for Lisa Buhallin who likewise held all 3 positions. --Rebs 14:27, 5 April 2012 (PDT)

Hey there again. I took a good look at how the info box for Title and position was made and produced another row, so it's all good. Not that I am terribly impatient or anything, it just seemed to be something I could and should do. --Rebs 15:50, 5 April 2012 (PDT)
I'm glad you're so self-sufficient! I would have been cross-eyed trying to figure that out. I've forcefed myself how to do things here when setting it up, but Mbear has shown a real talent for devising code.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:30, 6 April 2012 (PDT)
Yes, he has set things up very nicely. I know a bit of html from running a blog for a long time, but other than that, I mostly stumble through stuff. This isn't bad at all. The place is set up nice and very user friendly, even for those of us who are not gifted technically. As for self sufficient, I'm just glad there are people to ask or spontaneously help out when I do run into a wall. --Rebs 11:52, 6 April 2012 (PDT)


Rev - Sorry for the delay on U.B. I was knocking out my Sarah Weisz article. Will begin again on JTP:NA tomorrow. ClanWolverine101 19:29, 5 April 2012 (PDT)

Dude, no worries. I've been on travel the last few days (had really expected to get considerable time editing here but had zero) and was pressuring myself to get into the assignment to answer anything you might have asked/responded to. Glad to see you're not waiting on me.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:32, 6 April 2012 (PDT)
Hey - I got some stuff for you here: BattleTechWiki talk:Project Unfinished Book/JTP:New Avalon/Unwelcome Guests. ClanWolverine101 19:30, 9 April 2012 (PDT)
On the way!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:09, 15 April 2012 (PDT)


Hy Rev, when an UBP article must not edited as copyeditor, i leave a short note to comments on the BattleTechWiki:Project Unfinished Book/JTP:New Avalon/Unwelcome Guests page as "must not copyedited" etc. etc, how we handle this.-Doneve 13:55, 15 April 2012 (PDT)

I think you may mean something other than what you said. Is it correct, you want to know how to indicate an article does not need copyediting?
If so, your review (even with no edits) is the same as copyediting, for our purposes. In that case, just don;t make any changes to the article, but record it as complete on the tracker.
Does that help?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:34, 22 April 2012 (PDT)

Sidebar updates[edit]

Rev, in case BTW won't give you the message, I responded to your request. Have a look at your sandbox talk page.--Mbear(talk) 11:12, 19 April 2012 (PDT)

Mbear, I'm glad you contacted me here. Changes to user subpage discussions don't notify the user.
I think I do need some clarification (both from you and to provide you). If I understand you correctly, you're saying for an article sidebar to display correctly, there would have to be a CSS page created for each user (i.e., either by the user or individually on his behalf)? That seems problematic.
  • Is this CSS needed only in order to provide shading?
  • Can we create just the (completely) bordered sidebar (without scheme shading) via a template?
Ideally, for BTW, the sidebar code I borrowed from another non-MW wiki, would have the border from the top, down the left side and closing at the bottom. Scheme-specific shading would be nice, but is far from required. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:31, 22 April 2012 (PDT)
Using Sarna as an example if we wanted to implement a sidebar, I'd update the five skins with the relevant CSS so that the user would see it automagically. In other words, if you provide the sidebar markup to Nic, I can update the CSS file so the formatting is correct. We wouldn't have to put the CSS on each and every page that has the sidebar though. (I just did that so you could see it.)
  • Is the CSS needed only to provide shading? <-- not just shading, no. The layout that you have now (float:left, margins, etc.) are also set in CSS. (Again, I could incorporate that into the main CSS files.)
  • Can we create just the completely bordered sidebar without scheme shading via a template? <-- possibly. I haven't looked into it, but my first instinct is to say "probably". We just need to decide what we want to include in it and experiment to get the correct effects.
I'm not sure how the border will look on Sarna. We'd have to do a little more testing.--Mbear(talk) 10:03, 23 April 2012 (PDT)
Ok, so I'll get the code to Nic and we'll go from there. Thanks, Mbear.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:34, 25 April 2012 (PDT)


Rev - Got some questions here : [[3]]. ClanWolverine101 09:51, 23 April 2012 (PDT)

Ronin Wars Plagiarism[edit]

Rev - This might be an issue elsewhere, but I noticed it here : Talk:2nd Genyosha ClanWolverine101 20:58, 3 May 2012 (PDT)

My response can be found there. Thanks, CW.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:04, 4 May 2012 (PDT)


Hope all is well! This one is for you or anyone else who wants to chime in, sorry I don't know of a better place to ask it. The period of The Wars of Reaving... I consider it pretty much the length of ilKhan Brett Andrews' reign. However, a lot more went on during that time than will ever need to be in his bio whenever it does finally get written. Should a page be made called War of Reaving (or something similar) to separate the series of events from the Catalyst publication? Various redirects already in place have made this somewhat complicated. edited: I think part of my issue was that it is simply not a clearly defined period of time to begin with, so defining that is part of it as well.--Rebs 19:49, 7 May 2012 (PDT)

I'm really not the most knowledgeable Clan scholar, but to me the Wars of Reaving were a Clan era, like the Age of War. As such a, article named something like Wars of Reaving (era) seems appropriate to me, that details in general terms what happened, with redlinks to articles that expand upon the individual events. As for re-directs, those are very easy to identify and repoint to the era article. My two bits. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:58, 10 May 2012 (PDT)
Cool. Doneve also pointed me toward that massive Wars of Reaving - Timeline that had been produced but is in need of serious trimming. I think both pages can be constructed to link several items to each other in order to have a comprehensive explanation of events. I think that as the timeline is trimmed, excess info from that might become a good base to construct the main article. I'll do more bios first to get a better sense of it all. But it will get done. --Rebs 18:45, 10 May 2012 (PDT)
Sounds like you found a bone to gnaw on, Rebs. ;) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:13, 10 May 2012 (PDT)

Unit info boxes[edit]

Hello Rev, I am having a little trouble and I am not sure if it is me or not. I want to be able to add and subtract fields from the infoBoxStateUnit in an attempt to refine the look of the articles of units that have changed their name. I know it is possible to add fields because the 2nd Sword of Light has a disbanded field in their info box.. But when I attempt to add something (even so far as to copy and past the extra section from the SoL box) it does not show up in my previews of the article I am working on. Is there something I am missing on how to apply this? --Dmon 05:06, 12 May 2012 (PDT)

Dmon, I'll take a look a bit later today. I'm gonna have to bring myself back up to speed on how they work. And I'll probably have questions for you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:12, 14 May 2012 (PDT)
Thank you, I look forward to your response. --Dmon 14:25, 14 May 2012 (PDT)
Dmon, I think what you're asking for is a conditional field, where if it is not included on that page, it doesn't show up as empty. Is that right? For example, if the 2nd had not been disbanded, the year 3075 would not have been added to the 'disbanded' field and the whole field would not show. If that is correct, give me an example field you'd like to see added to the master template and I'll show you how it was added.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:02, 14 May 2012 (PDT)
Yes conditional fields are exactly what I am after. The primary one I want is for use on units that have changed their name. A good example would be 1st FedCom RCT/1st Federated Suns Lancers. I would like to replace Formed field in the top infobox with renamed or redesignated so people can see exactly when the change occured at a glance. I also think the aforementioned Disbanded might be useful alongside Destroyed and possibly Reformed for use in circumstances like the 4th Sword of Light who's designation was unused for over 200 years. --Dmon 17:29, 14 May 2012 (PDT)
I'm going to work on this tomorrow, but one thing to keep in mind is something that applies to one unit may not apply to all. Therefore, if I 'replaced' formed with renamed or redesignated, then every unit would show that way. What we have to so is be both crafty and clear with this: we cannot take formed from the template but we could make it conditional. However, since all units have an initial formed date, it would make sense to leave that as static and add redesignated as a conditional field. That way, you would see Formed 3028 and Redesignated 1st Federated Suns Lancers (3067) for 1st Federated Suns Lancers, while other units would only show Formed xxxx. Does that make sense?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (PDT)

Hey Rev, have you had time to look into this yet? --Dmon 19:27, 23 May 2012 (PDT)

Ready for more[edit]

Rev - Got some more stuff for ya. BattleTechWiki:Project Unfinished Book/JTP:New Avalon/Unwelcome Guests ClanWolverine101 11:12, 14 May 2012 (PDT)

Excellent. I'll check in tomorrow, CW.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:11, 14 May 2012 (PDT)

Incorrect Artist Listed[edit]

I was just looking at the cover art for [4] The artist you have listed is incorrect. The correct artist is Alex Iglesias. This is his Deviant Art profile [5] and you can find this particular piece in his gallery here [6] He is also the current artist doing all of the concept art for Mechwarrior Online. I'm fairly new to this whole thing and I'm afraid I'm going to break something if i edit it myself. -FRYBOTH

For your review: Delta Regiment[edit]

Delta Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) is up. Obviously, a lot of work went into this one.
As usual, thanks go out to Doneve, who uploaded several images that were ultimately used. Obviously, the pics add a lot to this article, and keep it from becoming just a mindless block of text.
One of my goals with this project was to improve upon the design of my Alpha Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) article. To that end, I've streamlined several processes, most notably the reference tags, using what's become the accepted approach. In short, I updated my own style. While it took a lot of time, I think it went okay.
As you can see above, I've written a number of articles about Delta's commanding officers and so on. This means I can reuse some of that material when I write a comprehensive article like this one. As it turned out, the writing still needed to be massaged, but if that wasn't the case, I would have been doing something wrong. Nevertheless, its easier to write a bunch of small articles before trying to put together a beast like this.
When I decided to write comprehensive articles on each of the WD regiments, I always knew Alpha would be my first and Delta my second. There were two reasons, there: First, Delta has a lot of extra material on it from its involvement in the Coventry campaign. Second, Delta avoided the Dragoon Civil War/Elson's Challenge (popularized in Wolf Pack). That particular event will prove very difficult to cover, as it exists only in broad terms in the sourcebooks and we only get certain perspectives in the WP novel. But that's a talk for another day.
For now, please enjoy reading about Delta Regiment. Thanks, and I look forward to your feedback. ClanWolverine101 16:10, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

Unknown Planet/No record[edit]

User_talk:Mbear#Unknown_Planets. (Because you created the articles in the first place.) Frabby 13:45, 11 August 2012 (PDT)

Updated conflict infobox[edit]

Rev, please have a look at User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest. I've got a prototype for the updated infobox up and running. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 07:25, 2 November 2012 (PDT)