Open main menu

BattleTechWiki β

User talk:ClanWolverine101/Archive 2012

< User talk:ClanWolverine101


Morning by myself or evening by you ;), please can you add a reference note to your last change on the article, thanks.--Doneve 20:03, 10 January 2012 (PST)

Good point. Done. ClanWolverine101 20:19, 10 January 2012 (PST)


Please explain to me what have you changed at the page, then I can decide. Tnx Neuling 12:56, 11 January 2012 (PST)

I haven't changed nothing important only better copies of the pictures and make the smaller by |150px. That are the only chances. Neuling 13:03, 11 January 2012 (PST)
Oh, I see it now. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 22:52, 11 January 2012 (PST)


  1. Create a page named User talk:ClanWolverine101/Archive1. "Archive1" can be any name you want.
  2. Copy all posts from your talk page (by opening the "edit" tab).
  3. Paste the posts on the Archive1 page.
  4. Save Archive1.
  5. Delete the copied posts from your talk page.
  6. Add a link to Archive1 at the top of your talk page. (ex: *[[User talk:ClanWolverine101/Archive1|Archive1]])

I think this little guide help.--Doneve 13:42, 11 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 14:16, 11 January 2012 (PST)


Hy CW, i think you saw Neuling's new creations, i dont know why he ignoring our reference policy, as example House Steiner refered as source ,i don't know i indicate this as the House Steiner and not the sourcebook House Steiner (The Lyran Commonwealth), i know its the source but other users don't know this, i talk so offten to him, and iam become really pissd of, he don't follow talks to him by help links etc., i don't disagree his work but the most is throwing in, and the most don't follow our wiki standard, i don't know what i can do, thanks.--Doneve 11:16, 14 January 2012 (PST)

I agree. His references are a complete mess on most of these "articles" he is putting together as well. I would suggest taking it to Frabby. ClanWolverine101 15:35, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Thanks.--Doneve 16:09, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Please take a look on Dmons talk page, i give a updated statement.--Doneve 16:57, 14 January 2012 (PST)

Plagarism and ApolyzeEdit

Hello Clan Wolverine I read your message that you wrote at Frappy page. I agree that I make mistakes in the past and apolyze to you and all the other admins. Please tell me which content is considered as plagarism and I will blanke the page immedatly and you can delete it later. I thought my work had improved to that level that is was accepted for that page but I was wrong. When necessary I will delete all my contributions to that site with the goal not to harm you. I await you awnser. Neuling 08:46, 18 January 2012 (PST)

I had corrected all Objectiv Raids to Objective Raids that I could find with the search option. Neuling 08:48, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Please continue this discussion at my talk page, so that it isn't spread over several different pages. Frabby 11:22, 18 January 2012 (PST)

3rd Davion GuardsEdit

Hy CW, i can't found any info in Objective Raids of the 3rd Davion Guards, can you give me a page number, or i have tomatos on my eyes, thanks.--Doneve 09:14, 19 January 2012 (PST)

Hello Doneve, you can find the information at page 19 in Objective Raids at the Ford Theater. Neuling 10:37, 19 January 2012 (PST)


I used the underconstruction banner to inform the user that changes to the site will happen. In my case it will be the addition of the different compositions from 3040 - 3050 - 3054 - 3059 til 3064 (it depends on the entries of the corresponding field manual which year excatly) 3067 - 3079. When you think it is unnecessary I will remove the banner and will also not include the underconstruction in my future addtions.Neuling 11:08, 20 January 2012 (PST)

Will these compositions match the format used elsewhere? ClanWolverine101 13:43, 20 January 2012 (PST)
No he don't match, but i fell i become a cleanup whore, to fix Neulings contributions.--Doneve 13:47, 20 January 2012 (PST)
Okay, Doneve let me know if i can help. ClanWolverine101 15:21, 20 January 2012 (PST)


Thanks for your support i appriciate this, but i think i stopp some talk to 1-2 members, your are not one of this (and some longe time memberships), we had a really good hand in hand work, but my question is? Why don't follow some members the wiki standard, we invest a lot of time to make sarna better and bring it up to one standard, i don't understand this, talk talk talk, and it bring's nothing, why we have a policy, and WikiProject talk page, i hope i'am not to raw of my writing, but i think you understand me, at my first steps on sarna i was blocked by Scaletail, but i follow Revs instructions and he bring me to this what i do on sarna and what i do on the wiki, i had Scaltail's view, talk, when you not talk to me and don't match any policy i undo this revisons, he was a good teacher, i set up a talk to Rev, i hope he correspondence when he found time.--Doneve 15:22, 21 January 2012 (PST)

I understand, Doneve. I'm hoping things will get better as Rev is able to devote more time to the wiki. ClanWolverine101 00:20, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Critique of Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth revisionEdit

Hey, CW101: I normally don't respond to talk page comments on the originator's talkpage, but since I've been off-site for a bit, I thought it appropriate to let you know I've written about your revisions here: Talk:Armed_Forces_of_the_Federated_Commonwealth. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:41, 21 January 2012 (PST)

House Kurita PicsEdit

Hy, have this link Temporary kurita gallery, when you create new House Kurita articles you have a litte gallery to use the images, Neuling uploaded all, and i added the pics to the articles, take a look on the Kurita bios, i removed some links from the gallery when i added it to the bios.--Doneve 13:27, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 20:15, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Fluff writingEdit

Hy CW can you take a look on the Jalastar Aerospace page, i started with minor fluff writing, and want some critical response, if its ok, thanks.--Doneve 17:45, 25 January 2012 (PST)

Composition UpdatesEdit

Hy Clan Wolverine, I will know if my formating is accepted by the other user for the composition section of the unit articles. Please give me your response about it. Tnx Neuling 10:47, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Give me an example. ClanWolverine101 10:50, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Example: one 17th Benjamin Regulars and two Davion Assault Guards Neuling 10:53, 29 January 2012 (PST)
The one for the Davion Assault Guards is okay with me, although I think too many indents were used. (That's an aesthetic issue.)
Regarding the Galedon Regulars, what you put for 3025 really doesn't add anything to the article, and cannot be referenced anyway. Yes, we may assume that the 17th used the standard organization structure at the time, but there is no reference used. People know what a "standard 'Mech regiment" is. ClanWolverine101 13:41, 29 January 2012 (PST)
I doesn't follow your argumentation because it stands exactly that the DCMS used for mech commands the regiment (House Kurita (The Draconis Combine) p.123 second column) structure and in the deployment table were two commands noted. The strength of the prefecture garrison count two. My thought is two commands = two regiment => every command equals 1 regiment (House Kurita (The Draconis Combine) p.137 "Kajikazawa Prefecture") and to finsish my argumentation the command is described as a heavy unit(House Kurita (The Draconis Combine) p.146). Neuling 14:10, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling - First of all, you are making a lot of assumptions. You are assuming the 17th didn't have any armor/infantry elements attached, something that was quite common even with DCMS regular units. Second, you cite the deployment tables. That means nothing. Deployment tables don't indicate exact size/composition. Deployment Tables from these (and most other books) exclusively refer to battlemech regiments. Third, just because the HK book presents the standard Kurita 'mech regiment structure doesn't mean that's what was precisely used. Finally, presenting a breakdown to the company level contributes nothing to the wiki. You don't know what nicknames (if any) those companies had, and you don't even know for the battalions. Because of this, you should scale back and present the material at the regimental level instead of presenting mere speculation. Thank you. ClanWolverine101 16:23, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Clan Wolverine, you doing me wrong for the entry of 3028. The entries for the single companies exits before I made my update of the composition. Take alook at the revision history - Version vom 30. december 2010, 04:21 Uhr - Dmon. I will think about it and provide the entry with an good formating. Neuling 02:43, 30 January 2012 (PST)
Fair enough. I apologize for that. I still think the company breakdown should be removed. I also think if solid info doesn't exist for a specific year (3067?) it should simply be stripped out. Also: When you say there are "Nine heavy companies" that's not quite accurate. We know that it is considered a heavy regiment. A more precise breakdown is unavailable? ClanWolverine101 07:11, 30 January 2012 (PST)
When I consider the entries of 3059 with the entries of 3067 I see clear differences. For me the technology level are solid informations. Within the seven years some of the commanders changed. And take for an example the the Davion Assault Guards. The command could rise its expierence level to Elite. I think that is the work worth.Neuling 07:37, 30 January 2012 (PST)
My point is if there is no significant new material, it looks rather sparse. ClanWolverine101 09:34, 30 January 2012 (PST)
You hit the nail :)--Doneve 19:48, 4 February 2012 (PST)

Garth RadickEdit

I'm back in the saddle. Garth Radick is up for approval. ClanWolverine101 14:26, 8 February 2012 (PST)

Simply WowEdit

Congratulations on your second win of the Founder's Superior Writer of the Year Award! While it is most deserved, I think you're continuing to set a baseline that will be difficult to match. Good job, man. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:26, 12 February 2012 (PST)

Thanks! Thanks to you and others for making it possible! ClanWolverine101 08:52, 13 February 2012 (PST)

2nd Royal GuardsEdit

For your approval - 2nd Royal Guards have been rewritten. ClanWolverine101 19:52, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Moore's BanditsEdit

This merc unit exist, i found some on the BattleForce rulebook on page 72, i add some citations to the article.--Doneve 15:21, 16 February 2012 (PST)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 18:18, 16 February 2012 (PST)


Hello ClanWolverine101, during the upadtes of the composition sections of the various units I discover that a few commands hanven't their own site. My goal was to put the initial load at the site like a the 1st Lyran Regulars. I talk to doneve about the topic. I will add more content during the weekend. Neuling 19:57, 16 February 2012 (PST)

Okay. I'm writing the First Lyran Regulars article myself. Feel free to add to the others. ClanWolverine101 22:37, 16 February 2012 (PST)

1st Lyran RegularsEdit

1st Lyran Regulars are rewritten. I don't suppose their emblem was ever published? ClanWolverine101 17:51, 22 February 2012 (PST)

Ducal GuardsEdit

Ducal Guards are up. I did something differently, here. There is no where near enough info to justify writing an article for each command. So I wrote a brigade page with each unit described, including game notes. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 13:37, 23 February 2012 (PST)

Now a great article, but i prefer we add the game notes to the <rules> <game rules> section and adding a infobox of the command, but this my point of view, really good work i want more :).--Doneve 13:43, 23 February 2012 (PST)
Interesting. Want to take a shot at editing my work? I knew the game notes issue would be controversial. ClanWolverine101 13:44, 23 February 2012 (PST)
No problem, i think we wait for other responses.--Doneve 13:47, 23 February 2012 (PST)
You write a good article. I missing only the general composition a Ducal Guard command (Brush Wars p.129) and also the ratings for expierence/equipment/loyality for each unit (Brush Wars p.35). Neuling 13:55, 23 February 2012 (PST)
I'm inclined to agree with Doneve - it seems to be a consistent format here on Sarna that game rules go in a seperate section of an article, whether in unit articles or equipment/weapon/construction articles. If that's going to change, I'd prefer it to be nailed down before Historical: Liberation of Terra comes out and gives us rules for tiny sub-units... like Divisions. I'd be inclined to treat the Ducal Guard rules the same way I would any other unit where the sub-units have different rules from each other. If it was a merc regiment of 3 battalions where each battalion had different rules, I'd still write a single game notes section at the end of the article before the references and bibliography, but I'd include the rules as bullet points by battalion.
As a minor point... is there a reason you use numeric nomenclature for the various guard units in the text (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) but switch to alphabetic within the rules sections (First, Second, Third, etc)? BrokenMnemonic 14:02, 23 February 2012 (PST)
I have no problem if someone wants to go and change it. In my mind, the aesthetics of eight separate game notes boxes was troubling. I would suggest a single box.
Regarding the alpha/numeric terms, I tried to write each unit section as I would a separate article. Its current policy that we use the numeric term the first time the unit is named (1st Ducal Guards) and then spell it out in all subsequent mentions (First Ducal Guards). If I got away from that at some point, then we can fix it. But that's where I was coming from. ClanWolverine101 18:01, 23 February 2012 (PST)
Changes made. Take a look. ClanWolverine101 21:31, 23 February 2012 (PST)

Delta RegimentEdit


Wolf Dragoon's battlesEdit

Hello ClanWolverine101, I read that you wrote Doneve's Wolf's Dragoons battles article above. I was the creator of the article, Doneve was so nice to improve my work with his copyedits. Take a look at the history section and you understand my comment. Neuling 22:22, 29 February 2012 (PST)

Sorry Neuling - It was bad info. ClanWolverine101 09:22, 1 March 2012 (PST)

Update Needed tagEdit

Hi CW. You may have wondered why I rolled back your "Update Needed" tagging on the 7th Crucis Lancers. The truth is that I fumbled my Smartphone and rolled back the wrong entry - I meant to roll back the Lindon's Company tagging. Anyways, I wanted to raise the issue of why I did this: On the Lindon's Company article, a major section is devoted to their fight with the Black Widows which, by inference, took place around 3025-3028. What exactly was the part of the Wolf's Dragoons sourcebook that prompted you to add the "Update Needed" tag to the article? And why didn't you just add the relevant information instead?
This is not against you personally; rather, I have a problem with the "Update Needed" tag and how it is used. By now, I'm at a point where I want to remove that template completelly. I invite you to perhaps answer to my rant at Template talk:Update Needed#Do we need this?. :) Frabby 23:32, 1 March 2012 (PST)

Totally understood. I respond to your concerns at the Template Talk page. ClanWolverine101 07:59, 2 March 2012 (PST)

Kathleen DumontEdit

Kathleen Dumont is up - I make some bold conclusions here. I've actually posted the issue to the CBT forums. Please give it a look. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 22:30, 3 March 2012 (PST)

While I cannot comment on your conclusions (as I am un-versed in Dumont), I think the way you handled it was the best. You described the inconsistency, provided your best solution and explained why and didn't leave it up to the reader to determine what it was that was overwritten. All-in-all a best possible solution. I did change the name of Discrepancies to Notes, to better fit in how similar issues are handled on other articles.
Please tell me you wrote that whole article elsewhere before bringing it over here! Too many times my browser has failed between saves; I don't want to imagine the discouragement at losing such a long and well-crafted article.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
Yeah, I actually do most of my work with notepad. Less formatting issues that way! ClanWolverine101 18:53, 13 March 2012 (PDT)

11th Lyran RegularsEdit

11th Lyran Regulars has been rewritten. There are inconsistencies from a passage of Imminent Crisis that probably merit a follow-up. ClanWolverine101 12:54, 11 March 2012 (PDT)

Unfinished Book Project: New AvalonEdit

Afternoon, CW. You previously indicated an interest in helping out with the UBP. I've just completed my writing for Jihad Turning Points: Luthien and, with lessons learned, am starting a new mission for Jihad Turning Points: New Avalon. I'm trying to organize the process a bit more and am testing an idea out for New Avalon. I was hoping you'd take a look here and then go into the first assignment ("The Show Must Go On", link provided there) as a Research Writer. I figure if that works well, you & I can swap off as writers and checkers for each other for the remaining new Avalon assignments. Please let me know. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:53, 12 March 2012 (PDT)

Rev - Its very interesting. Can you show me an example of the finished product? Maybe with the JTP: Luthien project? ClanWolverine101 19:44, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
Sure, I kinda mocked up something I did for JTP: Luthien here. If you turn to page 11 of JTP: Luthien, the "Damnation" track, you can follow along with the steps below.
Now, in reality, I was both the fact checker and the research writer, and Doneve will be my editor. Ideally, however, the checker and the writer are two different people, and for the sake of this demo, I'll refer to their roles:
  1. The Mission Lead prepares the Section Assignment ("Damnation") page.
  2. The Fact Checker:
    1. Reviews the assigned source section (Jihad Turning Points: Luthien, p. 11, "Damnation")
    2. Determines the primary article to be written (if any; in this case Second Battle of the Takashi Memorial Spaceport), and then every other subject (within the source material) that could be used to expand exisiting articles or to start new ones.
    3. He records these (as links) on his assignment graph ("Fact Checker: Articles Links).
    4. He should also include articles that are not directly mentioned in the source material, but definitely have interest. For example, in this case: Battle of Luthien & Luthien.
    5. He writes notes to the writer to explain his additions, concerns, etc.
  3. The Research Writer:
    1. Also reviews the assigned source section, becoming familiar with the articles to which the checker has linked.
    2. He then writes complete articles (when not yet in existence) or appropriate 'blurbs' (for articles that do exist).
    3. He cites the source material for each one.
    4. The writer is not expected to pursue other source materials, but may if interested. (The purpose is to get everything from the assigned source, in this case JTP: Luthien.)
    5. As the writer becomes more familiar with the source, he may decide to add additional articles to be expanded/added.
    6. As he completes each article, he adds them to his assignment graph ("Research Writer: Articles Completed").
    7. If the Writer started a new article, he adds the UBP tag ({{WikiProject UnfinishedBook|tr=new}}) to the Discussion tab.
    8. Provides additional comments, if necessary.
  4. The Fact Checker:
    1. As the Writer completes an article, the Checker reviews the edits (via article history) to ensure both are on the same 'page' as to what needs to be included.
    2. If the Checker sees something the Writer missed, he may choose to add it himself or discuss it with the Writer.
    3. Once an article has been reviewed, the Checker posts it on his second assignment graph ("Fact Checker: Articles Reviewed").
    4. Provides additional comments, if necessary.
  5. The Copy Editor:
    1. As the Checker adds an article to his second assignment graph, the Editor is free to copy-check the whole article for formatting, spelling errors, citations, categorization, genre consistency, etc. (per the Manual of Style policies), making corrections where necessary.
    2. When done with a newly created article, the Editor removes the "|tr=new" parameter from the tag on the Discussion tab.
    3. Adds that 'completed' article to his assignment graph ("Copy Editor: Articles Edited").
  6. The Mission Lead:
    1. follows the process,
    2. updating the mission percentage status as appropriate
    3. and conferring with the Project Lead (me) for guidance when needed.
Wow, this turned out to be quite the step-by-step reasoning. I may steal it to add to the overall project page.
Per your request, an example of a 'finished product' would be the new article Second Battle of the Takashi Memorial Spaceport and a pre-existing article would be Battle of Luthien (Jihad) (see edits of 11 March). Of course, the 'real' completed products are each and every article/page updated with the material from "Damnation".
Does this help?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:17, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
It does!
Its an ambitious project. Were you looking to plow through it, or a little at a time? I'm away from home on business right now, but maybe next week I could begin. ClanWolverine101 17:03, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
It is ambitious (hence the Unfinished Book title), but the value is in what we do complete, section by section, title by title.
The first mission (completed today) took just over two years to complete. But, then again, the method of data-mining was being developed and I was essentially doing it myself, as time allowed. My ultimate goal is to have more than one section being worked on at a time, which requires proven research writers (such as yourself) working independently of each other. Doneve and select others can do the fact-checking and copy-editing (prep- and post-work), so I'm thinking -if you come on board- you and I can split up for the third mission (what ever that may be) and then maybe take on two different missions after that.
Do what you need to do and get my attention when you're ready to proceed. There's absolutely no rush. I want to train you on the writing side first and then the fact-checking, so you get the nuance of being able to critically analyze what the other team member is doing. Enjoy the travel.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:57, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
Rev - Okay, I think I'm ready to try it. How about we start with one scenario, and go from there? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 12:29, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
Sounds good, CW. Normally, we work from front-to-back, but I think doing one of the tracks will be a good chance for you to spot the inter-article nuances. I'll be your Fact Checker, Doneve will be the Copy Editor. I'll get back to you when the assignment is ready.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:43, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
Here ya go. I give some 'guidance' on the talk page.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

James McFarlandEdit

James McFarland is up. ClanWolverine101 18:43, 22 March 2012 (PDT)


Sourbug is up. They will eat you!!! ClanWolverine101 16:40, 26 March 2012 (PDT)

Terry McQuinnEdit

Terry McQuinn is up. ClanWolverine101 20:19, 29 March 2012 (PDT)

Sarah WeiszEdit

Sarah Weisz is up. I love my Dragoons. ClanWolverine101 19:11, 5 April 2012 (PDT)

Travis KingEdit

Travis King is up. Another minor character. ClanWolverine101 21:46, 16 April 2012 (PDT)

External Links ExampleEdit

Narimasa Asano's Age ClanWolverine101 20:11, 20 April 2012 (PDT)

UBP ResponseEdit

Sorry!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:05, 26 April 2012 (PDT)

Narimasa AsanoEdit

Hy, her the image links File:Narimasa Asano.jpg, File:Narimasa Asano 1.jpg, File:Narimasa Asano 2.jpg.--Doneve 04:03, 27 April 2012 (PDT)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 10:14, 27 April 2012 (PDT)

Narimasa Asano ArticleEdit

Narimasa Asano is up. I actually didn't think he would take terribly long, but it turned into a bear. ClanWolverine101 17:17, 6 May 2012 (PDT)

Hey! Watch it Mister! No slamming bears! :)--Mbear(talk) 04:29, 7 May 2012 (PDT)
It had giant teeth! It had claws named "every novel Michael Stackpole wrote"! I lured it out of its cave, and... you know what? I had something for this. ClanWolverine101 06:25, 7 May 2012 (PDT)
Impressive writeup! Though to be perfectly honest, it's probably too long. There's too much information there that belongs (only) in the article about the Genyosha and has little to do with Narimasa Asano as a character. Though I reckon it's better to have too much information than too little. And you did a very good job on the references. Frabby 08:56, 7 May 2012 (PDT)
I see your point. I think in my case, I look at a bio and it says "So-and-so fought in the Ronin Wars" and my reaction is "What did they do???" I'm totally fine backing it off a little. ClanWolverine101 09:01, 7 May 2012 (PDT)

Battle of McCarel FarmEdit

Battle of McCarel Farm is up. ClanWolverine101 21:26, 12 May 2012 (PDT)

It looks like you managed to create a double redirect with the Harold McCarel --> Mc Carel Farm --> Battle of McCarel Farm. This is bad since the redirecting stops after this first one, so that redirection chain should be avoided. I have no suggestion on how to restructure it, however. (I would have fixed it myself otherwise.)

--Neufeld 22:36, 12 May 2012 (PDT)

I'll fix it. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 23:48, 12 May 2012 (PDT)

Warhammer ImageEdit

Hy CW here is the image link File:Delta Regiment Warhammer.jpg.--Doneve 04:43, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 09:36, 1 June 2012 (PDT)


Delta Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons)Edit

Delta Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) is up. Obviously, a lot of work went into this one.
As usual, thanks go out to Doneve, who uploaded several images that were ultimately used. Obviously, the pics add a lot to this article, and keep it from becoming just a mindless block of text.
One of my goals with this project was to improve upon the design of my Alpha Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) article. To that end, I've streamlined several processes, most notably the reference tags, using what's become the accepted approach. In short, I updated my own style. While it took a lot of time, I think it went okay.
As you can see above, I've written a number of articles about Delta's commanding officers and so on. This means I can reuse some of that material when I write a comprehensive article like this one. As it turned out, the writing still needed to be massaged, but if that wasn't the case, I would have been doing something wrong. Nevertheless, its easier to write a bunch of small articles before trying to put together a beast like this.
When I decided to write comprehensive articles on each of the WD regiments, I always knew Alpha would be my first and Delta my second. There were two reasons, there: First, Delta has a lot of extra material on it from its involvement in the Coventry campaign. Second, Delta avoided the Dragoon Civil War/Elson's Challenge (popularized in Wolf Pack). That particular event will prove very difficult to cover, as it exists only in broad terms in the sourcebooks and we only get certain perspectives in the WP novel. But that's a talk for another day.
For now, please enjoy reading about Delta Regiment. Thanks, and I look forward to your feedback. ClanWolverine101 16:08, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

Very impressive article CW! Certainly one of the most thorough on the entire wiki. The only thing I can see that I can nitpick at on any level is the Officers section.. I personally like the officers section to be very bare bones and straight to the point (who was in charge and how long) with the actual officers article providing all back ground detail. However this is just my preference rather than a criticism of your work as such. So very well done. --Dmon 16:43, 1 June 2012 (PDT)
I see your point. I think I was looking at making a segway into the important roles other characters have played. Like how Morgan Kell used to be in the Skye Guards and Frederick Steiner was with the Lyran Regulars before he commanded the 10th Lyran Guards. But I see it both ways. ClanWolverine101 17:06, 1 June 2012 (PDT)
I read it and liked it as well, the article covered everything and was organized perfectly. I liked the Narimasa Asano article a lot too.
Also, when writing articles, I also feel the need to provide some info on certain names dropped, but only just enough of the right details. The bio of the mentioned character, or planet, or historical article is the master copy of everything known, but details used that are also in related articles are a good thing. For example, I have not read the Dragoon stuff as deeply as you have, and everything I have read about them (mostly Wolves on the Border and Wolf Pack and a handful of short stories) I have not read in a long time. I loved them, but I required the refresher tidbits accompanying the names and places in this article. They make it more accessible to a much broader spectrum of readers, though it is a long page for the effort. It's a good read all in all so that didn't bother me.
There are always exceptions, though. I'll still probably need to go back and tone down some side detail stuff on the Coyote article (all the reaving stuff), just for example, but for now that one is the road map through the Wars of Reaving so being long winded was to everyone's advantage until the other 5k related articles get written. --Rebs 14:55, 2 June 2012 (PDT)
I totally understand. I ran into the same problem myself when I put together the AFFC article. I would suggest writing a few smaller but significant articles first, then decide what bits to use. You can use that "Main Article" tage as well. ClanWolverine101 18:25, 2 June 2012 (PDT)

Great research, excellent referencing. This is the stuff we need on BTW!
That said, I couldn't bring myself to say "great article" because it is way too long for my taste, and also too wordy, too poetic. This is of course just my personal opinion, and I already made a similar comment above regarding the Narimasa Asano article. I like dry, brief, informative articles. You like writing well-referenced sourcebooks. I'd like to point out that the article, copied into Word without the references, came out at over 10k words. This is twice the recommended length for a BattleCorps story subscription! Frabby 13:58, 17 June 2012 (PDT)

I should totally be on BC's payroll....
I'm kidding. Thanks for your comments. I am debating trimming the article into some sub-articles, like battles for individual planets. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 17:58, 17 June 2012 (PDT)
If I could answer again... If I tried to trim down Stephen McKenna, it would lose a lot. He had a lot of source material in Op Klondike (Because the Wolverine stuff was supposedly incomplete), he had more room to act than most Khans. Also, most information about the Wolverine parts of history are through the Snow Ravens and him. I was dreading writing his article too, but I had no idea it was going to be longer than Jerome Winson's article by a third! As for Narimasa Asano, I really do think that your article is good as it is. Ultimately, it's up to you, I would never edit someone's style out of writing, even though we are supposed to be stylistically neutral. --Rebs 18:12, 19 June 2012 (PDT)

2nd GhostEdit

2nd Ghost has been written. It took me awhile to recover from the Delta Regiment project. Enjoy. ClanWolverine101 14:05, 18 July 2012 (PDT)

Fanon ImagesEdit

Mbear - Why the fanon images? Just had to ask. ClanWolverine101 10:41, 17 August 2012 (PDT)

Mostly to save Dirk Bastion a lot of work. :) He's categorizing them, and since the images of rank insignia are mostly mine, I didn't think it fair to dump all that on him.--Mbear(talk) 05:03, 20 August 2012 (PDT)

Thank you so much for your help! Dirk Bastion 10:57, 17 August 2012 (PDT)

What I meant was, why are we uploading images that aren't canon? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 20:56, 3 September 2012 (PDT)

Patrick ChanEdit

Patrick Chan is up. ClanWolverine101 20:52, 3 September 2012 (PDT)

Hot Spots ImageEdit

Hy CW101, which name can i give the image, have you any idea.--Doneve 02:45, 5 September 2012 (PDT)

"Branth" ClanWolverine101 10:07, 5 September 2012 (PDT)
File:Branth.jpg--Doneve 02:52, 6 September 2012 (PDT)
Thanks! ClanWolverine101 11:13, 14 September 2012 (PDT)

Severen LerouxEdit

Severen Leroux is up. I think I did a good job on this one. As usual, thanks to Doneve for the pics. ClanWolverine101 22:41, 19 September 2012 (PDT)

I read it through fairly carefully I think. It's a great Clan Bio, the Operation Revival Khans (and characters in general) are not that easy to do. Lots of sources, and sometimes old ones are in contradiction to newer ones, ideas get dropped or morphed and spun with the needs of the continuing story arc, etc. I know the Dragoons are Clan too, but it's nice to see more Clan articles, and the Nova Cats need more articles anyway. Thanks for helping out with pointers and direction and those all-important proofreads, those are important too. Accept this 7th All Purpose award for all things mentioned in this ramble. --Rebs 00:25, 20 September 2012 (PDT)
Thanks, Rebs! I really like your articles, too. ClanWolverine101 08:11, 20 September 2012 (PDT)

General QuestionEdit

Hey CW. I've been working on the nearly-impossible: Marthe Pryde. I'm probably two thirds through it. Any suggestions? --Rebs (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2012 (PDT)

Well, obviously the JF novels will go a long way, as well as a smattering of appearances in the Mike Stackpole/Loren Coleman books. Its definitely an ambitious project. About a year ago I considered re-writing Morgan Kell's article, but gave up in frustration. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2012 (PDT)
I actually found a lot of stuff by following other articles (like Twycross, and Falcon Incursion), which is what I usually do, but on a smaller scale than this. Almost done. --Rebs (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2012 (PDT)
That's well and good. But not all those articles are well-referenced. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2012 (PDT)
Right, got to be careful about that! But the other articles at least lead me to the sources I seek.--Rebs (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2012 (PDT)

Kathleen HeanyEdit

Kathleen Heany is up. For your approval. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2012 (PDT)

Dude, seriously?Edit

CW, I'm confused. If you have TRO:3026R open to find information about the Avalon Hussars and the Manatee, why didn't you just put it in the article instead of adding the update needed tag?--Mbear(talk) 05:56, 29 October 2012 (PDT)

I'm using the tags to remind myself so I can go back and write it up properly. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2012 (PDT)
Ah. OK. I was just confused because I saw a few of those and thought: "Wait, there's just one sentence in here. Why didn't he just do it?" but your answer makes sense. (I'm just nervous because that list only seems to get bigger, no matter how fast I work.)--Mbear(talk) 05:41, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
I understand, and I know some people think the tags are an eye sore. But I like putting them all in there and then putting together something cohesive. Go look at the 4th Skye Rangers article. Lots of tags there, and I probably put most them up. But I'm thinking I want to rewrite much (if not all) of the article, incorporating that material. Its just my own perspective. Also - I blew through the 3025 and 3026 revised TROs looking for citable info. Its just how my mind was operating that night. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2012 (PDT)

conflict infoboxEdit

Have a look at User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest. Am I on the right track?--Mbear(talk) 06:49, 30 October 2012 (PDT)

FANTASTIC! Yes, that's exactly what I'm hoping for! One more thing: Can we place a pic at the top of the box, like they do with classic RL battles on wikipedia? Thank you so much! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
This box... will it be the proper one to use on all battle articles in the future? Just inquiring. --Rebs (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
I hope so. We don't need separate infoboxes for wars/battles/conflicts - I would very much prefer a single InfoBox which I suggest should be named "InfoBoxConflict". Frabby (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2012 (PDT)
My plan is to get this one up and running the way we want, then just replacing the existing template with the updated content. I do NOT plan on duplicating work by having two infobox templates for battles/wars. That's just a maintenance nightmare.
On another note I'm not sure I see the point of the images at the top of the infobox, but I'll look into it.
Also, adding faction icons is possible but a lot more complicated than I thought. (Turns out the two/three column layout stuff is much easier.)--Mbear(talk) 06:54, 31 October 2012 (PDT)
OK. Added support for image. Please have a look at the User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest page to see what's up.--Mbear(talk) 10:52, 31 October 2012 (PDT)
... that's so beautiful I want to cry. Its perfect, Mbear. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2012 (PDT)
No exaggeration there. Very nice. --Rebs (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2012 (PDT)

CW, please have a look at User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest. I've got a prototype for the updated infobox up and running. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 07:26, 2 November 2012 (PDT)

Mbear - I like it a lot. I don't think I could ask for more. My only concern is if we try to apply this box to the entire Battle of Luthien (of the Jihad era). That would be a four or five way fight, depending on if you counted the Nova Cats as part of the DCMS loyalists. But really - doing that would be absurd. I think what you've done is excellent. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2012 (PDT)

Stanford BlakeEdit

Stanford Blake is up for approval. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2012 (PST)

Semier Data TronEdit

I just wanted to drop you a line because I've deleted the update needed tag from Semier Data Tron for Objectives: Lyran Alliance from the article. I updated it with detail from Handbook: House Steiner, but I've crawled through O:LA and I can't find any mention of the company whatsoever - although it does talk about DropShip manufacturing in the Lyran Alliance having been absolutely hammered during the Jihad. Jihad Turning Points: Tharkad indicates that the plant was encircled by Blakist divisions and then comprehensively bombarded from orbit, so I'm guessing that it's been destroyed... but I wanted to check that there wasn't something you were aware of that I'd missed that justified the update needed tag. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (PST)

BM - I get what you are saying. My reasoning for including that citation is this: Since SDT is not even mentioned in Objectives: Lyran Alliance, it strongly implies that it was never rebuilt, nor are there plans to do so. You'll notice throughout the Objectives series, many inactive manufacturing centers are mentioned if their reopening is even being planned. So it seemed relevant that it was absent. I'm fine with you dropping the tag. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2013 (PST)
While I get what you're saying, I think we're on dicey ground if we start drawing conclusions from things not being mentioned in publications - in the case of Semier Data Tron, I think it'd be better to ask a question over in the Ask The Writers section if you're worried about the absence of the company being either significant or a mistake. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (PST)

TharHes IndustriesEdit

In a similar vein to Semier Data Tron above, I've removed the tag on TharHes Industries for Masters & Minions because I can't find anything related to the company in the book, even though I searched by company name, controlling family name and went through the entries and details on the three planets the company was based on (Arc-Royal, Tharkad and Eutin Prime). If I've missed something, let me know what you were looking at and I'll go back and add the detail in. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (PST)

It serves me right for not attaching a comment on the post. I vaguely recall mention of something produced on Arc-Royal that would have been the TH facility. (Though TH wasn't named, as you've said.) As I can't find it, I'm totally okay with you dropping the tag. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (PST)
Return to the user page of "ClanWolverine101/Archive 2012".