User talk:BrokenMnemonic

Welcome

Welcome, BrokenMnemonic, to BattleTechWiki!

We look forward to your contributions and want to help you get off to a good strong start. Hopefully you will soon join the army of BattleTech Editors! If you need help formatting the pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions go to the Help section or the FAQ. If you can't find your answer there, please ask an Admin.

---

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the wiki:

• For policies and guidelines, see The Five Core Policies of BattleTechWiki and the BTW Policies. Another good place to check out is our market of Projects, to see how the smaller communities within BTW do things in their particular niche areas.
• Each and every page (articles, policies, projects, images, etc.) has its very own discussion/talk page, found on the tab line at the top of the page. This is a great place to find out what the community is discussing along that subject and what previous issues have already been solved.
• If you want to play around with your new wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you. Don't worry: you won't break anything. A great resource for printing out is the Wiki Cheat Sheet.
• If you're not registered, then please consider doing so. At the very least, you'll have a UserPage that you own, rather than sharing one with the community.
• Also consider writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as "BrokenMnemonic" at the top of the page, though only do this if you're registered). You'll go from being a 'redshirt' to a 'blueshirt,' with the respect of a more permanent member.
  • This is really helpful for the admins, as it gives your account that touch of "humanity" that assists us in our never-ending battle with spambots.
• For your first few edits on the wiki, please do not add any URLs (which can be an indicator of SPAM).
• Consider introducing yourself on our Discord server.
• In your Preferences, under the edit tab, consider checking Add pages I create to my watchlist and Add pages I edit to my watchlist, so that you can see how your efforts have affected the community. Check back on following visits by clicking on watchlist.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random button in the sidebar, or check out the List of Wanted Pages. Or even go to Special Pages to see what weird stuff is actually tracked by this wiki.
• Please sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the circled button in this image; this will automatically produce your name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date.

Again, welcome to Sarna's BattleTechWiki!

*******Be Bold*******

Hy

Hy BrokenMnemonic, welcome to sarna.net, you can move your most of your New User Log discription to your own User page, and leave a minor description on the New User Log page.--Doneve 12:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, BrokenMnemonic

I just read your New User log entry and it seems you're a great example of our target audience. I really appreciate that you want to 'give back' to the community what it provides and using what ever skills interest you do just that. Trust me: minor edits are no small added value to a wiki. In fact, I'd say that's probably how many people get there start, as they learn how a wiki works.

Additionally, registering (vice editing as an IP) is more than us getting our grips around you, much more. Now you get credit for your deeds, as well as the opportunity for award ribbons and more open discussions with the other members of the community here. We're glad to put a name to a face. Welcome!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Substantial Addition award

Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. Still way too early for you to get your Time-In-Service (TIS) and Edit Count (EC) ribbons, but I did see the value you added to Always Faithful‎, which definitely deserves recognition:

I don't give these out too often, but this is the 2nd one today. I added an awards board to your user page as well, so be sure to add your TIS and EC ribbons, when the time comes. Good job. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you :) I've not finished editing the Always Faithful page though, because there's detail from the 20 Year Update and I think the Field Manual: Free Worlds League that needs incorporating, and I've not checked my 4th Succession War Atlases to confirm what they were up to then - should the award wait until I've finished the main edit? I'd not want to step on any toes. I'm delighted to be able to help! BrokenMnemonic 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to wait! Editor Awards can be given out by anyone seeing something positive being done (or just completed) and should be given out then. No nomination process is necessary (and you can give them out, too). Now, if someone else awards you for the same effort, you have the option of declining the award; just let them know why.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw your summary note: it's more than ok. Both the TIS and EC ribbons are automatic awards, as there is no real way for other editors to ensure people get them; its left up to you, the individual. Good job.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Year Pages

Hy, please take a look on Policy:Year Pages, great work on Crater Cobras.--Doneve 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, my apologies for breaching the policy on year pages - I've read through the policy and will stick to it in future.BrokenMnemonic 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Casual Edit award

I'm well impressed and quite happy with the work you're doing here. As an incentive to continue to improve articles, have a Casual Edit award:
Frabby 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very cool :) I saw a few of your posts on the CBT forum regarding editing on the wiki, which is one of the things that persuaded me to wander over and start poking things... BrokenMnemonic 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hy

Hy please dont delete added references and infoboxes, when you have not the sourcebooks, leave a note on the target page, i double check the references and talk then to you, thanks.--Doneve 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a complete mistake, I'm afraid; I was editing just the History section, and between previews the wiki announced that the session data had been lost and I should refresh the revision. I did that, saved it, and discovered that I'd somehow gone from editing just the History section to apparently editing the entire page! I undid the revision ASAP, and replaced it with the correct version. I'm still not sure exactly what happened, but it's made me a little paranoid. BrokenMnemonic 10:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a big think, keep cool, the data is saved.--Doneve 10:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unknown Planet

Okay, let's talk thru this, to see if we understand things the same way. On Tyrrhenia, you provided cites for the Unknown Planet entries. In your own words, what information did you provide there? What does that source information tell you about the planet?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The citations show that according to the maps of the region cited at that date in time, the planets didn't exist as colonies, so that if in the future someone searches for planets in the Taurian Concordat, they can be excluded when refining the search by date. It also shows for those looking to try and work out when planets were likely to be settled (where we don't have precise dates) which sources at least confirm the planet wasn't settled at that point in time. BrokenMnemonic 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that was roughly what I thought, too. Do you think "Unknown Planet" is the best term to put there? I don't know what "unknown planet" means. Let's see if I can keep from being too confusing here:

We can definitely presume that a planet's absence from the maps indicates it was as yet unsettled (or not officially known to be settled, by the map's creators, in this case ComStar Cartographic Corps). What we absolutely know for a fact is that it is not on the map.

We have four paths to choose from: ignore the map since it doesn't mention the planet, indicate it was not settled (which may not be the case), indicate it was not reported to be settled or indicate it was not represented on the map. I think the fact we have a source (the map) available that covers the area of concern (to include the area around Tyrrhenia) is something we need to use, so I vote 'no' on option 1. CGL may very well release a map anytime in the future that represents a period of time before the current map that does depict the planet, which means this map simply didn't have the planet, not that it was or was not unsettled (though I find that unlikely).

What we really want to say here is not that the planet was undiscovered, or even unsettled, but that no records of it exist at the times of the map's depictions. Is that right?

Note: the page number for the first entry appears to be wrong. I see maps for 3040 & 3067, not the three that are currently indicated.

The first citation is wrong; sorry about that, I changed the text, but forgot to change the page number in the description (although I did change it in the reference code, which is odd). Slip of the brain, I think.

I grabbed the phrase "Uknown Planet" from the existing entries from worlds up in the Rim Collection, and I'll admit I hadn't thought about it much beyond checking to see what was already in use. I asked about planets not appearing on maps on the CBT forum as a part of a question on the missing OA Star League-era worlds, and the answer Cray sent me was this:

According to MW3 RPG, the OA lost 3/4 of its worlds during the Succession Wars. That was the driver behind the OA's losses in the HB:MPS. Oystein's total estimates (and I might be misremembering a very old discussion) for Succession War losses are 750: 250 Inner Sphere, 500 Periphery.

However, there's a difference between the two regions: Inner Sphere maps show inhabited planets. If it ain't inhabited, it ain't listed. So when a planet leaves the map, it's dead. The Inner Sphere blew 10% of its planets off the map (or let them die through failed technology.) Periphery maps, OTOH, mostly show the noteworthy planets. Humanity's population doesn't stop at a rigid wall of the Inner Sphere - it diffused across it and there's no particular dearth of habitable planets in the Periphery - so there should be many inhabited planets along the Inner Sphere's flanks that never earned a mention in any maps.

But for planets that left Periphery maps that could mean either they simply left a major faction, or it could mean they died. In the case of the hostile planets settled by the Star League in the Rim Worlds (nominally Rim Worlds, they were pretty much Hegemony planets, per JHS:Terra) those mostly died without advanced technology. What happened to the OA "lost worlds" has not been published.

So, CGL have already established that Periphery worlds can "drop off the map" through no longer being significant/noteworthy, and in theory then reappear later. Cray also said this about realms appearing out of the blue that hadn't been in past publications:

The Magistracy also represents a grand-scale "poof! there it is!" nation. It was formed in the 2500s out of existing colonies that banded together against Inner Sphere aggression. You won't see those planets on earlier maps.

So, in the Periphery we have: genuinely uninhabited/undiscovered worlds, worlds not noteworthy enough to appear on the map, worlds that willingly drop off the map, worlds ComStar discovered but chose not to reveal... basically, one huge mess. I've already hit conflicts with the Calderon Protectorate worlds, because there are worlds like Belle Isle that I can't find on any of the maps in sourcebooks I have, but which have been added to the wiki and which have co-ordinates - and in some cases, are even mentioned in the text in HB:MPS, which is seriously frustrating.

We need something that says "either no records exist at the time of this maps compilation, or the world was not considered noteworthy enough to be recorded." Although we also probably need a "dead world" category, for those worlds confirmed as haivng been wiped out.

Maybe we need a Wiki-specific setting rather than an in-universe one - something like "undefined" or "absent"? BrokenMnemonic 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, great read above. I'll be re-reading what you've provided when I get home tonight.

Second, I didn't mean to imply you chose 'Unknown Planet'. I should have been more clear that I was seeking conversation (which resulted, in any case) on ways to improve the entry, so that it actually means something.

So, it looks like we have a near-match for a conclusion as to defining the problem with the way Owner History is currently established. 'Unknown Planet' doesn't provide any information, while "undefined" or "absent" might be a better fit. How about "No Record"? Even when cited (as you've done with their absence from the cited maps), you're providing historical data to a specific date, indicating "no record" existed at that time. What do you think? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't mean to sound defensive :) I'm just used to citing sources and references when I'm compiling information. I'm more than happy to go with "No Record" - that leaves us with wiggle room to play with if CGL add more worlds in. I asked Herb on the CBT forum about whether or not any of the missing Outworlds Alliance worlds from 2750 might still exist as independent worlds and simply not show up on the map, and he said that the majority of the worlds in the Periphery that vanished simply died out, but that some will still be inhabited, even if they're bleak hell-holes with low population - you can see his response here: [1]

As an aside, if the main purpose of the planetary reference pages isn't going to be the breakdown of nearby neighbours and jump distances, would it be ok for me to start adding in dead/absent worlds from the Star League era? They'll mainly be isolated entries because they don't have co-ordinates, so they won't show up on mini-maps, but it does mean they'll have entries if needed for future use, and if someone's looking for a particular world they will at least find an entry. BrokenMnemonic 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, add away. And the citations for 'No Record' entries will be valuable. Thanks for taking cites so seriously. (Off for a few hours.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Award

Hy, have your first , for your great efforts in the planets section, keep up your good work.--Doneve 14:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very cool :) It looks like I've hit 500 edits today as well - a good day on several accounts. I've just finished updating all of the Outworlds Alliance worlds, so I should probably do some housework before I start on the next Periphery realm! BrokenMnemonic 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Research Gallery

As mentioned in my latest response on BattleTechWiki talk:Planet Article Overhaul/Archive‎‎ : what if we had a series of galleries (on one page) of maps in chronological order? A person researching a planet's owner history for the overhaul could open the relevant maps in order, and record the changes, much as you've done. It differs from your experience, in that you've looked at a map and made the changes to the relevant planets, while a project member in this case will choose a planet (say Sarna) and then go to the appropriate region gallery (say Capellan Confederation) on the maps page and open up each map listed chonologically there, recording when Sarna fell in (or out) of the CapCom's dominion.
I found Category:Maps Gallery, with 153 maps already, bit it is a category and not a gallery page. I could start using these to show you what I mean, and then as you upload your mini-maps and other complete maps, we could add them to the gallery page.
I'll start building a demo for you. "I'll be back."--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Demo Gallery: great timing on Doneve's part (he uploaded these only 4 days ago). Now, they aren't high enough resolution for this project, but it demonstrates well what I'm envisioning; you're editing the article on Ling, so you identify its location on the 2366 image, but notice it's missing from the 2571 image. So, you scroll down to the Free Worlds League gallery and look for an image dated after 2366 to see when it was depicted as being acquired by the FWL.

It means you and I have a lot of hi-res maps to upload, but I think its critical to fixing Owner History. Thoughts?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's entirely doable (although I'm having some trouble with my copy of HB:HD). One of the advantages the PDF housebooks have is that they're searchable, and as the planet names are a text layer over an image, they stay readable at a lot of resolutions. Static images won't be text searchable here, but they will give those without access to the maps themselves a way of helping.

How heavily modified does an image/map taken from a sourcebook have to be to qualify for fair use? There are good reasons for uploading complete maps in some cases; the example I'm thinking of is that HB:MPS has no maps for the end of the 1st/2nd Succession Wars, whereas HB:HD and HB:HL do - so I've been updating the Concordat worlds using the information from the edges of the FedSuns/Capellan maps.

I'll have a play tonight and see what I can do from home. Thanks for the notes on uploading images, btw! I'll get some images resized and uploaded imminently. --BrokenMnemonic 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From Policy:Images, 'fair use' is met when the image is relevant to an article. My first take on that was the image must be used in the article, meaning your mini-maps, however modified, would be covered by their use in the article's infobox. On second thought, that should also apply to the ones that exist in the Research gallery. We may have to delete the maps that are not used in any articles following the project's conclusion, but I don't foresee any issues, as long as the source is out of moratorium.

Also, reading thru the image policy, those notes I provided on uploading files should also mention that anytime an image is modified from the original (i.e., you crop it or add to it), the summary line should mention that it has been modified. You could even add "(modified)" after the source material: "Handbook: Liao, p. 47, "Beer Run Raid!" (modified)"--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a play around and put together the following image. Is it at sufficient quality for the idea you had envisioned? I can make them at higher quality but the file size goes up dramatically, and I have a couple of concerns about moving the files around at that size. I can reduce the file dimensions, but the text starts to "fuzz up" as the image size reduces. I'm not sure how to embed thumbnails so I've gone for a file embed, I hope that's ok.

Direct link: File:MarHeg_3055.jpg -- BrokenMnemonic 10:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Three ways to test it: 1) within an infobox (the eventual primary place it will be seen) (ex: Asgard), 2) clicking the file page & 3) clicking on the file.

Now, ignoring the fact that Asgard is apparently in the quadrant diagonal from the representative image, the dots are clearly too small to determine where Asgard is on this map. However, the map is far enough out to know exactly what part of space it lies in. So, suvvess on that note.

Now, on the file page, it is just within reading tolerance by my contact-assisted eyes, a standard distance from the screen. Obviously, not ideal for some readers but if I were expected to find it on the map, I think I could. I'm presuming I'm average, in that respect.

Clicking on the file itself...whoa!!! (Like this play-by-play perspective?) That is huge. If the screen resizes, the words are way too fuzzy to read, strangely enough since the image is actually large than the file page's view, but the original graphic is way too large to be informative, especially since I have no idea where on the image the target graphic resides.

So, if I understand you correctly, if you import a smaller file, the text gets too fuzzy to read. If we accept that limitation at the article page's thumbnail, is it also true on the file page?

(Note: take a look at the code I used here to create a thumbnail (with hover caption)):

(Another Note: please revert Asgard's image, when you're done with the demo.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that the wiki doesn't resize the images particularly well when creating the thumbnails, although I don't know enough to have any idea how to change that. The problem with the coloured files is that they're created from the .pdf maps in the Handbook series in the main, and those files have multiple layers - the planets and boundaries are one layer, the text is another layer, and the floating boxes with the caption and like are another layer. Every time you zoom in or out, it resizes the image layer, and then re-smoothes the font on the text to a size appropriate to the current viewing resolution. Once you cap the picture to colour it, you're stuck with the text at that resolution, and shrinking the image actually deforms the smoothing effect slightly, causing minor variations in colour that provide definition at the size the cap was taken to distort as it's size is altered. Keeping the files at hi-res reduces that problem, but makes the files pretty big. Re-colouring the files works better the further you zoom in on the original, but that also increases the distortion when the images are resized.

I've taken the original file on the wiki and created a new version at a smaller size, but as close as I can get to the original file resolution, which you can see here:

I think this is at a manageable resolution when viewed full-size, but I'm not convinced by it's readability in the map gallery. What do you think? I've reverted the Asgard map, by the way. Thank you for the demonstration - I've copied the code into my working file! BrokenMnemonic 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this newer image you loaded is great. I'm not sure what you mean by map gallery; should I presume you mean either in the infobox's thumbnail or on its own file page? Or did you mean within gallery code or on a gallery page? If you mean the file page (File:Marian_Hegemony_3055.png), yeah, it's just about outside the scope of easy viewing, but by leaning in, I feel I could find a planet. However, at that displayed resolution, I'd also try clicking on the file itself ([2]) and since it isn't too large, I'd stick there to find my planet. Does that make sense?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still learning my way around the Wiki lexicon; I did mean the image on it's own file page before it's clicked on. I'm going to see what I can do about sharpening up the image a little more but I'm hitting the limits of what I can get done during a lunch break at work and still email home. I think I might be able to update the quality just a little more, but I'm reassured that the system I'm using now is good enough - I should be able to turn out a few maps each day, with any luck. One thing I did think of is that it would be relatively easy to produce cropped versions of the larger maps for use with each planet, and to colour individual planets in, giving each planet it's own map... but doing so could seriously jack up the amount of bandwidth people visiting the site use, and the size of the wiki itself, and I'm not sure where Nic stands with the service provider for that.

The map I used for the Marian Hegemony currently occupies about a quarter of a page in HB:MPS. One of the problems we're going to have is that the bigger realms have substantially bigger maps; producing a map of somewhere like the Lyran Commonwealth at the same quality as the map here that's still readable is going to be something of a challenge. I shall have to play around and see what I can come up with... BrokenMnemonic 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, despite your lackluster wiki-language skills, I think we're on the same metaphorical page now. Curious as to why you're concerned about uploading at work: if you're emailing home, it's not a bandwidth issue, right?

I have the same concerns as you regarding the large faction maps. I think we'll have to limit them to regions, but then we have an issue with possibly 'loosing' the region, since those shapes are not as familiar to us. I really do like the idea of creating custom images for each planet, but am very aware of the enormity of that task inititally. It almost merits a project in itself.

I've been kicking over how Wikipedia uses subsets to identify locations for their article infoboxes. I hust don't have a firm grasp of the graphic arts to be creative enough with possible solutions.

I'm not really concerned about Sarna's bandwidth, as we'd be replacing single-article images, though granted with much larger images. I'll ask Nic, though; I'm awaiting a response from him on other issues.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much a bandwidth issue as a net-logging issue. If I'm uploading large quantities of data to a website, it'll attract attention, and runs the risk of the site being added to the banned list and me being sumarrily sacked for abusing the net access at work. On the other hand, emails don't attract as much attention and aren't site specific. I did originally think I'd have to email the very large sourcefiles home and then compress them at home, but a little research at work has let me compress some maps I made there today into what looks like a good size and format... but I promptly forgot to email them home because I got distracted by all those Taurian worlds that need citations.

Creating individual world maps is time consuming, but not hugely so, provided that four or five planets are roughly centred and can use the same map. What'll take the time is uploading them all I suspect... but I can sit down and do a few test runs. What I'd probably do is use locally stored huge source files, and cap/crop/colour individual maps from them. The elephant int he room is how many maps would be needed for each planet; would we want one, one for each era, one for each major era? Planets that died off in the 1st-3rd Succession Wars are likely to only be on a small number of maps, but whatever era we go for the map is only relevant for a given period of time. Unless we create a gallery of maps for each world to reflect changes in ownership over time?

I have no idea how wikipedia managed to do that - compared to anyone with a modicum of training, I'm a gorilla with a set of colouring crayons, but at least what I do is simple! In theory, with a big enough map, some co-ordinates and a dose of javascript, it should be possible to do all sorts of things, but it's way above my level of competence.

Having created some maps at work for the Taurian Concordat from 2571 to 3067, it's amazing how densely populated the Star League era was compared to the recent age. Adding in all those dead planets is really going to up the planet count here... I had to change the default colour for the Concordat from that used in the official 3130 map though, because the colour is basically a nightmare to work with and keep text legible against. I'm hoping no-one will really notice, though! BrokenMnemonic 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, no one cares about the Taurian Concordat.  ::ducks:: --Scaletail 22:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[wincing] Oooh...that's gonna leave a mark.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of maps: which ever one is best at 'locating' the subject planet. Clearly, the subject planet'll have to be on the map uploaded, but as long as there's enough of the image to locate where in the IS (or wherever) the region is, the actual date of the map is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template: PlanetOverhaul

Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. You may have noticed Mbear has created, and I've begin unveiling, a new template for the upcoming overhaul. I know you haven't yet, but because I know you're so passionate about the overhaul, I thought I'd ask you to refrain from posting the new template on the articles just yet. Doneve and I still need to finish up the faction categorizations and the overhaul effort still needs to be defined. Thanks, man. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, not a problem - I'm happy to stick to updating owner histories at the moment, and I'll wait until the all-clear before using the new template. Does this mean at some point I should actually join the planets project team? ;) BrokenMnemonic 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually hesitated from putting you on there. Doneve was already on there and since he's assisting me with the pre-overhaul stuff, he 'survived' the membership refresh. Feel free to join in, and that includes in the overall discussion, too.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Surreal Award

I've never given one of these before, but I think the chasing summary lines have brought a wry sense of humor to that oft-overlooked bit of virtual paperwork.

Congrats. ;)--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, a new ribbon! Very cool. I'm a huge fan of shiny things! (One reason why I live in a house full of toys, books, films and games.) Although if I'm being awarded a surreal award, you should have one as well; after all, for surreal humour to work, two people at least have to be involved and aware that it's actually surreal humour in the first place... BrokenMnemonic 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Cop award

Thanks for your efforts in tagging the spambots - though I do request to simply leave such pages alone in the future until an Admin deletes them which usually happens within a few hours (often minutes). Frabby 10:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there anything I can do to help with these spambots? I found your note on Doneve's profile about leaving their pages alone after the first 4 had appeared today, so I held off touching the adverts they were posting, but I thought breaking the redirect links might be ok. BrokenMnemonic 10:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say just to bring it to the attention of one of the day's more active Admins. I usually like to kill spammers first thing off, before crushing the morale of the users.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I can always send PMs on the CBT forums to say that there's a spammer on the loose on the wiki. It's frustrating that I haven't yet worked out how to get one arm far enough down the intertubes to be able to remove a spammer's internal organs through their ears, but sooner or later I'll manage it... I'm a little wary of getting the admins attention before the first coffee of the morning though, in case any of the wrath, fire and brimstone comes in my direction. BrokenMnemonic 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning house after that spambot. Have another Vandal Cop Award (3rd Ribbon). Frabby 20:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - that's the second destructive spambot we've had in a week, although the first one only seemed to go for fanon pages. I have a feeling from the pages that it rewrote that it was hunting through sarna for the words "child" or "kid" and then corrupting the articles it found. BrokenMnemonic 07:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Provinces, Regions & Factions

BrokenMnemonic, maybe because it's late and I'm tired, but I'm a bit frustrated. It's clear now that the idea of the reference gallery idea of mine is going to be difficult, much more complicated than I had thought.
Do you think you'll be able to develop the idea, take charge? I decided to upload maps per demanding requirements (see the above page's opening statement), but found out with the 2nd map there was no way to show all of the FedSuns' faction map, as early as 2571! I think we'll need to break the galleries down beyond just factions, but also regions (provinces, marches, etc.) That means, for example, not just grabbing an image of every map in, say, Handbook: House Davion, but cropping them so we get clear images of the marches over time. Instead of having a Federated Suns gallery, we need a sub-section gallery of the Federated Suns, say, Crucis March, where we follow that region over the years. So, now, it's no longer as simple as each faction, but includes regions, where necessary.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, I think I can do that; the long answer is that I may not be able to do a complete job because I'm having a lot of trouble with one of the Handbooks, Handbook: House Davion. It doesn't seem to want to let me copy graphics the way Handbook: Major Periphery States does. I think the idea of breaking the areas down by region is a good one, because it'll let us show things like the existence of the Federated Suns Terran March while it existed.

There are a couple of areas where we're going to have problems, but I don't think they're insurmountable; I'm thinking of things like while it's fairly easy to plot those worlds that were a part of the founding of the Federated Suns, you need either a really big map or a digital copy of the handbook to track all of those other worlds that were settled but presumably independent at the same time - but that's probably a secondary priority compared to getting the Federated Suns founding worlds logged, for example. Era Digest: Age of War highlights that the United Hindu Collective was just one of a number of mini-states around at the time, but I don't think we're ever going to get a complete map of all the other states, which probably makes it less of an issue - we just cite where we have accurate records.

I'll start uploading maps ASAP, but I don't know when Handbook: House Kurita is out to allow me to produce maps of the Draconis Combine... BrokenMnemonic 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a plan, can get your mind wrapped around it, which is good. I feel this issue is important enough to the project, but the graphical/technical side of the house is a bit out of my realm.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started uploading maps of combat theatres in the FedSuns; it seemed the best way of uploading detailed maps without having them be absolutely huge, given that the FedSuns is a really, really annoying shape. Can you take a quick look at them, and let me know if they seem obvious in what they're trying to portray? If they are, I'll crack on with the FedSuns and Protectorate of Donegal maps done the same way. Ta! BrokenMnemonic 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I like that; I do. {Green eggs and ham, I am.)--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

1 Month Old Today

Well, I created an account here one month ago today, and I've not been deleted yet, so it seems like a cause for celebration. There are donuts in my office at work if anyone would like one... BrokenMnemonic 10:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We're all so proud of you. Thirty days old and already uploading files, categorizing planets and cropping maps. As for the donuts: they taste a bit stale. They may be older than you.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tamar Pact image

Hy, i see you uploade a new TP image, take a look on BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul/Faction Map Gallery, there some TP images uploaded by myself, ok there is no colour and cropped.--Doneve 17:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you've been uploading white cropped images - I've been working on some that are not as closely cropped so that those looking to track worlds near borders can see where the planets are moving during wars, and I've been colouring mine as a visual aid. I've already done some for places like the Taurian Concordat and Marian Hegemony, and I thought these versions would compliment yours. BrokenMnemonic 17:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Award

Thanks for bringing that vandal to our attention. Scaletail is better than I at following new users around, but this was also more insidious in that he registered days ago, before making his first edit. Please do us a favor, though, and don't make/mark the spammer's main page, as that can camouflage him a bit from us (if we miss your edits; I watch your edits like a hawk, but...). I pay more attention to the edits of editors/writers who don't do some of the practices other new registrants might. Also, please let one of the admins know, either on their talk page or at BattleTechWiki:Administrators.

Again, thanks for identifying the attack on the site.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Willdo! If memory serves, there was at least one other account created at the same time that didn't post anything immediately, so there may be another one lurking. I noticed that this spammer also didn't post the usual kind of spam, but instead what looks like a template for a replacement web page. BrokenMnemonic 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I recall that too. I think you caught that one also. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask if that means another bar on the Vandal Cop award ribbon, but I'm worried that given that I tend to be only person pottering around here early-mid mornings GMT-time, I could end up listing to one side after a couple of weeks...

LOL. I generally give vandal cops the Pavlov treatment: you're never really sure when you'll get recognized. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You realise that's only going to encourage my efforts to make spammers catch fire via internet-based pyrokinesis, right? Or maybe see if I can do a Scanners routine... BrokenMnemonic 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am SO willing to risk that.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor Faction

Morning, i think we can put on your new created Capellan Holdfast etc. a Minor Faction category link, what you are think.--Doneve 10:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Morning ) I wasn't aware of the Minor Faction category before you mentioned it, but having tracked it down, I think that's a good idea. I'll whistle around the various factions I've written up this morning and add it to them as well. The Capellan Zone seems to be a complete mish-mash of states of varying sizes, most of them knocking each other over on a regular basis. Thanks for pointing the category out! It'll be handy for me to use in the future. BrokenMnemonic 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

All Purpose Award

Thanks for attempting to help MechWarriorfreak‎‎ contact the Beas. Helping people new to the wiki is -in my opinion- the best way to encourage them to stay to help.

Thanks again. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't want him feeling ignored, and it was no trouble to help him out. I can't see Herb going with his idea though... BrokenMnemonic 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Explorer Corps

Evening ;), i take a look in Explorer Corps (sourcebook), and found a lot off not added systems, worls there have a relation ship (or taken) by the clans, what we do with this independent? clan controlled?... worlds.--Doneve 22:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Morning :) I've been meaning to dig out Explorer Corps (sourcebook) for a while, but I got sidetracked from Periphery nations to the Capellan Confederation because the maps are soooo pretty. Anyway... are you thinking of worlds that appear to be under de facto Clan control, or worlds that have been mentioned as having contact with the clans (and perhaps not the inner sphere) but for which there are no clear ownership details? BrokenMnemonic 06:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've dug out my copy of Explorer Corps. Are you looking at the various sites marked on the Periphery Map (Coreward Sector) on P.48? I notice the following pages give us some basics on each system on the map, but not a huge amount of detail, and only a small number of those worlds shown are occupied worlds... most seem to be transfer stations, orbital facilities or garrisons. I think I remember hearing mention of battles around some of them in various of the Jihad sourcebooks.

As the lanet entries are becoming system entries, I think we should record them... but I think all we can do is create an owner history with a single entry in, until we get more detail on them in future books, or until more references are brought in from other books. In terms of ownership, unless the text indicates that they're the subject of a trade relationship or the like, I think they need to be categorised by the Clan that has them listed as a facility.

I notice the text on P. 25 "Draconis Combine Facilities" mentions a WOB facility named Opotiki, too... BrokenMnemonic 19:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i think so to, i create in next time orbital facility articles, then we can put this subjects to the Manufacturing Centers category, or the clan occupied worlds.--Doneve 19:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet Categorization

I'm finally done with my half of the alphabet, and Doneve is wrapping up his, too. Thanks a lot for categorizing while you were charting. So many times I'd open up 15 planets to try and pump some out over a span of a few lax minutes and groan when I'd see these really complicated histories. However, more often than not, I'd scroll down and see they were already categorized by you. And today, that was the case with the last two, and one had been done by you only yesterday. Thanks!
Once I get Doneve going on his Mission Phase 0, you and I can start working on Sarna, 'kay? I'll pull you over to our mission page when I'm ready. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I've been able to help :) It's probably a dead giveaway that if there's a planet entry with more than six references in it's owner history, I've been fiddling around with it. I've been working through the maps in the handbooks, categorising all of the realm worlds, and cross-referencing periphery states with the maps in the various Handbooks. It didn't feel right to expand the ownership history without adding categories too, and I found a fair number of oddities in the pre-generated owner histories. That's why it's been taking me so long to do a relatively low population of worlds, though... I'm forever mixing and matching references and citations, and if someone's added planetary details or garrison details with citations, I've been using that detail for the owner histories as well. It makes it pretty slow going...

Anyway, I'm looking forward to working on Sarna, Rollis and Grossbach :) And not just because a break from the Confederation sounds like heaven at times... BrokenMnemonic 19:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Planetary Expansion?

Wow...simply wow. I've never seen the site grow by as many articles in a single day, even with sub or stub articles. Great job! Any idea how many articles you added? (And you still had time to review Historical: Reunification War?) --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... well, my main spreadsheet is at home, but from memory the Capellan Confederation has had roughly 480-500 systems within it's borders at any one time. I've been updating the histories based on the individual founding states, but I decided late last week to get all the Star League era worlds that have since vanished uploaded, as I thought that would be reasonably quick and simple. I think of the 480-500 systems, about 200-300 are still around and in various hands, so I've added maybe 200 systems. I do know my work on the Confederation plus the map uploads took me from about 1,100 edits to just over 1,500 in a week or so, although there are some other bits and pieces mixed in there like the RWR worlds Oystein confirmed were reappearing, and I've been slowly updating the OA worlds with citations. I'm not looking forward to adding in all the missing worlds from the other major states... and, frustratingly, because the Handbook maps skip from 2571 to 2822, there are worlds I can see on the 2750 maps in Handbook: Major Periphery States that I otherwise wouldn't know about, so if CGL produce 2750 era maps of the Inner Sphere (Historical: Liberation of Terra?) there could be another big tranche of worlds to add, even after going through all the Handbooks.

I didn't review Reunification War in any great detail, I just skimmed through looking at odd bits and pieces like particular worlds and battles, and details of mercenary/house/periphery units that were new to me; I was mainly focussed on seeing what maps there were, and getting an idea for whether any Periphery worlds appeared and disappeared between 2571 and 2750. It's no wonder the Taurians are paranoid - the Star League/House Davion annexed more than half the Concordat during the war. In fact, if they'd gone one world "deeper" into the Concordat across the board, the Concordat would've been reduced to basically the Hyades worlds and not a lot else. Ouch.

I took a quick read through Field Report: Periphery as well, and that's a bit of a painful read. I hadn't realised that the Magistracy was effectively an occupied nation for most of the Jihad, and I think it's great that we've finally got a decent map of the Hanseatic realm... but where are the maps of the Chainelaine Isles? BrokenMnemonic 11:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only did I learn a new word just now ("tranche"), now I see having you join us when you did was either a good or bad thing. "Good", because you're so dedicated to revealing what should be known but was not provided here or "bad", because you've just added 200 articles to the Overhaul effort, with a promise of a lot more to come. At the least, the "good" aspect will force you to be a driving force in the Overhaul. Hah! Serves you right!--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a study in duality! Would it add weight to the good or bad argument if I mentioned the 75-80 new Outworlds Alliance worlds, 100-150 Rim Worlds Republic worlds and 50 or so Taurian Concordat/Magistracy of Canopus worlds I'd already added here while you weren't watching me too closely? ... Why are you holding a machete? BrokenMnemonic 14:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[thinking] "Let's see...Lizzie Borden...how many whacks?"--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been a while since I took on a big single-article project like the Crater Cobras piece I did a few weeks ago... I could always stop adding planets for a while, do another couple of big articles, and give Doneve a chance to catch up with all the new planets? Although, there are all those maps that need to be cropped, coloured and uploaded, and they're so shiny... BrokenMnemonic 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Two jumps

BM, I don't think I missed this, but I want to be sure. The auto-generated maps made by Nic represent all planets within 2 jumps, but the ones you're replacing those with (or intending to, in any case) are not to that scale, right? --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's correct - I've based the maps and their dimensions on rough visibility/viewing ease, and the scale in the source maps varies considerably. There's no easy way of marking a scale on there without recreating the source maps in something like Adobe Illustrator, which I don't have access to, I'm afraid. BrokenMnemonic 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's absolutely fine. We just have to remember to remove that "Planets within 2 jumps" caption when we change out the images.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I had a think about this last night, and I think I might be able to get a scale onto the images, if there's a scale on the source images I'm using. It's going to be fiddly and time consuming, but I'll do a test run with the 3067 FedSuns maps I'm going to be working on today. If I can get it to work, one of the problems is that all of the maps are going to end up being larger, increasing the chances of having to scroll the image if I'm to keep the text legible... BrokenMnemonic 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This could be interesting... However, I don't see having a scrollbar on the thumbnail and in the infobox being something that we can do. Even if we can...do we want a scroll bar there?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've managed to produce maps with two different versions of a scale on, based on the scales published in the handbooks. The problem with adding a scale is that it pushes the dimensions of the map up, because there has to be somewhere for that scale to go onto the map without disrupting the area on which attention is being focussed. Most of the maps I've produced with a scale on (that I'll upload tonight) are fairly large in terms of the area they cover, as they're for the map gallery, but the one that covers the smallest region is this one: File:Chaos_March_3067.png - I had to modify the captured scale image to get something that would fit, so making this map took about twice as long as the Chaos March 3058 map. Do you think it's likely to be useable for the local neighbours maps in the planet entries, given that those images are thumbnails? It might be worth replacing the thumbnail map on the Terra Firma or Capolla planet articles to see how the map might look when shrunk down. BrokenMnemonic 12:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude, take a look at New Avalon! I wanted to use it in an infobox, since that is where they'd be used. Whatcha think?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hy guys i think we can handle the scale map problem, by a vektor graphic programm that calculate this, thoughts.--Doneve 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks good on the New Avalon page, although the versions for planet entries will have the home province in white and the world in red; I'll hurry up and upload some of the bigger maps with more scale details on them so we can see how those work. So long as I remember to capture all of the maps at the same time, I can copy the scale from the main map and add it as another layer to the image, so it's superimposed on top - it's a little laborious, but not enough to stop me.

I don't really know enough about vector graphics to comment on whether using a programme that can calculate and chart them is a good thing or not - would it mean we'd need to redraw the map for each world? Would it show the scale, or would it show the jump rings?

Thinking about it... between the Manassas in Living Legends and the WOB super-jump drives, how confident are we as a wiki that the standard jump is always going to be 30 LY at most, going past the Jihad/Dark Age? BrokenMnemonic 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't go down that rabbit hole! That way be madness. Seriously, though: we can't speculate, only report. Don't fret about it.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok the super-jump drive, takes a longer jump distance, (we talk realy about super-jump drive distances), i think not, my indication was to bring a idea how we can handle this problem, a vektor graphic prog. can calculate from your stard point you are setted to each end point a vektor, oh, and we can fix the map size problem, you indicate the probs. of map sizes, and other parameters ref. point, target point etc. and bam you have the correct distance from planet to planet, i hope my writing was not to rough, i add a example in the next days, thanks guys.--Doneve 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mockups

I realize you're heavily involved in the Faction Maps prep-work for the Overhaul (and Doneve and you are doing great work), but I wanted to let you know I'm going to start work on Sarna. The mission page for the mockups is here, though we'll be discussing our work here.
I'm will be taking a (very short) wiki-break in early September, and in preparation for that, I'm trying to get some balls rolling, so ya'll aren't necessarily waiting on me.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on the Sarna entry and pitch in where I can - I'm looking to use your work on the Sarna article to get the Rollis and Grossbach articles done. I'm still not overly familiar with how the templates work here, which is why I've been poking a couple of them to see how they work. Don't worry about keeping me busy, though - think of all those worlds from the Steiner, Davion and Marik handbooks are that vanished from maps and which aren't on the wiki yet. Maybe I could add another 600 worlds while you're on your break? BrokenMnemonic 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You could probably invent some, without anyone noticing.<ref>''House Amaris: The Triumph of the Meek'', p. 47, "The 75 Hidden Righteous Planets"</ref>

As for whatever planet you start off with, try to do it in phases, to test the method. I'd be interested in your perspective, as I see you following other team members along and filling in Phase 2 articles with the customized maps. The templates shouldn't be too much trouble for you; just cut and paste everything in this box and then fill in the relavant fields from the data that exists on the page already.

Gotta get home. Later. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The 75 Hidden Righteous Planets? I couldn't possibly do that. I'm too busy working up the bastion worlds Clan Wolverine created in the Deep Periphery to act as the last line of defence against the aliens trying to invade the Inner Sphere.

I'm going to start (carefully) poking the Rollis article to start getting it into line with the new template. One thing did occur to me, though; the maps showing the planets are most likely to come from one of three eras - either 3067 or 2750, and from the Handbook series, representing either the current state of play for still-inhabited planets or the Star League era for those planets that vanished before 3025, and then the Dark Age era for worlds mapped using the 3130 Inner Sphere map. Obviously, I'd include details of the source for the map in the map image file details, but would it be of use in the planet template to have a box to show the year the map represents? I'm thinking that for new users, a map is a map, and for long-time players, lots of names they don't recognise will intimate a Star League map, but that adding a map year in the planet article itself makes it more obvious at a glance what "kind" of planet the article is about. BrokenMnemonic 07:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think indicating the year of the map is a good idea, but in the caption would be best. I've petitioned Mbear to take a look at allowing captions to work in the style of infobox we're using. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Is the odd text artifact I've got in the image box in the draft Rollis article a result of the infobox style? BrokenMnemonic 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed. Look at how I did it with Sarna. That's how you get it to display 'properly' (if 'properly' also means inflating the image up to 285 pixels). Hopefully Mbear will be able to assist us.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All Purpose Award

I give you the All Purpose Award, for drawing my attention to the Documents category with your recent edits. --Neufeld 11:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. I only noticed the category myself yesterday when I saw someone (ClanWolverine101, I think) update a document on the Bell Accord. Since then, I thought "wouldn't it be good to include some of these documents that keep appearing in the references to Capellan Proto-States that are making assigning planet/state categories a complete nightmare" which goes to show that I'm clinically and certifiably insane. BrokenMnemonic 11:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Castilian Principalities

Evening, have you any info of the Castilian Principality, i found a little bit in Era Digest: Age of War, i added a red link (grm) in the year category 2392, i cant found another info of the subject, thanks.--Doneve 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I can't find anything in any of the books that I've got, although I'm missing the Jihad era books past Dawn of the Jihad, not counting Jihad Conspiracies, Interstellar Players and Masters and Minions. I had a look in the Explorer Corps, and that indicates that Nueva Castile was founded by Terran colonists from Iberia in the late 24th century (page 58). I'd Ask The Writers if they're the same thing - Nueva Castile's been picked up in The Blake Documents I gather, as well as Field Manual: Periphery and the Wars of Reaving. Every other realm established in that list in Era Digest: Age of War is a realm with an established history in canon and I recognise, which makes me think that the Castilian Principalities are an exiting realm with an odd name. ColBosche might answer, even though he's no longer a formal member of the writing staff, as he wrote ED: Age of War. That's my best guess, I'm afraid. Sorry I can't help more! BrokenMnemonic 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Field Manual: Periphery openly states that Nueva Castile was settled in 2392 - I'd say that makes it pretty much certain that the Castilian Principality was the original name for Neuva Castile, but I can't see anything that actually confirms that. BrokenMnemonic 07:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--Doneve 10:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hy, please can you add a Phaso O template when you update planet pages, i appriciate this, i must tag hmm 1.900 planet pages, and it was great help by you, thanks.--Doneve 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Willdo - I just need to work out how ;) BrokenMnemonic 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks bud ;).--Doneve 18:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Phase 2

Hey, I think there may have been a lot of posts recently, so you missed this one to you. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I did. Thanks for pointing it out! I'll dig the co-ordinates out of the resources area for Rollis. Is it ok for me to add the new co-ordinates to other worlds while I'm updating the ownership histories, or should I wait until the general template has been given the go-ahead? BrokenMnemonic 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Time-saver: the coordinates are provided in the Helpful Links on the project page.

You can, but be sure to post them with the template provided. However, Phase 2 is all about coordinates. They will be put in by whomever will be focusing in on only their Phase 2 assignment (when the missions start).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the Phase tag. Once you're done and it's showing as Phase 2, we'll start on Phase 3.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Preps for Phase 3

I realize you're still working on Phase 2 for Rollis, but I wanted to give you head's up that I envision you as the project cartographer, which means you pretty much 'own' Phase 3 for every mission. In that light, I thought you might want to consider the maps for the three Mock-up systems.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm pretty much done with Phase 2 for Rollis... and I have maps for Rollis, Sarna and Grossbach on my machine at work, ready to be uploaded. For once, I'm possibly ahead of the curve! BrokenMnemonic 12:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaah, great. Don't forget to update the Phase tag to show Phase 2 then.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

TBD

Hy, i think you want this map File:MallaC & FVC 3075.jpg.jpg, greting.--Doneve 11:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the map! I'm having a bit of trouble reading it, though - is it not set up for easy enlargement in the ebook? BrokenMnemonic 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats truh, sorry but i dont have a better qulity.--Doneve 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for completing Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130)‎‎.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it part-finished and had some time this morning, so I thought I'd help out. It was a nice change from playing "find the missing planet"... BrokenMnemonic 12:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

See, I think that's the fun job!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Phase 0

Hy BrokenMnemonic, i finished the PlanetOverhaul Phase 0 tagging today.--Doneve 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done! You've beaten me and my lost worlds - I'm still working my way through the Lyran Commonwealth. BrokenMnemonic 12:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Intra-article links

Saw your edits to Forgotten Worlds. We usually link a keyword only in its first appearance throughout an article; linking it several times is an exception reserved for prominent mentions where a direct link makes sense over expecting the user to search for the first mentioning in the article (typical examples would be the Bibliography and/or References section, or the unit lists in novel/short story articles). Frabby 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was under the impression that keywords were linked the first time they were used in each paragraph or section, rather than the first time they're used in each article. I'll follow the convention in future. BrokenMnemonic 10:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Frabby 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple systems sharing a name

Rev and I though it might be more appropriate to use numbers than a (potentially arbitrary) realm short to differentiate systems with the same name. See here: BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Planets/Planet_Overhaul#System_Naming_II_-_Systems_with_the_same_name. Frabby 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd been keeping a watching brief on the conversation on system naming, but I wasn't sure if it was being endorsed as policy yet. Rather than start moving articles around, I thought I'd follow what'd been done before - I've added several hundred new planets to the wiki over the last four or five weeks, and looking at my maps and notes, I've got less than 50 to go, all based in the Free Worlds League. Out of that 50, I'd be surprised if more than a couple result in duplicated names - I've only had to put in about seven or eight disambig pages or entries so far - so it may well be easier to simply add changing the name formats as a phase within the Planets Project than me doing something off my own bat with the last couple. Unless you specifically want me to try and use the next one I find (if any) as a test example? BrokenMnemonic 10:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody else on the project chimed in on the discussion, I figured there was a consensus and remembered it when I saw your Altoona (LC) action. It's not a great issue though and you're right that sticking to the established scheme is probably better until some formal policy or project guideline emerges.

Btw, thanks for putting up with my frequent "friendly helpful guiding" attempts. :) Frabby 10:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I didn't chime in on the conversation because I don't really need to have an opinion on it... It's one of those things where I just need to do what I'm told, and it doesn't make any objective difference to me which way is used. Although, if it's based on distance from Terra, I'm going to need to dig out my scientific calculator and dust off my hazy memories of trigonometry to work out which is the closer planet in some cases.

I wouldn't say I was putting up with your friendly helpful guiding attempts - I'm doing what I'm told ;) I'm very much the new guy here, as I've only been editing on the wiki for about six or seven weeks, so the onus is on me to learn how things are done, not to run around doing what I think's best and presuming I'm right. I'll leave that approach to people with larger egos than mine ;) BrokenMnemonic 11:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here by only saying how utterly & completely wrong you are. Seriously, though: if you don't have an opinion one way or another, that's fine. But don't feel just because you're the new guy or not an admin or whatever criteria that you think is required for an opinion, that you can't speak up. Frabby and I have both backed away from a position that was clearly not the consensus view. Besides, you've already gone a long way towards establishing new procedures for Project: Planets. "We Demand Suffrage for BrokenMnemonic Now!!"--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Project: Planets Cartographer

Evening, BrokenMnemonic. This isn't so much an award as simple recognition for all your work in the Overhaul and the importance you hold in the effort to come. I commissioned HikageMaru over at CBT.com to make this for your user page.

Hope you enjoy it! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very cool :) I shall add it to my user bar now, and display it with pride :) Of course, this also means I should probably make some more maps at some point... BrokenMnemonic 11:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your role as more than 'mapmaker'; you're helping us identify who owns what and where. 'Cartographer' may not be the best fit for the planetary jack-of-all-trades, but it sounds distinguished enough!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad_Syntax's project

Ack: almost forgot! VoltAmpere requested additional eyes on the coordinates project with which he is assisting Bad_Syntax. I told him you might be interested, as your interests here are related to that project, but it'd be up to you. Anyhow, I did tell him I'd contact you with the request.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I take it I need to get in touch with VoltAmpere via the CGL forums? I had a look on here and didn't see him registered... BrokenMnemonic 07:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I could have sworn he was registered here as (simply) Volt, but couldn't find him. I know he's posted here; he's credited conversations here with getting him in contact with Syntax.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll see about tracking him down from the CGL website when I get home tonight... BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Category names

You didn't ask, but...a category automatically alphabetizes an article by the article's name. However, when an editor wants an article to be alphabetized under a different letter (such as by last name; see Category:House Davion Characters as an example), he'll put a pipe ( | ) into the category and then the word he wants the article to be alphabetized by. So, for planets, there is no reason (of which I can think) to include a planet name after the pipe, as it will be alphabetized correctly without it.
"Knowing is half the battle." --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What I've been doing is correcting the spelling of a planet's name within the category field, because I've found a number of instances where planets have been misnamed both within the article name and the category name. I've been assuming that the names are specified after the pipe so that when planets have been renamed (Cussar to Barlow's Folly, Arn to Jia Tan, etc) it's possible to include a category for each name for people searching through the category list, rather than assigning a category to a redirect page - have I been getting that wrong? BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but I don't think it's working like you anticipated. Look for Arn on Category:Planets. It's listed as Jia Tan (in Arn's place). So, someone looking for Arn won't find it and if they don't know about the re-naming, then it does them no good.

Try this (I don't know if it'll work): go to Arn. You'll get redirected to Jia Tan; from there, find "(Redirected from Arn)" and click on Arn. Edit that page and put in [[Category:Planets]]. That way (I presume), it'll show up as Arn in the category, and when someone finds it in the category, they'll get re-directed to Jia Tan.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The most likely reason for it not working is that I haven't added the multiple categories to renamed planets yet It's on this list of things I have to do, but I was distracted by the elephants... BrokenMnemonic 14:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay...I'll take your word for it. Got distracted by something I stepped in, as I was trying to look around the elephants.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't have been a problem if you'd kept the mice away from the elephants. You know how scared elephants are of mice... BrokenMnemonic 19:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh....that's what they are! Very flat mice. There goes my food source.

When's this BBQ?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Did you receive my last e-mail? I ask, because I would like to ask a favor of you today, off-line. You can always reply in the affirmative or negative here. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, thank you - I'm sorry I've not responded yet, but you gave me a lot to think about, and I've been mulling it over. That email address definitely works via the sarna mail system, so send away - email's forwarded to my phone as well, so I should receive it pretty quickly even if I'm at work. BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sent.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Owner History

Hy, i found a little error in your new created planet pages, i think a copy and past failur, you add two 3052 years, and the reference say it was 3067, not a big think, but i want to talk to you.--Doneve 12:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this in the owner history section? If it is, then it's almost certainly a copy and paste failure - I caught a couple of Lyran Commonwealth planets where I did that. I thought I'd caught them all, but evidently I missed a few. Sorry about that BrokenMnemonic 12:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, when i came to the pages i fix it .--Doneve 12:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

3130 Map

Hy again, i think when we use references, we must provide a valuable link in the bibliography section, can you provide a link to the 3130 map, i think it is help full, when other users visite the planet pages and found a workable link, thanks.--Doneve 15:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK... all I need to do now is find out where Oystein hosts the map. I'll be right back... BrokenMnemonic 16:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've activated the bibliography citation as a link, beginning with McEvedy's Folly - let me know if I've got it right/wrong. BrokenMnemonic 17:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the citation is correct, but the link don't work?--Doneve 17:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on - it works for me, takes me straight to the .pdf file, which is loading up in my FireFox window automatically. BrokenMnemonic 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Untran vs. Achtur

Hy, i found this two planet articles Untran and Achtur, i think this planets merged together, the planet is renamed in circa 2786, and we can include all content in one article and set up a redirect, what are you say.--Doneve 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If the co-ordinates for the two of them match, I say go for it. In every other case where the co-ordinates match and the powers that be have been asked, they've confirmed it's the same planet back again, so I think in this case we can presume they're a match. BrokenMnemonic 17:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hy again, iam a little bit tired to add all co-ordinates separate to planet articles and then in the next task the infoboxes, i would to stard with the starsystem and planet infoboxes and include in one step infoboxes and co-ordinates.--Doneve 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can do that yet, although I can definitely understand why you want to. I think the problem at the moment is that there still isn't a concensus on what the articles should look like - so it may be decided that the infoboxes need to change. I haven't seen anyone complain about them recently, but I'm nervous about using them outside of the test articles until the format's agreed.

I dropped messages on the talk page of everyone on the Planets Project team roster and User:Frabby, asking them to comment on Rev's suggestions for how the finished articles to look; hopefully, they'll do that fairly quickly, and we can move on to making big changes to articles. BrokenMnemonic 18:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, i think it is not the problem to add infoboxes, i dont change the style of the pages i add only the infoboxes, and include data that is provided on the page, i dont change owner history etc., the Planet Overhaul say if you have system or planet data include this in the infbox, but ok i work further on the co-ordinates, i hope i found some mices to feed the elephant task.--Doneve 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oberon Confederation Map

Hy BM, i double checked the info, and i don't found any map in 25 Years of Art and Fiction, i remove the info from the summary template.--Doneve 10:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I take it this means I shouldn't rush out and buy 25 Years of Art and Fiction for it's maps of Periphery realms? BrokenMnemonic 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Draconis Combine Prefecture Maps

Hy again, i found on Østein's page some Draconis Combine Maps (3025), and stard with uploading, take a look on this link [3].--Doneve 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's rather cool, and gives us some good maps of the Combine in advance of the Handbook coming out. I wonder why I can't click on the Illyrian Palatinate, though? What does the map know about the Palatinate that I don't? BrokenMnemonic 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Illyrian Palantinate link don't work i know, but the best on this flash map is, she provides some Unaligned Worlds in the Free Worlds Leage and other regions.--Doneve 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hy BM, thanks for helping out by co-ordinates , oh and i found some new planets in Bad Syntax database, i must check the source and maps of this and give you later a response.--Doneve 13:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help - I can't let you have all the fun So far, I've been through those planets that start with a J, K or Q.

Rev listed some new planets that need to be added here: Project Planet New Articles, which includes the Hanseatic League, Nueva Castile and the Járnfolk Planets. I know all of those are in BadSyntax lists. One thing I did find is that if you look at his list of dates in the master spreadsheet, if a planet only appears in 2586, then it's from the post-Reunification War map in Historical: Reunification War and we can't add the worlds yet until that book's out of the moratorium period. It might be worth adding those worlds to the planet article I mentioned above, though, so that we know they need to be done? I know I spotted a few planets like that, including one almost on top of Terra. BrokenMnemonic 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kage

Hy BM, the Kage info is correct, it's from a novel, but i have at this time the book not to hand, please don't revert the edits, i add a {cn}.--Doneve 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that - I'll leave the page alone. I've been really twitchy about edits made by unsigned IPs after that spam attack this morning. BrokenMnemonic 10:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Hy BM i found this link, [4], download the pdf file and enjoy it , please give me a response, what you are think about this, i don't have a email address from you, i must give you this on this way, greetings.--Doneve 21:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get home, thank you Rev managed to send me an email through the wiki, and I was able to reply to that (which passed on my email address) - if you can send me an email the same way, I'll do the same thing.BrokenMnemonic 07:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if it is of any use, but i have got several pdfs with maps of the whole inner sphere during the different eras on my computer. They seem to be correct. Can you use them? Harry 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)