User talk:Revanche

Archives

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Current

Question

Hello, I was just wondering how you decifer the range of a certain weapon from their information tables. Like for an IS ER Large Laser the short range is 1-7 but what is 1-7 in real life? 10-70meters? Or what? I was just wondering if you could provide me with that information. It would be a real help. - James

In the core Battletech game (which is what the example you cite is from) the ranges listed are in hexes on the mapsheet. According to the Battletech 2nd Edition rulebook, page 1, the scale of basic Battletech is 30 m per hex, so the short range of an ER Large Laser is from 30 m to 210 m. All players I have ever played with assume that range 0, ie the hex you are in, is also implicitly included in the short range. -- LRichardson 02:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the help. I was really trying to figure it out but couldn't manage to.

The 25th Anniversary Edition of BT just came out, you might consider giving it a look. If you are not sure whether or not to make the leap of faith on that investment, you might also try the Quick Start Rules from Catalyst, available for free at http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/QSR_BattleTech_EN.pdf. -- LRichardson 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Awards Project

Holla Rev, i hope allways is fine with you, ähm i have a question about your wiki awards project, you work on it ??, you have lay down it??, or you have not the time to finish it, ok i know reall life is busy, i like the project and i hope you keep it up in next time. Greetings--Doneve 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Doneve. I was planning to work on it (maybe even complete it) last Monday on the few hours I had off, but got caught up throwing the Founder's Awards project up, while it was still relevant. I do intend to finish it soon. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello Rev, i Hope you New Years was good to you. I had question regarding Mechs that are partially under the moratorium. I recently added the Peacekeeper to the Sarna. TRO 3085 is not longer under the moratorium, but its record sheet unabridge pdf is. Is the bibliography not allow to show upcoming and connected materials in a article? I did not (not come out yet.) added anything from that source, only listing as a part of bilo. Does this mean it must be on hold until all the related materials comes out of the mortatorium? -- Wrangler 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rev, i jump in, i put the talk from Wrangler to Me in the discussion, to give you howe is the goal for it.--Doneve 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doneve. I am confused why you removed the RS:3085 Cutting the Edge wikilink from article. There was no information in the article violate the moratorium period. I don't believe mentioning the Record Sheet book would break moratorium if listed in the bibliography. --Wrangler

I think, we don't put publications as biblio link, there have not the moratorium expired, some people where confused about this, it is my mention, but it is a good goal to start a discussion about this, thanks.--Doneve

Hy Rev, i think we don't put linked sources to an article there can have no content from the source, then the source falls under the moratorium, [NO CONTENT] no link in the bibliography section, thanks.--Doneve 23:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys. My interpretation of the moratorium policy reflects on the intent: do not give information from within the document under protection. However, letting readers know there is information relevant to their interests can /only/ be a good thing, especially if Sarna is not yet providing them that information. (In other words, leads them to purchase the document.)

So, from my perspective, the mention of the protected document in the biblio -while not truly indicative of the use of that document yet in the article- would not seem to violate the policy. It serves to inform the reader of another source of information.

However, I would say the use of the Update needed template would serve both purposes best, as it quickly informs a reader a new source of information is out and is not included in the article AND reminds the Editors that the article needs to be updated, when the time comes.

Does that help?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rev. I've just tried to post a piece of fan fiction titled 'The Demon that you know'. I had written this a couple of years ago and had it in an existing Word document. However, when I tried to cut and paste it into the text field, it doesn't seem to be coming out just right. Can you take a look at it and see what I have done wrong and how I can fix it. I have a couple more stories in the series that I would also like to contribute once I get the bugs out of posting here. Thanks in advance.Tekteam26 23:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(Chiming in again in Rev's stead) - Mind that Wiki uses a markup language of sorts. At a quick look, you seem to have tabs inserted at the beginning of paragraphs which creates those odd boxes in wiki language. I have removed the tab at the beginning of your text above and doing the same should fix your story text. I have to leave the computer now but will be available to help you more tomorrow. Frabby 23:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rev. I've started making contributions here and was interested in exploring some more possibilities. In the canon, possibly in the original Periphery House Book, there is a description of a pirate attack on a JumpShip and its DropShips. In the piece, it appears that the JumpShip used is not your garden variety JumpShip. Obviously, it is far better armed and has more mobility than what a mere station-keeping drive can provide. What if a contributor were to write up an article here that linked the JumpShips used by pirates from the Periphery to the Royalty class JumpShip briefly described in the BattleTechnology story: Saga of the Amaris Star. While the Amaris Star article was actually written prior to the publication of even the first AeroTech design rules, the math indicates that perhaps it used a variation of Primitive K-F with the following differences; a jump range of 30 LY instead of 15 LY, the ability to mount DropShip docking collars and possibly the simplified maintenance requirements of the conventional K-F drive. What do you think? If you want to open up this question to others to discuss and offer opinions, go for it. I'm interested in seeing where this goes.Tekteam26 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(Frabby writing again) - That would be mixing three layers of canon: The original story, if coming from a proper canonical product, is fully canonical. The Amaris Star article on BattleTechnology is apocryphal, i.e. neither clearly canonical nor clearly non-canonical, and essentially subject on a case-by-case judgement. Any additional information on this site that isn't derived directly from a canonical source it itself pure fan fiction. In summary, you'd have a canonical, unspecified JumpShip; an apocryphal specific JumpShip type; and a non-canonical fan fiction declaring them to be one and the same.

If you really want to create proper canon for BT, then you need to go via BattleCorps and submit it there. Frabby 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have tried....but they don't seem to be terribly interested in mostly black navy material. You can take a look at the two fanfic stories that I recently posted to see examples of material that was turned down unfortunately. So I've turned towards writing original science fiction not in the BT universe instead. Hopefully, I will get a thumbs up from Baen Books soon reference the manuscript for a novel that I submitted last year.Tekteam26 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Tag Question

Hello, Rev.

I've never contributed to BattleTech Wiki before but I was wondering about perhaps doing so. I've actually had about a dozen BattleTech articles published over the years in magazines like BattleTechnology and MechForce Quarterly. I am also the original creator for the non-jump capable WarShips called Monitors.

What I am interested in doing is submitting a wiki for a mercenary unit that I created and was featured in several of the articles published in Battletechnology and MechForce Quarterly. The unit is called TekTeam Technical Services and is essentially a unit of mercenary technicians that sell their services to the highest bidder, travels in a modified Mule class DropShip set up as a mobile repair base and is supported by a small security force.

Would it be have to be published in the non-canon units section, or because it was published in the 'official' magazines for BattleTech at that time, would you consider the unit at least quasi-'canon'?

I would probably need some assistance in figuring out how to use your templates for an article on TekTeam Technical Services as well. Thanks.--— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 71.74.86.252 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2011.

Good morning, 71.74.86.252.

First off, welcome to Sarna. We also welcome your presence as a contributor. You might find registering will also help you interact more easily with other contributors here.

I would point you in the direction of the Canon article, first off, specifically the Apocrypha section. Battletechnology is directly addressed there and should answer your question. From that, I would say the use of the ApocryphalArticle is most appropriate. As for what category the team would fall under, some discussion of that may need to be had or Frabby, our expert on all things canonical (and himself a published CBT writer), can provide some guidance.

I hope this helps.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)}

12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello 71.74.86.252, and welcome to the fold of BTW editors. It's very exciting to have the people helping out here who wrote the old stuff, even if BattleTechnology isn't canonical anymore (for the time being...). It would be great if you'd register an account on this wiki and work from that login, as it will allow you to have both a proper talk page yourself and link your edits to your account, crediting you with the work you do here. Everything's free of course.

Revanche got the long and short of it right - your contributions to BattleTechnology and MechForce Quarterly aren't Canon anymore, but they were once published in an official BT source and were regarded as canonical in their time, raising them above mere fanwork. As such, they are now considered apocryphal; in Herb's words, while they're non-canon, the writers are "not in total denial" about them either.

Seeing how you already are a published BT writer, you may want to try your luck with BattleCorps which could be described as today's online lovechild of MechForce and BattleTechnology. As a subscriber you may submit stories and that may be a way for you to re-introduce your merc unit into full canon even. Contact me if you are seriously considering writing for BT again and I'll explain a bit more.

Finally, since you were published in BattleTechnology, your name should be among the list of contributors in that article (as a redlink if no actual article exists about you yet). Feel free to (actually, please do) fill in all details about yourself that you're willing to share!

Cheers, Frabby 13:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, there. I am now listed on your New Users list. I noticed that the bottom has me listed by my IP address rather than by my preferred handle. How can I change that so that I will use my handle there as well? I am looking forward to contributing material. Now, I just have to figure out how to log in and get started.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 71.74.86.252, 5th January 2011 (talk • contribs) .

In the upper right part of the screen, just above this text box, is a link to "log in/create account". Clicking brings you to a login page with a link named "Create an account", click it and follow the (brief) instructions. I am not sure if you are automatically logged in under the handle you selected or if you need to log in properly after registering.

Hope that helps; if you need more directions, just ask. Frabby 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Help:CreateCommandArticle Request

Hi Rev, i hope things are well with you. I have been looking at the various Military Commands, noticed the Infobox have been slightly revised. Is there possiblity that "Formed" part of the Help:CreateCommandArticle article be ..dewiki-linked or remove of built-in internal link. Alot of the military commands have no known origin when they were formed. The ones that don't have these "[[]]" appear in the Command article's infobox. Is possible to have this removed so someone can manually put in. I tried to no-wiki-link those problem ones, but it would easier to manualling insert internal links than to have it built in. Or least have it not appear if entry is not put into it like of newer infoboxes are with vehicle/Mechs. This would be great as well, if there no info on what unit's apparent command is as well. Thanks for listening. Sincerely -- Wrangler 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Another fine example of the law of unintended consequences. Fixed. I'd also like to make it auto-disappear when empty, but I'll work on that later. Thanks, Wrangler.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Rewriting

Rev - So there a few articles out there (or more than a few...) on major subjects where there is a lot of content, but the article is unorganized and (perhaps) not well written. Or perhaps, the article was written in a time when certain standards hadn't been established. I was considering actually taking all the material and rewriting it. I would obviously make sure the "new" article had everything the old one did, but nevertheless, it would ultimately involve deleting and rewriting significant portions of another editor's work. So what I'm asking is, would this be unacceptable or no? I have reviewed, and find it to be a gray area. ClanWolverine101 05:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perfectly acceptable, even positively wanted - please go ahead!

This is a wiki. It is in the nature of a wiki that a given editor's work is not sacrosanct. I've done complete rewrites here in the past. Frabby 09:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• You'll find no disagreement from me, either. In fact, rewrites intimidate me, so I'm extremely impressed you yearn to do so. Excelsior! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam Bot?

Hy Revanche, the new user logs, looks like a spambot is on start??--Doneve 12:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Doneve. If you're referring to BattleTechWiki:New user log, I don't see anything unfavorable. Do you mean my welcome messages to unregistered users? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, so many new users in this short time, mysterious!.--Doneve 13:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Those were over the last 30 days, to include the winter holidays when a lot of people have time off for work (and so give editing a try). I try and recognize them on a daily basis, but when I fail to do so, I go back at least a month.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure: Did you block User:new user welcome message by accident or did you deliberately block it for the time being so as to prevent spambots from getting some immediate gratification for logging in or something like that? Frabby 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for a Modification to Battle Armor Template

Hello Revanche, I had a request. I recently wrote a Battle Armor article and I noticed a problem with the infobox. Is is possible to include under the movement in the infobox a line for Jump Jet movement/distance? I do believe the infobox should include say if the Armor has them or not. Some have Mechnical Boosters, but i'm not worried about those. Most TROs now do say how far a Battle Armor Jumps in meters, but i'm not sure if CBT movement can be translated as such. Thank you! -- Wrangler 16:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrangler, I'm open to making that change if the consensus is there. Why don't you see if it is? Maybe on the infobox's discussion page? (The reason I say this is because in the past I've made the changes and then am asked why I did. Seems to me the person who wants the change but doesn't know how to do the code should definitely do the work of seeing if the community agrees with it.) Let me know how it goes, either way. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Combat Vehicle

Hi Rev. Only reason why i asked it to be deleted because we already have one in full use Category:Combat Vehicles. -- Wrangler 12:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 Founders Awards

Dan! It's been a journey, hasn't it? I've got to say, a lot of what BattleTechWiki is, is because of you. Since I first changed sarna.net to a wiki in 2006, you've been a consistent driving force towards making BTW the definitive BattleTech resource. Your organization and championship of good have helped build the community and your contributions and editing are amongst the best out there. Thank you, for everything you've done and everything you've helped with. It's been a pleasure working with you. Nicjansma 06:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Resources

Hey revanche, how can I make a reference to an online source like milspecs from battlecorps? I will post to the different weapons types examples but don't know about the references. Neuling 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You normally don't. MilSpecs has a writeup here (albeit incomplete) under BattleCorps News#MilSpec and you should link to that. You may also want to add a specific news date to the reference, i.e. <ref>[[MilSpecs]] article dated 08 February 2011</ref>.

Reason: Avoid external links wherever possible to reduce the direct reliance on other websites. Otherwise, scores of links are invalidated when such a site goes offline, is moved or otherwise changed. Case in point: Recent CBT Forum hack followed by a complete wipe & reset. Also, why link to an external site when the subject (such as MilSpecs in this case) is already covered on BTW.

Whenever you make several references (in several articles) to another site, that indicates said site is important enough for the BT community to warrant its own article here. So link to the BTW article, even if it's still a redlink. Frabby 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Errata Question

Hy Rev, what you think of a Errata section. Example: --Notes--, ---Errata Note--- with style box, what i bring up to the Game Notes, Game Rules section. I think you know what i mean, what you think about this.Greetings--Doneve 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you create an example? Pick an article that you think would be improved by this new idea and make the change and then bring my attention to it. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Any Battle Armor Weapon for RPG Third Edition could use an eratta section... there is a significant gulf in the BattleTech results of the RPG3e stats that were reprinted in the CBT Companion's BACR from LosTech: The Mechwarrior Equipment Guide and what Tech Manual Tells us when the stats from BACR are passed through the IPCR.--Cameron 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

QS Strike 3039

Hy Rev, what is going on with the QS Strike 3039 moratorium, has it to expired or not.Greetings--Doneve 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that it is still under moratorium. If you're asking me when the moratorium is to be lifted, I'd reply, "I don't know". I don't follow the QS cards, as I'm not really interested in those, so I have no idea when they will be physically published. Maybe you should refer your question to the member who added the moratorium, since that person has a proven interest in the subject.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have time....

Rev - Please give Talk:Isle of Skye when you have some time... as well as its accompanying article. It was an absolute beast to write. But more relevantly, there are some things I'd like to do with respect to redirects that I wanted your advice on. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 08:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Question on how talk new folks

Hello Rev, hope things are well with you, a new member named Guardsman, has uploaded images which do not cite exactly where they came from. Example File:Oberon Confederation (3012).png, i left note with him. However, i wasn't certain how to explain the problem he was presenting. -- Wrangler 02:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look into it tomorrow.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh - Federation of Skye

Rev - SO - I've botched this deleting/renaming business. I now have one, "Federation of Skye (old)", which I have blanked, and was the article I was authorized to delete. (After backing it up and making use of the usable material.) The second, "The Federation of Skye" is the article I wrote and you edited. Obviously, we want it renamed "Federation of Skye". Can you please help me. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 01:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done & done. No problems. Things can be harder for a non-Admin to achieve. You did the right thing by calling one in. Have a good one!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Draw a line

Hey Revanche please take a look of my redone of the Marauder page and give my an opinion abut it. Neuling 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding at BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Page Name Format, Infantry Weapons

The Vehicle Scale weapons are currently named for their class, NOT for the proper name, it is not Martell Medium Laser, or GM Whirlwind Autocannon/5, it is Medium Laser & Autocannon/5 Respectively, This should stay the case with Infantry weapons, but since the weapon stats in a class translate to different stats on the BattleTech Scale the Infantry Weapons would have the proper name in the Parenthetical in addition to the standard Class name that BattleMech Weapons have. If we go to a proper name standard, the BattleMech and Vehicle Weapons will have a Lot of Duplication of BattleTech Stats, going to the proper name level is only useful for weapons that actually have fluff that would be translatable on the RPG scale (shots per battletech burst of fire or mass of each shell, etc) or for infantry weapons that are translated from the RPG scale to BattleTech.--Cameron 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagarism Concern

Please see Talk:Operation Bulldog. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeta Battalion

Rev - Was wondering if you could delete the Redirect for Zeta Battalion that sends them to Wolf's Dragoons. I plan on writing on up an article on them. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no need. You can edit redirects. When the page redirects you, click on the link under the title of the article (it will say "Redirected from [X]"). That takes you to the redirect page, which you can edit the same as any other article. --Scaletail 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Works. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 04:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtual World Article

Hi Rev, recently i noticed User:MechCorps editing the Virtual World article. I'm little foggy on what is considered taboo. HOwever, this article now reads more little like advertisement for Virtual World verse basic talk about the article. Wikipedia doesn't allow for that, though this is Battletech related, is this okay? -- Wrangler 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is not written in 'our' style, i.e., people familiar with the concept of BattleMechs. I'll take a jab at it. Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks good Rev, it doesn't read like advertisement anymore which was my main concern. I do wish there was some more history on them. They've been around since 1990, with advent of the Battletech Center in Chicago, If i'm not mistaken. -- Wrangler 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. If that's true, than, yeah, wish we could have more.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can atest to that being true, i physically went to The Battletech Center located in Chicago in summer 1990. I had read about it of prior to me joining the service, training was in Chicago area. The centers became Virtual Worlds, with couple retaining their BT related name. Its possible VR still has some kind of history online somewhere. Second look, wikipedia has article on it here-- Wrangler 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool deal. I'll import the article when I have the time.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mortium Period for RS:3085 Record Sheets

Hello Rev, it i believe a goof happened the actual dates to end their Moratorium periods for these articles are missing. Talk:Record Sheets: 3085 Unabridged — Project Phoenix. Would you weigh in to see what should be done? -- Wrangler 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrangler, I'm not the best fit to do investigative work on Record Sheets. When the file was released, were hardcopies put on sale at the same time? Mbear may be able to help too, as he's rather involved with moratoriums. Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeta Battalion

Rev - Please give Zeta Battalion a look when you get a chance. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Platoon Organization Articles

I am considering doing a BattleTroops level (per man in 2 of 4 of squads (1 line, 1 support)) dissection of the BattleTech Foot & Motorized Infantry Platoons including either thumbnails or links to weapon carried. How would i do this Family Tree or something similar? Would it be useful?--Cameron 16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked???

Rev - Its ClanWolverine101. Whenever I login to my account, the whole screen goes blank. I've tried this on multiple computers, and nothing will pop up. Is it possible I was blocked somehow? I can't even get in to change my settings. Please contact me at my account's email. Thanks. - CW 192.80.61.181 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)