Talk:Free Worlds League

This article is within the scope of the Project Factions, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of Factions. 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.

Help

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/2306 Who is this non-Marik?--— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Moosegod (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 August 2008 .

From House Marik Sourcebook, p 11:

“

In 2306 however, after Parliment signed the Ryerson Accords, a member of the Selaj family was elected Captain-General in order to help the Capellan Hegemony fight the Sarna Supremacy.

”

That's all there is. But, you might find it helpful to have the PDF for your own review.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 20 August 2008 (CDT)

Should article be expanded to list various providence of the FWL and list the ranks of the military? Or should be seperated in own articles? -- Wrangler 14:28, 18 May 2009 (PDT)

Ranks definitely should go on FWLM much like the AFFS and DCMS pages, with a short list/description of the provinces with links out full articles. FWL is presently leading all states with number of provinces that have full/partial articles at the moment. Cyc 14:48, 18 May 2009 (PDT)

Bibliography

I'm unsure why this article needs a bibliography section, rather than including the associated titles in the present References section. While its a Help essay rather than policy, it appears to me that this is a good example of the merging of Specific and Detailed references, as depicted in the Additional Info section of the References how-to page. I propose merging the two sections into References. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually did this without thinking. Comes from my BA in history—"always separate the endnotes from the bibliography since they serve different purposes." Which may not apply in a wiki situation . The more that I think about it, the more I believe that they should be separated for major articles like this. References should refer to specific topics (and page numbers), but a bibliography allows a much broader scope. This whole rant is probably more appropriate to the Additional Info section. I'll move it there. Template:Ebakunin sig.

I've used this format in pretty much every article I've written in the past year or two. Probably for the same reason as Ebakunin. --Scaletail 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking the two of you check out Help:References to review how it is currently worded. If you can please suggest a method of introducing the concept of bibliographies (maybe as as replacement for Basic References), in a way that won't lead Editors to include the same titles in both (or to do so in a way that demonstrates the value), it'd be helpful. I understand your backgrounds call for a differentiation (I've got the same degree), but I'm unsure how to qualify it for these (BTW) articles. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)