Talk:Bad Dream

This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Military Commands team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

About contracts

I find it useful to know for which employer the unit worked for different times. But that information is actual missing by most mercenaries units. How can I include the data in the current article?

neuling

I'd suggest putting the detail in the composition history. For example, the Bad Dream article has this line for 2821: "At this point in time the Bad Dream were a medium-weight unit stationed on New Wessex and operating at just below three-quarters of full strength." You could change that to "At this point in time, the Bad Dream were under contract to the DCMS, and were a medium-weight unit stationed on New Wessex, operating at just below three-quarters of full strength." BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2018 (EDT)

Careful there! That would amount to jumping to conclusions. Being stationed on New Wessex means exactly (only) that. It doesn't indicate a specific employer. Could be DCMS. Could be any noble or corporation. Could be ComStar. Heck, perhaps another faction briefly captured and garrisoned the world in 2831. Without additional information we simply don't know, so we shouldn't make something up. Frabby (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2018 (EDT)

In this case, the section of First Succession War that lists them as being stationed on New Wessex is the part of the deployment table on p. 137 entitled "Mercenary Combat Commands (DCMS)", so I'm confident they were in DCMS employ. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2018 (EDT)

Fair enough then. :) Frabby (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2018 (EDT)

I would say work it into the text of the unit history rather than into the composition section. The history section is about the units history after all and given that some editors kinda use era specific data as an excuse for data dumps we should encourage article writing (says the guy who is yet to write a decent article after more than a decade here..)--Dmon (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2018 (EDT)

That's a gripe I've always had with merc units (or any units really). They evolve; they aren't static. Any given desription is bound to be outdated sooner or later, and ultimately just a snapshot at a given time. I've yet to come up with a solid idea of how to deal with that. Frabby (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2018 (EDT)

I have been thinking for a while that it might be worth doing away with the Merc units infobox and moving them over onto the standard unit box as it is less "time sensetive" than the merc one. The commanding officer tables I have slowly been rolling out are also a better way to note the commanding officer than the main infobox as the are more flexible in this regard aswell.--Dmon (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2019 (EST).

I like the idea. The Infoboxes for merc units and state units are so similar that they should be merged into a single, unified "InfoBoxMilitaryUnit". Editing from my smartphone is a pain, but I may start something tomorrow. Frabby (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2019 (EST)

(Copied/moved discussion to Template talk:InfoBoxMercUnit#Merge with InfoBoxStateUnit to continue there.) Frabby (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2019 (EST)