Sarna News: Bad 'Mechs - Clint

User talk:Wrangler/Archives 2010


Wrangler, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! (Don't forget to update your Time In Service ribbon in 2 days!)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rev, thanks for the rewards ribbons. I am not sure I understand why the ward you gave me says 9 months..Though i'm not totally certain where to put it either. Also, i'm think time for me to add archive page but i'm not certain how to do that. -- Wrangler 02:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
1: You've not yet a year here, so you have the last once you've earned for TIS, which is 9 months. (See BattleTechWiki:Awards for further details.
2: Check out my talk page to see how I did mine. After you create your archive page, cut-n-paste the discussions you want archived to the new page and save both. Let me know if you have any questions. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New Burn rate figure[edit]

Hi there, to calculate the new burn rate figure, do you (fuel/burn per day) = Number of days? Thanks Djuice 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the writers have said that it IS by Days and I was completely and total mis-reading the thing. In the Tigress's listing in handbook: Major Periphery States, the burn rate even says days. So its 8.15 Days of fuel. -- Wrangler 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahh cool thanks, I can now slowly add those figures for the other dropship and vessels :P Djuice 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try help out where I can filling those data in if you want. -- Wrangler 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Djuice. Are you sure your doing the rates correct? Did you read the forums on Battletech message? Forums on Classic Battletech Message Board regarding Burn/rate & Tigress The burn rate literilyy gives how much fuel the thing actual has in a total of days. Its not broken down more. Unless there something I'm missunder standing Michael Miller in this. -- Wrangler 12:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it correct, for example, The Vulture class dropship has 300 tons of fuel with a burn per day @ 1.84. So 300 ÷ 1.84 = 163.04 days, which is like 15 ÷ 1.84 = 8.15 days on the Tigress. Unless I am mistaken and there are some other caluculatiion. Djuice 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, from what the one of the offical Battletech write described if you read the message board thing. that 1.84 is not the rate burn its how much fuel total in day time period. 24hrs+what heck .84 ends up being in hours. -- Wrangler 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Resource page & Archives[edit]

Love your resource page; well-designed and productive. And good job on setting up your archive page. Makes things cleaner, don't it? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. I was at first unsure how to setup the archive page from my own. So i looked at yours and figured it out. Resource page will be boone for me jumping around to places. Specially looking up these files we have uploaded to Sarna's wiki achives. Best form of Favorites i can have on wikipedia page. -- Wrangler 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Something to consider: do those dossiers deserve their own master article, where the list can also be displayed? (Or does this already exist?) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've been listing them with their respective articles such as vehicles or characters. It be nice if had their own. Plus all the recent articles released by Catalyst Game Labs of the Maps, Linknet articles and stuff like that would be heck alot easier to find if they had their own gallery draw from. -- Wrangler 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Random Act of Appreciation Award[edit]

For no reason at all, other than a random act of appreciation. Display it proudly!

Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon

--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot Rev. -- Wrangler 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Burn rate[edit]

Are you sure? I thought you divide the tonnage of fuel by 1.84. Your figure means it operates less than 2 days, in spite of 400 tons of fuel. Checking the old amount, I get 217.39 when i divide 400 by 1.84.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the stupid thing very much. Cray on CBT website said point blank that the number given is the actual number of how many days period a ship has. 1.84 is Day and 3/4s roughtly. Here the post maybe I'm reading it wrong. The Official BattleTech writers report the correct. All i know is that breaking down the fuel rate isn't necessary, Fuel Rate burn per day. Maybe I'm just saying this wrong. I wish I never brought this up... -- Wrangler 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Wink.gif You're just not awake yet. Cray sez: "...a 150-ton small craft (and any military DropShip) uses 1.84 tons of fuel per G-burn-day." That means you take the available fuel (in this case 400 tons) and divide it by 1.84 (the burn-rate) to get 217 (full) days. I'm thinking using the term "Burn-Rate" in the template is the wrong idea, for techically they all have a burn-rate of 1.84. Not 1.84 days, just 1.84 per day. Maybe change the term to Fuel (in days)?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Its Still confusing. They should just list thing total days the ship has period to travel instead of having us figure out we need burn rate to divide the fuel. They give fuel points for tonnage of fuel. I'm not even sure if your suppose to divide THAT with fuel. I miss just looking at the sheet, thats what you get. *sigh* -- Wrangler 13:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Copy your confusion. We'll try not to confuse the reader and I'll change the template to read "Fuel (tons)" and "Fuel (days)". That way, only Editors that fully understand the calculation should be doing it. If you'd roll back your change to the article, and we'll be done with it. Thanks, Wrangler (especially for providing the link that cleared it up for me, without my having to break out my books tonight).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've rolled back the interdictor one, but i'm note sure what put for actual fuel thing for Tigress (Small Craft). High math/word problems isn't one things I'm very good at. Also as aside thing. I don't know how yet, but i need an (disambiguation) page for name Tigress. There planet and then you have the Taurian Gunship named it as well. -- Wrangler 15:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Noted, but I'm not gonna chase those down, myself. I see I now have to correct each individual template, so the data shows in each article. BattleSpace ain't really my thang, right now, but I gotta do it since I caused the 'problem'.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2nd Republican[edit]

Wrangler, I'm not sure why you are concerned. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your not citing on exactly nature of the problem. It could be anything, and not being specific. I work hard least get my facts straight of this one. I've been trying re-doving into FedCom War again since I'm working on the 1st Republican, which their involvement in conflict geting murky. They don't have unit named as being there though the 3rd Republican was. I sometimes I have mental blinders not which doesn't allow me to see problem. I went over the article again, re-doing any spelling errors/gammer ones i could spot. However, I'm not sure what wrong with the actual info on what 2nd Republics did. Which is frustrating. -- Wrangler 12:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I said: "On the plus side, it has good solid information on the unit." Why is this a negative review? I don't understand. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm Sorry Rev, i'm not feeling very good. I mis read the comment. Please ignoreme. -- Wrangler 12:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wink.gif I'd charge you with 'poor reading comprehension,' but the facts you built into the article indicate I'd be very wrong. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Founder's Honorable Mention Award[edit]

Wrangler, you've had a serious impact on BTW with the number of contributions you've made over the last year. Keep up the great work! Nicjansma 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, Nicjansma! I'll try keep living up to this award you gave me. -- Wrangler 12:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Merc Helppage[edit]

Wrangler, please take a look at Help:CreateMercenaryUnitArticle and make sure the changes I made make sense. Any others you recommend? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. It looks like I've got alot of fixing of mercenary articles ahead of me with Neuling posting new articles with old template lately. I'll be able tell if there something needed by the effort. Thanks Rev. -- Wrangler 12:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Casual Edit Award[edit]

Wrangler, for your cleanup of the formatting on the 3072 timeline page and doing it with class, I award you the Casual Edit Award, Good work!

Thank you very much, ClanWolverine. Too bad i wasn't award able! Thanks for the thought-- Wrangler 11:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ehy not? CW is an Editor, he can award you an Editor's award. Feel free to post it on your awards board! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Whew, was worried I had botched that. :) ClanWolverine101

Random Thanks[edit]

Wrangler, thanks for the quick follow up edits on the Miraborg article. --Peregry 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, problem. I enjoy helping out folks. -- Wrangler 03:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

All Purpose Award[edit]

For creating a good 3rd Royal Guards article:

All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon

--Neufeld 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just read it - I'm very impressed! ClanWolverine101
Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments!

Operation: Thunderstrike[edit]

Wrangler, please read Huronwarrior's comments here. I'd like to hear your opinion. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded, Rev. Blake Ascending book is republication of earlier Jihad books (Dawn of the Jihad and Jihad Hot Spots: 3070. Thunderstrike name appeared in the offical report on blow-by-blow details of the Capellan counterstrike. Since the Blake Documents is a newer book, its trumps it. Like i said in the Thunderstrike Talk, i'm asking writers if this is a case of duel names. 'Operation Celestial Vengeance name was only used once from what i could find. Never again. Huronwarrior only has Blake Ascending so he/she may not realize that its older information. Also, older books were canon vague, since they were scattered media news and vague military repots which were suppose to be not exactly accurate. I'm bit hessitant in using that stuff. I've posted with writers what they think if they respond to it. My suspision thou its going a be a inhouse Capellan name & Thunderstrike is "english" general inner sphere name. I'd be very upset if i had change name for old source name that was either forgotten or vaguelly used once...It wasn't even used in Jihad Hot Spots: 3072 either -- Wrangler 04:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What concerns me is that BA is supposed to be a compilation, a reprinting, which -like you- is why I didn't buy it. I might follow your questions to the writers with one of my own. Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, this general confusion is going rein hell for us on Sarna. Now i've got to defend the article from folks who may not have read all the sister articles in differient books. I'm upset possiblity that they did indeed add some new wringles to the Ascending, thus changing old sources/newer. Its possible that that these thing articles were written by completely differient writers who may not have been all on the "same page" on what other person was doing. Its happened before when they did last of the Dark Age novels with invasion of FWL by Lyrans/Clan Wolf. I'm almost ready to stop writting articles since everytime we think we got it "right", there something else coming up aruging its wrong. *sigh* -- Wrangler 17:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Take a wikibreak. Don't stop writing articles all-together. I've taken several wikibreaks. You are a dedicated Editor and have been working for months, almost every day. If you take a week's break, 2 weeks, a month or longer, "Operation: Thunderstrike" will still be there and consensus may have changed (due to the other Editors finding out more on the subject, departing from editing themselves, or whatever). If you have the strength and interest to work on consensus now with the current Editors, that would be for the best. But being frustrated with the process completely is not healthy either, and warrants a wikibreak. (If you do, put the code from this page on your main & talk pages.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And if you do take a wikibreak, I'll use my Admin powers to help you enforce it. Wink.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me think on it. Newer editors are covering alot ground was going tread on. I won't quit, but there not alot I can do if someone quicker got there before I did. -- Wrangler 00:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Casual Edit Award[edit]

For finding the relevant references and fixing the need, all within half an hour of my putting a {{cn}} on two points of The Arcadians article, I award you the Casual Edit award:


A second bronze oak leave will be added, in lieu of your third award. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rev, I appreciate it. -- Wrangler 00:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Solaris Stable test page[edit]

Wrangler, I'm working on creating the Solaris Stable page you requested. The first version is ready for you to review. You can see it at User:Mbear/SolarisStableTest. I'm not sure how you want the "Units Used" section of the infobox to work, so I basically have a "Yes/No" set up right now. (If you leave a field blank, it won't display.) Please have a look and let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks!--Mbear 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Seriously. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks great Mbear! Now other units, like Aerospace Fighters, Exoskeletons, Infantry (unarmored), Battle Armor, Tanks etc. are in this section of yes and no for the info box? -- Wrangler 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, but they will be. I just need some time to add them. Give me a few hours and I'll let you know when I'm done.--Mbear 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
OK Wrangler. Have a look at the test page. I've added the following unit types to the infobox:
  • Exoskeletons
  • Conventional Infantry
  • Combat Vehicles
  • VTOLs
  • AeroSpace Fighters
  • Conventional Fighters
Does that cover everything or do you need me to add more unit types?--Mbear 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks all good to me! I see no missing units. Post-Jihad & Dark Age, renames conventional infantry to Scrappers. However, we'll deal with that when it comes! Awesome job! Let me know when its allset I'll start to do my stuff. -- Wrangler 12:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wrangler, it's all done. I've put the information in place, and created a Help page. You should be good to go. Good Luck!--Mbear 14:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi MBear, fantastic job! Can you imbed that template into the Solaris Stable category? That where it should belong. Thanks! -- Wrangler 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Hey, Wrangler: good job on the inclusion and writing of the Merkava article. Because you are involved in such a wide variety of articles, both in writing and editing, would you assist me into bringing some consistency to the ==References== and ==Bibliography== sections? I've updated Merkava to reflect how they should be used. I'll be re-writing the policy to support this, but it can be summed up here:

  • References:
  1. Always in every article (except those about products, unless necessary), even when no data exists.
  2. Only place in-line citations will appear (because of the <references /> template).
  3. When the citations are not in-line yet, but included in the section (such as they are presently in Merkava), and they have page numbers associated with them, they should be listed under the <references /> template (to allow the in-lines top billing).
  4. Page numbers should be listed as p. for a singular page and pp. for plural pages.
  5. Is always italicized, but (almost) never wikilinked (helps keep the in-line citations clean and the section consistent.
  • Bibliography:
  1. Always follows References (except those about products, unless necessary), even when no data exists.
  2. Is both italicized and wikilinked.
  3. No pages associated with it.
  4. Includes sources known to have information on the subject, even if the source is not used in the article (yet).

I'm thinking that with your breadth of article range and my hopscotching around, more and more people will become exposed to this "pre-policy". Merkava incorporates most of the above and could be your 'visual' reference. Can you help me out with this one? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rev, I'll try my best to help you. As you can tell, i'm not that strong in grammer also i'm still learning about the codes of wikipedia and don't know much about nowiki usage. Heck until i looked up the word, I didn't have clue what Bibliography meant. To me, its not common word, nevermind one I can pronounce! Anyways, despite my limitations, here what I think. Agree, with what you have described. There is not true template for character articles and vehicle / 'Mech articles nearly completed due to their popularity. I personally, would like example article type of articles layout so folks can see whom may or maynot be able understand the jaggin were laying down. I would suggest if anything i say does make sense is to have quick link in took box that allows folks to quickly reference too what article should look like. I've found, unless you know what your looking for and what wording is..its likely newbies and other folks are going miss instructions like what your proposing. -- Wrangler 18:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You're proposing a link in the edit pages to the instructions (or the example of the instructions). I'm not sure that fits with the intent of tools on that page. But, that made me think of putting it on the left-side column. I'll think about that. Let me make the policy re-write and then I'll attempt that. But, if you can format your edits to match that of Merkava, I think that would go a long way.

Kal Radick[edit]

I know you (and someone else) saved a whole bunch of those WK dossiers. Do you have one about Kal Radick (or maybe "Kal Radik" or "Kal Raddick")? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have a dossier for him, Did i forget to bring up for that article? -- Wrangler 10:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for updating it. as you already know, the link was to the dead WKG page.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I will have to look at my dossier project again, i could have sworn i added the cards to all the articles that were related to it. *grumble* Please let me know if you spot more of them and I'll add them accordingly. -- Wrangler 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think I know why may have accidently skipped it. Its because Radick's 'Mech. Its Mad Cat II (not Mark II), since there no real info on that and there conficting info that it new version of the Mark II i opt to no include in MK II article. However, Didn't intend to not include it with Radick's article. -- Wrangler 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'm just glad (now) that you grabbed and worked those dossiers when you did. They've become more relevant. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Mbear is to thank for that, I just suggested it. Something we REALLY need to grab it Herb's Touring the Stars pdf and uploading THAT. Its closes thing right now that a source book for Dark Age. We need upload that, i refer alot from it and free on website. I referred to that alot in Dark Age articles. Since Herb actually wrote it. Heck, the Titanic being in the Jihad was SAVED because it was pointed out that its destruction couldn't have happened due to it existing in Touring the Stars. -- Wrangler 10:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2408, 2361[edit]

Wrangler, instead of re-hashing what the Editors spent weeks discussing, I'm gonna just point you to Policy:Year Pages, as the reason why I reverted your changes to the Year pages. We can't allow them to again become what the morasses thay had devolved into.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I sorry I miss policy talk. Information being posted there will now be suspect since there will be no way prove when something happens happens. It too bad there no way to create code to hide references to keep year page clear. This will be source of problems, if you don't believe me. Look on forums on ClassicBattletech's when ever people get into a dispute about something. The way people write information, how heck is anyone going believe anything we put up here if we don't have narrow pin-point source of the information. Doneve was putting all sort of events on year lists, alot them not making sense to anyone since. Its mistake not having least references on the yearlist, even if they could be hidden. -- Wrangler 11:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
[Wrangler]: "...since there will be no way [to] prove when something happens happens."
[Policy]:"However, the duplication of information proved pointless when the supporting article should provide that same information..."
We addressed every one of your concerns in the policy and I spent a great deal of time writing it, based on the discussion of seven Editors. Instead of re-hashing the discussion and the policy, please read through it. You can even read thru other issues that people identified (and were answered) by reading the archived discussion here. It'll be clear that references (which you have been good at adding) will be a much higher value in articles than before.
And Doneve's experience with the Year pages is in the past. He took part in the discussions (as advertised on the main page) and has done the majority of the work to bring the re-vamped articles up to policy. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wrangler, think of the year pages as something like Categories instead: They are just an overview of articles that have to do with that year, and should not be seen as full-blown articles themselves. Every entry on a year page links to an article and the references you seek are to be included (and found) in that article. They need not be put on the year page as well. Plus, personally, I feel we would be cluttering up the year pages. I think they need to be streamlined, to provide a quick and easy reference to the "real" articles. Frabby 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, I can see the logic behind the new policy. I wasn't trying to cite Doneve being this way now. I was using example of what could happen in the times to come. Timeline articles must have a source article to have it appear in the year book? Only thing i see could be problem in the times to come, is that example 25 Years of Art & Fiction. It has events that in timeline that doesn't appear any source book yet. So we need wait when source book comes out for that to be in the timeline? -- Wrangler 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Absolutly, in 25 Years of Art & Fiction are citend some events, there you not find in any sourcebook, but i removed it, when in next future come some sources or other canon material, then we can post it on the Year Pages.Doneve 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, the line items within 25 Years of Art & Fiction can be referenced & cited in another article (say Federated Suns), which then allows it to be included on the Year page. The reader just needs to be able to follow that one wikilink to ann article that provides more detail (even if the additional detail is just a source).(I really like Frabby's anology about the category.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Military Operations categories[edit]

Was it your intention to only have named operations listed in these various categories? Specifically, would the Luthien campaign (Jihad) fit in there, since it doesn't fall under a specific faction's operation name?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rev, it was originally my intention to have named military operations. This was due to entries that was listed in the early Jihad Hot Spots & Jihad Secrets books. Military operations are usually organized / planned military campaigns. Luthien campaign wasn't planned as far we can tell from what been written about the Jihad. It could be, just writers haven't gotten around naming it. I say, its right place for it. There bound be more un-named military events/campaigns, then named ones. Personally, I'd would name article Occupation of Luthiern (Jihad), since that what it was from Jihad Turning Points: Luthien. The JTP:L has more events that happened, per the scenario they included in that book. I can help you with the article if you wish. Me personally, until a Historical: Jihad is ever published which could give actual names to events. I'd go with what you have or the suggested name. I'd be more creative Battle for Luthien (Jihad). If it wasn't for the fact, that older books publications had given numbers of battles for say Hesperus II (I think their on their 15th Battle now...) I'd be naming them by which invasion it was. I think Luthien was invaded and fought over in major battle twice, so this would been 2nd Battle for Luthien, not counting when Black Dragons tried to assasinate Teddy Kurita at his birthday. -- Wrangler 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I liked the idea of the "Occupation of Luthien", at first glance, because its a cleaner name than "Luthien campaign (Jihad)". However, the events started off with the coup by the Black Dragon Society, and since they are Dracs, it's not really an occupation. I, instead, think "Battle for Luthien" would be a better name. Also, in re-thinking the name, we only add parentheses when there is more than one article with that name. Since no one has felt the need to right an article about the Clan invasion of the world yet, I think I'll just stick with "Battle for Luthien". It can always be moved later. Thanks for the suggestions.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Any time. You know, thinking about it, you could use as alternate name as the 2nd Black Dragon Coup help people who may be searching event in differient content. Which is what it really was. The Blake did gets involved, but it wasn't all about them (the Blakist), though them being there was brought all the heavy hitters in at end, which included Nova Cat's Xi Galaxy and ending with Ghost Bears finishing skrimishes for the planet. If you look in Xi Galaxy history and Jal Steiner profiles i wrote, you'll see some of the details of the conflict you may want to add to your article. -- Wrangler 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
But the battle isn't only about the coup. WOBbies are in it for whatever reason, the Clans because the Wobbies are (or because of loyalty to Dracs). No, I think "Battle" is the best bet. As for the other articles, I'm working on my BattleTechWiki:Project Unfinished Book assignment, JTP: Luthien, which means I focus only on the facts within that title. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Ice Storm[edit]

I will overwork your article and include further information from the hotspots 3072 und 3076. I will post it on a different page and <ou can write me back what's your opinion is about it. Neuling 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What you talking about? You going to make a duplicate article based on Ice Hellion Invasion of 3071-3072? The article made is sort-of work in progress. Since it takes more time to "cherry pick" from the other source books for me to find all information necessary include the details. I wanted to have something out there covering the event. I will look at this article your going write if you want, so let me know when its ready to be read. I'm not sure what your objective is to for differient article. -- Wrangler 23:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
He's saying (I presume) that he doesn't want to interfere with your efforts, but wants to assist. Since his English isn't as...clear as your's, he's assisting by providing straight facts for you to incorporate.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rev, Okay, that makes sense if thats his objective. I'm not sure what exactly will done as a supplimental article. I need dig more to get other information for it. I did what I could with time I had. -- Wrangler 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Territory Clan Wars[edit]

I need help to develope this project. I'm a little confused which planets changed hands (who is attacker and who is defender) and if this a hole war or a series of trials? -- Neuling

Depends on when your talking about. The Clans have been doing this off-on for centuries. Basicly, they've had Trials for possession for resources. The World thing maybe considered actual war, but no War has ever been actually given a named. Project your thinking of maybe difficult to administer until a conflict name given. -- Wrangler 11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Manei Domini Article-Undid my revisions.[edit]


I've converted my lists of Mechs, etc. back to the tables you had used. (except for the Bolla tank, which looked odd all by itself when I converted it.) One reason I changed them originally from lists to tables is that I have to use a screen reader for my job at work, and hearing "table" before the list wasn't adding anything to the experience. Anyway, the tables are back and the list is out. Hopefully I didn't upset you too much when you saw the change.

Have a good one!--Mbear 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Page number for the "Apocalypse" World Rover[edit]

Hi Wrangler,

When you have a moment, would you please add the page number for the rover image you uploaded? Thanks for the help. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Helllo Ebakunin. I will added it to the article. -- Wrangler 10:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay Done. -- Wrangler 10:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Jihad Variants[edit]

Hey Wrangler - Good work adding those Jihad variants to the Black Watch and other 'mechs, but I had a question. You said the Heavy PPC was located IN the arm actuator, with a red-link for "actuator". Is this a typo of some kind? I don't have the publication myself. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Its properly because i didn't capitalized it the letter "a". Wiki-links are touchie. Sorry, i'll go fix it. -- Wrangler 16:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Jade Falcon Incursion[edit]

HY again, i think it is not the 3058 Incursion, it is the Incursion that takes place during the FedCom Civil War.--Doneve 13:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Also a EARLIER one. It happened in 3058, it was called later Battle for Coventry. This Jade Falcon Incursion was started the creation of the Second Star League.
The posted article from Neuling is the FedCom Civil War starts 3064 see in the sourcebook.--Doneve 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll fix my bad. -- Wrangler 13:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Moratorium[edit]

Wrangler, please see User_talk:Mbear#Blocking_Mortiorum_work for answer to your question.--Mbear 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Vehicle Infobox Updates.[edit]

Wrangler, you asked if I could look into the Support Vehicle infobox because Speed was appearing twice. It looks like there were two speeds listed in the original: Speed and Top Speed. I've removed the Top Speed line so you can just use Speed. Was that all you needed for that infobox? (You mentioned making a line disappear but I'm not sure if you wanted one of the speed lines to disappear or something else.)

I'll be happy to change the support vehicle infobox, but I need to know what you want it to look like.--Mbear 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbear. I was about turn in when i saw your reply. What I'd like to see if possible was to have the Top Speed / Cruise speeds listed next (up/down so speak) together. Some of the support vehicles are aerospace based, thus my problem with Satellites. Not all support vehicles are going have Structural Intergerity, Cost, Crew, or even heatsinks. I'd like see if possible them disappear if their not filled out. -- Wrangler 02:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The infobox has been updated: The Speed/Top Speed are next to each other. Speed and Top Speed will automatically append km/h to the entry. There is now a Structural Integrity field. Cost, Structural Integrity, Heat Sinks, Crew, and the Battle Value fields are optional; Leave them blank and they'll disappear from the page. Hopefully that will cover all the vehicles. Sample page is Luftenburg.--Mbear 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm doing some activities that are tying me up, so I'm not able to play with new infobox at this time. Please, give me few days to check them out.-- Wrangler 16:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. It's not like we're on a schedule or anything.--Mbear 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking into it more, i think there call for some stuff to the info box. we need "Station-Keeping Thrust" listed as optional listing below the Top Speed / Cruise listing, making it and Top-Speed / Cruise speed disappearable since your not going to have both listed. Also, can you remove the "km/h"? Problem is alot support vehicles don't have fluff speeds. a Fixed-Wing Aircaft isn't going 3 km/h so i'd rather see km/h left out for that sort of thing. Support Vehicle cover alot differient types of vehicles and their speeds vary greatly. Thanks-- Wrangler 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Done, Done, and Done.--Mbear 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, i found one thing more. Equipment Rating all the Support Vehicles have them. I've not listed them with all of them but i think it should be included in the info box if alright with you. Only thing i don't like it is that there isn't a consist article on Sarna that cover a for lack better words, translation on what these rating mean. I know first one is tech level (I'm not looking at book at moment. so i maybe wrong.) so the rating can't wikilinked to anything. -- Wrangler 13:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions[edit]

Thanks for the feedback! It is good to know some few are watching. I would, however, like to direct your atention to the disscussion page of Richard Calderon, Age of War and my rational behind how I crafted it. Please fee free to correct any stylistic errors to bring my efforts into line with this Wiki's standards.Deeppockets 11:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

New Kent[edit]

Wrangler - Good to see someone punching out the Clan Homeworlds. Have a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 2nd ribbon. ClanWolverine101 18:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ClanWolverine. Just happen to see missing world, just got lucky. Thanks for ribbon! -- Wrangler 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome! FYI - you might want to check the order of your awards on the user page to bring that up to code. ClanWolverine101 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Please[edit]

Hey, I have a huge project on the run and need support/ideas for the best solution. The 1st Aragon Borders is a example for future work. My idea is do rework all units an bring them to one level with the same structure. I have done the same to the mercs lately. Only a few units are left, but this is only temporary. Please view it an give my a response. Any support is welcome... Neuling 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Neuling. What kind of support are you talking about? This kind of major project should be presented to the BattleTechWiki Project Military Commands talk page. Your talking about re-doing allot people's work, with some article don't have allot info where other have a lot. Not sound mean, but some your work lacks allot of references that suppose to cite where your getting your information from and problems with grammar (I am guilty of this too.) Also, those articles you wrote left allot things out. I work little differently, I try to take one (article) at time and concentrate in writing everything about one. There isn't great rush get everything done, I like try to do quality work. -- Wrangler 19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hy Mbear, I will not change this article, but I will improve this work. The project takes month of work, I know. Regarde my latest work and you find that I added all known reference with page of the source. You supported me with your opinion about this. I have for all units a checklist with a overview what is done and where are improvements possible. You know my work and I have make my work more professional in the last time. Tnx for the evidance to post such Questions in the future. Seeya next time.

Content 3085[edit]

Hey Wrangler, I have a source with the content of the upcoming TRO 3085 have I the permission to load it up to the overiew page of TRO 3085? Tnx Neuling 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Neuling. I Believe its okay since it was released as a preview. However, i'm not sure what the editors will think. Usually, having table of content is generally seen as okay, along information within the pages aren't revealed until after the mortiorum is over completely. I was going up load the table my self, but go ahead. -- Wrangler 13:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop[edit]

Thanks for the fix to the stealth advert in Essay: Combat DropShips 101. I'd like to present you with your first Vandal Cop award.

Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon

By the way, it looks like you have 3 Random Appreciation awards, but two ribbons, instead of the 1 ribbon with the correct number of oak leaves. I don't wanna mess with your ribbon board, tho, if you want it displayed like that. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you Rev for that award. I did not notice a third random appreciation award...where is that third one you mentioned? -- Wrangler 10:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unit Description[edit]

Hey Wrangler, I have been removing the unit description headings for two reasons, first because I disagree with your opinion that the text looks messy at the top, personally I think it throws the basics of the unit straight to the reader and secondly because I started adding the unit descriptions in the first place because wikipedia does it and I have copied the way they do it. Example: --Dmon 07:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dmon, well if our wikipedia code would allow it too look like that, i'd agree. But doesn't come out looking like that. I don't know if its the info box or the font size. When the window opens it text is way above everything else. Unit Description thing least keep things in place in my opinon. Since the directory of article are sometimes huge, they end up taking up or pushing top text to very top of the page. Thats why i've been doing it. -- Wrangler 10:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah OK, the directory problem is possibly something that is going to need looking at in the near future anyway with how large some of them are getting. In the mean time the unit description heading cures the symptom but possibly makes the cause even worse. Any ideas on how we could gain a little breathing space at the top? --Dmon 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, I'm sadly not very verse with wiki-codes. I just try adjust article writing to what i know get around the problem. For mean time, i would recommend having header of the effected article to have Unit Description. We may need ask wiki coder look at some wikipedia's newer codes. I don't know why it only effects certain articles. I've found this there similiar problem in planet articles. Specially with the info boxes. People have been adding additional pictures in those article which end up distorting the article's text content. *sigh*. -- Wrangler 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Source Problem[edit]

Hy Wrangler, i write the article, and i forgot it is a meta source used from MadCapllan's Objective Raid, sorry my failur. Fell free to fix it.--Doneve 16:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Doneve, the Aerospace article will likely have to be deleted. For the Aerospace Factory, i feel bad deleting it, but i have not found anything in the TROs that show they exist. Doneve, can you mark the articles you used the MadCap's Objective raids information with? I need idea where to start double checking articles. -- Wrangler 18:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hy, sorry for my mess (grml), it is the complete Clan section in Mad's Objective raid, but i searched in the TROs for the Components and Manufacturer, i think some factions there added to the manufacturers have failurs.--Doneve 18:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It happens. Let me deal with this, try not to do anymore projects unless you know its canon source okay? -- Wrangler 18:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, good deal.--Doneve 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know what other category you used MadCap's Objective Raid: 3067. This is bad, where i may end up deleted articles. -- Wrangler 19:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Nic, i apperiate your cander in keeping me inform of these necessary changes to save space here on! -- Wrangler 12:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating Awards[edit]

You've missed updating your Edit Count Award. I've taken the liberty of giving you the appropriate ribbon. Edit Count (7,500) ;) --Peregry 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i really don't pay attention to such things. -- Wrangler 10:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Need Your adcive[edit]

Tnx for your message. Can we work togehther to find a format which most other user find useful? I find my error and I was to enthuastic. I will pull back I place my content more carefully. I wait for your anwser. With best regards Neuling 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

2886, Battle Armor entry[edit]

Remember that according to policy you have to add the entry to the Battle Armor page also. BTW, good job on the John Fletcher article. --Neufeld 19:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Neufeld, thanks for the compliment on my entry article for Fletcher. I have to ask you question. Where in Battle Armor article am i suppose to put this entry? It does not seem to have location in the article to add in-game fiction with reference in purely, out-of-game article. -- Wrangler 22:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Just put it in the history section, it doesn't need much change to be seen as an in-universe summary. --Neufeld 22:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty, then. I didn't want mess up a major page for Sarna. Thanks for the advice. -- Wrangler 23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Substantial Addition Award[edit]

Here is something for you: Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon mostly for the John Fletcher article, but also for the other work on Hell's Horses stuff. --Neufeld 07:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot, Neufeld! -- Wrangler 10:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Andurien Secession[edit]

I saw your comment "do not agree with new format of conflict" on the Andurien Secession history page. Could you explain that a little more? (I don't care for the format used either, and I'd like to find out if your thoughts are like mine.) Thanks!--Mbear 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbear. I disagree with the format which was written in style of "giving world to world conflict with no content with only generic results". To me thats not Sarna's style, in my opinion. I realize that i may be out line, to me it looks little sloopy. i know i haven't wrote very good gems and i'm grammer challenged. However, I feel the war should be written with more content. As Scaletail has commented, its multi-"war" event. I Believe it needs to be cleaned up in way where it tells the story of the Succession & the War Audriens fought during this time period. Its like its own era. Anyways, the new format comment comes from Neufeld edit. I disagree in way he wrote the conflict, if you would look at what i wrote for the history of the 1st Defenders of Andurien's history section. I feel the article should be written like that, not blow to blow. I did write Operation: Ice Storm, Operation: Sovereign Justice, and Operation: Thunderstrike bit information in blow by blow format. That was only because there wasn't alot source material on it to expand what was going on, i didn't want overwhelm someone with too much info about it. -- Wrangler 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I actually like what you did for Operation: Ice Storm, Operation: Sovereign Justice, and Operation: Thunderstrike. That format is the one I'd like to see as well. I don't think the setup used on the Andurien Secession page is good one at all. This list, though informative, lacks the depth we want here on Sarna. In addition, the "Source" line duplicates the reference tag system that's already in place. I don't want to just delete the work that's there however without talking to other people.--Mbear 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you want to do? Someone needs change it, i'd be open to do it. However, i don't want step on someone's foot in process. Problem is that people are changing the format war/events like that Andurien Succession. Do you want talk to him, i'm fraid i may sound bit rude if i do it. -- Wrangler 17:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll put a note on his talk page. Several others have tried to talk to him about formatting but I don't see that he's responded to them.
I'll also put a link here so you can see what I say.--Mbear 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Here you are: User_talk:Neuling#Andurien_Succession and User_talk:Neuling#Historical_Event_Formatting. Hopefully that gets the message across.--Mbear 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Hy Wrangler, nice work about the Southwest Trinity worlds, i hope you add mor from the Camochos, and other relevant thinks to this great unit, personal, etc. Good work. Greetings--Doneve 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC) -Hello Doneve, i'm working on it. I have project i'm working on that related to them. Adding information as i find it.-- Wrangler 14:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Superb, and sorry for my grammars, etc.--Doneve 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dark Wing (unit) redirect[edit]

I fail to see how any designation could be faction exclusive in the first place, as everybody can name their stuff as they see fit. In this particular case, the Dark Wing is actually better known as the antagonist merc force from the original MechWarrior I computer game. And they're way older than any Jade Falcon stuff. If there is any notable JF Dark Wing unit (I'm not aware of any) then we probably need a disambiguation page. Frabby 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Frabby, as far my research revealed there least one unit (a Star), with designation. However these Dark Wing designations/names are reserved for JF Solahma Stars-size forces. If you read Field Manual: Crusader Clans, they have least one i ran by being listed Star with DW name in it. The original JF Sourcebook also has Dark Wing, but is bit vager in use. I apologize for the confusion and do not wish distract from MW1 Force. However, i'm citing from two canon sources which aren't Apocryphal. They have valid place on Sarna. I only added the short cut, with added (unit) name to so allow other find source of this easier. I'm picking through range of sourcebooks making sure i'm not missing anything. So i apolgize for upsetting the apple cart. -- Wrangler 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but "(unit)" doesn't really help in differentiating a JF unit from a merc unit. :) I'll see if I can draw up a suitable disambiguation page. From what you wrote, the current Dark Wing article probably needs to be renamed "Dark Wing (mercenary unit)" or somesuch. Frabby 11:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, i didn't change the Dark Wing name because it most known. If you think it warrents a disambiguation page, you should do it. I don't think its necessary. (unit) name is only used for generic names/differient formation types. I only used "unit" because thats what previous folks have used. Dark Wing (unit) isn't big thing, its just thing. Dark Wing (Mercenary unit) for the moment best known for that name thus the original. I think it should retain full name until CGL comes up with something else. -- Wrangler 11:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may jump in here, this sounds like a job for the otheruses tag.--Mbear 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What is that Tag? -- Wrangler 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions about two projects[edit]

Hi, I have two projects in development and I need your opinion about both: 1st: I will create for every faction equipment list like which Dropship class is available to the single Houses and so on. WHich way is the best to show this?

2nd: I will write a lot of minor groups. This groups have huge influence about the state affairs. Could I use a Infobox or which information should include?

Tnx for your help... Neuling 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1st - We have already a [[Category:Equipment]], You should listed as subcategory as AeroSpace Equipment or Category:DropShip Equipment. I'd prefer the first one, so you can add other sub-categories to them.
2nd - I use the Help:CreateBookArticle, that would try use the Template:InfoBoxFactions if your going make sub-groups and when you put them into category, put into [[Category: Minor Factions]]. -- Wrangler 12:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving Dossiers to File Archive / CDN[edit]

Hey Wrangler, is it OK if I move the PDF Dossiers to Sarna's file archive, which is backed by a CDN (Content Delivery Network)? I'm moving all non-images to the File archive, if possible. Maybe under or -- Nicjansma 06:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nicjansma. Thats fine, . As long as their findable through search. Is possible still keep them organized through? I'd hate see them get miss-placed. Alot MWDA era articles are link to those dossiers. be a doable thing since specifies the whats in the data? -- Wrangler 12:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Second question has popped up. Is everyone going be able access this CDN file format? As i've said, i'm not most savy computer user, so i'm concern about folks being able access this new format change from the universal PDF viewer.-- Wrangler 12:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
They will be findable through the Downloads section's search (, and I think would be a good place for them. Everyone will be able to access them the same way as they can here on the wiki through any PDF viewer. Nicjansma 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Will it look like we'll have to redo the wiki-links we already have to articles referring to them? -- Wrangler 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand - we have articles linking to PDF files? Frabby 19:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as references. Many of the Dark Age vehicle and mech dossier are PDFs forms. They were originally free from WizKids. The ones we have are used as references to article. They help give some background information until Battletech's information catches up with the respective units, and even characters. -- Wrangler 19:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you point me to one of the articles linking to the PDFs? I will make sure to update all of the articles as I move them. Nicjansma 19:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll try, there alot of them. The best way to find them all is using the category listing. There are basic ones, nearly all of them have a dossier or more connected to them.Category:Dark Age Characters, Category:Dark Age Mechs, Category:Dark Age Vehicles. Also, Factions, sub factions from the Dark Age include; Swordsworn, Stormhammers, Bannson's Raiders. I was to try to expand Dragon's Fury and the Steel Wolves, but i've been side tracked. Maintained info the dossiers in my resources page. -- Wrangler 20:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I see what the issue is (why I removed some of the PDFs that were linked on other pages). Looking at Swordsworn, you can see that the link to the PDF is to its URL ( instead of a wiki link [[File:SwordSword_Dossier.pdf]]. Thus, the Unused Files showed it as not being used anywhere. The Search functionality also doesn't find them. Nicjansma 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hy, i jump in, Nic can you fix this problem, you're a little bit overskilled and can do this ;= thanks.--Doneve 20:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess way i and possibly others were using the PDF files was reason. Is there a solution to this problem, Nicjansma? As i'm not as savy on technical side of wiki and computers. -- Wrangler
OK, I was able to upload the Dossier PDFs to I used a bot to change all articles that were linking to the PDFs that were on the wiki to the new address. Let me know if you find any broken links. Nicjansma 07:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll check what I can, i'm more likely to stumble into them as i'm doing other projects. Thanks again keeping me informed about you got do. -- Wrangler 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Project: Unfinished Book[edit]

Morning, Wrangler.

I saw you joined BattleTechWiki:Project Unfinished Book and look forward to working with you. Right now, the only mission is for Jihad Turning Points: Luthien. With the addition of both Doneve and yourself, I started giving greater thought as to how best organize this very coordinated group effort. One of the positions I felt was lacking was Fact Checker and I also thought it would be a good way to bring you up to the standards needed to become a Research Writer. At the same time, I would finally have someone double-checking my own work. If you're interested in taking direct assignments, please let me know by acknowledging at BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Unfinished_Book#Team_member_Verification:_Wrangler, and I'll start you on your training! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll give this a try Rev, i'm used to doing own projects due to me hyper-focusing one one thing at a time. I'll sign on to do double-checks, i have enough info to do it. I may need to be propted/directed to when/which project is ready for look ups. -- Wrangler 12:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)