BattleTechWiki talk:Project Unfinished Book/JTP:New Avalon/Unwelcome Guests

Starting

Afternoon, CW. Just a few starting points:

• The intent of the Unfinished Book Project (UBP) is to document every fact of the assignment at least once on the wiki, multiple places where appropriate. The more degrees removed from the mentioned subjects on the assignment, the less granularity an article's added material must have. For example, James McFarland is not mentioned in "Unwelcome Guests" at all, but because he's the CO of the 10th, it stands to reason his page should make mention of the Battle of McCarel Farm. However, it won't need as much detail as the 10th's page will.
• Don't forget your citations. You'll pick up tricks to make their inclusion more efficient. Unless asked, I'll leave that up to you.
• Don't take my involvement as negative. While I'll be critical, my role as fact checker is intended that way. Likewise, when you play Fact Checker (and then Mission leader), you'll need to be similarly involved.
• Normally, a mission (in this case JTP: Luthien) develops from front-to-back, meaning some articles that you'll be starting here (Avalon City, for example) would normally already be somewhat developed by preceding material. If we (collectively) feel that we're missing too much by jumping ahead this time, we can re-engage and start with the first assignment.
• You'll recognize Step 3 from its original version (as it appeared on your talk page). That should help get you started.
• When you complete an article, just put it in your table/graph. No need to wikilink it. If you'd prefer to have me hold off on commenting for some reason (you don't feel its quite ready), either leave it off or put an asterisk after the name, and I won't critique it until you clear it.
• Ask me questions, debate with me, etc. Don't feel like you're doing this in a vaccuum.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

Questions!

Question 1 : Do we think Avalon County is worthy of its own article? ClanWolverine101 17:12, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

Hm this is a good question, at this time i say yes, following the [subject]. I think it can included when a Geography of New Avalon page is created, take a look on this example: Geography of Luthien, we can set up a redirect etc., this is my point of view, but some critism is welcom.--Doneve 17:36, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

Evolving answer: UBP doesn't judge notability...kinda stole the theme from the actual Unfinished Book Movement. If it's mentioned, it's notable. However, I conceded Basin Lake doesn't deserve its own article, hence the creation of the "Geography of [planet]" articles (with re-directs to that article for all entries).

If I could find a similar subject name for an article about (ahem) 'less notable' man-made structures, designations, etc, I'd say let's build Avalon County into that article.

So, what would be the equivalent of Geography of New Avalon, but for constructs to include counties, parks, memorials, facilities, etc.?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

I'll say this: There's a lot of material on New Avalon. From Avalon City to the 'mech factories to the NAIS to a bunch of other places. Does New Avalon merit an in-depth article on this geography? Certainly. Does every element require its own article? Not sure that's wise. I've always been of the mind that these "eternal stub" articles aren't in Sarna's best interests for aesthetic reasons. (Look at most SLDF unit entries that are only mentioned once in the SL sourcebook.) So that's my two cents. ClanWolverine101 11:41, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Related - re: Harold McCarel. Does one farmer, mentioned once on one page of one book, merit his own article, considering he will likely never be mentioned again? ClanWolverine101 11:44, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Okay, I'm kicking around answers to this, so as bullets for discussion instead of cogent and well-thought out answers:

1. Tenent focus of the UBP is that all subjects deserve recording on BTW.
2. How a subject is recorded is (best) open for discussion and adaption.
3. Do subjects warrant their own article, in all cases? I like creating new articles. I like knowing that when I click on a wlink, it will take me to an article that is about exactly that subject. I like the simplicity of knowing the simplist rule is that each subject deserves its own article and it is not complicated with rules where opinions are the deciding factor ("Is he notable enough?"). However, I also am very aware that it is not necessarily a majority opinion of the active BTW editors. I'm also aware that as the UBP expands, my opinion on that will be challenged repeatedly. Therefore, the adaption of my stance (per #2) needs to be made.
4. My (so far) unfertilized idea is that an article is warranted anytime the subject is involved in an event, or in the case of people is if they are actively involved in an event. So...in the Battle of Luthien, the city of Obuchi-Galileo would not warrant an article, but Skytower City most certainly would. In the Battle of New Avalon, the commanding officer James McFarland would but not farmer Harold McCarel (since the battle was not something he influenced). But what about the sourbug? Does it rate an article? By this standard, no...it would need to fall on a larger article.
5. I'm leading myself to yet another child article..."Historical People of New Avalon", anyone? But it would have to be better named, since it should not include (let's be up-front) real notable characters, but only those like Farmer McCarel that don't warrant their own articles.
6. Last one: I'm seeing the direction of these child articles "Geography of...", "[Normal People] of...", "[Man-made]] Places on..." as focusing on those subjects that don't warrant their own articles. New Avalon would not be on this child article, because it does warrant its own page; so these pages should have running text describing these subjects as minor ones listed for BattleTech completeness. (ex: This article, "Geography of Luthien", focuses on geographical features of the planet that themselves have not been involved in any notable events.) As a means of progressing this conversation, can we agree minor subjects regarding a planet deserve their own articles? (We can work on naming after we meet consensus between the three of us.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:26, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

This is progress! Okay - new question : Why do we need "Geography of ... " articles as opposed to expanding an existing planetary article? It would be just peachy in my mind to have a sub-section of the New Avalon article titled 'Avalon City' and other relevant locations. Just a thought. ClanWolverine101 20:45, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Because the planetary articles are transitioning (in a long, drawn-out process) into system articles, detailing everything known about a system. Each (known) star (not too many dual-star systems in BT), planet, moon, in a system etc will have a section detailing what is known about them. As some planets (New Avalon, Luthien are prime examples) have a wealth of information, these sections should provide basic facts about the planet, with links to more-notable articles (Imperial City, Avalon City, etc) and then links to articles for the less-notable features (such as geography). We don't want to overwhelm the reader trying to find, say, that bit of history they're seeking amidst facts on HPG precentors, changing population numbers, native lifeforms. As soon as the material becomes less-notable or overly extensive, break it away for further expansion.

So, short answer: the planetary/system articles will provide basic aspects of each major feature in that system with direct links about those features that cannot be expanded upon in a page section. So, for the New Avalon system article, it'll have a section on the star, the jumppoints, oribital & other system facilities, each planet and moon. In the New Avalon section of that system article, it will give basic facts (as seen in the canon atlases) and general or very-notable facts and then links to articles like "Geography of..." (if not a dedicated planetary page). Does that make sense?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:31, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

It does. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 18:51, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

James McFarland

James McFarland is up. For your consideration. ClanWolverine101 18:51, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

Excellent. I'll start reviewing; you can check my edits. Any comments I have I'll post here.

Also, add it to your (Research Writer) table, on the assignment page. That tells the Fact Checker it's ready.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:01, 23 March 2012 (PDT)