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)

05 March 2011

• New Tables: Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make some very nice looking tables for manufacturing and planet ownership (like this one New Oslo and this one Gorton, Kingsley, and Thorpe Enterprises). I don't in any way want to discourage that person. Can we talk about the grey background though? The black text is not so bad but the blue, red, and purple page links feel really hard on my eyes. I tried adjusting my monitor to make sure it wasn't just me. With maxed out brightness I can see that it isn't as bad but I'm only having this problem with the new tables. I just want to throw out the idea of using a white background for easy readability and maybe hear why grey was chosen. I'm hoping to start a positive discussion of color choices and readability and not just complaining about grey table backgrounds. Thx.--Orcmaul 05:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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)