User talk:Revanche

Talk Archive

Templates

• I've noticed you've made a lot of them lately. I'm currently toying with a method to reduce redundancy and ensure that server load is kept at a minimum. Unless the template is desperately needed, please don't make any more for the next two to three days, I should have the 'procedure' in place by then and taught you it. Trust me, this is so brilliant in its simplicity, but so effective… you get the idea (which was, incidentally, yet again stolen 'borrowed' from Wikipedia)— it's pure gold. --Xoid 03:21, 4 December 2006 (CST)

Sure, that's fine. My template construction is up-to-date now and teaching me a new method while its still fresh in my mind would be useful. --Revanche (admin) 07:31, 4 December 2006 (CST)

What's the plan, Xoid?--The General^T 07:55, 5 December 2006 (CST)

See {{disambig}}, and look at the source. Also: follow the link to Wikipedia's template doc pattern page. This is a brilliant and simple way to reduce server load when updating documentation (to fix a typo in the documentation, say the template's being nominated for deletion, say the template's been superseded by X, add categories, etc.), and makes permanent protection of templates a less unpalatable proposition. It's just so bloody obvious in hindsight, but why did nobody ever think of it before? --Xoid 12:29, 5 December 2006 (CST)

Two things: A) I hope your response was to The General, 'cause I'm not sure how {{disambig}} addresses my recent canon/custom template building splurge. If it does, how could I, as the template Creators made use of this info? 2) Can you add these tags onto the Tags help page, as you build them? A layman's documentation of how best to employ them would be best. Detailed instructions can then be provided on the tag's discussion page. Thanks for bearing with the laymen's representative. ;) --Revanche (admin) 14:14, 5 December 2006 (CST)

The funny thing is, no one I know seems to understand me on the fine details of template creation and usage, not even The General (Hammero would, but he was put out to pasture left for greener pastures).

OK, notice how {{disambig}} has the <noinclude>{{/doc}}</noinclude> in it? The documentation is being transcluded from the /doc 'sub template' (as opposed to being directly in the template itself). This has numerous benefits, mostly bandwidth/monetary related, but there are some others as well.

The tags help page can be considered as one of two things: redundant, or something to keep for newbies. I don't like the idea of more work ('cause I'm lazy) but to be honest, keeping it a 'dumbed down' version for those not fluent in MediaWiki is likely a good idea. LLinking to the technical documentation from the Help:Tags page would also be of great help to those who aren't looking to be babysat through template usage.

If you are actually interested in some of the nitty-gritty, or a 'how-to' make your templates in the same fashion, see the template doc page pattern page. --Xoid 00:40, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Hmmmm, I think I sort of get it. I don't see how it would same many template calls, though.--The General^T 17:11, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Think about it. Every time you need to change a category on it, fix the documentation, basically all the 'meta' information that doesn't affect the template itself, you still have to 'reseed' the pages with it. For a heavily used template that could mean filling the entire job queue many times over (rapidly degrading server performance). With this method, you only cause one entry to the job queue. --Xoid 05:29, 13 December 2006 (CST)

Ah, now (I think) the penny's dropped.--The General^T 20:19, 14 December 2006 (CST)

Where's Nic?

There's a whole bunch of stuff I want to do with images and template creation, but I can't even upload PNGs. This is seriously hindering my efforts to get this 'quality of life'-crap (i.e., templates that look pretty and do 95% of the work for you) in here before people start clamouring for it. Sure, the templates are slightly more complicated, but can automatically add things to either one of two tracking categories. {{ProjectBattleMech}} sends it to the new category, {{ProjectBattleMech}} sends it to peer review category, I was planning on doing the same with Project Planets too (it needs it, desperately). --Xoid 13:27, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Sorry for dropping the ball, work has been taking a toll on me -- post work I'm too tired to look at a computer usually. If there are any urgent issues, please email me at nic at nicj dot net in the future. Nicjansma 00:01, 8 December 2006 (CST)

InfoBoxBattleMech

• I've made some changes to the BattleMech infobox in the vein of standardisation. It did break a lot of pages, and has new parameters to deal with. Now, I know what you're thinking; sorry, but I haven't gotten around to updating the various 'how to create a 'mech page' page, yet. I figured fixing the ton of articles we currently have should take priority.

If you can understand the slight modifications I made to the call, and the documentation that I wrote (you can view it on the template itself), then pretty, pretty please do me a huge favour and update the 'how to create a 'mech page' page accordingly. If you can manage that, could you do me the favour of updating those sorts of pages for all the templates I have to modify? (I want to get this [the major template updates] done now, before more articles show up — if it's done right now we won't need to fix more up later. However, that does mean the 'how to' guide will be out of date. I honestly don't have the time to deal with writing clear, concise documentation for newbies when I'm gonna have such a backlog of template modifications and article repairs.) --Xoid 10:05, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Yes, I can absolutely write the how-to articles (its really just copying the code (that the Creator drops onto the blank page) into the demo box for the article. I just really need to get into how they are different, so that I can do it. I'm going to take your above guidance and create a new infobox for custom units (as in merc groups & such). If I can do that successfully with your method, then I'll fix the previously posted ones. --Revanche (admin) 11:54, 8 December 2006 (CST)

Category:SomethingCustom

• I'd prefer if it were Category:Something (Custom), as that allows editors to use the simple pipe syntax [[Category:Something (Custom)|]] to get [[Category:Something (Custom)|Something]] if they so desire.
  This does mean that simple category links [[Category:SomethingCustom|]] would no longer be able to be used for rapid piping when trying to ensure there is no ambiguity, but since you would be leaving off the Category: there is already ambiguity by default. To make it faster to write 'short' hand links after the change, I could whip up a simple template for the purpose (more accurately; I'll 'borrow' one of Wikipedia's :P). --Xoid 21:12, 9 December 2006 (CST)

Hehe, if you don't have a template, steal it from wikipedia :p.--The General^T 17:09, 12 December 2006 (CST)

You nailed my concern with the capacity to quickly and easily create new categories, by 'stealing' from pre-existing ones. I haven't been here for a few days (RL work), but I do know that my trepidation over learning how to create templates on the 'new' system would have been a factor in getting any work done here, anyhow. Let me go thru what you've linked to and give it a go before I provide my opinion. At the very easiest, I need a 'step 1, step 2' arrangement to immediately try it out, but I also know that if I don't have those kind of instructions waiting for me, I know I have to build them for future Creators (as well as change the old ones). When I go on a wikibreak, coming back involves relearning certain things that I wasn't overly familiar with, and having the format set up with the help pages I already generated helps me, as well. --Revanche (admin) 10:36, 14 December 2006 (CST)

Inner Sphere in Flames

• Hey, this is completely unrelated to the Wiki, but I was hoping you could help. I'm trying to start up an ISiF game and I saw you posted some stuff about it on the CBT forums, so I was hoping you knew more than I did. I don't get the whole "multiply ground/aerospace rating by X" idea. If I have a high tech and and elite force, for example, I multiply the ground rating by 2.4. When does this happen? I figured that it would be done when a unit is built, but that doesn't make sense with the experience level multiplier. Help! — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Scaletail on 08 January, 2007 (talk • contribs) .

No problem; I'd really like to see this game continue to be supported, so any help (or opinions) I can provide are free of charge. I'm on leave right now, without my books, but I do have Combat Operations with me in pdf. Can you give me a page number to reference? --Revanche (admin) 23:44, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Never-mind, found it: pp. 102. I think your question might also be worded: when does this multiplier take effect? The way I see it, you design your force with the attributed equipment, but determine (initially) its Ground Rating (GR) as if its a unit with a Regular experience rating (hence, a modifier of 1.0). Now, if you're re-creating a unit from a Field Manual (or your own fan unit), you apply the appropriate minimum XP to the unit to meet its actual experience rating (green, regular, veteran, elite). With elite, that would be 31. As they engage in combat, they'll continue to earn XP. But, remember how they had a GR equivalent to that of a reglarly experienced unit at force creation? Because you've blessed them as 'elite,' they actually have a GR much higher. So, at 31 XP (elite), modify the GR by 2.0. As they gain experience, at each 5 additional XP, re-calculate their GR.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but remember the GR (& AR) is equipment-dependent initially. As the equipment changes, the base GR changes to match it. That base GR is then modified by the current experience rating of the force. For example, on page 100, the example there introduces the equipment loadout of the Sixth Marik Militia. At the end of the example, it says they have a GR of 1,304. It also says that they are a Veteran unit, therefore start off with 16 XP. Because of their Veteran status, their GR should be modified to 1,956 (1,304 x 1.5 = 1,956). The reason this is important is because it affects results based upon GR (and should increase their Supply Rating, as well). Is this the help you were looking for? --Revanche (admin) 00:18, 9 January 2007 (CST)

It is, although it's not what I wanted to hear, because I'll have to go back and change what I've already done. Better yet, I'll just make the players do it. I'm assuming this would then mean that anytime the tech level is adjusted (up or down) to an extent that it affects the AR or GR, you would then have to recalculate the Rating for all of that faction's units. I just wish there were more examples in ComOps to help make sense of this, becuase the rules aren't all that simple. Scaletail 20:30, 9 January 2007 (CST)

I may not completely understand what you mean (but I think I do). If the TL of the faction does change, it means that the faction now has the opportunity to upgrade its forces. I'm speaking (again) without referencing the book, but it seems to me that the faction would still have to provide new equipment to the units in order for their ratings (ground and/or aerospace) to change. For example, a unit may employ a battalion of Wasp-1A BattleMechs (stupid example, I know). Due to its budget, the faction increases its Tech Level. If it wanted to increase the GR of that battalion, it would also have to provide newer, higher-tech 'Mechs. So, yeah, leave it up to the players, but they can't do it all at once. I'll review ComOps, but I think I'm correct in that statement. (And, yeah: there a lot of rules that could be expanded upon or explained with some detail.) --Revanche (admin) 01:32, 10 January 2007 (CST)

I'm an idiot. I see what you mean. Okay...how would I interpret a change in the BattleTech Level upon a force, in light of the above?.........Got it! Actually, maybe I don't. Two options (of interpretation): 1) as you said: recompute each unit each time the BT Level changes (as the Supply Ratings would be affected too), or 2) apply the percent increase only at the time of battle. At first, I liked the simplicity of that, 'cause then its simply stated that they enjoy the benefits of better tech. But, based on my previous 'advice' to you, why should veterans get higher Supply Ratngs if higher tech units don't. Option 1 requires more work (at each change), but I think that is what was intended. Sorry. --Revanche (admin) 01:41, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Special:DoubleRedirects needs some attention

I've nuked most of the obvious errors, fixed other ones up, but there's one left that I'm not sure about. Since you created the naming convention for that stuff, I'll leave it up to you. --Xoid 11:22, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Template:Cite

There seems to be something wrong with the Citation Template. Check out the way it looks on this article. I tried adding to it, but it didn't seem to help. Scaletail 12:26, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I've asked Xoid to take a look at it. --Revanche (admin) 14:18, 29 January 2007 (CST)

*sigh*. The template uses named parameters… --Xoid 21:32, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Xoid, we must have caught you on a bad day, or a day you forgot that my interest in the project stems not from actual wikicode knowledge but from BattleTech. Scaletail, I'll poke around wikipedia with this hint that Xoid provided and see if I can figure it out. It may be a few days, but as a group, we should be able to get the cite function to work. --Revanche (admin) 21:54, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, as a record of my travels to uncover the mess that is Template:Cite (as something I can reference back when I need to relearn it), I provide this 'pedia page, where the code appears as:

{{{author}}},  {{{title}}},  [[{{{publisher}}}]],  [[{{{date}}}]].

There's more after that, but it appears to relate to the documentation that goes along with the template, and is not active code. More digging...--Revanche (admin) 22:00, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, now following the 'named parameters' thread, wikipedia states the obvious. By my best translation, those are essentially the purpose for each of those data entries. For example, in the example cited from Wikipedia's template for Cite, [[{{{publisher}}}]] obviously means that the publisher's name should be inserted here. That's all fine and good, however it doesn't address why the cite function fails. However, following the trail of 'named parameters' through the Wikipedia, MediaWiki and Template spaces, I come across this. Tlx stands for Template list expanded and the represented code shows named parameters. Not sure how to make use of that, but I'll import it over here and see what happens. --Revanche (admin) 22:09, 29 January 2007 (CST)

NOW I'm getting somewhere, and I'm not happy with the result. Essentially, per the example on the Cite page, you must write the actual named parameters (literally, "title", "publisher", "date" and "production code", followed by equal signs and the actual displayed date. For example, to cite Historical:War of 3039, I had to write {{cite|title=Historical: War of 3039|publisher=FANPRO|date=2004|production code=35014}} to get it to read "Historical: War of 3039, FANPRO, 2004, 35014." for the reference. Hell, I'm writing more than I would be typing in the information itself. I'm sure there's a more reasonable explanation, but -as I'm in the military- I have to be up at 0500 and I only get a few hours a day with my family. I'll try and hit this again next weekend, if appropriate. As it is, Template:Cite's not the way to go, so, unless consenus says otherwise, I vote we kill/delete it and come up with a better policy for handling references. If no supporting votes for the template, I'll assume support and delete it tomorrow or later. --Revanche (admin) 22:40, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Bad day? Oh yes. I could go into details, but you would see a string of profanity that would make a sailor blush, and older folks die from heart failure from the shock value alone. Yes, that bad. I felt I had adequately explained how this worked on my talk page, so my response was rather terse. Sorry.

I'll tell you this: your conclusions are mostly correct. It is generally a giant waste of time; the only reason I can see for the template is to allow us to change from one style of citation to another without having to edit several thousand pages. You can simply make it a template using unnamed parameters instead; which would allow those who are unfamiliar with the citation style to utilise it, have code that is roughly the same length (possibly less) as typing manually and would allow the citation style to be altered if necessary. All of the benefits and none of the drawbacks. If you want, I'll go do that now. Xoid 00:29, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the apology, Xoid. From my experimentation (and attempts to verbalize my frustration with the cite function to my wife...who could care less, for obvious reasons), I think the ref function (as detailed below) is the winner. At this point, I'm for simplicity for all editors, rather than consistancy. If someone provides a source for a rare bit of information using the ref function, I could care less if it provides the author's name, production code and title only, only just the title and page number. The citation itself is what is important. Thoughts? --Revanche (admin) 00:44, 30 January 2007 (CST)

If it's a rare citation, sure, I'd be ecstatic at its mere appearance. Content, especially when it's rare, is always good. For something that only takes a half-minute of someone's time, I'd much prefer they use the template. It shouldn't be a cast-iron necessity, but should be encouraged amongst veteran editors. I would hate to think about the amount of work required to introduce wiki-links to all sources without having a vast majority of it done via a slight tweak to a template. There are probably going to be other things like that which will only crop up later; once we have enough minds so that thinking of the brilliant (yet easily overlooked) idea finally happens. It might never happen… but better safe than sorry, IMO. --Xoid 07:30, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Scaletail: I think the answer lies with the <ref></ref> function that Nic just introduced (and which I see Xoid has used in JagerMech). It doesn't allow for a consistent approach to citing sources, but it is quick and easy for most to use. Take a look at JagerMech: you'll see that Xoid 'writes' the article -including the citation- in the same place and the segregates the citation with the <ref></ref> function. The system automatically 'moves' the citation to the Notes section. (We can continue to use the References section, if consensus dictates, as quick links to the relevant articles on the books themselves.)--Revanche (admin) 00:38, 30 January 2007 (CST)

So, then, it's essentially the same way it's done on Wikipedia. I can handle that. I just wish I'd left all my citations in from the stuff I moved over here, 'cause it would all work now... Scaletail 09:37, 30 January 2007 (CST)

[understanding nod] --Revanche (admin) 16:46, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Why oh why…

…did it take so much effort to just get a simple silhouette to look perfect? *sighs* Anyway, your template is done. --Xoid 22:20, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Excellent! I'll start on the project page, then! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:48, 5 February 2007 (CST)

*bangs head against wall* …and now I notice that I just reinvented the wheel. --Xoid 22:22, 5 February 2007 (CST)

How so? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:48, 5 February 2007 (CST)

{{WikiProject Biography}} (yours) and {{WikiProject Biographies}} (mine). Personally, I think the plural fits current naming conventions better, hence my usage of it. Bear in mind that I didn't copy yours, I didn't even know it existed until I checked out recent changes and went "Oh. He already has one." --Xoid 15:32, 6 February 2007 (CST)

I thought that /might/ be it, but thought you knew about it and felt could do better. I incorporated your's into the Project already and intend to go back to the bios-in-progress to change them. So, concur with your assessment. Will you be able to add 'Shorty' shortly (bad pun intended)? Thanks for the craftsmanship. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Hope to see you back soon!

Best of luck with the military commitments -- we hope to see you back again soon! Nicjansma 00:46, 14 March 2007 (CDT) Good luck man and I hope you come home safelyCJKeys 00:53, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Inner Sphere Mechs are Done

After working on this for around seven months I am proud to announce that all of the mainstream Inner Sphere 'Mechs that have a TRO entry are finished. I know as the game goes on this will be a continuing process but now we are oficially ahead of the curve on the Inner Sphere 'Mechs and Im sure the Clan 'MEchs wont take too long. The Solaris VII 'Mechs are a creature unto themselves and once I actually buy Map Pack Solaris VII I will start working on those as I have already scanned images for them. I would like to congratulate the whole team. Without everyone here we woudlnt have ever gotten this far. So dont be suprised if you also get this on each of your discussion pages. CJKeys 00:53, 19 May 2007 (CDT)