BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands

Revision as of 11:41, 14 January 2011 by Trynnallen (talk | contribs)
This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Discussion archive

ComStar/Blakist Nomenclature

The present naming system (2nd ComGuard Division) was intended as a stopgap, now that consensus has been reached on Clan naming, should the Com Guard/Blakist Milita articles be brought into line? I'm assuming it should it be 2nd Division (ComStar) and not 2nd Division (Com Guard), but also seeking confirmation on the Com Guard armies, is 1st Army specific enough or should it be 1st Army (ComStar) to avoid confusion despite the fact nobody else uses groups named that? Cyc 17:08, 26 March 2009 (PDT)

I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate the Armies. --Scaletail 19:19, 20 April 2009 (PDT)
Okay, what about the units/divisions themselves, with me adding the armies and Clan units mentioning them from Tukayyid we're starting to get a lot of links. Stick with 2nd ComGuard Division or switch them to 2nd Division (ComStar)? Cyc 20:04, 20 April 2009 (PDT)
I might have preferred using parenthesis, but I don't think it's important enough to change. Don't forget about Star League divisions. --Scaletail 16:55, 21 April 2009 (PDT)
I like the "XXth ComGuard Division" nomenclature. Clear, and easy to pipe down to "XXth Division" if needed. My 2 C-Bills worth. Alkemita 10:27, 1 May 2009 (PDT)

I've created the banner for this project. Would somebody (or several someones) be kind enough to add "{{WikiProject: Military Commands|tr=new}}" to the talk page for every command article? Thanks. --Scaletail 19:26, 20 April 2009 (PDT)

Mercenary Command Template Tweak Request

Is there possiblity of the current Mercenary Command templated being updating slightly? I recently did the Hell's Black Aces mercenary command and found the template's infoBoxMercUnit has some problems. Such as the name of unit not part of the info box. I actually had goto another merc unit article, copy & paste it to correct the problem. Also, the category link thats part of the template is out of date. I'm not certain whom to goto regarding this. Thanks -- Wrangler 03:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The name is part of the infobox. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't show up as it does now. I don't see any category at all integrated into "InfoBoxMercUnit", so I'm not sure what category you're talking about. Could you be more specific about the problems you're having? --Scaletail 14:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Brigade articles

This is something that has been floating around on the outskirts of the project for a while now. Today it has been flagged up here... Talk:Skye Rangers. In my opinion the brigade articles have a lot of potential, see Federated Commonwealth Corps for what I think is a great brigade article. A lot of Brigades don't have articles or need some major TLC... Even some of the Merc commands would probably benefit greatly from being written as a Brigade article, see Wolf's Dragoons for a prime example.

Should Brigade articles be implimented throughout the Military Commands project and if so would the format of the Federated Commonwealth Corps be acceptable? --Dmon 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Since their have been no objections I shall proceed to impliment "Brigade articles" for as many units as I can. --Dmon 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comstar Armies vs Divisions

Something else that is bothering me is the Comstar Commands category. I propose we reverse the categorys and have the main category featuring the Divisions (the primary unit of both Comstar and WoB) and have the armies as the sub-category instead unless another solution can be found (they are a bit to fluid to be treated like the Brigades IMHO) --Dmon 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. With tthe exception of Tukayid, rarely acted as "Armies". ClanWolverine101

Clans / Luthien Commands

I've noticed a problem. The Clan Galaxies listed in the Luthien (scenario pack) pack use designations such as "315th Jaguar Battle Galaxy". Every other touman roster I've seen has used the more familiar Greek lettering (Alpha Galaxy, Beta Galaxy, etc.) This is usually done even for second-line clan units. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.) It is my belief that the writers/developers of the Luthien Scenario book were unaware of how universal the Greek convention was among the clans, and came up with their own, one which is not supported elsewhere. Does this seem like something worth addressing somehow? Just a thought. ClanWolverine101

Could they actually be Clusters but the writers made a typo? --Dmon 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, at least not as far as the book is concerned. They give the names of the Galaxy, then they give the names of the clusters that are part of those commands. Unfortunately, the scenario pack seems to be the only canon source for what clan units fought on Luthien. ClanWolverine101
Remember ClanWolverine, alot of the things in older publications have been supeceded by following products. Lutherien Scenareio book has alot unique, odd ball stuff that didn't quite click with current BT Writers. I'd ask them about it if your not sure of it. -- Wrangler 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, but my issue is that 'Luthien' wasn't that old. Objective Raids had been released. So had the Wolf Clan and Jade Falcon Clan Sourcebooks. Those texts set a certain precedence for what followed, and that didn't seem to be the case with Luthien. *sigh* Oh well. How do we reach the developers? ClanWolverine101
Best place to reach the developers is probably http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php. Just as a side note I was looking through my notes and during the Luthien campaign in the MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries video game you are fighting the 31st Smoke Jaguar Assault --Dmon 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Not to seem petty, but I would question the canonicity of that source. :) ClanWolverine101
Oh I agree... thats why I made a point of saying it was a side note. I was just pointing out that the Luthien sourcebook was not the only "official" product to feature this conundrum even if it is the only "canon" one. --Dmon 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Waco Rangers

I'll take this one - I think I have access to the relevant material. Will post something within a few days. ClanWolverine101

Third Royal Guards

... by which I mean the "villians" from the "Highlander Gambit" novel. I've repeatedly seen these guys referred to as the Lyran Third Royal Guards on this site. I have to tell you, I think the writer screwed up. First of all, there were only two Royal Guard regiments, and both were decidedly loyal to Katherine. No way they have a third unit in Davion space that's loyal to Victor. It is my belief that this was supposed to have been the "3rd Davion Guards" of the "Davion Brigade of Guards". Any thoughts? ClanWolverine101

You could go ask here [1] or [2] if you cant find any other evidence as to the propper unit involved. --Dmon 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi ClanWolverine. The third Royal Guard's information can be found in Field Manual: Lyran Alliance and in the original House Steiner Sourcebook . There was also a 4th Royal Guards which was destroyed during the Succession Wars. -- Wrangler 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I thought that unit was destroyed sometime before 3054. Objective Raids didn't list them. ClanWolverine101
Don't Know, they weren't talked about much in books I've read either. I'm working on unit article on them right now so there will be listing for them. -- Wrangler 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The weird thing was, they were only called the ROYAL guards in the novel. They weren't called the Lyran Royal. So I always thought they were a misnamed Davion unit. ClanWolverine101
I believe thats because its only brigade unit known to be called the Royal Guards beyond Federated Commonwealth as whole. Remember, at the time the FedCom included both Lyran and Davion sides as single nation. There were no named Davion Royal units, thus why they weren't called them Lyran Royal Guards. Why give it specific nationaity name if the nationality was never used? Later in Dark Age novels, Lyran Royal Guards are refer to a Royal Units, dropping the Guard name. However, i think like Highland Gambit, the author was using short cut name to save on word count. -- Wrangler 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The unit brief on the 3rd Royal Guards RCT (Field Manual: Lyran Alliance, p. 98) describes the unit's failure on Northwind. They are definitely the "bad guys" in Highlander Gambit. --Scaletail 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy Needed

To stave off a potential edit/flame war, we really need Policy:Unit Pages. Discussing overall structure of regiment/brigade pages, tables/no-tables etc. shouldn't be in individual unit pages. --Neufeld 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean even as I disagree with the exact recommendation. We already have two templates to use when creating military unit articles. Those should be sufficient for the order of what information goes where.
There were long discussions about the content of the brigade v. regiment articles, but Frabby (and others) believes exceptions should be made. That's fine. I have no opinion one way or the other.
The issue of tables is one that does need to be brought up and I intend to do that, but that is larger than just command articles.
That said, I have come to the realization that the Project pages are woefully out of date. I also intend to fix that. --Scaletail 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As I've said recently, it is my opinion that Mercenary units like MAC, Wolf's Dragoons, the ELH and others should have a single article rather than each regiment with their own. The level of content we have and the way its presented just encourages that sort of format IMHO. ClanWolverine101 15:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree this needs to be discussed properly, as per my previous attempts to bring up the subject I am pro "brigade" article because I feel that it can be used to give a general history (i.e. the formation of the Ryuken) or feel for the formations (SoL's status are the elite kick-ass type folk) and the individual regimental articles can chart the actions of the unit in its various battles and who was commanding officer when etc. . The mentioned Merc units can carry in either format I agree but the house units IMHO will eventually benefit from the "Brigade" system especially as an aid to story writers/RPGers --Dmon 15:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that articles should be about any particular level of organisation. Instead, they should focus on a given unit (the article's subject) in whatever formation they are typically deployed. Merc units come in all sizes from single 'Mechs to lances, companies, battalions, regiments up to entire brigades (i.e. multi-regiment forces) and they are always hired full-size, not per regiment. That is the key difference. House units, by comparison, may technically be organized in brigades or even divisions, but are typically deployed in regiment or battalion strength. Pick the formation level that is the most noteworthy for your article. Frabby 16:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with each house brigade unit having its own page. When you talk about what the "Avalon Hussars" did, for example, you don't really talk about what the Brigade did - you say the 33rd did this, the 42nd did that, etc. So each unit should have its own page. But if Beta Regiment of Wolf's Dragoons does something, you say "Wolf's Dragoon was involved in (x) - they sent Beta Regiment." You see? ClanWolverine101 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Frabby. That's what discussion pages are for. I don't think there is a lot of question about this for your average House or Clan unit, or most Periphery units. FWIW, Dmon, what you have described is the way it works now. It doesn't sound like there's any disagreement here in general, though there is obviously disagreement about one or two specific articles. --Scaletail 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wolf's Dragoons and ELH articles are probably best left as single articles but MAC are Mercenary in name only in the same manner as the Amphigean Light Assault Groups are. Mercenary units that have no history of being mercenary and unbroken service to the same house are effectively house units so we also need a clear policy to cover these units who fit both. --Dmon 08:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
For your 'merc/not really merc' examples, I'd be tempted to write them as merc units, with the clear statement that they consistently served one house. I think you'd find many a reader becoming a drive-by editor 'fixing' the category back to 'mercenary', because the unit is known to be mercenary, if in name only. Also, as a reader, if I'm looking for mercenaries in Capellan employ and don't find the MAC there...I'd suspect the whole list, in a first impression.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I would certainly list MAC under Capellan Mercenaries, simply because for most of their published history, they were in that capacity. (Yes, I know they existed prior to 3000. But relatively little has been written on this outside of the MAC Sourcebook.) Again, its my simple position that groups like the ELH, Kell Hounds and MAC are in a special category along with the mercenaries even though all three eventually became House/SLDF troops.ClanWolverine101 14:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think units that have had more than one affiliation (Shin Legion, 4th Dracon, MAC, ELH, etc.)should be categorized in all categories that apply. --Scaletail 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree the multiple affiliation tags, I have already implemented this in the Shin Legion, MAC and some other units quite some time ago and it seems to work. I propose to go a small step further and suggest that the policy covers the order the tags are placed in so that the most recent affiliation is either first on the left or last on the right for ease of identification (my current personal use's the latter system) --Dmon 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with that per se, though I don't think its enforceable. IOW, if you do it with the articles you're interested, I'm fine with it. However, I don't think we need to 'warn' others that file them alphabetically or haphazardly.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with making it a guideline. Does anybody object to this guideline? --Scaletail 16:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This is all well and good, and I have no problems with the category tags. I do, however, want a consensus on the "one unit, one article" page, as opposed to giving separate pages to every regiment? ClanWolverine101 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. That should be handled for separately for each unit because that can vary from unit to unit. --Scaletail 16:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Large Mercenary Units

This seemed the appropriate place... when I last brought this up, consensus seemed to indicate people favored each regiment (and some smaller "indy" units like the Black Widow Company and Zeta Battalion) having their own page. So Wolf's Dragoons would have the main WD article, then articles for :

... etc.

Obviously, it doesn't just apply to Wolf's Dragoons. They've just always been the easiest example. How do people feel about this moving forward? ClanWolverine101 01:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am all for this format... but then again it was me who was pushing hardest for the current set up with the brigade articles so this would just mirror that move. --Dmon 06:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Originally, I took the position that certain mercenary brigades like Wolf's Dragoons, Northwind Highlanders, and the Eridani Light Horse should just be single articles, as a lot of the material deals with the unit as a while as opposed to each regiment. Sure, we can copy that material into the regiment article, but I'm not sure that's the best use of our time. Since then, I've mellowed. ClanWolverine101 16:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel these are way too many articles already, and it irritates the heck out of me. Why are regiments so special and not, say, individual lances? Of all those (sub-)units named, ony the Black Widow Company is notable or independent enough to warrant their own article. All others should be covered in one single, concise article named Wolf's Dragoons. Frabby 16:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, Frabby, and I was arguing that point originally. My counter-point is if people are going to write seven different articles for McCarron's Armored Cavalry, I feel WD is deserving as well. (And yes, I know MAC went "House". :P ) ClanWolverine101 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been ranting against having multiple MAC articles, too, saying that they should be merged. :) What's wrong with "One Unit, one article"? Or, from a BTW user viewpoint, why should one have to read through several different articles to learn all there is about the same unit? Frabby 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
True! Here's the thing : Most House units act as Regiments. Most large Mercenary Units act as a whole. When you write the history of the Dragoons' Alpha Regiment, you essentially go over the entire history of the Dragoons, just leaving out a few bits they weren't involved in, and maybe throw in more detail about their specific operations. Still... kinda redundant, yes? So I hear ya, Frabby. I'm just laying out what it will be like if we continue down this path. ClanWolverine101 07:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Still, there are several examples of large merc regiments operating separately. See for example Wolf's Dragoons at the beginning of Jihad. One regiment on Tikonov, two in Combine employ, IIRC. Another example is the ELH which was split between Huntress and Dieron. It seems that the large merc unit operating at brigade scale was more a case of the 4th SW era, and doesn't seems to be all that common nowadays. --Neufeld 07:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sure, they split up the regiments. But the history is common. How often do we see an entire House Brigade participate in the same event? All eight Crucis Lancers hitting Tikonov during the 4th war I suppose. And the Davion Guard all siding with Victor in the FC Civil War, though even then they didn't all make it to New Avalon, did they? Its just a different animal, IMHO. ClanWolverine101 07:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Conventional Regiments

... unrelated to the above discussion. Recently, I've seen that people are making unit articles for conventional regiments. I feel this may be a mistake, as it creates a precedent where we need to find information for any conventional regiment we've ever heard of, plus all the countless ones we haven't. 99% of these articles will be Stubs! We can say "it was attached to so-and-such RCT" or it was "stationed on planet X in 3025", but even that may not always be the case. Simply put, it is not possible to write quality articles about the vast majority of these units. (In fact, I would defy anyone to name ONE conventional regiment that has had enough material published to produce a good article.) This is just my opinion. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that a conventional regiment is a non-battlemech regiment, quiaff? In that case I agree. --Neufeld 07:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Aff. Obviously, this usually means Armor or Infantry regiments. There are rare cases of Aerospace or Battlearmor only units, I suppose... ClanWolverine101 07:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a good example 3rd Luthien Guards. In my opinion I actually think small details like this can make great game aids, OK the unit is not exactly fleshed out in great detail but I find it nice to have a canon unit for the GM to flesh out. --Dmon 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Granted, that's better than most. But I would assume there are few with that amount of material available. ClanWolverine101 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe non-BattleMech regiment should be listing, unless they don't have any fluff on them at all. You have the regiments attached to Davion and non-Davion Regimental Combat Teams which gain considerable amount history and would warrent a article. However, you have some that have minor menionings which gives a name and you hear it once a while that it. I think stuff like that should be treated to a List of Minor (enter nation name) Regiments. Thatt would give a home and what ever small fluff is written on them a home without clutter sarna with near empty articles. Also, we have to consider the future. Right now, as Jihad is about to end, traditional and frontline BattleMech regiments are being reduced in size. There likely won't be any BattleMech regiments after 31st century. Conventional regiments maybe more common. we should consider this when writting up these articles. Writers of Battletech are doing way with (unfortunately) alot of the traditional unit setups we grown up with. -- Wrangler 10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, but let's give the developers a break until we see what post-Jihad looks like. I like your idea of putting all conventional units on a faction list page. People can stick what material they can find in there. ClanWolverine101 13:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Getting the ball rolling on this again - I'd like to revisit this issue simply because a lot of work is being done on various conventional units. For 98% of those units, very little content is available, and a quality article may be impossible. I would suggest a policy to address this issue. ClanWolverine101 06:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In general, CW, I agree with you. I certainly wouldn't spend my time creating all those articles, but that doesn't mean somebody else can't. Given the notability policy, I'm unsure of what another solution could be. Small articles are usually combined into lists, but I think a list of "Federated Suns minor commands" would quickly balloon out of control. I wouldn't be opposed to integrating information for those commands into the 'Mech formation they're attached to, but they do sometimes detach, so that can become problematic. --Scaletail 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I have no problem with creating conventional regiment articles, so long as they reach the notability policy. To Scaletail's point about a list ballooning out of control (which is a valid concern), maybe we could split them up by type (armor vs. infantry) or by numerical designation ("Fed Suns Minor commands, 1st - 10th"; "Fed Suns Minor Commands, 11th-20th"; etc.)? Perhaps they'd fit into the existing categories (Which is a double win because "Federated Suns Capellan March Militia Commands" etc. are currently empty.)--Mbear 00:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that a list would balloon out of control the second we had anybody who wanted to add considerable information to it, Sadly I think Mbears idea of attempting to create some sort of brigade style group article is unworkable simply because not many of the conventional units share a common system of designation... the only one I see working thus far is the unit type but in all honestly I find that option unappealing in addition to the problems presented by mixed commands or commands we do not have composition data for. --Dmon 07:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not in favor of trying to create a brigade style page for the conventional regiments. When someone said lists earlier, I assumed they were talking about using Category tags to generate the content of the list. If list means something like List of Minor Mercenary Commands, I'd say forget it. That list would become too large to be useful.--Mbear 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Neuling WP:MC standardization project

I have noticed that Neuling has posted on some users Talk pages asking for support to what essentially equates to re-standardizing the format used by Canon Great House Military Commands to this 1st Argyle Lancers and having a coordinated effort to bring all said commands up to that standard. Neulings example is fairly close to the current unofficial standard of the moment with the only real additions being the era named history sections (something that has kinda added itself over time to break up the larger history sections) and the inclusion of the Bibliography section (an addition made via a discussion between myself and Revanche that has spread to most of the wiki) at the bottom so it would not be a huge leap to meet in most cases.

Personally I agree that the standard should be re-set and I would only wish to make several minor changes to Neulings template before standardizing it. One change I would propose I admit would be purely due to my desire to eventually see my personal labor of love My Organization Trees become a standard feature of the Articles but as Neuling is dead set against then I will respect Neulings proposal and not make an issue of what I would like to see changed until the discussion has started proper.

My vote is yes to the project and no to the template as presented. Please chip in folks --Dmon 06:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Actually reading what Neuling was talking about, that makes a lot more sense. I actually like this okay.
Dmon - Regarding the organizational tables, my issues are as follows : 1) Some of the source material is contradictory. 2) I question its value to the article. Can you, perhaps, sell me on this? ClanWolverine101 07:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear CW I am not actually trying to push for the organizational tables to be made standard or official... I was just being up front about the fact that one of the changes I intend to propose does have a secondary motive towards me possibly doing that one day in the future. I do actually believe however that all of the changes I intend to propose in this discussion are valid in their own right as well so I am not going to try and sell you on my tables just yet ;-p. --Dmon 08:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, Dmon. I'm just stressing there is a reason why some people think the organizational trees are, in most cases, a bad idea. Should we start that conversation someplace else? ClanWolverine101 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Organization tree take up alot room, not every unit structured the way your tree suggests. Also CGL is getting away from traditional listing units and what they consist of now. Thus you tree may not be appliable anymore. As far Neuling's military command articles thing. Standardization is fine, but i maybe a bad person to saying this, but his grammer isn't that great. He planning to re-write the articles themselves? Era thing is part of Battletech, but i don't think it may work very well, since Dark Age era starts at beginning of 3082 until way pass what original start date of Dark Age. I think the History of units, should be broken up by the events the play part of. Thus, if unit wasn't around for 3039 or didn't do anything in it, it should have listing its history of being in the War of 3039. Etc. -- Wrangler 11:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair comments. I think we MIGHT be putting too much stock in those History headers he used. Perhaps - and I'm only speculating here - those were just examples of what would be done for the older IS units? ClanWolverine101 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Some of these unit's history are incomplete due to depth you got get all of it. Here some examples: Marion's Highlanders, 1st Kearny Highlanders, Vong's Grenadiers, 3rd Royal Guards, McCarron's Armored Cavalry and 2nd Republican. Some units are destroyed, some units continue under differient name. I do break up the section per era their in before it was standardized. -- Wrangler 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record, there is nothing informal about the current system. It comes from Help:CreateMercenaryUnitArticle. There were articles on merc commands before House commands, so that's why it's named that, but there's no reason that format should not apply to all articles on military commands.
I whole-heartedly support adding a "Bibliography" section. I'm not as convinced about the need for "Color Scheme" and "Unit Colors". I don't see that ever being longer than a paragraph (very rarely longer than one sentence, really), so I think that should be addressed under "Description". I'm unclear if the sub-headings for Unit History are intended to be standardized or not, so I'll leave off my discussion until that is answered. --Scaletail 00:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to respond. Details on the unit are available, if someone doesn't want look at camo specs, they can look at unit's basic info. The Description serves two purposes. 1) It tell the reader what purpose of the unit and where it came from. This not always apparent, in combat formation name. Some formations have specific function, which isn't necessary explained. Description is quick and easy "look at" for someone want know what unit about and from whom without schrolling everywhere. 2) Second reason is some of the info boxes keep shooting the text on the first line to very top of the page, which makes sometimes "least to me" to being little hard to spot, or in hard-read place being squashed at the top. Specially, if there multi-subsection directory in it the article. Regular wikipedia doesn't seem have this problem, so i thinking it maybe a coding issue with the current code were using. Description is a stop-gag when i write my articles to keep text from floating to the top. -- Wrangler 12:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "Tactics" sections

I would like to propose dropping the "Tactics" sections from the format protocols. I DO NOT suggest deleting the information included; merely changing the format of that information. (Perhaps into "Notes" sections, which could also be used for other info and errata) I propose this for the following reason :

  • Material for "Tactics" sections is not available for the vast majority of units, especially considering we're now doing articles for conventional regiments.
  • What material does exist (mostly from the Field Manuals) is very brief in most cases, too brief to justify its own sections IMHO.
  • Aesthetically, having sections that are so brief doesn't look good.
  • Tactics change over the centuries, and many of these units ARE centuries old, having been rebuilt multiple times. What descriptions we have are generally snapshots, taken from the Field Manual eras.
  • In some cases, I question the value of the material. Again, this is not to say I'd sanction deletion of any of it; I'm merely stressing they shouldn't be given their own sections.

Do people find merit in my proposal? ClanWolverine101 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the tactics section is mostly redundant due to various factors so I would support this motion. --Dmon 16:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Can I get a consensus on this? ClanWolverine101 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your desire to rename/replace "Tactics" section. --Mbear 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree too.--Doneve 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this still on the table folks? Because I still feel that it is the most redundant section of most unit articles (except for the empty notes sections) and wish to see it improved or removed. --Dmon 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's still open for discussion.--Mbear 11:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Tactics are valid thing used by the units. Its what gives them a personality on the battlefield. I disagree alot units do not have tactics. I've gone through large quanity of Field Manuals and other sourcebooks. Tactics starts starting appear in Field Manuals due to them concentrating on individual regiments. Tactics in these books also translated to being used in Special Rules annex in those books. Some units use fade-attacks tactics to lure enemy in so they can flank them. Others are bare knuckle assault units that specialize in dropping on top of the enemy via dropships. Heck there regiment, Marik Guards, used its Light Battlemechs and its majority of LAMs which Makes up 3/4s Guard's numbers to use LAM's ability fent and do other attacks based on its speed and abilities. Tactics gives the player reading the article a idea what this unit does. Yes, recently info on Regiments don't mention them due to consoldation of articles, no room for them. However, they still refer to these abilities as recently as Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents. I think we need give little time for actual freshed out Manuals come out again, since Jihad became a ever changing event. Post-Jihad era may give some time for regular house and merc units get their info on Tactics. Please without tactics, these regiments and other size forces are just names. -- Wrangler 12:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Officers and Composition

Ok so this is something that has been bugging me for quite some time... is there a reason editors have been ignoring the Officers section in the articles and putting all the info into the unit composition section even to the point of having a mini biography of some commanders in some cases??????? --Dmon 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually... I'm wondering if the Officers section is critical? The info could just as easily go under History of Composition.... ClanWolverine101 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You hit the nail, some officers have no info only in the FM there is the name listed and no other actions from him. I add the most compositions with this scema, but i updated this in next time, oh i forgot, I jump in.--Doneve 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with replicating the Field Manual format to closely if only to try and avoid easy plagiarism, but I feel the Field Manual style officer section a better solution for commanders descriptions than messing up formatting of unit compositions but adding them there. Cyc 22:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A number of mercenary units are forged by their commander, so, in that case, some background info on that individual is relevant. Could you be more specific about this issue? --Scaletail 01:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deployment Tables

I'm here to discuss my latest Project,the deployment tables. First this is only a summary and there are no tables, I learned my lesson. For all how doen't know my goal with this pages. From 3025 until Jihad era, to put all Faction in a overview with a short explanation which unit see action and which doen't fight. I Give you a short example for my further work
1.LCAF 3055
1.1.Lyran Guards
During the Operation Revival several regiments of the Brigade fight against the Clans. They suffer normaly horrendous loses and were destroyed/surrender to the attackers. A few units could retreat and were rebuild.
Destroyed units
1st Guards
=> partly destroyed on Maestu (FC) November 3051 through Gamma Galaxy
=> partly destroyed on Shaula (FC) December 3051 through Delta Galaxy
26th Lyran Guards RCT
=> partly destroyed through Beta Galaxy on Kobe (FC) December 3051
=> partly destroyed on Tamar(FC) November 3051 through Golden Keshik and Alpha Galaxy
Active Units
3rd Lyran Guards RCT - Veteran - Fanatical - Graceland
6th Lyran Guards RCT - Elite - Reliable - Rasalgethi
10th Lyran Guards RCT - Veteran - Fanatical - Fort Loudon
11th Lyran Guards RCT - Elite - Reliable - Callison
14th Lyran Guards RCT - Veteran - Reliable - Ford
15th Lyran Guards RCT - Elite - Fanatical - Hesperus II
24th Lyran Guards RCT - Green - Fanatical - Donegal
30th Lyran Guards RCT - Regular - Reliable - New Home
32nd Lyran Guards RCT - Green - Reliable - Solaris VII
36th Lyran Guards RCT - Regulars - Reliable - Tsingtao
My thoughts are. To put step by step all know information from the sources in an overview and from their to the brigade pages and finaly in the units. That all informations are on the right place. You all know my work. I put amount of work in the unit section and historical events like the incusion of 3963, the operation revival. In the future all events will be standarized. All Brigades will be also expanded. I know all this will take time and with your support and agreement will become real. I finish first the 4th Succession War and put this information in deployment pages with era destination (3028). I wait for your anwsers. Neuling 05:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Neuling - The intent is certainly noble, but I have a number of concerns. For one, I think the formatting needs work. Second, you shouldn't use the abbreviations for those article titles. (What's the FCAF? :) ) ClanWolverine101 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that these articles are essentially reproducing tables from published sourcebooks. I also don't think they're the most effective way of conveying the information therein.
In a Field Manual, which is a snapshot of a military organization at a specific time, that table format probably is the best way. If I'm reading, say FedCom Civil War for example, and I want to follow a specific unit, I can check the table to see where they went next. On BTW, I don't have to do that. All I have to do is keep reading the article for that command. We utilize InfoBoxes to get that "snapshot" information. Maybe it's just the way I use the wiki and the books, but I don't see the value of these articles. --Scaletail 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hy, I read your concerns. I think it is a difference when i put several informations in to article and these are no plagiats because are sorted after brigades and in the normal deployment articles doesn't stand further information about specific units. I explain the value again. These articles give a short view about the events that happend between two such articles for exmble.For example CCAF from the deployment 3055 unitl 3064 the military changed significantly. The CCAF was involved in Operation Guerrero, Operation Bullog and the War with the St. Ives Compact. All three events are important put there is no further overview. Also the CCAF disband all commands and create new brigades. I wrote above that I will put those information in the next stept in the artile for the specific units to. When you have question please ask me again. Neuling 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me see if I can explain better. I understand what you're doing. I'm just saying I think it would be more effective for the information in these articles to be put in the articles for the individual commands. In many ways it simply duplicates the command articles. I guess what I'm asking is the following: why is this method of presentation better than what already exists? For instance, wouldn't the best place for the information about the CCAF reorganizing their military be in CCAF? --Scaletail 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I doesn't duplicate information. I put a short information at the deployment page and the other user can take this inforamtion and expand it in the command articles. Every military organisation had changed the over the 60 years (from 3025 until 3085). I think all information in one article is insufficient. You take the the CCAF let see. Changed 3028, 3052, 3064, 3067 and Jihad times. This all in the main article of the CCAF is to much. Another fact is that it confused me when the Reserves of the CCAF 3025 is presented in the same article as the units of the CCAF from 3067. AlIt will take along process to complete my work step by step. But I see results and the other users agree with me in many points. Neuling 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page Structure

I'm having a little trouble understanding the page structure for a unit. Is there a standard Template? Normally a Wiki has a summary section directly below the page title. In these templates there seems to be a conflict sometimes using a Summary section and sometimes using the Formation Header for that kind of data. I also noted recently to the Holdfast Guard page that a series of bullet points were used instead of paragraphs. Personally I'd like to see a Summary at the top of the page rather than a Formation section and full paragraphs instead of bullet points for unit actions. Naturally, I'm happy to use whatever format people prefer but could we have some clarification? — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Tomlib (talk • contribs) on 5 September 2010.

The format is the same used for mercenary units, which can be found at Help:CreateMercenaryUnitArticle. You are correct that bullet points are not the preferred method of presenting most information. A summary that uses bullets should be put into the proper format. If you see an article that needs work, don't be afraid to be bold. --Scaletail 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me be more direct. I was putting "formation" information above the History section at the top of the page and above the Auto Generated Content section. Someone then edited my work and placed it in a new "Formation" heading under the History Heading and below the Content. I didn't want to get into a war moving it back and forth. So could we have a ruling. Formation information above the Content or below the "History" section? Tom 02:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That was Neuling. I would recommend removing what ever he adding. He been on his own project and likely didn't notice you editing the page. The sub-section is just a place-holder, i re-do it way you want to. Some places he adding sections that don't exist for that article. Hang in there, Tom. -- Wrangler 13:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
As for the bullets, that was me. I was starting out on Sarna.net when i wrote that. There wealth of information on Capellan units, but there isn't alot information on events they partipated in. So Bullets was format i went with. -- Wrangler 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I was not upset in any way. :-) I just wanted to set a standard so we could all be on the same page. It seems that Formation should be included in the summary section just below the Article Title is the general consensus. Yes, the bullet points are an excellent start to be expanded upon if further information is forthcoming for source material. Again, I didn't want to change someone elses work if I was violating a standard. Thanks for all the feedback! Tom 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For your review

Barber's Marauder IIs is up. Take a look and discuss. ClanWolverine101 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice article, only two things I would say to improve it might be to add an Officers section simply so readers do not have to read the full text to find when the unit changed hands and update the Organization section to one of the more current Composition History section headings and add a 3025 composition or near as you can anyway. --Dmon 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Alliance Air Wing

2nd Alliance Air Wing is posted. Comments, critisms, praise, adulations, and libal are welcome.--Trynnallen 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

3rd Alliance Air Wing is posted as well. I have added the information from the Alliance Borderers to the 3rd as the FM:P has it listed there.--Trynnallen 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Trynnallen. Example: In the Components, you should state what year your pulling your information from. I would suggest to look at other articles to get idea. Example 5th Regulan Hussars or the 2nd Republican. -- Wrangler 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed--Trynnallen 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Military_Commands&oldid=157592"