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)

Should we going to partition the provinces/principlities/duchies, etc into seperate articles? There are number of them whom later became their own faction/nation time after the Jihad and prior to the formation of the League itself. -- Wrangler 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think it works pretty well as is. The only difference is that the references footnotes would become part of the "Notes" section, while the "References" section stays separate and is essentially the bibliography. Check out Draconis Combine and Phalanx for examples on how I've done this. --Scaletail 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)