User talk:Talvin

Direction Appreciated Award:

For assisting Allterboyant regarding his question on how to spotlight a potential need for an edit (via Discord), as well as encouraging their confidence in editing:

Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon

--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2022 (EST)

Thank you! I will pin it next to my Master Punster Ribbon...left that here somewhere...or maybe I left it on Dieron.... Talvin (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2022 (EST)

Humor and Orphanages

At risk of over-inflating your ego, I wanted to give you a second award, one which I have never seen bestowed on anyone, the Good Humor award: Good Humor Award, 1st ribbon. I lol'd at your comment on that accidental twitter reference, and that vibe is always appreciated.

The other thing I wanted to mention was that I had noticed your Project Orphanage, and I thought that was a super cool idea... Is there any way I can help out? It would be great to give some love to those pages that are floating around in the deep periphery, so to speak. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2022 (EST)

Thank you for both! Project Orphanage is a collaborative thing, and I have most of the pages marked "Permission to Edit" (I need to add that to all of them.) It is not an official project, so I keep it in my userspace, is all. I am *so* close to getting it down to where Special:LonelyPages will show all the orphans, not just the first thousand: when I started it ended in the E's, this morning it is in the early T's. As for how to help, plenty to choose from, this list is not exclusive:
  • Grab anything you see in the Miscellaneous section and work on paring them down. Some, like Battles and Planetary Governors, are just *tedious*, and sometimes you have to fix up the pages they need to be linked from. Some, like Deandra Lowe's many rides, I am at a loss. The Clan Loremasters would be quick and easy.
  • While User:Talvin/Project Orphanage/Wolf's Dragoons Roster is likely to just be with us for a long time (as of this writing, just over 1 in 39 pages on the Wiki are linked from that page, and I am not done yet), the spacecraft section up at the top is another one of those "tedious, but very achievable" goals for P:O.
  • This is a short list, but it is on its own page because it is very important (at least to me): User:Talvin/Project Orphanage/Orphaned Fiction We have some pages about fiction, primarily from the old Battlecorps site, that are not linked from anywhere. I know BrokenMnemonic has been trying to link some of them in, but I feel it is especially important that we put those forward, in hopes they eventually get reprinted and not forgotten.
  • Or look around and find something that interests you! Adopt an Orphan!
Talvin (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2022 (EST)

Removing Cleanup Tags

I am anticipating that someone is going to ask me this question, so I am going to be proactive and answer it ahead of time: why am I pulling {{cleanup}} tags off articles?

I am choosing articles to look at more or less at random from Category:Cleanup, that much is true, but my decision to pull the tag is not random. My process is as follows:

  1. Look at the article. Is it obvious on the face of it that it needs cleanup (as opposed to improved references, which is a more specific tag)? Then I leave it, or else work on it, as time and ability permit.
  2. Look at the talk page for that article. The tag template says "Please discuss this issue on the talk page" but, sadly, that is rarely done. If I find discussion of cleanup there, I go as with #1 above.
  3. Look at the history. How long ago in both time and number of times edited was that tag applied? Any notes in the revision summaries? If it is a recent add, I can reach out to the editor. If it is from 2014-2016, that's...pretty common. Seen them from 2009. I don't know what they were worrying about in 2009. I doubt they remember either.
  4. By now I have either figured out the problem, or I am just pulling the tag. If someone re-adds it, I am not going to get mad, I am just going to send them a message asking, "OK, can you explain the issue you see that I missed?"

As you can see, by now I have had to do a lot of detective work to figure out 11 characters on a page of text. If you are adding "cleanup" to an article, or any of the similar tags, please please PLEASE do us poor workhorse editors a favor and give a clue as to what bothered you about it. Thanks! Talvin (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2022 (EST)

Assistance Appreciated

A bit overdue, but I appreciate the help with a handful of to-do lists.

Assistance Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon

--Cache (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2022 (EST)

Thank you! You do a lot around here, and while I can't do your job, I do want to support you as I am able. --Talvin (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2022 (EST)

Images vice Bull Shark

I strongly recommend moving your initial talk posts to Policy Talk:Images, so that it is citable in later discussions. Your pitch can link to Bull Shark to highlight the example. (I'm speaking from experience, when it comes to re-finding old discussions.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:36, 8 March 2022 (EST)

Hmm. I was keeping it OUT of that for the moment because before I take it to a policy discussion, I want to have a solid example, and there are clearly several issues to work out. It feels more proper to keep discussions of how to improve the Bull Shark article (which is what we are doing to make it a good example) on that article's talk page. Also keeps random editors from saying "What is he doing?" and messing with it too much.--Talvin (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2022 (EST)
Aaaah, ok. Give it a go then.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:41, 8 March 2022 (EST)
Definitely once it's a good, solid, referenced page (because it had no references), I will be moving the big-scale policy discussion to where you suggest, and pointing to it as example.--Talvin (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2022 (EST)

Siege of Hesperus II (2853)

Very well done. Please accept this Superior Article Award for your work on Siege of Hesperus II (2853).

Superior Article Award, 1st ribbon

This was an article too long missing from Sarna.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:06, 14 March 2022 (EDT)

Removing the Stub Tags

As with the Cleanup tags above, I am going to be proactive in case someone comes looking to discuss this with me: I am not removing the "stub" or "sectionstub" tags on a whim. I do have a process:

  1. Is it a sectionstub tag for a Rules or Notes section? Section goes. We've had this conversation elsewhere, I feel safe doing that.
  2. Is it an established unit that is well-documented in other conflicts, but nothing is known of it in intervening years? Example: a DCMS unit active in the Fourth Succession War and the Clan Invasion has War of 3039 as a sectionstub? Leave it and move on.
  3. Is it a militia, conventional, or "ancient" unit that is cited in one or two works as being part of this or that event? Take a look at the text. If we have stated what is known, the stub tag is pointless. Yes, more may show up later, but we tend to mine new books for material, we don't need a stub tag for that.
  4. Is it a Clan Unit? OK, is it a frontline unit, or is it one of the Garrison Clusters? Treat Garrisons as Militia above. Otherwise consider carefully.
  5. Was the unit destroyed? If it is not a well-known unit, it was probably added just so we could see it being destroyed. It's cannon-fodder. Remove the tag.
  6. Does it have the Stub tag but what seems like a fair bit of material? Check the history and the discussion tabs. Somebody may have neglected to remove that tag after more material was added. If that looks likely, then remove the tag and add the usual summary.
  7. Is this about a character that appears to be a "one-line wonder", a minor character who got mentioned in one, maybe two related sourcebooks but never fully fleshed out? That's very common, and it doesn't call for a stub tag. Removing.

There are a couple thousand items marked either variety of "stub". Some are valid, some may never get another mention in canon. We have so many "stub" tags that nobody wants to dig through that category looking for things to do. Except me. I am going Don Quixote on this category, sorting giants from windmills, and the windmills will fall.--Talvin (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2022 (EDT)

8. Is it about a Real Person? Typically leave it alone, not any kind of expert on (most) of the real people behind BattleTech.
9. Is the character drawn from a novel? OK, unless I am familiar with the novel (and I have quite a few) I am going to leave it be. That may or may not be a "one-line wonder". Some of them I know they got scant mentions and I can say "No, really, that sums it up."

And other cases as I come across them.--Talvin (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2022 (EDT)

10. Oh yes. Is it a Description for Jump Jets? Just going to hide that section. They are Jump Jets. Different models don't usually get different descriptions, unless it is some weird LosTech or something. They all work the same. SectionStub is pointless, nothing coming on that score.--Talvin (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2022 (EDT)

Product Translations

Talvin, thanks for the link https://bg.battletech.com/forums/general-discussion/battletech-translated-into-how-many-(and-which)-languages/. I happened to stumble across this too when I consulted Professor Google. It is interesting that the question I asked in Category Talk:Foreign Language Editions was asked about 11 years ago by Frabby. It does yield some helpful info/leads (in particular it does indicate that there are a number of languages with at least one translation for some products.) Of course it also raises the question as to what may have changed in the past 11 years. I may continue to do a bit of web probing, but may also pose the question in Discord as well. --Dude RB (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

Wasn't sure if you had seen it or not, figured best to be safe. I finally managed to ID Frabby's Way of the Clans book as being from Taiwan, and a search for Robert Thurston in their ISBN database shows that the other two books in the trilogy are likely there as well. I have no clue if any others made it into Chinese, but you probably saw my explanation of my process on the Category talk page. Hope it helps!--Talvin (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (EDT)

House Arano Work

Talvin, you've been doing a ton of work to help make sure that the content from House Arano (The Aurigan Coalition) is accurately and fully represented in the wiki, in addition to showing exceptional leadership and initiative. There's been a lot of work needed, from getting missing information in to article revamps. Of your contributions in this vein, one of the biggest thus far has without question been your work on the Aurigan Coalition article. This award is well-deserved.

Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon

Thank you for your hard and tireless work!--KatiyaAdmiral8 (talk|contribs) 11:28, 30 March 2022 (EDT)

Thank you!--Talvin (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2022 (EDT)

"As of this writing"

I am seeing a lot of "As of this writing" and semantically similar phrases in articles. A number of them are from 2011, the early days of the Wiki. In the current context, with so much material coming out, it is problematic and potentially confusing to the reader. I want to do something with those, but I fear I do not have a clear answer for it. Any who pass by here: what would you suggest?

  • I could simply edit it to reflect when that was written, "As of 2011".
  • I could simply remove such mentions as superfluous. "As of this writing, the 5th Steiner Scout Lance have not appeared in any other works aside from Scenario Pack: Anti-Social Generals".
  • Just leave it, it's only bothering you, Talvin.
  • Something else.

Thoughts welcomed from any who pass by here.--Talvin (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2022 (EDT)

Family tree citations

Hey Talvin,

Just a heads up family trees do not get citations in the tree. They have an exception from the rule about citations where they rely on citations being included in the infobox of the linked character. The reason for this is down to the amount of code involved in the larger trees, we found that most users struggle with the tree code on its own, adding in citations as well made them unmanagable.--Dmon (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2022 (EDT)

OK. What about the redlinked ones, though? --Talvin (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2022 (EDT)
They are linked in the other family members infoboxes so it is ok. It is not a situation where we have no citations for the character relations at all.--Dmon (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2022 (EDT)
Just so I know for future, can you point me to where this policy is kept?--Talvin (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2022 (EDT)
It isn't, it is an informal consensus between the Admins that has never been written up as a policy since historically there has only ever been about three or four people who have actively worked on the trees. So I am letting you know now. I know it is something that you will absolutely loath with a passion, but go to one of the larger trees like House Marik, open the edit tab and look at the code, the trees are enormous even in the very stripped back form they take. --Dmon (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2022 (EDT)
"I know it is something that you will absolutely loath with a passion" I think that is rather overstating things. As for the consensus, I suggest putting a note in the Verifiability Policy or something so people have more than oral tradition to go on. And I do not find that page impossible to deal with, I could handle the citations easily enough. But if it would set too high a bar for the admins, I will just leave it alone.--Talvin (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2022 (EDT)

2827 Follow-up

Thanks.--Talvin (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2022 (EDT)

Naming within an article

Morning! Now, I'm still "new" to this "proper name casing" myself. Here's one thing I've realized: when linking to an article (in which we're de-capitalizing the subject), the wiki language automatically assumes the capitalization of the first letter; we don't have to worry about that. For example: your edit here.
You used "Composite internal structure" because that was what the article is named, but properly, you and I know it's actually supposed to be "composite internal structure". We could say [[Composite internal structure|composite internal structure]], but because of the above, we can get away with [[composite internal structure]] and it will auto-direct to [[Composite internal structure]] (and it will display as we intended).
Does that make sense? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:37, 29 June 2022 (EDT)