User talk:Cyc

Welcome

Hello there! Thank you for doing a lot of the cleanup that is so important to BTW. I wanted to formally welcome you onboard and express my wish that you stay to help us out. If you'd like, you can also sign up at the new user log. --Scaletail 17:23, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Welcome from me as well, and thanks for your contributions! I have taken the liberty to remove the Stub tag from articles that I think are done for now, and have also removed the Mercenary category tag from some. Please note that the Mercenary category is for mercenary units, and not for general items having to do with the mercenary business (hence removed from Mercenary's Star and Hiring hall). Frabby 05:03, 23 May 2008 (CDT)

BattleTech Compendium

Hello, Cyc. This is only a discussion; please don't feel like I'm directing you. I was thinking this morning, as I created List of Products (By Year), that we should call the article BattleTech Compendium, rather than the longer form BattleTech Compendium: Rules of Warfare. My reasoning comes from the fact that the BattleTech Compendium was the only product with that title and that Rules of Warfare is a sub-title, rather than the title within a series (like Jihad Hot Spots: 3072, where 3072 is the product title within the Jihad Hot Spots series). While you're right that the full title is BattleTech Compendium: Rules of Warfare, enough people refer to it simply as BattleTech Compendium and that if they type only that, they might miss out on the actual article. Actually, my argument is admittedly weak, since a redirect would solve that problem, but it just seems to me that the shorter, common form is easier. What say you? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:03, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Perhaps, but with the differences between the 1990 Battletech Compendium and the 1994 Battletech Compendium: Rules of Warfare warranting separate articles IMO, I'm generally more a fan of direct linking to the proper article, correcting "broken" links as they occur and using a re-direct to mope up. Cyc 20:11, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Oh! Roger. I think I was unaware/had forgotten that there were two. Yes, I think you're right. Do me a favor, if you would: get me the production code for the first one (1990). I'm going to correct the product list, so that my 1994 entry is properly represented. (note: we should probably include the word 'the' in the title, as well.) Thanks, Cyc! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

At work as I type so can't personally check my copies yet, but according to http://classicbattletech.com/downloads/BattleTech_Product_List.pdf 1990 BC is 1640, BC:ROW hardccover is 1690, BC:ROW softcover is 1691, and limited edition ROW hardcover is 1690L Cyc 20:35, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for providing the list; goes a far way to making the article/list complete. I'll use this. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping fix the DropShip articles with the update I made to the template. It's appreciated! --Scaletail 19:01, 22 July 2008 (CDT)

Armour/Armor

Just a question, but what's wrong with armour as opposed to armor? Onisuzume 04:32, 4 November 2008 (PST)

Ah right, I'll see if I can think about it when typing. Though I must say that I'm used to the british spelling and grammar... Onisuzume 05:15, 4 November 2008 (PST)