BattleTechWiki:Requests for comment/Archive

The Request for Comment forum allows Editors to introduce an issue that may have sprung up either in a high-traffic area (ex: Project:BattleMech) or somewhere more obscure (ex:2418), but may require a third, fourth or even twenty-third opinion. This allows a community consensus to be formed through discussion and may affect more than just the article being discussed.

Useage: Under a dated section, introduce a new entry with an asterisk (*), right under the "Requests for Comments" section head (i.e., in reverse chronological order). Start it off with a link to the discussion page of the article in question, and a very brief summary of the issue being discussed. Remember to sign the entry (with four tildes: ~~~~). Please do not add an opinion to the summary here.

Acceptable Example:

• Policy Talk:Notability: discussion as to what shall be done with articles deemed non-notable. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:55, 19 December 2007 (CST)

Unacceptable Example:

• Policy Talk:Notability: Some spammer wants to create an article about himself, just because he wrote some fan-boy story about Peder Smythe. Let's 'explain' to him why that won't fly. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:55, 19 December 2007 (CST)

Requests for Comments:

Add comments here (above the previous entry)

02 February 2011

• Subpages: Some articles contain hefty amounts of tables, and I'm in two minds about it: On one hand, those tables contain good hard data; on the other hand, I prefer a nicely written summary as an article. I've been thinking about shoving such content into sub-pages. Comments on the general idea please: Do we want sub-pages or do we want to avoid them? (Discussion sparked by Talk:Dropships - Transportcapacity.) Frabby 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More often than not, I tend to lean towards Wikipedia's policies when I'm uncertain what is best for this project. However, while I would prefer to avoid sub-pages as a rule, I could see the advantage in their existence as a way to keep well-written and large articles from being unnecessarily lengthened by tables. In that case, where a table would naturally be embedded, I would think a prominent link to a sub-page would probably be appropriate and effective. One point, though: the sub-page must also have a link back to the mother article.

Continuing thought: why not have these tables exist just as themselves and so labeled (ex: "Table of DropShip Transport Capacities"), with a "For more information, see Table of DropShip Transport Capacities" statement added where appropriate to the main article?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree - Tables without story/summary putting it into context means nothing. Also - The formats for some of the "tables" I've seen are probably not what we want to go with? Just my two cents. ClanWolverine101 03:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

10 August 2009

• Policy_Talk:Manual_of_Style#Past_tense_in_articles_about_vehicles.3F: Discussion as to whether all articles should be written from a past tense or a tense dependent upon the article content. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Draconis_Combine#House_Kurita: regarding breaking Kurita family data out from the Draconis Combine article. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

04 August 2009

• Talk:Free Worlds League: regarding the use of more academic-style of providing research sources and citations. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Category talk:Inner Sphere Commands: asking for consensus opinion regarding the creation of articles with no content. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

25 July 2009

• Category_talk:Characters#Only_Sub-Categories.3F: asking for consensus opinion regarding removing all characters from the main Characters category (and into appropriate sub-categories). --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

23 July 2009

• Policy:Verifiability: asking for a consensus review by BTW editors for this policy candidate. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

19 January 2009

• Talk:Concord of Kapteyn: Proposal for a new category covering laws, treaties, etc. --Scaletail 20:20, 19 January 2008 (CST)

20 December 2007

• Talk:Elemental: Regarding the status of the cleanup tag on the article. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:31, 20 December 2007 (CST)