|
|
| (557 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Shortcut|[[BTW:A]]}} | + | {{Information page}} |
| | + | '''To contact a Senior Editor, Admin, or Founder, select their name below and leave a message on their talk page.''' <br> |
| | + | For a (potentially) faster response, locate the staff member on the [https://discord.gg/CPjUMCbk36 Sarna Discord Community]. |
| | | | |
| − | Post in the section '''Admin Help Requests''' to get proper attention to the issue/problem. Please be specific and sign your request (by adding <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> at the end).
| + | {{familytree/start}} |
| | + | {{familytree |HF22| |Volt| |CungrVanck| |Deadfire| |Iridani||HF22='''Senior Editor<br>Characters'''<br>[[User talk:HF22|HF22<br>(2021)]]|Volt='''Senior Editor<br>Coordinates'''<br>[[User talk:Volt|Volt<br>(2021)]]|CungrVanck='''Senior Editor<br>Data Mining'''<br>[[User talk:CungrVanck|CungrVanck<br>(2021)]]|Deadfire='''Senior Editor <br>Templates & Automation'''<br>[[User talk:Deadfire|Deadfire<br>(2021)]]|Iridani='''Senior Editor<br>Discord'''<br>[[User talk:Iridani|Iridani<br>(2021)]]}} |
| | + | {{familytree}} |
| | + | {{familytree}} |
| | + | {{familytree |Dmon| |Cache| |Gruese| |Orwell84||Dmon='''Senior Editor<br>Dynastic Houses'''<br>[[User talk:Dmon|Dmon<br>(2021)]]|Cache='''Senior Editor<br>Images'''<br>[[User talk:Cache|Cache<br>(2021)]]|Gruese='''Senior Editor <br>Mapping'''<br>[[User talk:Gruese|Gruese<br>(2021)]]|Orwell84='''Senior Editor<br>Wars & Operations'''<br>[[User talk:Orwell84|Orwell84<br>(2021)]]}} |
| | + | {{familytree/end}} |
| | | | |
| − | == Current Sarna.net Wiki Administrators ==
| + | <!--Senior Editors strive to be extremely responsive to questions and issues that arise in their particular areas of expertise. These may be posted on their talk pages or via the Discord. Senior Editors are polled for continuing interest and reviewed for active wiki involvement annually (every September). Removal is not a punishment, but intended to ensure the first line of contact with Sarna's users are still fully available.--> |
| − | * [[User:Nicjansma | NicJansma]] ([[User talk:Nicjansma|Talk]] to me)
| |
| − | * [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ([[User talk:Revanche|Talk]] at me)
| |
| − | * [[User:Xoid|Xoid]] ([[User talk:Xoid|Talk]] to me) '''(non-active)'''
| |
| − | * [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] ([[User talk:Scaletail|Talk]] to me)
| |
| − | * [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|Talk]] to me)
| |
| − | * [[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] ([[User talk:Ebakunin|Talk]] to me)
| |
| − | * [[User:Mbear|Mbear]] ([[User talk:Mbear|Talk]] to me)
| |
| | | | |
| − | Auto-updated list found [[Special:Listusers/sysop|here]]
| + | ---- |
| | | | |
| − | ==Admin Help Requests (Outstanding)== | + | {{familytree/start}} |
| − | '''Make your request here (and sign with 4 tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>))''' | + | {{familytree |A001| |A002| |A003| |A004| |A005| |A006||A001='''Admin'''<br>[[User talk:Revanche|Revanche<br>(2006)]]|A002='''Admin'''<br>[[User talk:Frabby|Frabby<br>(2008)]]|A003='''Admin'''<br>[[User talk:Ebakunin|Ebakunin <br>(2009)]]|A004='''Admin'''<br>[[User talk:Mbear|Mbear<br>(2010)]]|A005='''Admin'''<br>[[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic<br>(2014)]]|A006='''Admin'''<br>[[User talk:Dmon|Dmon<br>(2019)]]}} |
| | + | {{familytree/end}} |
| | | | |
| − | ===Add MWLL to sidebar?===
| + | <!--Admins are ''always'' admins, even when they are on years-long extended wiki-breaks. However, this particular group role is differentiated between "active" and "inactive" Admins, with inactivity defined by an absence of six or more months. When an admin is determined to be inactive, their name is removed from the masthead (until their announced return).--> |
| | + | ---- |
| | | | |
| − | As there is now a decent article written on [[Mechwarrior:Living Legends]], could it be linked in the sidebar under Homebrew Game Systems? --[[User:Cygma|Cygma]]
| + | {{familytree/start}} |
| − | :Ähm, i canot see any link, and i think you have not the permission to do this, please talk to a addmin to have a permission to do this, and as second Living Legends is allway added as BT product and ís not need a link in the sidebar. --[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
| + | {{familytree |Fdr|||Fdr='''Founder'''<br>[[User talk:Nicjansma|Nicjansma<br>(1997/2006)]]}} |
| − | ::Oops, link fixed. Talking to admins is exactly why i am writing here? If there is a specific admin i should contact feel free to tell me...
| + | {{familytree/end}} |
| − | ::And why should it not be added to "Homebrew Game Systems"? Other non-commercial projects are already linked there... --[[User:Cygma|Cygma]] 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::I may be wrong, but I believe all of the games under that listing allow you to play Classic BattleTech. I don't know anything about MW:LL, but if it's based on Crysis, then I can't imagine that's possible. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Seeing how the "Official Game Systems" lists Mechwarrior games i thought the "Homebrew" part was similar for non-official releases etc. based on CBT (which MW:LL is too). If it's only for tabletop-like sytems, my misunderstanding ;) --[[User:Cygma|Cygma]] 00:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Weapons infobox===
| |
| − | Has gone haywire. Since I don't know how the infobox code works I don't want to muck with it further. Take a look at [[Autocannon/10]] for example, or I guess pretty much any weapon page... -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 17:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :What does "gone haywire" mean? What should I be seeing on the Autocannon/10 page that isn't correct?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Hmm... Well, when I look at it right now the box has disappeared and has turned into a text only list at the top of the article, justified left. Now, I use one of the alternate themes when viewing the site, perhaps that has something to do with it? <pokepokepoke>... Sure enough, the issue is only occurring when I am using the "Modern" skin on my preferences page, the box looks fine when I use the Sarna skin. Hmm... -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::Mbear, I don't see what LRichardson reports, but other than the infobox, the page is bleached of color and the sidebar is occluded from under the site logo all the way to 'MechForce (Amiga)', with the exception of the search box. I'm using IE7 (at the moment) and 'Sarna' skin.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::I was the last one to edit the Weapons Info Box, and any mistakes i made would have shown up well before now (i checked), i have not made changes to the format of the imfobox... what else could be causing it? are any other templates getting funky?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::OK. It looks like Nic's removed the "modern" skin and left seven Sarna-related skins in it's place. When I change to the "Classic" skin, all the infoboxes are set at the top of the page, as are the category links. Some investigation showed that this was due to the fact that the wikistandard CSS file doesn't contain any positioning information for those page elements. In short, LRichardson will have to use one of the other skins to get the infobox correct. Sorry about that answer, but it's the best I can do. :( --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===PDF files not acceptable?===
| |
| − | A while back I composed myself a PDF of a blank mapsheet. It is a vector graphics based file suitable for high resolution printing. I wanted to link to it on the mapsheets page I created but I cannot upload it. Rasterizing the image would make it huge as the file is referenced at 600dpi x 27" x 22", as a PDF it is a managable size. Any suggestions? -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 04:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :A while ago we deliberately limited the file formats that could be uploaded. The wiki format is unsuitable as a file repository and (iirc) our Bureaucrat and site owner Nic said it generated too much traffic. We do have a download section on this site, and I would suggest you contact Nic Jansma ([[User:Nicjansma]]) and ask him to put your PDF there. (Admittedly, the download section is sort of a stepchild on this site and has not been upgraded for years - one of the many things on the to-do list... :) ). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 05:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Makes sense. Thanks for the direction.-- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Quick-Strike Rules Article Request===
| |
| − | Hello there. Since were getting a bunch of products for the ''Quick-Strike Rules'', i think we may need have a article dedicate it. Unit Cards are for use of the new version of Battleforce, but their intended for Quick-Strike. Is possible to find someone write it up? I'm not that savy writing up game system type articles. I can try, but they don't not always write up good articles on game rules as i would like. Would there be someone out there would could write this article? It seems becoming bigger thing since these rules and products are also linked to [[BattleForce]] as products like unit cards go -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Go ahead and try (aka, "'''[[Be Bold]]'''"). Even if the wording doesn't come out good, another editor may eventually clean it up. On big subjects, I personally prefer badly-worded content to no content at all (YMMV). However, that only applies to high-profile topics. Everybody contributing on BTW should generally try to write good articles so as not to tie up other editor's time for copyediting the sloppy work of others. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Cleanup Template===
| |
| − | Hello Admins, can we make the [[Template:cleanup|Cleanup Template]] a little bit, (the words are in my head, but my english writing :()...i think he needs a new outfit ;), it looks very sterile and and, any ideas or response.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 02:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Can you elaborate on what you feel is wrong with the template? Personally, I like short and concise wording and I think the template conveys exactly what it is meant to say in a sober, matter-of-fact way. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Suggestion:Transclusion===
| |
| − | one thing that might be useful is mastering/implementing wiki transclusion (it scares me too much to try at this point, but its the only thing that appears to fit the bill)... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | main question is whither or not transclusion works here... if so, what things could be transcluded?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Mech variant Pages====
| |
| − | (Transcluding the "Overview" and/or "Battle History" Fluff from the Mechs Main Page) with the stats on the side being for the specific variant, This would have the advantage of transcluded Text being edited in one spot and the rest being page specific. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Best handled in [[Project_BattleMechs#Variant_Pages]]--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::I see what you're saying, but I think the very concept of transclusion is baffling to the majority of users, so it would be difficult to /require/. I guess I'd have no problem with an expert back-adapting an article to transclude, but I wouldn't make it part of the 'how to start' templates we have for beginning editors (and I still use those templates, myself).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::i've been more looking at transclusion with an "ohh my, that looks easy to do but hard to learn" perspective.. ::bugging eyes::, wonder if it would be easy enought to put into transclusion specific weapons or mech templates. Is there any one here with experience?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] can do so rather easily, but he is more of a [[Colonial Marshal]] admin and isn't here too much. In the end, this project would have to be undertaken by someone who wants to work thru all affected 'Mechs and is willing to learn transclusion to do it. I've got the latter skills, but am too widely focused to deal only with 'Mechs. And, it sounds like some consensus on variant pages needs to be reached, before picking up that scale of a project, anyhow. I believe [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] is the acting project head of [[BTW:PBM]] at the moment; I recommend you try and pitch your concept to him over there. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Weapon Variant Pages====
| |
| − | Transclusion would Also be useful in Weapons, granted, on the BattleTech Scale, an Autocannon/20 is an Autocannon/20... But I am planning to do/have done some manufacturer / brand specific subpages for the weapons that would transclude the Macro/BattleTech Fluff from the main page for the weapon, and have Manufacturer/Brand specific RPG Stats, Eventually planning to do page and book references for where the information comes from.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Naming of Weapons/Equipment Variant Pages===
| |
| − | Which would be preferred for these? Currently i am doing "Manufacturer or Brand"/"Model" (with disambig style weapon type) so it is [[General Motors/Whirlwind (AC-5)]] for the Marauders weapon. but I wonder if it would be more (useful/in keeping with the nomenclature here) to do [[Autocannon/5/General Motors/Whirlwind]]--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :The problem with using "/"s is that the wiki interprets that to be a subpage. As it is now, the Whirlwind article is a subpage of General Motors, not Autocannon/5, which I assume to be your intention. Of course, there is also the problem that MediaWiki thinks "Autocannon/5" is a subpage of "Autocannon". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::not really a problem... would be better if WikiMedia interpeted SRM-4 as a subpage for SRM as it does Autocannon/5 as a subpage of Autocannon - this would better fit BattleTech Nomenclature. the essence of my question was whither {Manufacturer/Brand (disambig)} would fit or if it was deemed better to do {Weapon Type/SubType/Manufacturer/Brand}. I like the {Manufacturer/Brand (disambig)} style because it can get away with doing the brand name or add the disambig for equipment type if necessary as opposed to using the larger name space required for the page to branch off the Autocannon/5 page (less typing is always better)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Category: Dark Age Mechs===
| |
| − | I've been looking at the [[:Category: Dark Age Mechs|category]] that currently exists with that name, because it always bugs me that it doesn't fit in with the naming conventions used for other BattleMech categories. In my mind, it should read '''Category:Dark Age BattleMechs''', but it isn't just BattleMechs, as IndustrialMechs are included in the category too. I'm thinking it should then be '''Category:Dark Age 'Mechs''' (with the apostrophe), but then it still seems like it is different than what the name ''suggests.'' Help me wrap my mind around this?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::(Using heavy duty scotch tape for wrapping of Rev's mind) Hi there. I have not been involved with the new Dark Age 'Mech. However, i've noticed mis-labelling of sorts. [[Carbine]] for instance resemble the [[ConstructionMech]], but its not same machine. I believe what defines a mech is dark age is something constructed after the During or after the Jihad. Were starting to see alot age old Succession War 'Mechs as well Clan Era machine show up. Xanthos for example is Age of War design, yet it was resurrected during the Jihad, but it appeared in MWDA game system first. How do you define such large era machine? I think best way to keep it simple. Since the at moment, Dark Age Era for Battletech starts immediately after the Jihad <3081>(which i don't agree it should.) Were going see alot of the old fan favorites end up in the Jihad. Dark Age mech used to only exist in its own time period. Original, Dark Age ment it priemer and was used in with MechWarrior click game or was something related to it, like characters. Were going have alot dublication with category if were not careful. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Admin To-Do List===
| |
| − | [[Talk:3053|Locis']] comments got me thinking about how we've been handling policy creation. I know that some policies that need to be written have fallen through the cracks. I would like to suggest that admins update the [[BattleTechWiki:ToDo |To Do List]] with policies that need creating when a discussion reaches consensus with a link back to the talk page in question. I know that policy writing is a pain, but it needs to be done. I'm probably the most guilty party here, but I think if we can get better organized, it will make the process easier. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Agreed. I'll start considering needed policies, look around WP for inspiration. Would like to stress, though, that policies are the purview of all Editors, not just Admins. This isn't aimed at Scaletail, at all: every visitor here gets a voice on BTW, and staying silent implies endorsement of the consensus. Readers that haven't edited are just as responsible for the direction of the wiki as the most industrious Editors and Admins. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Okay, I've spent a lot of time reading various Wikipedia policies and found subject areas I think we should address. However, we've got a lot more narrow scope than WP and I'm fairly certain that these policies won't address all of our needs. All Editors (not just admins) are free to suggest ideas (and even to write policy). --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Blocking Spammers===
| |
| − | I've noticed a recent trend where spammers are creating User pages in which to hawk their links. '''Administrators''', please block the IP before deleting the page, so that we can start to cut down on these site attacks.
| |
| − | Steps:
| |
| − | # On [[Special:RecentChanges]], click on '''Block''' first.
| |
| − | # Select a term length (my default is infinite) from '''Expiry'''.
| |
| − | # Select ''Spamming links to external sites'' in the '''Reason''' field.
| |
| − | # Make sure ''Prevent account creation '' and ''Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from '' are checked.
| |
| − | # Click the '''Block this user''' button
| |
| − | # Go back to [[Special:RecentChanges]] and click on the User page.
| |
| − | # Delete it with fervor.
| |
| − | Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | : Hopefully the ReCaptcha plugin will help a bit with this. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Watchlist===
| |
| − | Why does the option show all doesn't work? I can only see changes from the last 7 days but the option show all should show me changes from the last 30 days. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:31, 11 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :I'm not sure. Nic? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:06, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::The default "max days" is 7 -- but I've bumped this up to 30 days for you. I couldn't verify it was working properly -- please let me know if you still only see 7 days. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 17:40, 1 March 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | :::Still strange, in my preferences I tried to set the "Days to show in recent changes:" higher then 7 and also set the "Maximum number of days to show in watchlist:" higher but anything higher then 7 will be set to 7 and when I use the "all" option on my watchlist I get about 10 days. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 07:43, 3 March 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Fan Fiction Category===
| |
| − | I was checking out the fan fiction page, and it seems to have a lot of images in the fan fiction category. I would suggest making a sub category for fan made images. I created a Category:Fan Made Art which is a sub-category of Category:Fan Fiction. I also made a Template:Fanon Art page. Adding the <nowiki>{{Fanon Art}}</nowiki> tag to those images instead of <nowiki>{{Fanon}}</nowiki> will add the same red fanon tag at the top of the page, but add it the subcategory instead. --[[User:Seth|Seth]] 23:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I agree with the idea solely based on the wish to remove the images from the main category. But I wouldn't want to differentiate the plethora of existing Fan Work beyond that. Also, suggest to rename the sub-cat "Fanmade Images". [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Admin Help Requests (Completed) ==
| |
| − | ''Please move help requests here after the request is answered, with the latest (according to last answer) sorted to the top of this section.'''
| |
| − | :''Note: Requests pertaining to specific spambots/spam users/spam edits are not archived. Please simply delete such requests here after dealing with the problem. The same goes for other minor requests such as the move or deletion of a misnamed article page.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Crybaby throwing a tantrum===
| |
| − | Maybe I'm just being dense, but I can't get the front page display the reworked news section correctly for the life of me. Now I somehow messed up the front page (not too badly luckily). Help appreciated in getting the formatting back on track. :( [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 09:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | :It looks like you accidentally deleted the table row that holds the Chatterweb stuff. I put it back and I think we're all good now.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::"Assistance Appreciated" (as in, Award 2nd ribbon given, plus Problem Solver award) :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Davion Brigade of Guards===
| |
| − | Hy guys, i found a problem in the Davion Brigade section, i cant see the unit insignia images, is it a wiki problem, then the images are uploaded.Thanks--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 14:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :? Looks fine to me - the insignia are all there where they belong. I guess there's been a connection problem on your end or something like that. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 18:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Help Request in labeling a non-canon image(s)===
| |
| − | Howdy, someone uploaded a non-canon imagine of the [[:File:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]. There no label stating it is fan-made and not a product of canon source. Does anyone know what were suppose to do about this? I've not dealth with a direct png image before. Usually these things have page that gives direction of the imagine. Someone thought that image that was uploaded was canon. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :OK. What you have to do is put in a link to the image like this: <nowiki>[[Image:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]</nowiki>. This will include the image on the page. From there, you can click the image and you'll be taken to the image's wiki page. Then you can add the tag you need.
| |
| − | :In this case it looks like someone has beaten you to it.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::It was me, I stumbled onto the source of the image. I was able track the non-canon image from person whom uploaded them. I've labeled it non-canon long with bunch of others that were uploaded as well. I'm sorry for cause a fuss, but i hated to see Sarna.net rep possibly damaged. Making people think we have unorganized non-canon stuff looming around possing as canon material. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Update to DropShip and WarShip infoboxes===
| |
| − | [[User:Doneve|Doneve]] and [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] made a request on [[User_talk:Mbear#DropShip_-_WarShip_etc...|my talk page]] to make these modifications:
| |
| − | # Update the DropShip infobox to include an '''Escape Pod/Life Boat''' line like the WarShip infobox.
| |
| − | # Update the DropShip infobox to include an '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity''' line.
| |
| − | # Update the WarShip infobox to include an '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity''' line.
| |
| − | I've taken care of the first request. It won't show up until an editor puts in the Escape Pod/Life Boat information so existing DropShip articles don't break.
| |
| − | | |
| − | On #2 and #3, I pushed back a bit and suggested that we consider '''Small Craft capacity''' instead of '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity'''. Ships like the [[Nekohono'o]] class can carry 6 ASF + 9 Battle Taxis for example, but they can also swap out the taxis and carry 15 ASF if required.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Any thoughts on this?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 13:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Since I haven't heard anything, I went ahead and implemented the new lines. They're in place now.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::add both small craft and asf capacity... The masses of the bay are differnt--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Moratorium Periods===
| |
| − | Hey guys - what's the easiest way to find out if the material from a particular work is fair game to be cited in an article? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Usually, the moratorium tag in the article about a given work will state when the moratorium expires. See [[Historical Turning Points: Galtor]] as an example - it says the moratorium on this publication expires after 1 April 2010. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]]
| |
| − | :Hy falls Record Sheets: 3060 Unabridged under the moratorium phase or it is done.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 09:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::According to http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=27_35_208&products_id=2417, the moratorium period expired. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Request for Article Review===
| |
| − | I was wondering if I could get a review of my [[Battle of Mars]] article. I'm always interested in feedback. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Requesting template When?===
| |
| − | Now that we are working on year pages and trying to improve date info it would be very useful to have Template:When to mark need of more info.
| |
| − | See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:When Template:When]
| |
| − | --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Done. I would suggest adding some language to [[Policy:Year Pages]] about making sure that dates in articles are unambiguous. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | === SturmFeur(Update)) ===
| |
| − | The [[SturmFeur(update)]] is directly from 3039 which I now understand is copyrite infrengement. I do not want to claim ownership for someone elses work. How do I create this page and keep it cannon?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also the orginal article [[SturmFeur]] article for 3026 is completely different from the article in 3039. I'm not sure how to merge them.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I have removed the content from the [[SturmFeur(update)]] page until we can get the copyrite resolved.
| |
| − | --[[User:jherbert2|jherbert2]] 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)jherbert
| |
| − | :Thanks for being so proactive on this, jherbert2. I commented on the [[SturmFeur(update)]]'s discussion page. Don't give up; its not easy, but each of the existing articles are labors of love. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Greetings===
| |
| − | I wish the Admins and other user's a merry christmas and a habby new year.Lets roll on. [[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 08:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Thanks!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Subcategory for C3 equipped unit?===
| |
| − | Hi, I haven't contributed much but I have found the site to be very useful so thanks for all your work. I've used BTW a lot lately as I have recently started to build up my mini collection and BTW has helped me with selecting ones I want to buy. I have a Tai Sho and since it has C3 Master capability, I would like to pick up some compatible Slave-equipped Mechs. I was wondering if it would be possible to set up a subcategory of units that have C3 equipment? That would be helpful in picking lances as well as buying minis. If I can help, please let me know. [[User:Maddog3025|Maddog3025]] 05:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :For all of the other Editors here, thanks for the appreciation. I'm not too heavily involved in the [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|BattleMech Project]] anymore, but its gratifying to hear that people are using our work in such an involved way ''and'' get feedback on it.
| |
| − | :As for the Category, I think it is a great idea. If a category has a perceived need and it can be filled with more than a minimum number of articles, then it is, frankly, needed. So, don't feel like you need approval to build it, ok? Now, the issue will be in finding someone who has the interest in doing so, if you do not. As editorship on BTW is open to everyone, it is no one person's specific responsibility. My suggestion would be to look at Project:BattleMechs and find someone listed there who is active now and approach them. Or, if you let me know, I can start the category for you and show you how to tag one such article, so you can go in and find the others. (It'd be relatively easy, using C3 as a search term, I'd think.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::I've created some new categories to do this. I'll be adding them to the appropriate 'Mech pages in the future.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::Of course it would help if I had put the link in place: [[:Category:C3_Equipped_BattleMechs]]--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::All done.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::Wow, that was quick! Thank you Mbear. Revanche- you are welcome for the compliment. I've been using the site a lot and its been handy on many occasions. This format is so great as it allows you to sort things in so many ways. I looked through the vehicle list and noted some missing ones, so I'll be glad to create a few of those and you guys can tidy up my crude efforts. Have a good weekend, all! [[User:Maddog3025|Maddog3025]] 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::::Hi again, I guess I won't quite let this thread die. I apologize if I leave this request in the wrong place. I have created the Bandit hovercraft and I am working on the Plainsman. I think I've done a bit better than my previous attempt on the Alacorn. However, if you have any tips for me to improve my work (and maybe reduce the amount of bugs you guys have to fix, please shoot me an email. Thanks again. ```` {{Unsigned|Maddog3025|11:37, 31 January 2010 }}
| |
| − | ::::::: I'll take a look. Look at the article history to see my changes as an idea on how to step in the right direction. Also, just a tip: its a nice idea to wikilink to articles you mention in your post, to make it easier to have people look at what you'd like, such as [[Plainsman]] and [[Bandit]]. Glad you're onboard. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Plagiarism ===
| |
| − | I noticed that most of the content on the [[Free_Worlds_League/History]] page is taken directly from the [[20 Year Update]] section on the Free Worlds League. (The military ranks and history sections appear to be new.) I went ahead and put the Plagarism template on the relevant sections. (I'm not able to get to it right now.) --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 01:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Thanks, Mbear. It doesn't require fixing by the discovery, just tagging, such as you did. The [[BattleTechWiki:ToDo|To Do List]] will count and track such tags, for Editors seeking something to improve upon. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | === Updated Weapon InfoBox Template ===
| |
| − | ''Not a help request, but I wanted you to see this.'' I put together a lot of information about Capital Weapons, which include an '''extreme''' range bracket. Since the current weapon infobox doesn't have the extreme range data field, and not all weapons have it, I created a new InfoBox that will include the extreme range bracket info if it's present. This will allow the Aerospace fighter ranges on the appropriate weapon page, without breaking the existing content.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I named the sample infobox [[Template:InfoBoxWeaponMB]] so I wouldn't overwrite anything. You can see it in action at [[User:Mbear/Infoboxtest]]. If you like the update, it should be easy to copy to the existing template. Have a good one!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Good job, man. Great addition. Feel free to replace the exisiting with that one. I can't see how consensus would not be in approval. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | === MWDA Dossiers: How do I link to local copies? ===
| |
| − | You may remember that [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] pointed to the MWDA dossiers on Warrenborn.com and I separated the multipage PDF files into a set of single page PDFs ([[User:Mbear/MWDADossiers|listed here]]). My question is how to update the reference links to point to these local resources. The [[Atlas_(BattleMech)|Atlas]] page uses a complete URL for the link, and I'm wondering if that's the best solution or if I should use a '''File''' or '''Image''' tag. Thanks! --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :For this specific instance, I think linking to them as is done now works just fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 05:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Unfortunately, linking to them like that fails. For some reason, URL links don't need a pipe between the address and the link title, only a space. I've removed the piping from the Atlas examples. Oh, and I agree: I like linking to them as you have done, also. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 05:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::OK. I'll just use the standard link type <nowiki>[[URL Linktext]]</nowiki> Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::I think you mean <nowiki>[URL Linktext]</nowiki> (i.e., one open/close bracket each), but saying so, just in case.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I wasn't incorrect; I was testing you. {{Emoticon| ;) }} You passed! Congratulations! Go get yourself a cookie.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::::"[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nom Nom, nom nom]." While it's the thought that counts, now I have to re-log into Sarna to replace my cookie. Thanks, anyway. {{Emoticon| ;) }}--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Question:Uploading Pictures===
| |
| − | Currently Engaged in creating pages for infantry weapons, wondering how/where to upload images. Main issue beyond my ignorance is Whither or not to Upload the Weapon images which for the first batch would be Sourced from TR3026. I Make the Assumption that this would be OK since we have Mech Images Here. The Other Alternative is to use WikiMedia Commons images from Real World Weapons that resemble the TR3026 artwork. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Completed and moved--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Product scans are fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Thanks, is there a Help/Procedure article for how to upload images? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::DOH Never Mind, Found it in the Menu Bar on the Right under Tools... Now, how do you alter the name of an Image File? Wasn't Thinking when I uploaded the First 10 or so. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Just click 'move' at the top tab menu. It works that way for articles, too. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::"Move" does not appear to be available on the image page, the only tabs that i see are "File", "Discussion", "Edit", "History", "Unwatch".--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Move is actually only for Admins {{emoticon|:P}}. I can move it for you if you give me the exact name. The easiest thing to do, though, is to upload the image again with the correct name and place a delete request on the old image. It's what I do on a lot of other wikis. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::Was wondering if that was the only way, will do. Thanks all.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Completed and moved--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Question:Naming Pictures===
| |
| − | What is considered "Best Practices" when naming image files, IOW which File Name is Preferred for a filesourced from Page 123 of Technical Readout 3026 depicting a Dart Gun.
| |
| − | *A: "Dart_Gun.jpg"
| |
| − | *B: "Dart_Gun-TR3026"
| |
| − | *C: "Dart_Gun_-_TR3026_p123.jpg"<br>
| |
| − | PRO for C is that the Book and page from the origin is included in the file name, the CON is that it is an aweful lot of typing.
| |
| − | PRO for A is that it has less typing, CON is that does not allow for multiple pictures from different sources.
| |
| − | PRO for B is that it allows for multiple named sources while also having a reduced name.
| |
| − | --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I use "A", then use the description to list to rest of the information. Check out [[:File:Atlas_II.jpg]] for an example. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::the first 10 or 15 I uploaded used *C (search for TR3026), I would appreciate renaming (since both renaming and uploading again w/deletion of old would require Admin Intervention)... then i came to my senses... Question still remains for Duplicates w/Newer sources, such as weapons that had artwork published in each of [[MechWarrior,_First_Edition|MechWarrior: First Edition]], [[Technical Readout: 3026]], [[MechWarrior,_Second_Edition|MechWarrior: Second Edition]], [[MechWarrior Companion]], [[MechWarrior,_Third Edition|MechWarrior: Third Edition]] or [[Classic BattleTech RPG]], [[LosTech: The MechWarrior Equipment Guide]], and [[Classic BattleTech Companion]]. One thing that I am thinking of is weapon pages w/images of each iteration similar to what I saw on a page for a BattleMech. would it be
| |
| − | *A: Dart_Gun.jpg, Dart_Gun(1).jpg, Dart_Gun(2).jpg
| |
| − | *B: Dart_Gun.jpg, Dart_Gun-LT.jpg, Dart_Gun-TR3026.jpg, Dart_Gun-3e.jpg, etc with the most up to date being the main undifferenced file as well as having a file name diferenced for the source.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::To be honest, I rarely give it any thought. I generally leave it the way it was originally named, if it came from another online source or name it appropriately if I scanned it myself. If it conflicts with another already named pic, the page will tell you before uploading.
| |
| − | :::The problem with a naming convention is that it adds another level of complexity to adminship, as it cannot be as easily solved as page names. Plus, I don't know of any Editors that will be policing for that. I agree, it would be very nice to have source included -in fact, I think it should be required- but it doesn't have to be in the name, as it can easily be found in the pic summary. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Question is more about Preference than Requirement. If the parenthetical number style is preferred then I could do that. Main thing is that I plan to raid all my books for images of RPG weapons and plan to name the files to fit the "Best Practices" here as I do so for easy uploading. I know of many weapons that are in at least 3 different Sources. Went A ...little... Overboard with having the page number in the file name, but other than that what best fits?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::I'd say whatever scheme works best for you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::::Thaaaanks... As my fiancee would say if asked, I positively suck at making decisions :)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 21:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::::No problem. You actually pay me to make decisions (and I pay you back here by doing it for free). {{Emoticon| :) }} Personal note: I still have your SL 'book' (following two tours since you loaned it to me). Once I unpack it (again), I'll have a (free) offer for you to put it back in book form. More later. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Category Page Cludge?===
| |
| − | To the coders of the bunch: some categories (such as the [[:Category:Characters|Characters]] one) don't display all of the sub-categories, due to some setting that limits the number per page. Can we force it to show all sub-categories on the mother cat's main page?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Unfortunately not. This is a problem with the wiki itself and would require rewriting some of the essential code. Very large wikis like [http://starwars.wikia.com starwars] solve the problem by not placing all individuals in the ''individual'' category but only in the related subdirectories. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Hmmm, yeah, I see the point. So, in order to get people to see all available categories -so that they use the proper categories- we'd have to categorize everyone not yet in a sub-category. Okay...thanks for the tip, Ebakunin. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Community 'Forum' Name===
| |
| − | I think its time we had a page where quick questions & answers can be asked, that don't necessarily relate to editing or admin requests. Things like:
| |
| − | *"What was the name of that one non-Mark that became Captain-General in the war against the Sarna Supremacy?" --[[UserDude]]
| |
| − | *"Hey...working on the article for ''Masters and Minions.'' Anyone have the production code for it?" --[[KuritaFan]]
| |
| − | *"So...anyone think LAMs as ground vehicles, like maybe support vehicles, would be cool? I have some killer ideas." --[[LadiesMan217]]
| |
| − | The idea would really be to provide quick answers, not so much conversations (in spite of that subtle last one), which would be directed to the Sarna forums. We'd archive it every quarter or so. This would be something similar to the Research Desk on Wikipedia. The question is: what should it be called? Chatterweb is already taken...ideas?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Okay, due to lack of overall interest, and based on my forthcoming essay about the 'character' of the site (i.e., a portal for research at the University of Sarna), I'm going to call this 'forum' the Research Desk. Please find it on the top right of the [[Main Page]].--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Banned Vandal attempting to get a new account?===
| |
| − | I think you have a banned vandal attempting to get a new account. But this wiki has no where shown to send the information, and edits don't seem to be leaving any trace that they have been successful. http://www.fixya.com/support/t2634796-blocked_from_editing_www_sarna_net {{unsigned|72.183.119.36}}
| |
| − | :Thanks. Responded to them at Fixya. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 23:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===CCG Artist Randy Asplund===
| |
| − | Just as a notice, in return for no objection to the use of his art on BTW, I said I'd provide a link back to Randy Asplund's website on the image pages and [[Randy Asplund]] article. I don't imagine any Editors will have an issue with this arrangement. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Custom 'Mechs in Regular Categories?===
| |
| − | Would like to get a feeling for consensus here: should fanon units be listed under categories (I had presumed) reserved for canon units. For example, [[Gatling]] is added to the BattleMechs | Medium BattleMechs | 45 ton BattleMechs | Free World's League BattleMechs categories. To be honest, I'd shy away from that and lump them under the catchall category of [[:Category:BattleMechsCustom]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :According to our [[Policy:Canon]], this wiki expressly tolerates custom/Fanon (fan-made non-canonical information) content under the premise that it is clearly marked as such. It think that, by extension, this requires Fanon articles be kept out of the categories.
| |
| − | :Personally, I even feel strongly against but as you may know I am of the opinion that Fanon content is detrimental to the image of this wiki anyways. (I've been overruled on this issue and I can live with that. BTW still rocks.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::As do you, Frabby. Thanks for the guidance. I'll fix this one now and hopefully the established templates for custom units will help prevent this categorization overlap. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===InfoBox template broken?===
| |
| − | The infoboxes for 'Mechs and fiction (books, BattelCorps fiction) seem to be broken but there was no recent edit to the templates - anybody know what happened? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Nic upgraded the MediaWiki software to 1.15. Good, quick catch, Frabby. Okay, let's all try and identify any other unanticipated (negative) changes that came as a result today and I'll pass those on to Nic. Hopefully, it'll just need some php tweaks and not a rollback. Report those found on this [[BattleTechWiki:Administrators/List|list]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Looks like all infoboxes are broken; state units, weapons, customweapons, aerospace fighters, dropships, you name it. So it looks like the software update did something to the way templates work. [[User:Onisuzume|Onisuzume]] 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Strick-9===
| |
| − | I screwed up again. I don't get or understand how to edit/create here and I messed up the custom
| |
| − | weapons list and can't remove what I did. So, I hope it can be fixed. I'm going to have my son show me how to use this system so, I don't mess it up AGAIN. Sorry for the mess. [[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 13:35, 13 June 2009 (PDT)Strick-9[[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 13:35, 13 June 2009 (PDT)
| |
| − | :No problem. You edited a discussion page and almost anything goes on these.
| |
| − | :I guess, you want to create that PPC-article, so my advice is:
| |
| − | :# Open the same page again via "edit" and copy the source-code for your article (to get the code for the chart).
| |
| − | :# Insert the name of your article in the search-box to the left and "go". (Not standard method, but easiest way.)
| |
| − | :# A page will show up, saying that no article with this title exists, providing a red link to your "PPC something". Click on the link and an edit-page will open.
| |
| − | :# Insert your text and "save page". Voilà: new article.
| |
| − | :In general: Do some training in the "sandbox" (link on the left), before approaching a major task like new articles. --[[User:Detlef|Detlef]] 13:55, 13 June 2009 (PDT)
| |
| − | ::Thank you for the help. When I started playing BattleTech there were no computer games so, I'm a generation behind most of you. LOL. By the way does anyone know if a supercharger and TSM can be used together? If so, what is the rules on that. Thanks for the help and info. --[[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 14:31, 13 June 2009 (PDT)
| |
| − | :::Detlef wrote some really good guidance there. I was tempted to correct the article's place myself, but you really did most of the hard work already in writing the article and if you follow his steps, you'll learn the whole process. Call for help if you need it, tho, ok? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:57, 13 June 2009 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Notable Pilots===
| |
| − | Hi there, I've been going through some of the mech profiles. They look like most of them are done. I was wondering if it cool for me to add notable pilots that are both published in past TROs (original 3025 example) and from the novels. Would this be acceptable? I would be listing page, book, etc. where these characters profiles are listed. I am uncertain however, how far it be allowed. Example: Pilot of a Archer from TRO Notable Piltos. That can't be put in word for word, but apprievated version what is written. Example 2: Is duable to list pilot such as Conner Rhys-Monroe, a antagonist character whom is Rifleman RFL-8D in novel Sword of Sedition & Fortress Republic. Like notable pilots, be short listing for this character. Would this be allowable? Thank you. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:24, 3 March 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | :You can add articles for the pilots. In fact, it would be great if you did that. And please do add as many references as you can, and as precisely as you can. I have done so myself for two characters that were notable pilots in TRO3025 and re-appeared in [[Starterbook: Sword and Dragon]]. Check out [[Terry Ford]] and [[Melinda Carlyle]] for examples. In fact, I suggest you use these articles as blueprints for your character articles on people mentioned as "notable pilots".
| |
| − | :I would not, on the other hand, add them as notable pilots in the entries of the respective 'Mechs, in accordance with our [[:Policy:Notability]]. The reason is that they are not actually notable, but virtual nobodies in most cases. Very few of these "notable" pilots have ever made an appearance elsewhere in Canon, and if we listed everybody who ever piloted a given 'Mech type in a canon source then the lists would be very, very long.
| |
| − | ::If you read [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Famous_Pilots|the conversation]] members of the Project BattleMechs team had concerning the addition of the "Notable Pilots" section to the BattleMech articles, you will find that adding the pilots from the TROs was specifically cited as something we did not want to happen unless they were otherwise notable. I would like to stress that one precondition (not the only one) for including a pilot as "notable" on the 'Mech article is that they have their own article on BTW, per that same discussion. While Connor, specifically, is probably notable enough, he needs to have an article written about him that asserts that first. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 16:51, 3 March 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Uploading Self-Generated Images===
| |
| − | Hi, I suggested generating Unit TOEs for the Military Commands project, and others suggested I put up an example to demonstrate what I mean. I now have a PNG file, but no idea of how to upload. Can anyone walk me through the procedure, please?
| |
| − | [[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 16:11, 25 February 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | :As you have since uploaded and used the Waco Rangers TOE I take it this request is done? If not, please drop me a note. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 06:42, 27 February 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | :::Yes, it's done - thanks. [[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 09:42, 27 February 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Weapons, Character Pages===
| |
| − | I have two questions. First off, if a character in BattleTech is already in the [[List of BattleTech Characters|"BattleTech characters list"]], should redirect pages be made so people get pointed straight to that location? I was thinking you would just use the context indicator so it would go straight to that person, but I thought I'd ask because you may decide to give major characters (like Sun-Tzu Liao) their own articles.
| |
| − | :I'd actually prefer we split up [[List of BattleTech Characters|"BattleTech characters list"]] and make pages for all of the characters in there. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | ::Agreed. Most people are going to go for specific names, or type them in directly. Apart from being neater, and circumventing various technical limitations (both server- and client-side), it'll reduce the amount of bandwidth used on outbound traffic. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Secondly, shouldn't the weapons articles have more information than just where the weapon is manufactured? Isn't just having only where its made kind of odd? I was wondering for two reasons: 1) starting to put summaries on '''ALL''' the weapons pages would make a huge difference, and I wasn't sure if doing that would be against the BTW beliefs on the layout of said weps-articles. 2) If someone who knew very little about BattleTech wanted to find out more, here would be a great start. However, if they try to understand how a PPC or Gauss Rifle works, they would ahve to look at 'Mechs articles to (hopefully) find out.
| |
| − | :Yes, we do want to get more data for the weapons besides just their locations of manufacture. However, when I started this wiki I pre-generated lots of pages, including using all of the manufacturing data I had available. Since some of these weapons haven't been filled with the other stats and fluff yet, all that is in them is their manuf data. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, you guys should mention in one of the 'good-formatting' sections that people making new articles should see if they are spelling the linked weapons correctly. Many of the weapons listed on the Wanted Page are because a lot of people didn't use hyphens. Just saying. --[[User:~Malithion~|~Malithion~]] 13:54, 7 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :I also agree with this, however, creating redirects for simple spelling differences is easy as well. We'll never get everyone agreeing on a spelling for all items, and new people won't know about a policy like that either. It's easier, in the end, to do catch-all redirects so people get to the pages they want. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :I believe that the names of the actual pages should be standardised, but there should still be redirects from common alterations (e.g., since [[SRM-6]] is the most prevalent 'version' so far, it would be the primary page and 'acceptable variations' would redirect to it). Ease-of-use, and a unified feel. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, now that we have a [[heat sink]] article, should we just redirect to that from [[double heat sink]]? I can't think of many differences between them that warrant two articles but, hey, that's just me.
| |
| − | Additionally, I noticed that there ''is'' a weapons template already set up (like the BattleMech box). I was wondering if any of you guys might have orginal BT data on the weps, or if its the same as the video-games. 'Cuz that's all the data I have. --[[User:~Malithion~|~Malithion~]] 18:34, 7 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :Canon data (from the board game) is what is being used. The video games tend to vary a lot (especially if you start reporting what their statistics ''actually are'', instead of ''what they say they are''). As far as I'm concerned, I believe specific pages (e.g., '[[Medium Laser]]', '[[Large Laser]]', etc.) should exist, with either relevant text be transcluded or linked to from beefy articles on the 'overall' aspect of a given technology (e.g., '[[lasers]]'). Same thing with heatsinks, etc., etc. Nic and Revanche may have other ideas though. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | ::No, I agree with you that the board game is the origination point for all data. Everything else can be referenced, but generally starting off from the article on the board game version of the item in question. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:15, 7 February 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I was curious as to whether or not we would honor labnames on this wiki. It's just a minor edit, but I was looking through the Character pages and I noticed that [[Peri]] was under the "P" section. I recall the scientist caste of the Clans being a bit more daring about the use of surnames, and adopt what they call 'labnames', surnames taken from doctors throughout history. In '[[Freebirth]]', Twilight of the Clans Book Four, she has adopted the labname Watson. Just a simple question. Thanks for your time.
| |
| − | [[User:Jacen Pryde|Jacen Pryde]] 20:10, 10 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :Since they're not official, I would say "no," though it should be included in the article. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:31, 10 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===MechFormations===
| |
| − | I thought about making a category called "MechFormations" that lists all brigades, regiments & battalions.<br/>
| |
| − | And with that in place I wanted to replace the brigade descriptions from the main military article of every house with a list of links to all the brigade articles of that house & also move the descriptions that some already have to the corresponding brigade articles.<br/>
| |
| − | And there again I wanted to add all regiments of that brigade again only with a link so that an article can be made for every regiment.<br/>
| |
| − | Problem is:<br/>
| |
| − | # Can a user create a category?
| |
| − | # How do I make a template for a brigade info box & regiment info box? Those looks more than complicate to me especially with the help page for creating brigade & regiment articles and with a doc page for that template.
| |
| − | # Furthermore what should be listed in those infoboxes? For brigades I thought of: brigade symbol, name, formed, status & parent formation. And for regiments: regiment symbol, name, nickname, formed, status & parent formation. Anything else?
| |
| − | [[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 11:36, 20 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :I was actually thinking about this subject today, so let me give my thoughts. I was thinking of creating different categories for each faction, "AFFS Units", "AFFC Units", "DCMS Units", "Clan Jade Falcon Units", "MAF Units", and so on and so forth. I was considering breaking it down with different categories in the same way that [[:Category:BattleMechs by weight class|BattleMechs are broken down by tonnage]]. For instance, [[:Category:Regular Units]] could take you to [[:Category:CCAF Units]], which takes you to [[:Category:Victoria Commonality Ranger Units]]. Each category along the way would list all of the units therein (a la [[:Category:BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Heavy BattleMechs]], [[:Category:70 ton BattleMechs]]). I think it is still appropriate to leave the descriptions of the brigades that are present on the military organization articles there, but expand upon them in full articles (in the same way that ''[[Handbook: House Steiner]]'' gives some info on them, but ''[[Field Manual: Lyran Alliance]]'' gives them a more complete treatment).
| |
| − | :#Yes, a user can create a category. It works the same way as an article.
| |
| − | :#Use other infoboxes as a model (Perhaps [[Template:InfoBoxMercUnit]] would be a good one to base this off of) and use the "Show Preview" button often.
| |
| − | :#All of your suggestions sound good, except that I'm not sure what you mean by "status". The only thing I can think of to add would be an optional line for "destruction". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:22, 20 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::Well "Status" should show what the state of the unit is, active, destroyed, disbanded, deserted etc..<br/>
| |
| − | ::More Categories sound good but I don't see how much different it is to what we will see in the articles.<br/>
| |
| − | ::Faction>Capellan Confederation>Capellan Confederation Armed Forces>Victoria Commonality Rangers>Kingston'S Rangers<br/>
| |
| − | ::Category:Regular Units>Category:CCAF Units>Category:Victoria Commonality Ranger Units>Kingston's Rangers<br/>
| |
| − | ::Of course those categories would be better then just on big with all formations. I just counted the regiments of the 20 Year Update and came out with 577 and that ist without Brigades and without the Clans. We could do it like the BattleMech category, one big with all of them und some sub categories that are more specific starting with what you have suggested "Category Regular Units". And maybe "Mercenary Units"? What else? --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:11, 21 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::Actually, the reason I suggested "Regular Units" was because "Units" sounds like it could encompass BattleMechs, vehicles, etc. as they are "units". "Military units" is too broad (although it sounds better to me now), while "House units" is too narrow. I suppose we could integrate Mercenary units to a broader category that includes House, Periphery, and Clan units; but I think that's too much sub-categorization.
| |
| − | :::On another note, when we create sections for the brigades, in addition to having a link to the main article for the brigade, we can have a link to the appropriate category that lists all units within that brigade.
| |
| − | :::I like the idea for "status" now that I understand it... instead of having a separate section for date or destruction, we could just put the appropriate date next the status. By George, I think we might have it! --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:30, 21 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::Yes "Military units" sounds good but your right it also sounds to broad, I would expect to see units like Death Commandos or maybe dropship/jumpship fleets under such category too. Maybe "Ground Units"... na, or "Army Units"... na, maybe... look at the main page with the point "Unit Categories" and all the sub-points, what about making in similar.
| |
| − | ::::*"Formation Categories"
| |
| − | ::::**[[House Formations]]
| |
| − | ::::**[[Periphery Formations]]
| |
| − | ::::**[[Clan Formations]](Unsure as they don't show a brigade system with related regiments, instead the use similar clusters in different Galaxys, so clan formations would need some extra attention)
| |
| − | ::::**[[Mercenary Formations]](That could just be the renamed "Mercenary Units" category)
| |
| − | ::::**[[Pirate Formations]](Similar to the "Mercenary Formations")
| |
| − | ::::The "House Formation" category shows subcategories like "AFFS Formations", "CAAF Formations" etc., those can show the related brigade/milita/academy articles and subcategories like subcategory "Davion Brigade of Guards", subcategory "Draconis March Militia" and subcategory "Academy & Training Formations" etc., and each of those subcategories could show their related regiments & battalions articles like "Davion Heavy Guards", "Addicks DMM" and "1st NAIS Cadet Cadre" etc..
| |
| − | ::::I think I wasn't clear enough about the brigade & regiment articles. What I want to do is to add links in the main military article to brigade/milita etc. articles. Then in these articles there should be some major points covered besides the data in the infobox. I thought about "History", "Officers", "Tactics" and "Composition" and under “Composition” I wanted to list & link all regiments/battalions that are or were part of that brigade/milita etc.. So all together you can go down the ladder till you are down to a regiment article.
| |
| − | ::::Now that I read my post again I wonder if we need those categories at all. Their structure is very similar to what the military & brigade level articles will host. So do we really need them?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:06, 22 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::::Sure. Things need to be categorized, so we might as well put them in categories that make sense without being unwieldy. With the categories, we don't need to put a dozen links in brigade articles. We need only throw in a link to the category. Of course, that means its another click away, but I think its useful to avoid clutter in the articles themselves. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:24, 28 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::::I see that we now have also a link to the State Units on the main page or was it already there? Seems new to me. Anyway how about another for clan units? I think they are in many aspects far away from states and even further from mercenarys to justify that. BTW where do we put the units from the Bandit Kingdoms & Pirates, ComStar & WoB and Deep Periphery & the not-named-clan?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 18:52, 22 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::::::You're right: it is relatively new. I put it there, since I felt there was a dearth of unit articles and wanted to jumpstart interest in it. However, I hadn't followed thru by reading this thread. I like your idea for a Clan units category (and will add it now). '''A''': And, I think you're also right about the need to represent the other 'factions.' I personally would consider units with Bandit Kingdoms as state ones (such as I do for the [[Brotherhood of Randis]], being a unit of the [[Fiefdom of Randis|Fiefdom]]. However, acknowledged stateless entities such as ComStar and WOB might need to be discussed. Both have held (or presently hold) planets, so I'd prefer to see them under state categories.''' B''': What about all of these being in more specific sub-categories? I cannot imagine all the Great House (plus assorted other lesser Houses) all having their units mixed up together in one broad category (Cat:State Units). It seems to me, that Cat:Marik Units should be a sub-category of Cat:State Units. Discussion? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:04, 23 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::Sub-categories? Absolutely YES! I was about to ask the same today. A Sub-category for every state in the Category:State Units would help to keep the overview and articles of the brigades(Lyran Guards, Davion Guards, etc.) could link to them directly so you can get a clue of what units are in a specific brigade. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:17, 23 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::::::::Ooh, good idea. Cascading categories. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding the various levels of organization, but anyone can create categories, so please...feel free to start those examples. Any ideas, however, for the Main Page namimg scheme above? We have State, Clan & Merc. I don't necessaily want to create Pirates, since there are so few articles that would be built for those, so a category that would incorporate pirates and others would be best. Cat:Misc, maybe? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:37, 23 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::::Cat:Misc sounds good. Regarding ComStat & WoB I think they would fit here better than in the state category. When I think of state factions I only think of the 5 houses and minor states like Rasalhague, St. Ives, Andurien, Magistracy of Canopus, Outworlds Alliance and Taurian Concordat maybe also the Bandit kingdoms and the smaller Periphery states too but not Comstar & WoB, especially ComStar is present everywhere and much more an Organization then a state. So I think they would fit here best, maybe Chaos March & Arc-Royal Defense Cordon too?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 11:11, 24 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::::::::::New Main Page cat created and added. BigDuke, I think you're probably a bit more qualified than myself for defining what goes where in this case. If you start the standard now with units in each category, then it'll be that much stronger for it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 24 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Years===
| |
| − | I have decided I have no real purpose in life, and give the years a consistent format. What tag do I use if I am unsure if the data included is accurate?
| |
| − | [[2016]] is my basic template idea {{unsigned|Moosegod|20:31, 19 August 2008}}
| |
| − | :"<nowiki>{{Verify}}</nowiki>" would be the one I would use. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:06, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Clan Jade Falcon changes===
| |
| − | Excuse me, I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but there seems to be no way to e-mail the admins of this site. I recently edited the Jade Falcon page, correcting some historical innacuracies and general anti-Jade Falcon bias which was present on the page, and I was messaged by the administrators that my posts were unhelpful and I was going to be charged with VANDALISM. I thought that this was a wiki in which everyone was free to contribute, not a "members-only" club in which outsiders are not tolerated. I am extremely upset by this discrimination, and will neither contribute nor endorse this discriminatory site.{{unsigned|66.18.240.88|13:40, 18 March 2008 }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The information that was added was extremely biased towards Clan Jade Falcon, that was why it was removed and you warned that the information you added '''might''' be considered vandalism. The current article can certainly be improved, but "Kerensky, in his hubris, decided that to have his name associated with the word "wolf" would be better for his image, and sided with the '''haughty and unworthy''' Clan Wolf [my emphasis]" is not the way to fix it. Moreover, some information was incorrect, such as the fact that more members of the Clan that Khan Crichell were involved in the downfall of ilKhan Ulric Kerensky (saKhan Chistu trapped him, for Pete's sake). "Clan Jade Falcon was the FIRST clan to allow freebirth to compete for a bloodname" is also completely untrue, as that person was actually Khan Phelan Kell of Clan Wolf.
| |
| − | :The above reasons are why the information you added was deleted, not because of a desire to be exclusive. The warning was given because these edits violated BattleTechWiki policy, and informed you which policy it violated so you could read about it and understand why your edits were reverted. I still encourage you to read [[Policy:Neutral point of view]] so that you can better understand the reasons behind my decision. If, after that, it is still unclear, then please ask and I, or any other admin, will be happy to help you to the best of our ability. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:44, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===CCG Cards===
| |
| − | I noticed that the mission cards from the CCG section have no text in the text box. The main text shows up fine when I go into edit mode, but not on the page itself. I was checking out the Death from Above card and saw it. Just thought I'd point it out. [[User:Haruspex|Haruspex]] 15:13, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| − | :Great catch! I fixed the template (it lacked the "Text" parameter), so all should be good now. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 08:01, 9 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Recent Spam===
| |
| − | What can we do about this recent spam? It appears that bots are pre-pending articles with special keywords they will later search for so they know they can edit that page. Which probably won't work because we don't allow anonymous users to post external URLs. What do other wiki's do about this? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 22:18, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | :While it's not something I wanted to do, how about banning all IP edits? I don't know how other places handle this, but I don't think asking people to register to edit is too much. We will miss a few here a there, I would imagine, but if it stops this vandalism, I'm all for it. We could also look at it as a temporary measure until we come up with something better. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 10:51, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::Better idea. How about changing the already-in-place captcha parameters to include all non-registered editors? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 10:45, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::I'm opposed to this. Vandalism-by-bot will continue, with or without blocking anonymous edits. The only thing that blocking anonymous edits does is tend to cause problems; you get a flood of user accounts taking up space in the MySQL database -- making location of legitimate registered users more difficult (we are hoping we'll eventually get enough editors that [[Special:Listusers]] might eventually become a necessity, right?). Blocking anonymous edits also tends to scare off those who make once-off typo fixes. They may not contribute much, but sometimes they come back. I know that's how it was with me and Wikipedia. If I had to register an account just to fix a typo I'd never have bothered.
| |
| − | ::You'll also get the odd disgruntled user who'll make an account at BugMeNot to get around such mandatory registration, and you'll then be forced to fight a war against otherwise legitimate users. (Since there'll be no way to verify that HelpfulUser7 is always going to be the same person -- he may be a vandal one day and useful another.) Better to avoid that kettle of fish altogether, methinks. I don't particularly like your newer idea either. CAPTCHAs are seldom perfect and they are a burden on legitimate users. Considering that almost every legitimate user is registered though, it's a fine interim solution. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 23:56, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::I agree with you in that I don't particularly like either of my suggestions, either (for much the same reasons), but I also don't see anybody else suggesting anything. I have no doubt that if there was a good, simple solution it would have already been implemented. I had meant for the CAPTCHA suggestion to be temporary, as I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that it was something that could be done fairly easily while a more permanent solution is sought. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:31, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::There's an extension that allows for this. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit ConfirmEdit]. Permanent solutions are, in my opinion, impossible. The various botnets responsible for this stupidity consist of numerous infected PCs, many with dynamic IP addresses. If there is a spate of vandalism from a specific IP address or range, we'll block it. Apart from that? The most that can be done is to minimise harm and remain vigilant. The scumbags responsible for these botnets aren't going to close-up shop any time soon. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:19, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::::I guess it's just a little frustrating for those of us who are patrolling for it. So far, [[User:Kittle|Kittle]], [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]], and I have been doing it almost constantly and at the cost of other real work. The temp-bans seem to be having some kind of impact as I only needed to edit about 5 articles this time instead of the normal 10-20. I have found that we are missing some of the vandalism, though, as I occasionally find an article that's been recently vandalized and it has some remnant of a previous attack. I don't know that there's much more that we can do, but it does make the whole experience less than satisfying. [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 15:48, 25 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::::It definitely sucks, I agree. I'll try to remain on IM (check my [[User:Xoid|user page]] for communication avenues) so you can nudge me if you need an admin to ban someone/thing. I'm seriously considering asking Nic to bestow someone with SysOp status purely so it's possible to provide better ban hammer coverage over the day. I know Scaletail the best and would recommend him, but I've been out of the loop for too long and it'd be unfair to other editors to simply assume Scaletail is the best suited to the job. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 01:01, 26 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::::::With great power comes great responsibility. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:31, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::Can articles be protected? Some articles on WP are frequent targets of vandalism (like when Stephen Colbert tells people to), so the page in question can be protected from edits by all but an admin (or whatever the WP equivalent is). Can we do the same here with some of the most frequent targets? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:14, 21 November 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::::::Unfortunately, the articles hit seem too random to be able to protect any. I've found another extension, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CommentSpammer CommentSpammer] that seems to address our very problem. However, it requires MediaWiki v1.12, which isn't officially released yet (we're on 1.11). I'd rather wait until v1.12 is officially released, then I'll add this extension.
| |
| − | :::::::::I also agree with Xoid that we could use another SysOp -- Scaletail, I think you're a great fit, as you've contributed a ton to this wiki. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::::::: After months of wasting time reverting these 'gibberish' edits from spammers/vandalizers (having personally reverted 300+ gibberish edits so far), I'm leaning towards enabling the CAPTCHA for all anonymous edits. I know this will cause legit anonymous users a small bit of hassle, but we're still not requiring them to register and it should stop all this vandalism. Any opposition? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 01:19, 27 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::::::::Not from me. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 07:06, 27 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | ::::::::::::Nor I. I would welcome it, honestly. It would actually allow us to get back to some real work. ;) [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 08:15, 27 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::::::::: I have made the change. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 10:02, 27 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Main Page Sidebar Problem===
| |
| − | Is it just me or does the sidebar get pushed far down whenever the BTW icon or Home links are selected? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:15, 9 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :Just you. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 11:47, 9 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | ::Seriously? That sucks. I get it on IE at home and Netscape on my ship. I wonder what could be causing it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:18, 9 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :::Gross, I see that too. I'll take a look. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 12:28, 9 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | ::::There was a missing </div> on the mainpage -- seems like fixing it fixed the problem. Let me know if not. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 13:07, 9 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Uploading Program files===
| |
| − | How can I upload program files for others to download? I've tried the "upload File" link, but is this only for images? Please Help :o)
| |
| − | [[User:Clemmensen|Clemmensen]] 04:35, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | : The [[Special:Upload | Upload File]] link is only for images. For other files, please email me (nic [at] nicj [dot] net) with what you want to share and I can upload it to the [http://www.sarna.net/files file archive]. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Drive-by deletes? ===
| |
| − | There's been 4 articles in the last day that have had 2/3 of their article deleted by random IPs. Is this a form of vandalism? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 12:50, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | :It certainly sounds like it could be. What were the pages? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:26, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::This has obviously been happening a lot - I've reverted probably 20 pages in the past couple of weeks with this problem. It seems odd as it's not an adbot and there doesn't seem to be any real rationale beyond just being annoying. [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]]
| |
| − | :::I haven't seen this recently -- very strange. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Plageurism===
| |
| − | On the [[Thanatos]] and [[Lao Hu]] entries I had to delete the text from the articles due to the fact they were directly plageurized from another source by their original author. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 13:28, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Category:People===
| |
| − | I started added the characters to [[:Category:People]] because it is on the main page when I realized that there is also a [[:Category:PeopleFictional]]. Since I'm sure nobody wants two identical categories, which one should we use? My vote goes to People because it's shorter and easier to find. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:58, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | :: I vote for People as well. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 11:40, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Wikilinks as non-case & Mercenaries category===
| |
| − | Two things. First, is it possible to make wikilinks non-case sensitive, or do we have to set up redirects? So many things in BattleTech have an extra capitalized letter in the middle, it's often hard to get it right. Second, would it be possible to create a "merecenaries" category? That way all those merc units can have their own category, since they're really not factions all on their own. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:28, 26 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :Ugh...I know what you mean (regarding all of those midword capitalizations). I'm gonna leave the response for this one to [[user:Xoid|Xoid]].
| |
| − | :As for a Mercenaries category, I think that's a great idea. Specifically, however, are you referring to the [[Main Page]], under the Factions bullet? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:10, 30 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | ::From what I've read? There's no practical way for MediaWiki to implement it without causing severe interoperability problems with foreign language versions, more processing, etc., etc., you can find specifics at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Case_sensitivity meta's page on case sensitivity].
| |
| − | ::I will say this though: I prefer it this way. By making sure that [[SRM-6]], [[SRM 6]] and [[srm 6]] are all different? It allows me to hunt down style inconsistencies in articles and clean them up, making for a more unified feel to the BattleTech Wiki. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:39, 27 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :::Sorry about the delayed response. I had forgotten I put this here.... I requested a category before I opened up the section on the main page, but I would envision it as two different things, though I'm not sure if the redundancy is necessary. While I'm here, can I make a request for a "people" category. Since it is on the left-hand toolbar, it would make sense to have a category for it. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 12:07, 26 February 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Spam===
| |
| − | :I just recently had to fix the Board Game page from a spammer, IP is 202.212.58.10 in case you want to block or take whatever action you need to. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 11:11, 6 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :: Thanks CJKeys. I think I'll try to implement a captcha system for new changes that include outside URLs like wikia.com does. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 15:32, 6 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::Had to fix it the [[Board Game]] page again, the IP for the spammer this time was 200.31.148.46. I dont know if you can block IPs but I thought I would let you know it happened again. Thanks. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 00:24, 8 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | ::::Also, thanks, CJ. I blocked both IPs for 3 months. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 01:10, 8 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::This looks like a minor annoying problem right now, but I could see it getting worse. Should I spend time investigating captcha for external links in edits? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 21:42, 21 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | ::::::I had to look the term up, since its the second time you've suggested this. How would you envision it working? Would everytime someone made an edit, they'd have to translate the image? Or, would we limit wiki editing only to registered users, who had to pass this test to register? The latter would be preferable to me. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 00:17, 22 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::::Well I still want to allow anonymous edits. The captcha prompt would only occur if 1) The user was not logged in (not registered) AND 2) they posted an edit with an external link. This would avoid 90% of the 'referral spam' that spambots want. It wouldn't block vandalism, but we're only trying to curb spam-bots with captcha.
| |
| − | ::::::::I like it. It is not restrictive for 95% of any edits, as how many times will an unregistered user seek to post links? Is this something you think you can turn on? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:21, 22 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::::::There may even be a way to get around needing that. The nastiest stuff is usually the ''div style="display: none"'' and similar crap that adbots love to toss around. You can also try setting a spam blocking RegEx similar to the one Wikipedia uses. It's one of the settings that is heavily documented on either [http://meta.wikimedia.org Meta] or [http://www.mediawiki.org MediaWiki.org]. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 11:49, 22 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I've added a captcha system for BTW to combat SPAM. It will be triggered under the following conditions: [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 18:39, 14 February 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | # New account creation ''or''
| |
| − | # Editing an article under '''all''' the following circumstances:
| |
| − | ::The article contains a ''new'' link to an ''external'' website
| |
| − | ::The user is not logged in
| |
| − | ::The external link is ''not'' to wikipedia.org or mediawiki.org
| |
| − | | |
| − | I hope this will be agreeable and adequate. Logged in users will never see the captcha, nor will anonymous users see it unless they post an external link. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 18:39, 14 February 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :Thank you! It was starting to get bad in the last few days. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | ::Bad? This was nothing. When you are reverting five adbots, all of which are active at the same time, while you're on your own, and all of them use a myriad of proxies '''and''' sign up under new usernames… these bots haven't even started the long road to being annoying… they're not even hiding their garbage with non-displaying <div>s. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 00:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Copyright Infringement===
| |
| − | Greetings. I have recently become involved in contributing to BattleTech through the Wikipedia end. I submitted one article over there, "[[Chaos March]]." I came over here, only to find that my article had been copied verbatim. By itself, this is fine, because I know Wikipedia articles are public-domain, however no credit was given on the part of the person who 'ported the article to MechWiki. I would appreciate it that, for all articles taken from Wikipedia, credit be given to the original author and/or a link be provided to the original article (as provided in Wikipedia's copyright, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights). Since the only article of mine in question I have found is "Chaos March," that is all I am concerned with, however, I am sure the other authors from Wikipedia would appreciate it if you gave them the same consideration. {{unsigned|4.234.144.246}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Great. Just. Great. ''*sigh*''. Alright; damage control. Nic: can you tell me exactly which pages were auto-generated? I'll run kdiff against a list of all articles with your list of generated articles so we know which ones to exclude from our inquisitorial purge. Revanche: a list of all articles you've imported would be appreciated.
| |
| − | :Note that I could go through the 'Mechs and see if I can find any parts that are copied verbatim, though for obvious reasons that would be a PWOT (I know everything I've submitted is my own work, Daniel's 'articles' are next to non-existent and its rather obvious from CJ's fractured English that he wrote his articles himself (no offense intended CJ)). From there we've got two options here; nuke the lot and start over, or get cracking on providing appropriate licensing information. For obvious reasons I'd prefer the latter, but if you're antsy about getting sued go for the former. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 13:13, 13 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | ::My apologies for not signing up and signing earlier. My bleary eyes couldn't find the "create an account," button, even though it's in the same place as Wikipedia's. Apologies are certainly accepted. Lord knows I've made mistakes in the past. I'm not going to sue, I was just upset at not being credited for my work. I think this project is a great idea that can contribute a lot to the BattleTech community. Moreover, I have trolled on sarna.net for around a decade, and I would do nothing that might harm it. I think I have somewhat of an idea of at least some pages that were 'ported over and, if you all don't mind, I'll assist in linking them back to Wikipedia. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:17, 13 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::Sure, any assistance is appreciated. I wasn't worried about you per se, I'm worried about the 'we'll sue your pants off' type; we all know they exist and it's better to be safe than sorry. Once upon a time we ran into legal troubles at another wiki I work on. I do not want a repeat here. I hope that explains my somewhat panicked reaction. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 00:01, 14 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | ::::I'm assuming your reffering to the name change of a group on UD?--[[User:The General|The General]]<sup>[[User_talk:The_General|T]]</sup> 20:33, 14 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::::Yup, that's the one. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 02:04, 15 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::Scaletail, any assistance you could give us in this matter, such as pointing out articles that may be infringing would be much appreciated. We are dedicated to making this wiki legit, as well as not upsetting others who have contributed to BattleTech :) [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 13:35, 14 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :: I apologize, 4.234.144.246. I had not realized that article was copied verbatim.
| |
| − | :: ''Most'' of the 3,000 pages here are autogenerated (Planets, etc). We can use DynamicPageList (DPL) to get articles not in categories we've autogenerated and or created (mech articles).. try [[BattleTechWiki:SuspectPages]]. We can use that page list to review articles to see if they've been copied. We should also setup a template to link back to Wikipedia for articles that have been copied to give credit. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:46, 13 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :::Okay, guys: things are well-in-hand already, as long as we have wikicitizens helping the whole community with the procedures already in place. First of all, efforts have already been initiated to deal with this via the <nowiki>{{wikipedia}}</nowiki> tag. As 'ported articles are rediscovered, they can be linked back there. Back then, when I did much of the importing, I didn't have actual admin priviledges to do so, so it had to be exactly as it was seen, a cut & paste from wiki. The intent was clear: a different audience was being addressed. Where Wikipedia reaches out with encyclopedic info for the world that 'knows nothing' and wants to be educated on a subject, [[BTW]] is a source for fans/players of BattleTech who would not necissarily beturning to Wikipedia for source information. I 'needed' to do something quickly to show the relevance of BTW to people dropping by to check it out and I was also trying to keep the BattleTech wikiers from being fragmented between two BT-centric wikis (the other being the [http://battletech.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page MechWikia]).
| |
| − | :::Since then, I have alternated between using the import function granted to admins and/or stating that the article was imported in the initial summary line. There was no intent to claim ownership of the articles written, and that's the purpose of the <nowiki>{{wikipedia}}</nowiki> tag. (Point-in-fact, similar work is supposed to be pointing back to the same article over here from Wikipedia, by contribs over there.) Now, I'm not going to go back thru my contribs and hit each one up, as I'm close enough to calling a wikibreak as it is. However, as is true with every other article here, each is a work in progress and no one person will ever be able to claim "that's my article" if the wiki is successful (i.e. many editors). The [[Help:Contents|Help]] page (and [[Help:Tags]] specifically) is very clear one how things are done here at BTW and all someone has to do is paste that tag on a page as it is re-discovered, and they'll be able to instantly see who the primary contributors of the article's history are over there.
| |
| − | :::No offense was intended nor expected, as wikipedia works under the same 'no-ownership' policy. I understand that Scaletail does feel pride in writing a well-crafted article, and my intent was not to claim writing ability (where none exists, frankly). The article, however, has served an important article ''here'' by adding legitimacy and important information for the player base. I'd reccommend Scaletail make some minor alteration to the BTW version of the article (while its still young) with a summary note as coming from a primary Wikipedia contributor of the article. And also, feel pride that it has transcended from being an introductory peice for non-BTers, to a base article for a dedicated source of BT information.
| |
| − | :::I, myself, am pretty much done with importing articles (or even editing the ones here) from Wikipedia, as there are so projects that I'd rather work on and the core material is completed. However, as Wikipedia has plenty of more material over there that really needs to be over here, importing by the cross-decking community is not a done-deal. If someone wants to address a policy page to this subject, please feel free. I do want to state to Nic, however, we don't need to be apologizing for the importing of articles from Wkipedia. Its open-source material and we already are trying to avoid the whole copyright dodge ball, as it is. We don't need to make it any harder for the few of us currently building this site. An apology for improper attribution to Wikipedia as the source is understandable and is being addressed with the cross-deck tag project. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 11:50, 17 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | :: Xoid, no offense taken. I was always a thespian, not a wordsmith and my grades in the fine arts (drama, chorus, etc.) vs English in high school would bear that out. As for my articles each of them are an original work. I will admit I have some articles that have sister articles on mechwikia but that is because I started there and when I came here I brought them with me. I woudl hope to hell I dont have to give myself credit for my own work just because it is in two places. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 06:06, 15 December 2006 (CST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:BattleTechWiki|Administrators]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Help|Administrators]]
| |
