BattleTechWiki talk:Data Mining

Revision as of 18:51, 19 July 2009 by Revanche (talk | contribs) (→‎Title)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Maybe the title is a phrase that I just haven't heard before. In case it isn't, I suggest renaming it to "Data Mining" as this is the word used by TPTB over at the forums. Frabby 17:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Data mining is the correct term in computing contexts, but there is a certain charm to the current title. Maybe keep the current title as a tag line? :D --Xoid 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Laughing, seriously. I had thought, when I saw the Recent Changes, that one or both of you took exception to my use of the Longbow material. I like both your ideas. When I get back home, I'll do just that. Thanks, guys. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe in this case that fair use could be justified. It's a single section which, while quoted verbatim, is quoted verbatim for good reason — kind of hard to tell people which sections of a source text to quote based on context if they don't have said context. Might be a good idea to answer any legal inquiries with the observation that "one complete entry vs. potentially thousands of others entered by people with good intentions who are blissfully oblivious of the legal ramifications thereof; seems a forgone conclusion to me but if you insist on our removing it…". --Xoid 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Especially ramped up if a new Editor does that with a cut 'n paste of the ELH. (Obscure?)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Obscure? To me, hell yes (until recently anything outside of the computer games would've been), but very, very interesting. Don't suppose you'd have any more links relating to intrigue of this nature within the BattleTech community? --Xoid 22:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah...there's plenty out there, and it seems to have become hotter in the last few weeks, with 3 days in December for the court decision. My first concern was this would cost CGL money, pushing the envelope towards unprofitably. However, my POV is that this will die a death in December, maybe see a chance at an appealed gasp by the dude, and then go away. I cannot see this at all likely that we have another...ahem...creative mind involved in ownership of the line, but 1) I like his ideas on creating an atlas of the worlds (both dead & vibrant), 2) I like the development of the Succession Wars (as long as it is along side continual timeline development) and 3) now I know that when I win the lottery, I can also try and buy the CBT-verse and throw a lot of money at the creative talent. I'm all for letting the 'furries' version of BattleTech die in the threads.
  • [1]: long drama, with up-to-date news and links to other relevant sources...took about an hour of my time today.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)