Sarna News: Bad 'Mechs - Icestorm

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Dmon"
 
(943 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<div style="background-color: #A9A9A9; border: solid 3px black; padding: 1em">
+
__TOC__
−
<div align="center" style="color: #385E0F; font-size: large; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; text-align: center">Welcome, {{PAGENAME}}, to BattleTechWiki!</div>
+
==Archives==  
−
<div style="background-color: white; border: solid 3px black; padding: 0 1em 0 1em">
+
{| cellspacing="10" style="background-color: inherit"
−
Thank you for your contributions; you seem to be off to a good '''[[BattleTechWiki:Your first article|start]]'''. Hopefully you will soon join the army of BattleTech Editors! If you need help formatting the pages visit the '''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Manual_of_Style manual of style]'''. For general questions go to '''[[Help:Contents| the Help section]]''' or the '''[[BattleTechWiki:FAQ|FAQ]]'''. If you can't find your answer there, please ask an '''[[BattleTechWiki:Administrators|Admin]]'''. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on '''[[User talk:Revanche|my user talk page]]'''.
+
|
−
----
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive_2009|Talk Archive 2009]]
−
====Additional tips====
+
|
−
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive_2010|Talk Archive 2010]]
−
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the wiki:
+
|
−
*For policies and guidelines, see '''[[BattleTechWiki:Five pillars|The Five Pillars of BattleTechWiki]]'''.
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive_2011|Talk Archive 2011]]
−
*If you want to play around with your new wiki skills, the '''[[Help:Sandbox|Sandbox]]''' is for you. Don't worry: you won't break anything. A great resource for printing out is the '''[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/5/56/Wiki-refcard.png Wiki Cheat Sheet]'''.
+
|
−
*Consider registering at the site (if you haven't already). That way, you'll get name recognition and respect for the effort you put in here.
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive 2012|Talk Archive 2012]]
−
*Also considering writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as {{PAGENAME}} at the top of the page). You'll go from being a 'redshirt' to a 'blueshirt,' with the respect of a more permanent member.
+
|
−
*Introduce yourself at the '''[[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]'''.
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive_2014|Talk Archive 2014]]
−
*In your '''Preferences''', under the '''edit''' tab, check '''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 each visit by clicking on '''my watchlist'''.
+
|
−
*If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the '''[[Special:Random|Random]]''' button in the sidebar, or check out the '''[[Special:Wantedpages|List of Wanted Pages]]'''. Or even go to '''[[Special:Specialpages|Special Pages]]''' to see what weird stuff is actually tracked by this wiki.
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive 2015-2017|Talk Archive 2015-2017]]
−
*Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes '''(&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;)'''; this will automatically produce your name and the date.
+
|
−
<br/>
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive_2018|Talk Archive 2018]]
−
<div align="center"><span style="font-size: large">*******'''Be Bold'''*******</span>
+
|
 +
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive_2019|Talk Archive 2019]]
 +
|
 +
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive 2020|Talk Archive 2020]]
 +
|
 +
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive 2021|Talk Archive 2021]]
 +
|
 +
*[[User talk:Dmon/Archive 2022|Talk Archive 2022]]
 +
|}
  
−
You can find me at my '''[[User:Revanche|user page]]''' or '''[[User talk:Revanche|talk page]]''' for any questions.  Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|25px]]
+
==Project List==
−
</div></div></div> --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:34, 12 February 2007 (CST)
+
{| cellspacing="10" style="background-color: inherit"
−
<br>
+
|
−
BTW, wanted to say 'good edits.' Always glad to see someone start off strong. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:34, 12 February 2007 (CST)
+
*[[User talk:Dmon/To Do List|To Do List]]
 +
|}
  
−
__toc__
+
=Current=
 +
== Helping AlekBalderdash - links and Flechs ==
  
−
==WikiProject Military Commands==
+
Hello Dmon.  I see that you freshly archived your talk page anad that I get christen with a post for the new year. I have a matter for your attention.  I am conversing with [[User:AlekBalderdash]] who is a relatively new editor.  He has some questions about the proper usage of external links and also about Flechs sheets as a reference for various 'Mech variants.  (In his experimentation with links he has triggered the abuse filter.)  I know that there are some restictions on external links, but I could not quickly identify a handy reference page to help him.  Could you give him some assistance, both regarding the link issue as well as guidance/feedback on his specific ideas? See [[User talk:AlekBalderdash#Record Sheets]]  --[[User:Dude RB|Dude RB]] ([[User talk:Dude RB|talk]]) 21:14, 4 January 2023 (EST)
−
I created a new [[BattleTechWiki:Project Military Commands|WikiProject]] to encompass all military commands. Since you've done a lot of work in the past with them, please come over and sign up so that we can improve the coverage of all units. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:16, 14 February 2009 (PST)
 
−
===Split the Work?===
 
−
Hey Dmon, looks like you're going well with the Draconis Combine Commands. I was going there next, but how about I leave it to you and I'll go on to FWL commands next?[[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 09:27, 5 March 2009 (PST)
 
  
−
== Title typos ==
+
== Delete pages 2023 II ==
  
−
Hey, Dmon. If there is a typo in the title of an article, you can move it the article, rather than blanking and creating a new one. Just click "move" at the top of the article you want to move, then type in the title you want to move it to. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 12:13, 28 February 2009 (PST)
+
Hi Dmon,
 +
 
 +
Can you delete this page:
 +
[[Zeus (Corporation)]]
 +
 
 +
Regards,--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 04:39, 23 January 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Delete pages 2023 III ==
 +
Can you please delete this category:
 +
* [[:Category:65/70 ton BattleMechs]]
 +
 
 +
Regards,--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:38, 27 February 2023 (EST)
 +
: Looks like Frabby beat me to it!--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (EST)
 +
:: That particular issue almost saw me go down a side tangent and complain about over-automation in templates becoming a straight-jacket for editors whenever a special case pops up. Templates are to serve the editors, not the other way around. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (EST)
 +
:::I do not really want any of this automation in the infoboxes, I have had loads of private talks with Deadfire about not letting him do more until he can come up with a solid example of it doing something better than our current methods.
 +
 
 +
:::And the weight automation is going to be scrapped when I get brave enough to update the'Mech infobox.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 09:49, 3 March 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
==IP edit reverts==
 +
Hi, I see you've reverted a bunch of edits that an IP made to various novel articles.  May I ask why? The edits looked legit where alphabetical order of featured 'Mechs was corrected; and a PDF search showed that adding the ''Archer'' to the list for ''Star Lord'' was also factually correct. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (EST)
 +
:The re-removal of the starlord archer was my mistake but generally I was removing the mostly needless list collumns the editor was putting in and the entierly needless piping of the Clan 'Mechs when they already have redirects in place.
 +
 
 +
:I know I have been installing the list collumns on system articles where I expect to see the lists continually grow as we get more era info, most of the novel place and equipment lists are usually too short to truly warrant collumns, characters there is an arguement to have them but that is really a case by case situation.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 09:45, 3 March 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
==DA Governors==
 +
Just following up on the Republic Governor / Legate switches, it looks where this is happening between [[Dark Age: Republic of the Sphere]] and [[Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130)]] (i.e. for say [[Prefecture III]]), other sources (such as [[Dark Age: 3132-3134 INN]]) are exclusively following Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) for the proper role where the characters get a mention. Accordingly unless I find some other complexity, I'm proposing to treat (with appropriate notes) the Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) listings as the correct one.--[[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (EST)
 +
:Glad you have figured out what the error is. I knew it was there but had only thus far handled governors on an individual basis when they turned up in something else, so I was unsure of the specifics of the larger issue. How you plan to handle it is perfect, so only other wrinkle to keep an eye on is the fiction. I think at least one (Mirach) conflicts with both DA:RotS and DA:RW, but I would say the novels get priority in most cases as they flesh out the characters in their roles.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:27, 5 March 2023 (EST)
 +
:: The fiction is tying in pretty well so far, so hopefully not too many conflicts to deal with. As you say, for those which do have conflicts I think the novels will need to be preferred, since I believe they are mostly later in publication date as well as more detailed as to the characters.--[[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 06:49, 5 March 2023 (EST)
  
−
== Non-canon tag ==
+
== Category:Comstar Support Vehicles ==
  
−
First off, I was going to write up to say thanks for adding new articles. Your work continues to be appreciated.
+
Hi Dmon,
−
As for the tag, I /believe/ it is only intended to be used on source articles, such as the article about the MechWarrior I game. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] could better define it's intent, but I think it was meant to be limited to source articles because actual [[Policy:Canon|canonicity]] is not determined by use here at BTW. (In that light, the tag could be better worded.) I'll leave it up to you if you want to continue to use the tag, until the issue is clarified. Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:Hey Revanche, thanks for taking notice. I will continue to use the Tag if that's OK as I intend to do some re-writing of the computer game related articles so that not every sentence contains either "in the game" or "the player" the Tag puts the source upfront. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::I think removing the OOC presence is a great idea. Good idea.
 
−
::Side note: to ident, use the colon (:), not spaces. Spaces create that funky box that was wrapped around your response. To sign, use four tildes <nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki>, or just click on that button to the right of the NO circle (the one that looks like a cursive word).
 
−
::Just to respond to your comment about using the tag to "[put] the source upfront": tags are generally used to call attention to an article that has a problem needing fixing. You don't intend to say there is anything wrong with the article you write and you've been good at referencing the source article down below. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::: Sadly my info on the game is restricted to the contents of the Wiki but the OOC aspect and the huge amount of info that is repeated makes the articles come across as very sloppy (says me who has never written a decent article from scratch so no insult to Frabby). and thanks for the signature tip I have been confused by that since I joined. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 
  
 +
Just wondering, why did you revert my edit there? [[User:Echo Mirage|Echo Mirage]] ([[User talk:Echo Mirage|talk]]) 13:55, 6 March 2023 (EST)
 +
:I was just about to write a comment on your page about it actually. Short version is that as I have mentioned to you before, "used by" is not what Sarna is doing. The MUL does it way better than we ever could so we have decided to not even try and compete.
  
−
===7th Imperial City Militia‎ Question===
+
:I have been mulling over what to do about [[Blessed Order]] for a couple of days now.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:02, 6 March 2023 (EST)
 +
::That is somewhat circular reasoning since the MUL is often dependent on ''us'' for info. [[User:Echo Mirage|Echo Mirage]] ([[User talk:Echo Mirage|talk]]) 14:04, 6 March 2023 (EST)
 +
:::Yes parts of the MUL draws from us, but so does a lot of stuff that is BT related. Ray calls it the "Sarna effect", but not trying to compete with the MUL is something else. We can't do it on a technical level. The MUL is a database built for the purpose of being a searchable force builder. Sarna is a wiki, trying to build a comprehensive force builder using a wiki format is likely possible, but it would be an absolute monster to organise.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:24, 6 March 2023 (EST)
 +
::::Wasn't trying to put together a full list of equipment, as you said, it would be a true monster to take on indeed. I was just trying to give a sense of the range of equipment the Blessed Order had access to, with a bit of an emphasis on the some of the more unusual and/or obscure stuff. It is easy enough to overlook the Order's custom built OmniMechs, for instance. Which reminds me, I forgot to mention that the BO installed cruise missile launchers on at least some of their ''Fortress''-class DropShips. I'll head over their now and add that little tidbit. [[User:Echo Mirage|Echo Mirage]] ([[User talk:Echo Mirage|talk]]) 15:50, 11 March 2023 (EST)
 +
:::::Quick correction to my last, it appears it was actually just the ''Duat''-class DropShips that were fitted with cruise missiles. [[User:Echo Mirage|Echo Mirage]] ([[User talk:Echo Mirage|talk]]) 15:58, 11 March 2023 (EST)
  
−
Hi Dmon, like how you added this militia unit to the site. Question: Do you think could add category Militia Commands?  I'm trying get more into the category since there not normally listed. I've not had a chance to add more militia profiles.-- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 00:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
+
== Military Operation names and caps ==
−
::Would Category Militia Commands be a sub category of Military Commands or its own Category in effect separating the front-line units and the second-line units. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
+
Hiya, it has just come to my attention that you suggested in the [[BattleTechWiki:Manual of Style]] that Sarna BTW should stick to the policy of writing out military operation names in all caps, even though CGL has abandoned the practice. I was actually glad to see this go away as I always hated it. I think I understand where you're coming from which is why I suggested in the policy that neither spelling (all caps or merely capitalized) is technically wrong. This way, existing articles and links do not have to be updated. But I really don't like the prospect of carrying this weird spelling into the future when even CGL have dropped it again. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:38, 9 March 2023 (EST)
−
:::These are generally considered secondary commands or world exclusive units.  One and only unit I have in there was one of those, but became "front-line" unit of sorts when it came to the defense of ex[[Republic of the Sphere]]'s Prefecture IX. It still considered militia unit.  Only Battalion size unit, that barely has assets, in comparison to regular unit. Your Draconis Combine units have been only seen once since their appearance. As far I know has not been listed anywhere. Some of the author tend to make these one off units. New [[BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction]] book has such unit in one its short stories.  -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 00:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
+
:Yeah I implemented the style at a time that CGL didn't seem to know how they wanted to handle it. When CGL settled on a style and Rev brought it up, my suggestion was mostly based on the fact that the work has already been done. I am not a fan of us flopping between styles. As long as they commit to doing all of it, somebody who wants to spend the time reversing all the work can.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:02, 9 March 2023 (EST)
  
−
== New military command articles ==
+
== Noble houses ==
  
−
Dmon, please add to those 10 or so articles you started last night as soon as possible. BTW prefers not to have empty articles, and while I realize you're not intending to just list them because they exist but build them up as complete articles, there is some concern they might have been abandoned. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
+
All right, what's wrong with having the names appear in two places? It does no harm and it makes it easier for people to find. And many of the families that use lowercase particles are noted in their canon entries as the ''von X'' family, not the ''X'' family. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (EDT)
−
::A bit soon for 'em to be considered abandoned I would of thought. I will fill them in more over the next couple of days (its my girlfriends bday today so I wont get much done today) as well as doing OrgTrees for as many DCMS units as I can, but their is not much info to be had on the Luthien Defence Regiments at the moment. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
+
: Never mind; I had the technical issue explained to me. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (EDT)
  
−
==122nd Luthien==
+
== Added references for Snow Fox ==
−
The articles you created were direct copies of the 12th Luthien (see the opening sentence of each to see what I mean). Also, their official names are spelled 'Defense' rather than 'Defence,' which means no one would be able to find them (if you are referring to the canon units). Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:I know they are direct copies,  Sorry about the Defence/Defense thing... UK resident and that is haw we normally spell it here. I will move the articles and rephrase them a little for individuality but sadly there is not much info on the Defense Regiments as a whole, only one has any specific detail in the Luthien scenario pack. currently trying to dig up a little more info. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::I was just looking at the pack. One thing that ''would'' individualize them is the experience levels. While you won't be able to say which battalion is green and which one is veteran, you can basically re-state that the division has # green battalions, etc. That would individualize the articles, at least. And, when compared to other sources used by later Editors, they would be compelled to provide similar levels, if provided (which would help show progression). --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 
  
 +
Hi Dmon,
  
−
==Empty Articles discussion==
+
I added reference link in Snow Fox article, it was MUL date
−
Hey, Dmon: I'd like you to weigh in [[Category talk:Inner Sphere Commands|here]], since you probably have a differing opinion. Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 
  
 +
They removed standard Snow Fox from the list and Snow Fox Omni was added in following era
  
−
==MotherLode!==
+
RecGuide described Omni project as success
−
Hey, check out [[File:Star-League-Defense-Forces-1.1.pdf|this]]. [[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke]] compiled this, and it provides the references. Should allow your backfilling to go much quicker. {{Emoticon| ;) }} --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Lists ==
+
That's the only one I remember that needed references, let me know if there are others
 +
 +
[[Snow Fox]]
  
−
Saw you were messing around with your user page. if you're trying to create a clean list, without having to create spaces between each one, I suggest preceeding the link with a asterisk (*) at the beginning of the line. You'll get something like this:
+
Regards,--[[User:Warhawk14|Warhawk14]] ([[User talk:Warhawk14|talk]]) 22:10, 09 May 2023 (EST)
−
*line 1
+
:Good work!--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 17:42, 10 May 2023 (EDT)
−
*line 2
 
−
*line 3
 
−
Also, check out that link to the cheat sheet for other hints (see above). Hope this helps you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
: Thanks bro --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
==1st Genyosha Update==
+
== RE: Hellcat (Hellhound II) ==
−
Hi Dmon, noticed that you updated the 1st Genyosha article with an Org Tree, replacing the previous composition. The "Support Battalion" is outdated for 3059. If you have access to the appropriate Field Manuals, I suggest you use them. Also, if you're going to create TOEs, it might be a good idea to format them using CBT-official military symbology as presented in Strategic Ops. My 2c worth. --[[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
+
Howdy. I was going to add the Hellcat page for RG:iClan vol. 30 since its an outstanding red link but noticed you had deleted it earlier. Is this because it is similar to the Conjurer or another reason? Should I go ahead and add the page?
−
::The Field Manuals do not state that the "Support Battalion" is out of date, as far as I know they only list the major elements of the "Regimental Battle Group". if you can find info stating that the BattleMech Regiments intergrated support battalion has changed please send me a reference. on the official symbology I will investigate incorporating this into my OrgTree's. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
+
--[[User:KhorneHub|KhorneHub]] ([[User talk:KhorneHub|talk]]) 13:08, 11 June 2023 (EDT)
 +
:Hey Khornehub,
  
−
::::Hi Dmon, '''Support Battalions''': ''Field Manual: Draconis Combine'', pg17; "Front-line DCMS BattleMech regiments are typically assigned one aerospace wing, one armor battalion and one infantry regiment." That's the supporting elements for a 'Mech regiment circa 3059.  
+
:No nothing like that at all, In theory the links on the front page should get updated every week but I often forget and have left them for as long as a month to six weeks in the past. I updated the links as part of a personal effort to be more consistent... this is three weeks in a row I have remembered! The [[Hellcat (Hellhound II)]] still needs an article if you want to have a stab at it.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:24, 11 June 2023 (EDT)
−
::::As for the official symbology, if you need the graphics and layout, I've got most of them I can upload. --[[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::::Do you know how to create a gallery for the symbols? If not, I can show you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::::::I would much appreciate it if you would do that Rev. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::::::No problem, man. Let's see if I can create an example here in a code box. Basically, start a new page and add the images inside the gallery code. If you want a name for the image to appear below it, add a pipe and the name after the filename:
 
−
:::::::<nowiki><gallery></nowiki><br>
 
−
:::::::<nowiki> Image:Example.jpg|Caption1</nowiki><br>
 
−
:::::::<nowiki> Image:Example.jpg|Caption2</nowiki><br>
 
−
:::::::<nowiki> </gallery></nowiki>
 
−
:::::::Hopefully that helps. if it doesn't work, talk at me and I'll come over to help. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Added scrollbox template ==
+
== Delete pages 2023 IV ==
  
−
Hi Dmon,
+
Hi Dmon;
  
−
I thought you might be interested in the <nowiki>{{scrollbox}}</nowiki> template for your '''DCMS Commands''' section. I find it helps to organize long lists on a page. I added it myself to show you how it works, but if you don't like it please feel free to revert the changes. I certainly don't want you to think I'm stepping on your toes. If you have any questions let me know. Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
+
I made a mistkae. This page [[PowerTech 250]] should be deleted.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 06:47, 22 June 2023 (EDT)
−
:Thanks Ebakunin, That helps a lot. One question I have is over the next few weeks as I knock articles off the list will the scroll box still work? --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::Absolutely. The box always stays the same size, so if your list ever gets shorter than the scrollbox you can just remove it. Glad I could help. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 
  
 +
== Delete pages 2023 V ==
  
−
==Generic Forward ARC==
+
Hi Dmon,
−
Hi Dmon, how come you have created a page dedicated to your fantastic unit templates?  They certainly be worth having in one of the Categories. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
: I am still working out the layout, If you look through Draconis Combine Commands Category you will find several different evolutions of my OrgTrees, With over 20 hours work tinkering on the template in an attempt to get it just right I decided after a while to move em onto my user page so I can without fear of anyone "helping out" until I am ready to place one on each regiment. As for a category... you really think they are that good? --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::I think visual diagrams are excellent example of showing how regiments are configured. As long it follows what the books stay their are like, i can't imagine not being useful to someone.  Personally, i wish the imagines were smaller. Easier to see it whole thing, just click to enlarge.  I'm sure if that possible. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::Dmon, is there way to strink the imagines a little? Graphs are great, but their huge. Their taking too much room. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 04:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::::They are not images, they are based on the [[Template:Familytree]] we have here on BTW. I doubt there is a way of making them smaller without pretty much starting from scratch and making them a lot less detailed or making them a lot more condensed and probably (even more)confusing to try and read. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::::Could be placed in seperate page linked to its parent article? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::::::That could work, I am also looking at the idea of breaking off the various attached units and wiki linking them within the tree. There are very few units who wouldn't drop at least one section.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 13:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::::::That would be cool if you were able to do it! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::::::::If you check out the [[5th Galedon Regulars]] and scroll down you will see a good example, its still pretty big but its about half what it was. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::::::::I think its better put differient page. Its taking up to too much room on the page. This is just my opinion. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Izanagi Warrior error==
+
I have a list of pages to delete:
−
Hi, Dmon.  Your diagrams for the Warriors, says its differient unit. Can you fix that? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
+
* [[Apollo (disambiguation)]]
−
:I just copied the template from a unit with the same organization ('Mech regiment with no attached units) and I am in the process of changing it and inputting the individual Lance designations from the Luthien pack ;-), not to point out that you put the 1st sword of light units on to the warriors?, dont worry though as I have removed it already.. just need to make a couple more changes before I save it.  --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 00:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
+
* [[Ferenc (disambiguation)]]
 +
* [[Jason (94th Falcon Striker)]]
 +
* [[Patrick Finnegan (WD)]]
 +
* [[Steven Graham (WD)]]
 +
* [[Thomas Gordon (WD)]]
 +
* [[Twenty-First Centauri Lancers]]
 +
* [[Wendy Hayes (WD)]]
  
−
==Dig Lord==
+
And these files that are not used any longer:
 +
* File:RotS Knights emblem.jpg
 +
* File:RotS Knights-Errant emblem.jpg
 +
* File:RotS Paladin emblem.jpg
 +
* File:RotS Senate emblem.jpg
  
−
Can you look at this? Something wrong with my [[Dig Lord| Dig Lord Article]]. It has some kind weird code error. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
+
Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT)
−
:Sorted, not sure what was up but it was cured by deleting the space at the start of the paragraph. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::Thanks! I tried deleting it, but i guess i didn't eliminate enough of the paragaph to get rid of it. I've been running into these slight errors lately.  I know the template for [[Help:CreateIndMechArticle|IndustrialMechs]] needs to be updated little. Again, thank you for helping me in my moment of blunder. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::No problem bro, tis the beauty of working in a community ;-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Solaris Characters from Mechwarrior IV==
+
== Award ==
−
Good Morning Dmon. Question- The solaris characters your adding, i thought any character in the game was considered non-canon?  There characters mentioned in the Solaris VII map set book, lists up to 3067. I didn't think MW IV followed that. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
+
Thanks for always being so helpful. Not that you need another, but it's well deserved! [[File:DA 1bol.jpg|Direction Appreciated Award, 2nd ribbon]] https://youtu.be/Z9nCW6HJsmY --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 21:55, 30 June 2023 (EDT)
−
:Morning Wrangler, As far as I know the official line about the non-canon stuff is that if nothing in canon contradicts them or over rules them they are considered part of the universe if not exactly canon until otherwise stated. also I don't think having them listed will hurt as there is no exhaustive list of who fights in the arenas of Solaris ;-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 13:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::Just to be sure I understand, I want to remind that BTW does not [[Policy:Canon|define canon]]: if its official (i.e., a BT licensee), it is included. However, source citations for the material are always a requirement, and doubly so for issues that are debated. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Black Widow Company==
+
== Delete pages 2023 VI ==
−
I took the liberty to undo the change you made to the [[Black Widow Company]]'s category entry. You changed it to "Wolf's Dragoons, Black Widow Company" and as a result it appeared under "W" but named "Black Widow Company". I think this is wrong because the BWC as a semi-independent unit should have its own entry, under its own name. When sorting it in under WD (and thereby, under the letter "W" where I daresay most people wouldn't look for the BWC) then you could cut its category entry right away. Wolf's Dragoons article does mention them, too. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:If you feel its better that way I will roll with it, since I am not even a WD fan... I was just doing a little bit of a tidy in the mercs section. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Ryuken-et al ==
+
Can you please delete these ones:
 +
* [[Bradus (disambiguation)]]
 +
* [[Gus Avery (DH)]]
 +
* [[Gus Avery (WH)]]
 +
* [[Phillip Ivester Jr.]]
 +
* [[Poter Erickson (DH)]]
 +
* [[Poter Erickson (WH)]]
 +
* [[Rena (disambiguation)]]
 +
* [[Sean Eric Kevin]]
 +
* [[Treh (disambiguation)]]
  
−
Just being a bureaucratic administrator, and probably don't need to worry about it, but please add something of substance to the Ryuken-series of articles, similar to what you did with [[Ryuken-ni]] and [[Ryuken-ichi]] as soon as you can. Thanks! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
+
And thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 09:03, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
−
:Its in the pipeline. Just doing my research. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 07:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
== 22nd Dieron Regulars & Question of Era related organization charts ==
+
:Hi Pserratv, I'm with you on keeping a tidy Wiki! In the next week or two I'll be continuing to go through old character articles that were created years ago before the current format was standardized. Even now there are twice as many more added than you posted, and Dmon is pretty good about deleting them in reasonable time. So I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Csdavis715|Csdavis715]] ([[User talk:Csdavis715|talk]]) 22:41, 7 July 2023 (EDT)
−
Hi Dmon, I just added some fluff from [[Field Manual: Updates]] for the [[22nd Dieron Regulars|22nd]].  Your organization chart doesn't quite match the unit's makes up.  Devil Dogs and 22nd Dieron Infantry only have two companies per formation. Can you adjust the organization for those? I'm little liery of messing with your code/template thing you have there. I did change the Aerospace HQ to 22nd Dieron Aerospace Wing, since thats what their called in Updates.  I also had a thought, since Jihad is kinda rolling down hill and leveling the structures of the units.  Are you going just adjust the final formations template to reflect downsizing per-era or just do what ever is the current thing. I'm not just talking about the 22nd either. Just as a whole entire unit organization charts your placing in many these units. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:Good morning Wrangler, Just checked FM:U and yes the infantry has lost a Company since FM:DC (the source I have been getting my info) but the Devil Dogs are listed as two Battalions in both, so it is not an error as such but more of an out dated source. I am not 100% sure what you mean about adjusting the templates to reflect downsizing per-era but at a guess I think it would mean having multiple OrgTree's in each article. I think for now at least I am going to try and keep the OrgTree's either as close to current organization as possible or as the "on paper" potential strength of the unit because the era idea could result in an ungodly amount of work. Get back to me and let me know your thoughts on it and I will put any changes into effect later tonight. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 07:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::Good Morning, Dmon. I've been thinking about the problem.  Since unit strength differs from era to era.  Such as Succession Wars to Jihad for various regimential to reinforced companies. So thing you have basic formation of the Org tree and year its reflecting and we should put back in the old Composition listings with various years the unit strength's differed on.  Such as Genyosha as of 3074 was down to 2 Reinforced Companies vs its full regimental strength it was at prior to the Jihad. When your adding new org-trees don't wipe out the Composition listings. Thats what I think. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 11:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::Sorry Wrangler but this is possibly me being a bit bone-headed after a night shift in work (so please have patience) but at the moment keeping the composition just seems like repeating the same information twice in the same article. Would the "composition be the "on paper" strength of the unit and the OrgTree be the actual strength or the other way around? --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::::Its fine, I know whats like working on night shift.  This just my opinion, you do what you feel is right.  Org-tree to me is the how the unit is "suppose to be" organized on paper. Where composition list is what unit strength & active formations were avaliable at the Year/Time. '''Example:'''The [[10th Division (Word of Blake)]] lost a [[Level III]] (aka battalion) in battle against the [[Dropship Irregulars]] in [[3070]]. Division in 3067 was 6 Level III, Division was as of [[3075]] only had Five Level IIIs.  If someone comes to the site, your graph tree will given info on how any military unit is organized. Where Composition can tell them what units were attached to formation/regiment/Level/etc per year they were around. Some these units/formations have been around for centuries. There alot room for change. In some cases "regiments" are reduced to two battalions.  I think if someone need quick references what there at what year, its easier with Composition verse orgtree. Org Tree great for how organization functions, what auxiliary units would be there support it. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 13:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::::::I have updated the [[1st Genyosha]] OrgTree up to 3067. so feel free to add the composition section as you feel it should be done to reflect the units near destruction. Please not however that the Aerospace wing is not listed as "expanded" yet as I simply do not want to get into writing code/template thingies today. the 1st are the best and worst kind of example for this as thay are a full "Forward ARC" with no attached units what so the OrgTree is as big as they come at the moment. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::::::::No problem, bro. I'll take care of it. I just don't have all the units information for all eras.  I'll put in 1st Genyosha what I had on the unit. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Removal of Lyran Brigades==
+
== Delete pages 2023 VI ==
−
Apart from lack of detail, specific pages for Lyran brigades are just as important as the Clan Galaxy or ComStar Army pages. More so for the Lyran Regulars considering they both pre and post date the Lyran Alliance so need separate pages to link from both LCAF and LAAF. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:I was attempting to standardize the format a little by having the "parent unit" links in the articles directs to the AFFS page in a similar way to all the other nations pages work. Do you think we should do it the other way around and have more Brigade pages? --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::IMO the military pages should have brief overviews linking off to full pages for further indepth detail. Look at the [[FedCom Corps]] page and FedCom Corps section on AFFS for the style I'm getting at. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::I think that will work quite nicely once it is set up and fleshed out. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 00:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Organization of Draconis Combine minor or secondary units==
+
Hi Dmon,
−
Hi Dmon, i've been looking in the Draconis Combine's military listings and its is filling out quite well.  However, I believe that the secondary commands/support commands should be placed in a sub-category, without them being listed in 1st tier regimentals listings like.  Instead of all the main formations in same place giving confusing mix of units. I think listing big units and secondary units seperate. Frontline units 6th Pesht Regulars, 2nd Sword Light would share main category for the Draconis Combine Commands category, while the the attached secondary commandss like the 2nd Periphery Watchers, and the [[101st Pesht Guards]]. They would be in what i propose to call Dracons Combine Support Commands. This would still be strictly military, just listing for what secondary commands and the militas units.  Category Draconis Combine Military Commands would be removed from unit considered Support commands. That are principly listed in the Field Manuals while secondarys don't necessary get individual attention. What do you think? I'm going post this as well to Draconis Command Military commands thing. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:I like the idea.. I sorta suggested a similar thing to you a few weeks ago but I wanted to do it by unit size, keeping the main category as regimental sized units. I knew the page would full up pretty fast once I got going, eventually it would be nice to have all the nations with a high level of detail. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::Sorry missing your suggestion earlier.  I've been busy, with alot stuff. Only thing I find that maybe difficult, what is name for a supportive formation.  I'm kinda want make sure I'm calling them what their suppose to be called.  Only thing I was against going with category by size is Battletech's frontline formation sizes are influx.  Some Regiments in early succession wars consisted only of two battalions, sometimes even one, thought on "paper" it was considered to regiment. They have been called Frontline units, but the support units such as tank and infantry are part of the regimental team.  Thus they too are frontline unit. By the end of the [[Jihad]], they'll end up so mixed up, I don't think be good way describe other than frontline military unit and a support unit.  Anyways, For the time being. I suggest we go ahead with re-categorying the approiate units to the Draconis Combine Support Commands category. We should put category in other factions except for minor powers, since they bound to have no support formations like Succession States themselves and Major Periphery states. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::Draconis Combine Support Commands does seem to be the obvious choice. Nice thing is that the wikilinks in the organization trees will filter through to the support category quite nicely. I agree on the minor powers and I am uncertain about the relevance of the Periphery states at the moment... I cant think of a single Periphery Support command off the top of my head. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:::::Major Periphery do, but like most support units. They don't have much of a history & write up unless it falls under its attached, formation. Such a Periphery Frontline unit is like the 1st Canopian Cuirassiers has support units like the 1st Armor Guard, 1st Air Guards and 1st Infantry Guard. The Field Guide Updates has most of the recent deployment/unit names for the support units. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 
−
::::::Another Point I'd like make out. Support Commands aren't Milita Commands.  Militia commmand are not attached normally to large regiments or frontline units unless emergency. Militia units usually planetary restricted fighting units.  Not counting Blake or Marik units by the same name which are frontline units with modest names.  Only militia units i've heard of that become attached to regiments and move around WITh them are usually FedCom Civil War units were snatchup by frontline regiments to reinforce their forces. That was rare. Don't delete the militia category.  I really don't believe it should be removed, their differient type of unit.  If anything, You should break down milita units as being Draconis Combine Milita units or something. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
===Third Luthien Guards===
+
Me again needing help for deleting pages...
−
Hi Dmon, I was wondering if you could point out where you found the 3rd Luthien Guards in the Field Manual: Draconis Combine. Apparently they were actually mentioned as part early fighting in Jihad Turning points: Luthien. I've updated the article. I wanted to put some more information in it. I don't at this moment have Field Manual, do you happen to remember where it can be found in the book? Page? Thanks.-- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
+
Can you delete these pages:
−
:page 85 as the Armor section of the 2nd SOL --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
+
* [[Alita (Aerospace pilot)]]
−
::Thanks for assist. I'll update article include the references to that.  I'm trying add as much as information I have to include them.  I do however want say, i'm only filling out supporting units like 3rd Luthien Guards, if they do have fluff and actions they've done through out the sources books and novels. Can you assist me in finding the these supporting "sub-units maybe?" may had appeared in campaign books so-forth?
+
* [[Alita (Clan Wolf)]]
−
-- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 11:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
+
* [[Alita (MechWarrior)]]
−
:::I always keep an eye out for references and titbits of info in novels etc. Only problem is that I have not got a great deal of time at the moment due to real life stuff. In about a month or so I hope to have things a little "up the wall" and I will finish fleshing out the "sub-units". --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 15:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
+
* [[Bradus (disambiguation)]]
 +
* [[Bradus (16th Battle)]]
 +
* [[Bradus (Aerospace pilot)]]
 +
* [[Bradus (MechWarrior)]]
 +
* [[Gell (disambiguation)]]
 +
* [[Gell (Clan Wolf)]]
 +
* [[Gell (Jade Falcon)]]
 +
* [[Marcellus (disambiguation)]]
 +
* [[Marcellus (Aerospace pilot)]]
 +
* [[Marcellus (Clan Wolf)]]
 +
* [[Zasser (disambiguation)]]
  
−
==Blanked pages==
+
Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:01, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
−
I see you have blanked the subpages for games and I presume you're reorganizing the data. Please don't simply blank pages entirely; delete them when they are no longer needed (or have an admin delete them by inserting the <nowiki>{{Deletion}}</nowiki> tag). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 
−
:Yes I am reorganizing the data. Sorry about not putting in the delete tags... I was getting a little frustrated fighting with the redirects (and my temporary stupidity at me keeping screwing em up) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Awards ==
+
== Category and page needed mess ==
  
−
Dmon, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi Dmon,
  
−
== All Purpose Award ==
+
We have now several pages as wanted that are dummy for template issues and also several templates with the same problem that are hiding real pages / categories that would be needed.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
: Do you mean all the random stuff that Deadfire is creating? I am aware of the issue and wish I knew what he was doing but most of the time when I ask him he replies with a link to a coding "help page" that has quite obviously been written in such a manner as to be as unhelpful as possible.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: It's also unhelpful to not provide information or examples on what is wrong. --[[User:Deadfire|Deadfire]] ([[User talk:Deadfire|talk]]) 13:19, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::: I am pretty sure PS means the fact that the needed articles list is currently not a list of needed articles. [[Special:WantedPages]], excluding the three Russian titles, we don't get an actual needed article until item no. 63--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
:::: Sounds like a priority for me to get fixed/filled in. I will add it to my [[User:Deadfire/Task list]], and start working on it. Though many MediaWiki admins wished Special:WantedPages to only include the main namespace, it simply hasn't been fixed to do so.
 +
::::: Yes, I meant that. And also on the missing categories, as now we have like 80 something and most are ''technical'' in nature.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
[[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]]
+
== Category Orphaned pages ==
  
−
Dmon, as a fellow Editor, I'm providing you the All Purpose ribbon, for yesterday's enhancement of so many articles with the org charts. Excelsior. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi Dmon,
−
:Thank you sir, I did not expect an award for installing my charts!! --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
==references==
+
We have here thousands of characters listed here as we are creating entries for each mechwarrior in any supplement. Now, would it be ok to have a sort of "warriors page" to clean this up? It is not something I like (we have the categories for this), but it is again hiding potential cross-references missing.
  
−
Hey, Dmon: the reason I placed the <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tag immediately under the References section heading is so that any in-article citations get 'top billing' over generic, no page biblio-style, title-only references. Generic references to whole source books provide less information to the reader and therefore should have a lower preference. You haven't violated any procedures or policy by any means and I'm still in the process of writing [[Help:Article Layout]], but I wanted to let you know that there was a reason for my apparent madness. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
+
Any idea?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
−
:I was actually going to ask you about it bro. Makes sense really so I will alter in accordance as I work through my to do list. I have been threatening to finish the Org trees for months so I am now doing it ;-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
+
:I am not overly bothered about the orphaned pages at this point. I do have an idea that could provide a lot of cross-referencing potential but I have not put any time into it to develop it yet, there are a few big projects that need fixing before we start a new one. I am not a fan of the idea of a warriors page at all as it doesn't really serve any purpose beyond providing a home for the orphans.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:39, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
  
 +
==Partner up!==
 +
Hi, my name is Kate and I am the founder of the Independent Fallout Wiki (over yonder at [https://fallout.wiki/ fallout.wiki]). A few members of our community recommended your wiki as one we should reach out to in order to partner up with (big fans!) The Independent Fallout Wiki split off the corporately hosted wiki to give independence a whirl in April 2022. We want to strengthen relationships between other independent wikis, as our community has interests that span beyond Fallout and are excited to check out other independent sites.
  
−
==Vandal Cop Award==
+
What does a partnership even mean? Good question! On our end, we feature your website on the wiki as both an article and part of the home page spotlight rotation. If you have a Discord, we also feature your invite along with links to your YouTube/website/videos. If you have similar spaces, we just ask that you do the same for us. You can check out the list of our current wiki buddies [https://fallout.wiki/wiki/FalloutWiki:Affiliates here]!
−
Hey, Dmon, great catch on that act of vandalism by the guy up near Ingersoll, Canada. You caught and reversed it only 8 minutes after it was conducted! Seriously, good work and great response time. For that reason, I'm proud to present you with the board's first (AFAIK) Vandal Cop award:
 
  
−
:[[File:VC.jpg|Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon]]  
+
These partnerships work well to connect independent wikis, lead to new friends, and are generally good vibes across the board. I appreciate you considering our request to partner up! If you feel like giving it a go or have any questions, feel free to respond here or message me on Discord (kateaces). Thank you so much in advance. -[[User:Kid Aces|'''''Kate Aces''''']] [[File:MWO Charger.png|25px|link=User talk:Kid Aces]] <sup>[[User talk:Kid Aces|''We’ve got ‘em on the run!'']]</sup> 01:17, 23 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
I'll put it on your awards board. I've placed a level 2 warning on the IP's talk page, so we can quickly escalate it towards a block, if s/he doesn't improve her behavior. Also, feel free to provide [[Help:Template_gallery#Warnings|warnings]] yourself, as quick and visible reactions (i.e. a notice to them they have a personal message) can be a deterrent to future acts against the BattleTech community. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
+
== Delete pages 2023 VIII ==
−
: woah Dude! I dont deserve a reward for sumat that I would expect everybody who is a regular user here to do! --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::Agree (to your expectation), but lets make it a visible 'chore' of the wiki and reward the ones who do. I've seen the majority of vandalism 'fixed' by admins, so its great to see Editors keeping an eye out. (Don't knock the ribbon; the troops need to see it! {{Emoticon| ;) }}) Thanks again, Dmon. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
===Shin Legion===
+
Hi Dmon,
−
Hi Dmon.  I was looking at Shin Legion article.  Do you know if the unit mentioned in the old house source books? I've tried find the a listing for them, but i can't find anything.  They just get written into the books after the fact? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:Hey Wrangler, The Shin Legions as a whole where not introduced until the FM:DC book as far as I am aware, interestingly the back history of their service to the Combine has since been filled in but prior service within the Confederation (so the period of the house books) still remains blank. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::Alrighty.  I'll go hunting see if there some hidden nugget of information for them. I can't find anything saying there was a 3rd Shin Legion as well...I've done up 1st Shin legion information much as i can. Still need get some info from one more source to complete it.  Thanks for the reply -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::3rd's fate is detailed FM:DC p 110 Para 2 & 3. Hope that helps. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::::Ahh, well that helps.  I hadn't gotten to looking up extensively. Thanks for that assist. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
== Your OrgTrees ==
 
−
Dmon, I like the org trees you've built, but they look like they require some intense maintenance with the nested tables and all. I ran across something for work that might help (or inspire you): [http://astuteo.com/slickmap/ SlickMap CSS]. It's designed for website organization /information architecture, but I suppose it could be modified to a TOE. The thing that really struck me was the fact that it uses nested lists, which might be easier to keep track of than the tables. (I know you've got a lot of work in the Org Charts already, and I'm not trying to make more work for you. Just thought you might find it interesting.) Have a good one!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
:Mbear, this might be of interest to [[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]], if it requires coding into the site's css code. I'll bring it to his attention. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
+
Could you please delete these pages:
 +
* [[Edasich Compact 255]]
 +
* [[340 VOX Light]]
  
−
== DCMS Tables==
+
Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:44, 7 November 2023 (EST)
  
−
Hi, I create the tables for a better overview and to shorten the list of sub categories. When you think the old way where better, I will accept your choice. I think tables are better for understanding complexe content or content with huge quantity. Let me know what your are thinking about my other articles. For example [[Operation Bulldog]] or [[MAF]]. see yah... [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
+
== Removing notes from articles ==
  
−
:Hy [[user: Dmon|Dmon]] i jumpt off, i agree with [[user: Neuling|Neuling]], but i think we must fixing some little thinks and figuring out, the ball is rolling.[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi Dmon,
  
−
::The [[Operation Bulldog]] and [[MAF]] articles are both very good looking pieces of work... but they both exemplify what I see as the problem at the same time, The DCMS tables have quite a lot of text in them compared to most of the tables in the other articles, something similar to the format of the Rank tables from the MAF article  might fix the problem --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
+
I removed those BLP notes, as I am concerned to have them included as mere conjecture by BLP that he believes he created the mechs without evidence. This note has been attributed to approximately 60 mechs, and as it doesn't contain anything but a link to BLP's blog without evidence (and is refuted in at least one case, see the Stone Rhino), it feels inflammatory to leave a note on so many pages without actual citations. I know that's why it's a note, and not a citation, but it feels excessive and would possibly be better served just to be on Pardoe's page and not for every one of these mechs. These notes were only added in the last year or so, at the same time the controversy regarding BLP was happening, and is seen by many as being used as a way to stake Pardoe's brand on the story. Whether this is the case or not it feels disingenuine to leave the notes with only a link to a blog from years ago that was only very recently included on the wiki.
  
−
:::The tables cry out for wikilinks too, even if red.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
+
If possible I'd like this escalated up for discussion with the other admins. As I don't want to step on more toes by removing additional posts. If anything leaving these notes only engages with the controversial situation, especially as the admin responsible for adding these notes was the one writing about the situation with BLP & Faith/Ace so might be seen as biased reporting  (again, be it true or not, this is just how it comes across). I am happy to discuss this further off the wiki if that helps, as I am engaged with quite a few people in the community who have raised this concern.
  
 +
I will leave it up to your fantastic team. Thank you for hearing me out. Appreciate all your work.{{Unsigned|EnbyKaiju}}
  
−
==Example Article==
+
:Hiya, as the editor who put up the notes, let me assure you that it was a coincidence that I did that around the same time when all the other stuff happened. It never occurred to me that people might see a connection, beyond by fear that he might take the blog down. BLP's blog is a fantastic window into the very early history of BT and I felt the info was worth having on Sarna. As for its veracity, I give BLP the benefit of doubt and am inclined to believe when he says he wrote certain writeups. Iirc he even admits that he might be misremembering sometimes.
−
Hey, Dmon: following on the discussion of the [[Policy_Talk:Notability#Empty_Articles|sub-stubs]], I wanted to share with you an example of what can be created with the bare minimum of information, such as found in ''[[The Star League]]'''s Regular Army Deployment tables. For the 199th Dragoon regiment, only the following is provided on the table (p. 157):
+
:Regarding the Stone Rhino, can you elaborate? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (EST)
−
  199th Dragoon Regiment    2764: Periphery    2765: Periphery    2767-2779: survived    2784: FS
 
−
But, using the explanation on p. 139, the following [[199th_Dragoon_Regiment|199th article]] can be created. While still technically a stub, and not likely ever to be filled out with any more information, it is still very informative to someone seeking all known data on that unit. I mean this as a sincere effort to improve (and save) the sub-stubs you created, and have no intention in being antogonistic about it. I really do think every article on BTW has potential value. Best. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:Feel free to delete the SLDF articles if you wish Rev, I do not really have any genuine interest in the SLDF units and only started creating the articles as an extension of some research I was working on into other units... In hindsight a list would of been more appropriate to the purposes of the wiki. I intend to stick to slowly attempting to create a comprehensive list of DCMS units and attempting to tidy up the "house" command category's to a uniform style at the moment. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::Roger. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Construction tag==
+
::I'll add my two cents in support of changes here. The blog post in question ''opens'' with "I might be wrong." He admits that his memory of the development may be flawed, and subsequently a lot of this is conjecture with no way to verify the veracity of his claims for most of the units he lists. There are some notes on 'Mechs that he showcased that absolutely do deserve recognition, such as the original drafts of the BattleMaster and Shadow Hawk stats, but everything else has about as much credibility as spitballing the names of people you think you might've gone to high school with. "Trust me bro" is not sufficient cause to have authorial credit on ~60 pages. His contributions to the creation of these units belongs on one place, if any, and that is [[Blaine_Lee_Pardoe|on his article page,]] where it can be provided with more context regarding his self-admitted uncertainty than it currently receives as a footnote. --[[User:Einherjarvalk|Einherjarvalk]] ([[User talk:Einherjarvalk|talk]]) 17:54, 13 November 2023 (EST)
−
Hey '''construction''' is only used for '''Policies''', use '''Underconstruction''' instead. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 23:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:Oops, I didnt even realise their was a difference. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 08:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Uupps==
+
:::Not quite sure what to answer, except that I still don’t see why the info ''shouldn't'' be a trivia item in the respective 'Mech articles. Sure, it could go into the BLP article and probably should be there, too. There’s no reason why the info can’t be in both places. But I reckon the 'Mechs are more central to Sarna BTW than BLP so that's where the info belongs in my opinion. And while it should be taken with a grain of salt, I still consider it noteworthy enough to mention. There is nothing to suggest BLP doesn’t believe what he posted there. (Ok, bad example - he apparently believes and posts a lot more than BT history and most people including myself are not ok with that - but you get what I’m saying.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:47, 14 November 2023 (EST)
−
Hy Dmon, thanks for fixing my little 00... ;).--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 
−
: No problem bud ;-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
==The LOL Award==
+
::::The reason the info doesn't belong in the trivia section is because there is no evidence to support those claims for the majority of the units listed. For some, such as the aforementioned Shadow Hawk and BattleMaster, Blaine has shown his work and thus can and should receive credit for having a formative hand in their development. For the others, it strongly feels like he's simply trying to solidify his claim as a "founding father of BattleTech," a claim that he continues to lean on in order to push his version of the narrative surrounding his release from the writing team while marketing his new work, even over a year later. Regardless, whether or not Pardoe believes he's telling the truth is immaterial (and, by his own admission, he's not sure it even is the truth). If Sarna is to maintain its reputation as a reliable source of objectively true information about BattleTech, "I believe this is true (but I could be wrong)" is not sufficient cause for the content to remain where it is. I believe that Sarna would benefit more from having the list he lays claim to placed on his article page, and the "behind-the-scenes" materials he posted about the 'Mechs that he has an '''undeniable''' claim to developing transplanted from his blog to the corresponding 'Mech articles and cited accordingly. At that point, whatever Blaine does with his blog becomes immaterial, and the relevant information is preserved where it should be. --[[User:Einherjarvalk|Einherjarvalk]] ([[User talk:Einherjarvalk|talk]]) 16:19, 14 November 2023 (EST)
−
HOLLA again [[File:CE.jpg|Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon]]....LOL--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:Danke mein Bruder aus Deutschland --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
==SLDF Divisions...==
+
Hey EnbyKaiju,
−
Hy Dmon, i am done with the SLDF units, i hope i putted all on the wiki ;). Ok i fix the Royal units, then you can start with your Orgtrees...Greetings--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 
  
 +
I appreciate you getting back to me and explaining your position. This topic has been discussed amongst the Admin team a few times over the last year, I understand your concerns about the potential for bias. Sarna Admins do not officially have specific roles but as a team we each broadly take on different duties, Frabby is the guy who makes the core of most of our policies around [[Policy:Notability|Notability]], [[Policy:Moratorium|Moratorium]] and [[Policy:Canon|Canon]]. He also takes on writing a lot of the more "sensitive" articles that we have concerns about being refuted or causing issues simply by existing. Stuff like the [[Eridani Light Horse lawsuit]], [[Pride Anthology 2023]] and yes the BLP situation. Because Frabby writes our canon policy, he spends a lot of time working on the Apocryphal and esoterica like the [[Battledroids]], [[TCI Model Sets]], [[BattleTechnology]] and other very early history of BT stuff. The fact that Frabby wrote about both the BLP situation and BLPs Blog about early 'Mech designs is not from the Sarna teams perspective anything unusual. However we do fully understand how the unfortunate timing can be seen as something potentialy suspicious from the outside.
  
−
== Vandal Cop Award, Part Deux==
+
In truth I can't guarentee that there is absolutely no bias in any of the articles Frabby has ever written, but what I can say is that I have worked with him for getting close to twenty years and honestly believe that out of everybody who works on Sarna, Frabby is by far the most evenhanded.
−
Now down to five minutes! You cut your average response time down by 38%. Simple incredible.
 
−
:[[File:VC.jpg|Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon]]
 
−
Thank you for 'earning' the 2nd award. Good job.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Prefectures ==
+
Hey Einherjarvalk,
  
−
Dmon - I read your recent edits to the Combine Military Districts, and found them quite cool. However, I'd like to suggest that the Prefectures are not worth of having their own articles. The Prefectures change constantly even during peace time, and most of the information there would strike me as redundant with that on the planet articles or the district articles. Does this make sense? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
+
The lack of evidence to support the claims is exactly why the information is in the notes section as trivia. Sarna has a [[Policy:Assume good faith|Good Faith]] policy that extends to Authors and people who are involved in the development of the BattleTech Universe. I myself recently have made a "announced product" article for [[Without Question]] based on Bryan Young mentioning it as his next novel during an AMA chat.
−
:Thinking about it I agree with you. I will remove the wikiLinks form the articles ;-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 17:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 
  
 +
Does the note about BLPs blog need to be in every 'Mech article? probably not, but to say that having the note there is enough to call Sarnas reputation as a reliable source of objectively true information about BattleTech into dispute is likely a bit far. The notes on Sarna have been made by a respected Sarna Admin in good faith (especially with neither myself or Frabby being American, taking sides in a disagreement about American political stances is a bit bizarre). Unless Frabby decides that his edits where in error or the rest of the Admin team come to a consensus to remove the notes, I am going to maintain the current status quo.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 19:38, 14 November 2023 (EST)
  
−
==Org Tree necessary?==
+
:I am honored and a bit flattered. But still, "Frabby said so" is not a valid argument. I am just one out of many editors. And I don’t "write" Sarna's policies, not in the sense of deciding them. User consensus does. I merely had an active role in hammering out many policies back in the early days and happened to create the agreed-upon text.
−
Hi Dmon, I think your Org Trees have no porpuse to me. For me it is wasted place and doesn't reflect the unit unique structure. We all know  the common structure of an unit from any faction. Let's talk about it. For me it is easier to create the structure sheets for every faction like in the field manuals and describe the unique differents about it. I will not change your work. Please think about my thoughts and give me a reflection. For example: the 71st Light Horse from the ELH is a mixed combined arms regiment with all types of forces (Ref. Twilight of the Clans - Roster ELH p. 54). [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 16:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
+
:That said, I'm with Dmon on this one. Our existing policies support having those bits of trivia. Conversely, there is nothing requiring Sarna to avoid mentioning them. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (EST)
−
:The nature of the OrgTrees allows them to be altered to reflect the unique elements of any command... All that is required it a little work. You personally do not find them to be of use but I have had several people comment to the contrary so maybe you have some ideas on how to make them more useful?(BTW thanks for the ref on the ELH I was just basing my work off the contents of the articles so I will now incorporate said info) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:: My own two cents : I've found the sources for the OrgTrees to be somewhat contradictory. I recall the Wolf's Dragoons sourcebook, which listed the org trees and then the complete rosters for the units. Many times, there were contradictions, or there was information on the org trees that wasn't really expanded upon. (Such as logistics support.)
 
−
:: ... or are we talking about a different thing? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::I am not sure if we are taking about a different thing to be honest... Most of the info in my OrgTrees is derived from the Field Manuals and various bits of fluff/scenarios etc so I am not entirely sure where the contradictions in the OrgTree in the WD sourcebook might come into this --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::: Hmm. That's interesting. I'm not questioning your work; I guess I'm more questioning the source material. No matter. Certainly, if you can cite appropriate references for your tables, you should feel free to include them. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::::Hey, it's me again, Neuling, I give you a advice. In the next day I will change the informations of many units. This means unit composition with detailled data whenn availabe to this unit in short form. It will make it easier to you to modify the orgtree with this information. Please let me know what are you thinking about it. Tnx [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
==Republican Guard Name==
+
== Delete page 2024 I ==
−
Hello, Dmon. The current canon name for the guard main units is Republican. Not Guards (Brigade correct), Not Tikonov Republican Guards. Its in error, Dmon. Look at 20 Year update for the Republicans and look at the Field Manual: Lyran Alliance and FedCom Civil War sourcebook. You will only see (X) Republicans. That Tikonov Guard name is not their current name, new sources trump old sources. I'm not terribly fond of the current naming convention of the unit, but its canon. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 10:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
==2nd Armor Brigade==
+
Can you please delete this one Dmon:
−
Hello Dmon.  I did not realize you had wrote up a article regarding the Steel Lightning. I used the [[Lyran 2nd Armored Brigade|full name]] of the unit, verse your short name. I'm going check with the writers on forums later today see if or what is the actual canon way pronounce its name.  I think my article has more info than yours.  we should get rid of one them, but i wanted check with you first. I retained entire name since it could name Lyran could part of unit name verse describing which nationality it was, like Lyran Guard. You don't drop the Lyran name in it when spelling it on Sarna. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
+
[[Electra (Individual Cameron-class WarShip)]]
 +
Regards,--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:13, 17 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
== DCMS Organization Trees ==
+
== Primitive Battlemech deletion? ==
  
−
Dmon - Question : What is the reference/citation for your org tress? Is it a case by case basis, or is simply listed as the "DCMS standard" someplace? Because if its the latter, I have to tell you, it serves little purpose. Most units deviate, especially after they see combat. Respectfully... [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
+
Just wondering why the Primitive Battlemech category was deleted last month? It was pretty useful for my AoW games.[[User:TheRedBee|TheRedBee]] ([[User talk:TheRedBee|talk]]) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:My orgtrees are a bit of both... they start off as a "Standard DCMS template" and then I modify it based on info I find about the unit. I do my best to reference what makes the units organization individual... and as for the battle damage... it is mostly irrelevant because they are the optimum condition of the unit, the composition tables reflect the unit at various stages in its history. Either way it does not count for much because I am considering removing the Orgtrees anyway due to the apparent negative feelings a lot of people around here seem to have about them. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 07:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:: If you are interested see the [[Otomo]] article for a good example of what I intended them to end up looking like --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 07:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::Hy Dmon why do you remove your orgtrees??--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::::Hey Doneve, I am removing them because they are not very popular with other people on the wiki --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 15:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::::Hmm ok, i like your work, you put a lot of time to it :(.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::::::Thank you for your kind words Doneve, I am extremely disappointed and upset that my work has not turned out as I hoped but hey if you don't try you don't find out ;-) --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::::::: Dmon. I hope you won't be too discouraged. Its just the tables, as they exist in that format, are rather large and bulky, and there's considerable evidence most units don't follow them exactly. For example, how many regiments have a regimental command company separate from the battalions? How many battalions have a battalion command lance separate from the companies? How many mechs does the unit have - 108? (3 x 36) or 132? (108 + 4*3 + 12) ? We simply don't usually know. But I appreciate the amount of work it took. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::::::::I think we found a other way to bring it in reduced form back?!--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:I am pretty discouraged at the moment but I am starting to get the urge to tinker with things again. I think the main fault is due to the format being aimed at family trees and I just tried to use it for something else. I think if the format was lighter and easier for other editors to tinker with they would probably have been more popular. But as it is a fairly minor task like adding a command Company for example was a task that required an hour or so of trial and error even for me so I shudder to think what other people thought in terms of changing them. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 23:50, 27 March 2024

Archives[edit]

Project List[edit]

Current[edit]

Helping AlekBalderdash - links and Flechs[edit]

Hello Dmon. I see that you freshly archived your talk page anad that I get christen with a post for the new year. I have a matter for your attention. I am conversing with User:AlekBalderdash who is a relatively new editor. He has some questions about the proper usage of external links and also about Flechs sheets as a reference for various 'Mech variants. (In his experimentation with links he has triggered the abuse filter.) I know that there are some restictions on external links, but I could not quickly identify a handy reference page to help him. Could you give him some assistance, both regarding the link issue as well as guidance/feedback on his specific ideas? See User talk:AlekBalderdash#Record Sheets --Dude RB (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2023 (EST)

Delete pages 2023 II[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Can you delete this page: Zeus (Corporation)

Regards,--Pserratv (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2023 (EST)

Delete pages 2023 III[edit]

Can you please delete this category:

Regards,--Pserratv (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2023 (EST)

Looks like Frabby beat me to it!--Dmon (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (EST)
That particular issue almost saw me go down a side tangent and complain about over-automation in templates becoming a straight-jacket for editors whenever a special case pops up. Templates are to serve the editors, not the other way around. Frabby (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (EST)
I do not really want any of this automation in the infoboxes, I have had loads of private talks with Deadfire about not letting him do more until he can come up with a solid example of it doing something better than our current methods.
And the weight automation is going to be scrapped when I get brave enough to update the'Mech infobox.--Dmon (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2023 (EST)

IP edit reverts[edit]

Hi, I see you've reverted a bunch of edits that an IP made to various novel articles. May I ask why? The edits looked legit where alphabetical order of featured 'Mechs was corrected; and a PDF search showed that adding the Archer to the list for Star Lord was also factually correct. Frabby (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (EST)

The re-removal of the starlord archer was my mistake but generally I was removing the mostly needless list collumns the editor was putting in and the entierly needless piping of the Clan 'Mechs when they already have redirects in place.
I know I have been installing the list collumns on system articles where I expect to see the lists continually grow as we get more era info, most of the novel place and equipment lists are usually too short to truly warrant collumns, characters there is an arguement to have them but that is really a case by case situation.--Dmon (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2023 (EST)

DA Governors[edit]

Just following up on the Republic Governor / Legate switches, it looks where this is happening between Dark Age: Republic of the Sphere and Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) (i.e. for say Prefecture III), other sources (such as Dark Age: 3132-3134 INN) are exclusively following Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) for the proper role where the characters get a mention. Accordingly unless I find some other complexity, I'm proposing to treat (with appropriate notes) the Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) listings as the correct one.--HF22 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (EST)

Glad you have figured out what the error is. I knew it was there but had only thus far handled governors on an individual basis when they turned up in something else, so I was unsure of the specifics of the larger issue. How you plan to handle it is perfect, so only other wrinkle to keep an eye on is the fiction. I think at least one (Mirach) conflicts with both DA:RotS and DA:RW, but I would say the novels get priority in most cases as they flesh out the characters in their roles.--Dmon (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2023 (EST)
The fiction is tying in pretty well so far, so hopefully not too many conflicts to deal with. As you say, for those which do have conflicts I think the novels will need to be preferred, since I believe they are mostly later in publication date as well as more detailed as to the characters.--HF22 (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2023 (EST)

Category:Comstar Support Vehicles[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Just wondering, why did you revert my edit there? Echo Mirage (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2023 (EST)

I was just about to write a comment on your page about it actually. Short version is that as I have mentioned to you before, "used by" is not what Sarna is doing. The MUL does it way better than we ever could so we have decided to not even try and compete.
I have been mulling over what to do about Blessed Order for a couple of days now.--Dmon (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2023 (EST)
That is somewhat circular reasoning since the MUL is often dependent on us for info. Echo Mirage (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2023 (EST)
Yes parts of the MUL draws from us, but so does a lot of stuff that is BT related. Ray calls it the "Sarna effect", but not trying to compete with the MUL is something else. We can't do it on a technical level. The MUL is a database built for the purpose of being a searchable force builder. Sarna is a wiki, trying to build a comprehensive force builder using a wiki format is likely possible, but it would be an absolute monster to organise.--Dmon (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2023 (EST)
Wasn't trying to put together a full list of equipment, as you said, it would be a true monster to take on indeed. I was just trying to give a sense of the range of equipment the Blessed Order had access to, with a bit of an emphasis on the some of the more unusual and/or obscure stuff. It is easy enough to overlook the Order's custom built OmniMechs, for instance. Which reminds me, I forgot to mention that the BO installed cruise missile launchers on at least some of their Fortress-class DropShips. I'll head over their now and add that little tidbit. Echo Mirage (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2023 (EST)
Quick correction to my last, it appears it was actually just the Duat-class DropShips that were fitted with cruise missiles. Echo Mirage (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2023 (EST)

Military Operation names and caps[edit]

Hiya, it has just come to my attention that you suggested in the BattleTechWiki:Manual of Style that Sarna BTW should stick to the policy of writing out military operation names in all caps, even though CGL has abandoned the practice. I was actually glad to see this go away as I always hated it. I think I understand where you're coming from which is why I suggested in the policy that neither spelling (all caps or merely capitalized) is technically wrong. This way, existing articles and links do not have to be updated. But I really don't like the prospect of carrying this weird spelling into the future when even CGL have dropped it again. Frabby (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2023 (EST)

Yeah I implemented the style at a time that CGL didn't seem to know how they wanted to handle it. When CGL settled on a style and Rev brought it up, my suggestion was mostly based on the fact that the work has already been done. I am not a fan of us flopping between styles. As long as they commit to doing all of it, somebody who wants to spend the time reversing all the work can.--Dmon (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2023 (EST)

Noble houses[edit]

All right, what's wrong with having the names appear in two places? It does no harm and it makes it easier for people to find. And many of the families that use lowercase particles are noted in their canon entries as the von X family, not the X family. Madness Divine (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (EDT)

Never mind; I had the technical issue explained to me. Madness Divine (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (EDT)

Added references for Snow Fox[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I added reference link in Snow Fox article, it was MUL date

They removed standard Snow Fox from the list and Snow Fox Omni was added in following era

RecGuide described Omni project as success

That's the only one I remember that needed references, let me know if there are others

Snow Fox

Regards,--Warhawk14 (talk) 22:10, 09 May 2023 (EST)

Good work!--Dmon (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2023 (EDT)

RE: Hellcat (Hellhound II)[edit]

Howdy. I was going to add the Hellcat page for RG:iClan vol. 30 since its an outstanding red link but noticed you had deleted it earlier. Is this because it is similar to the Conjurer or another reason? Should I go ahead and add the page? --KhorneHub (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2023 (EDT)

Hey Khornehub,
No nothing like that at all, In theory the links on the front page should get updated every week but I often forget and have left them for as long as a month to six weeks in the past. I updated the links as part of a personal effort to be more consistent... this is three weeks in a row I have remembered! The Hellcat (Hellhound II) still needs an article if you want to have a stab at it.--Dmon (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 IV[edit]

Hi Dmon;

I made a mistkae. This page PowerTech 250 should be deleted.--Pserratv (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 V[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I have a list of pages to delete:

And these files that are not used any longer:

  • File:RotS Knights emblem.jpg
  • File:RotS Knights-Errant emblem.jpg
  • File:RotS Paladin emblem.jpg
  • File:RotS Senate emblem.jpg

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT)

Award[edit]

Thanks for always being so helpful. Not that you need another, but it's well deserved! Direction Appreciated Award, 2nd ribbon https://youtu.be/Z9nCW6HJsmY --Csdavis715 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 VI[edit]

Can you please delete these ones:

And thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

Hi Pserratv, I'm with you on keeping a tidy Wiki! In the next week or two I'll be continuing to go through old character articles that were created years ago before the current format was standardized. Even now there are twice as many more added than you posted, and Dmon is pretty good about deleting them in reasonable time. So I wouldn't worry about it. --Csdavis715 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 VI[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Me again needing help for deleting pages... Can you delete these pages:

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

Category and page needed mess[edit]

Hi Dmon,

We have now several pages as wanted that are dummy for template issues and also several templates with the same problem that are hiding real pages / categories that would be needed.--Pserratv (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

Do you mean all the random stuff that Deadfire is creating? I am aware of the issue and wish I knew what he was doing but most of the time when I ask him he replies with a link to a coding "help page" that has quite obviously been written in such a manner as to be as unhelpful as possible.--Dmon (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
It's also unhelpful to not provide information or examples on what is wrong. --Deadfire (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
I am pretty sure PS means the fact that the needed articles list is currently not a list of needed articles. Special:WantedPages, excluding the three Russian titles, we don't get an actual needed article until item no. 63--Dmon (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
Sounds like a priority for me to get fixed/filled in. I will add it to my User:Deadfire/Task list, and start working on it. Though many MediaWiki admins wished Special:WantedPages to only include the main namespace, it simply hasn't been fixed to do so.
Yes, I meant that. And also on the missing categories, as now we have like 80 something and most are technical in nature.--Pserratv (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (EDT)

Category Orphaned pages[edit]

Hi Dmon,

We have here thousands of characters listed here as we are creating entries for each mechwarrior in any supplement. Now, would it be ok to have a sort of "warriors page" to clean this up? It is not something I like (we have the categories for this), but it is again hiding potential cross-references missing.

Any idea?--Pserratv (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

I am not overly bothered about the orphaned pages at this point. I do have an idea that could provide a lot of cross-referencing potential but I have not put any time into it to develop it yet, there are a few big projects that need fixing before we start a new one. I am not a fan of the idea of a warriors page at all as it doesn't really serve any purpose beyond providing a home for the orphans.--Dmon (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

Partner up![edit]

Hi, my name is Kate and I am the founder of the Independent Fallout Wiki (over yonder at fallout.wiki). A few members of our community recommended your wiki as one we should reach out to in order to partner up with (big fans!) The Independent Fallout Wiki split off the corporately hosted wiki to give independence a whirl in April 2022. We want to strengthen relationships between other independent wikis, as our community has interests that span beyond Fallout and are excited to check out other independent sites.

What does a partnership even mean? Good question! On our end, we feature your website on the wiki as both an article and part of the home page spotlight rotation. If you have a Discord, we also feature your invite along with links to your YouTube/website/videos. If you have similar spaces, we just ask that you do the same for us. You can check out the list of our current wiki buddies here!

These partnerships work well to connect independent wikis, lead to new friends, and are generally good vibes across the board. I appreciate you considering our request to partner up! If you feel like giving it a go or have any questions, feel free to respond here or message me on Discord (kateaces). Thank you so much in advance. -Kate Aces MWO Charger.png We’ve got ‘em on the run! 01:17, 23 August 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 VIII[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Could you please delete these pages:

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2023 (EST)

Removing notes from articles[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I removed those BLP notes, as I am concerned to have them included as mere conjecture by BLP that he believes he created the mechs without evidence. This note has been attributed to approximately 60 mechs, and as it doesn't contain anything but a link to BLP's blog without evidence (and is refuted in at least one case, see the Stone Rhino), it feels inflammatory to leave a note on so many pages without actual citations. I know that's why it's a note, and not a citation, but it feels excessive and would possibly be better served just to be on Pardoe's page and not for every one of these mechs. These notes were only added in the last year or so, at the same time the controversy regarding BLP was happening, and is seen by many as being used as a way to stake Pardoe's brand on the story. Whether this is the case or not it feels disingenuine to leave the notes with only a link to a blog from years ago that was only very recently included on the wiki.

If possible I'd like this escalated up for discussion with the other admins. As I don't want to step on more toes by removing additional posts. If anything leaving these notes only engages with the controversial situation, especially as the admin responsible for adding these notes was the one writing about the situation with BLP & Faith/Ace so might be seen as biased reporting (again, be it true or not, this is just how it comes across). I am happy to discuss this further off the wiki if that helps, as I am engaged with quite a few people in the community who have raised this concern.

I will leave it up to your fantastic team. Thank you for hearing me out. Appreciate all your work.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by EnbyKaiju (talk • contribs) .

Hiya, as the editor who put up the notes, let me assure you that it was a coincidence that I did that around the same time when all the other stuff happened. It never occurred to me that people might see a connection, beyond by fear that he might take the blog down. BLP's blog is a fantastic window into the very early history of BT and I felt the info was worth having on Sarna. As for its veracity, I give BLP the benefit of doubt and am inclined to believe when he says he wrote certain writeups. Iirc he even admits that he might be misremembering sometimes.
Regarding the Stone Rhino, can you elaborate? Frabby (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (EST)
I'll add my two cents in support of changes here. The blog post in question opens with "I might be wrong." He admits that his memory of the development may be flawed, and subsequently a lot of this is conjecture with no way to verify the veracity of his claims for most of the units he lists. There are some notes on 'Mechs that he showcased that absolutely do deserve recognition, such as the original drafts of the BattleMaster and Shadow Hawk stats, but everything else has about as much credibility as spitballing the names of people you think you might've gone to high school with. "Trust me bro" is not sufficient cause to have authorial credit on ~60 pages. His contributions to the creation of these units belongs on one place, if any, and that is on his article page, where it can be provided with more context regarding his self-admitted uncertainty than it currently receives as a footnote. --Einherjarvalk (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2023 (EST)
Not quite sure what to answer, except that I still don’t see why the info shouldn't be a trivia item in the respective 'Mech articles. Sure, it could go into the BLP article and probably should be there, too. There’s no reason why the info can’t be in both places. But I reckon the 'Mechs are more central to Sarna BTW than BLP so that's where the info belongs in my opinion. And while it should be taken with a grain of salt, I still consider it noteworthy enough to mention. There is nothing to suggest BLP doesn’t believe what he posted there. (Ok, bad example - he apparently believes and posts a lot more than BT history and most people including myself are not ok with that - but you get what I’m saying.) Frabby (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2023 (EST)
The reason the info doesn't belong in the trivia section is because there is no evidence to support those claims for the majority of the units listed. For some, such as the aforementioned Shadow Hawk and BattleMaster, Blaine has shown his work and thus can and should receive credit for having a formative hand in their development. For the others, it strongly feels like he's simply trying to solidify his claim as a "founding father of BattleTech," a claim that he continues to lean on in order to push his version of the narrative surrounding his release from the writing team while marketing his new work, even over a year later. Regardless, whether or not Pardoe believes he's telling the truth is immaterial (and, by his own admission, he's not sure it even is the truth). If Sarna is to maintain its reputation as a reliable source of objectively true information about BattleTech, "I believe this is true (but I could be wrong)" is not sufficient cause for the content to remain where it is. I believe that Sarna would benefit more from having the list he lays claim to placed on his article page, and the "behind-the-scenes" materials he posted about the 'Mechs that he has an undeniable claim to developing transplanted from his blog to the corresponding 'Mech articles and cited accordingly. At that point, whatever Blaine does with his blog becomes immaterial, and the relevant information is preserved where it should be. --Einherjarvalk (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Hey EnbyKaiju,

I appreciate you getting back to me and explaining your position. This topic has been discussed amongst the Admin team a few times over the last year, I understand your concerns about the potential for bias. Sarna Admins do not officially have specific roles but as a team we each broadly take on different duties, Frabby is the guy who makes the core of most of our policies around Notability, Moratorium and Canon. He also takes on writing a lot of the more "sensitive" articles that we have concerns about being refuted or causing issues simply by existing. Stuff like the Eridani Light Horse lawsuit, Pride Anthology 2023 and yes the BLP situation. Because Frabby writes our canon policy, he spends a lot of time working on the Apocryphal and esoterica like the Battledroids, TCI Model Sets, BattleTechnology and other very early history of BT stuff. The fact that Frabby wrote about both the BLP situation and BLPs Blog about early 'Mech designs is not from the Sarna teams perspective anything unusual. However we do fully understand how the unfortunate timing can be seen as something potentialy suspicious from the outside.

In truth I can't guarentee that there is absolutely no bias in any of the articles Frabby has ever written, but what I can say is that I have worked with him for getting close to twenty years and honestly believe that out of everybody who works on Sarna, Frabby is by far the most evenhanded.

Hey Einherjarvalk,

The lack of evidence to support the claims is exactly why the information is in the notes section as trivia. Sarna has a Good Faith policy that extends to Authors and people who are involved in the development of the BattleTech Universe. I myself recently have made a "announced product" article for Without Question based on Bryan Young mentioning it as his next novel during an AMA chat.

Does the note about BLPs blog need to be in every 'Mech article? probably not, but to say that having the note there is enough to call Sarnas reputation as a reliable source of objectively true information about BattleTech into dispute is likely a bit far. The notes on Sarna have been made by a respected Sarna Admin in good faith (especially with neither myself or Frabby being American, taking sides in a disagreement about American political stances is a bit bizarre). Unless Frabby decides that his edits where in error or the rest of the Admin team come to a consensus to remove the notes, I am going to maintain the current status quo.--Dmon (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2023 (EST)

I am honored and a bit flattered. But still, "Frabby said so" is not a valid argument. I am just one out of many editors. And I don’t "write" Sarna's policies, not in the sense of deciding them. User consensus does. I merely had an active role in hammering out many policies back in the early days and happened to create the agreed-upon text.
That said, I'm with Dmon on this one. Our existing policies support having those bits of trivia. Conversely, there is nothing requiring Sarna to avoid mentioning them. Frabby (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (EST)

Delete page 2024 I[edit]

Can you please delete this one Dmon: Electra (Individual Cameron-class WarShip) Regards,--Pserratv (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2024 (EST)

Primitive Battlemech deletion?[edit]

Just wondering why the Primitive Battlemech category was deleted last month? It was pretty useful for my AoW games.TheRedBee (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmon&oldid=1063326"