Open main menu

BattleTechWiki β

User talk:Dmon

ArchivesEdit

CurrentEdit

Deletion requestEdit

Hello Dmon, can please delete all my pages in the list below. I decide for myself to delete all the old stuff and for new stuff in the future I will communicate about the topics with the admins and other user. My goal is cooperation and not like in the past single work without proper quality. neuling

RanksEdit

I've started a review about the information available for the in-universe rank structure, and I imagined, there are several ranks which are user very differently depending on the country (roughtly what happens with regular real army). For example, in the Castillan Principalities a "Captain" is called "Major", and commands a company of troops, while for many other countries a Major is a Battalion leader... Which is the suggested way to work throught this? A "disambiguation page" like the one existing for Commander? That said, I'm fairy sure now Major is called in several pages and moving the page could be a pain to track via wiki. Any suggestions?--Pserratv (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2019 (EST)

And on top of that, only seen in twice, rank ÖverCaptain, means more than captain, in Battletech something like a Battalion Leader... the term is swedish and hard to pinpoint... it is used only in the Arms of Thor mercenary unit...--Pserratv (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2019 (EST)
I think the easiest way to handle this one is to keep it super simple. A Major is still a Major and the article reflects this:

"Depending on the faction, officers holding this rank typically command battalions or act as the executive officer of a larger formation. They also act as staff officers, handling logistics, intelligence, etc. for their units."

So the line in the article under Castillan Principalities would state that a Major commands a Company in their armed forces and Comandante and ÖverCaptain have their own small articles. Failing that, the hard way is to trigger a review of the whole system and restructure tge parent article to be Battallion Commander and have various ranks redirect there and make use of stuff like "Captain (CP)  # Battalion Commander # Castillan Principalities | Captain." That does seem like a nightmare though.--Dmon (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2019 (EST)
If ÖverCaptain does essentially mean Battalion Leader it could be fitted into the Major article under "Other Factions > Arms of Thor" possibly, simply because "Over Captain is well... The rank above a Captain :-p .--Dmon (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I think this is a real-world problem that spilled over into BattleTech, and not a BT-specific problem. For example, took me ages to realize that a US Lieutenant is the functional equivalent of a present-day German Hauptmann (Captain), while the German Leutnant is the equivalent of a US Ensign. Check Wikipedia for military ranks in NATO (the O-somethings). Frabby (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I fully agree this is a real think: every army has its own ranks, and as battletech ranks were made thinking on basic actual Military ranks... this gets crazy. What I'll do is create Major (Castillan Principalities) as a redirect to the captain page, and treat overcaptain as you said. And then I'll review ranks and ranks and enjoy it.--Pserratv (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2019 (EST)
Indeed it is a very much real world problem that has spilled over, I very strongly think that Major (Castillan Principalities) is the wrong way to do this unless we plan to update every single rank on the entire wiki though.--Dmon (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2019 (EST)
The reason to do this major think is because all ranks in that page which are major redirect to Major (Commander, Sho-sa...). And to redirect Major to Captain for the Castillian Principalities I thought a redirect was also needed and created it this way.--Pserratv (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2019 (EST)
You need to stop thinking of Major automaticcaly commands a Battalion. A major from the CP is still a Major, the difference is that major only commands a Company not a Battalion. The CP is still called a major... And the Major article is about the rank Major, not specifically the command of Battalion sized units.. If that makes any sense at all.--Dmon (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2019 (EST)
I have edited Captain#Castillan Principalities to reflect how I think we should handle this rather than try to explain.--Dmon (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (EST)
Though I like the way you have remade that part, I feel it should still say that rank in Castillan Principalities is known as Major. That said, let me explain the reason behind creating Major (Castillan Principalities). For the Captain rank for which it is equivalent, we have these redirect links:

So for me it made sense to create Major (Castillan Principalities)... same way as we should have Captain-General (HSF) as this rank is a Leftant General in the Hanseatic League--Pserratv (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2019 (EST)

You kind of missed the point I was making, The rank of captain is not known as a Major, because the rank is Captain. All those other names are based on being equivalent ranks based on position but if you read the rank articles they use a lot of words like "usually", "typically". A Captain (CP) is not an equivalent rank, it is the same rank, the place it occupies within a TO&E structure is technically irrevelent. If the article was called Company commander then Major (CP) would be appropriate as that is the position.
This whole thing is a hot mess but so it is in real life. Ranks, Titles and Positions are all heavily linked but they can be seperated until we get to the really high levels.
Given the Mercentile aspects of a HSF Captain-General I feel that to call it a Leftant General is also incorrect as the position sounds a lot more involved than just the commander of troops..--Dmon (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2019 (EST)
I've used the Field Manual: Periphery, p. 14 "Periphery Comparative Rank Table". My understanding while reading it is that what in "Castillan Principalities" is called Major, the Umayyids say Amir kabir and the Lyrans say Hauptmann, so they are named differently though they all represent a Captain. That said, they might command more or less people, but they are the same.--Pserratv (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2019 (EST)
But that's the question, isn't it - you've got the word (captain), and you've got the meaning (commander of a company), and they don't always align. Maybe we should look for an abstract real-world style ranking system. Then again, who knows if all factions could even be made to work with that single sheet. And that's before merc units and their ranks (or sometimes lack thereof) even comes into play... Frabby (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2019 (EST)
What I tried to use was the official BattleTech table: Periphery Comparative Rank Table, where it tries to explain how to compare ranks, in order to align them, I mean, in terms of "power", or for a joint-force, for example during Operation Serpent. For me those tables try to explain how ranks are aligned.--Pserratv (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2019 (EST)


Drop down listEdit

Hello Dmon, it is possible to include drop down list [drop down list] at sarna?. With best regards neuling.

I have not actually seen a proper dropdown list on the site (or any other wiki I use), I think the closest we have is scroll boxes. What are you planning to use them for as I might be able to find something to help even if not proper dropdown lists.--Dmon (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2019 (EST)
Do you perchance mean a table like this one here: DropShip#Manufacturing? (I've been pondering if that format would be good for the List of BattleTech products, but that's for another discussion.) Frabby (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2019 (EST)
Interesting find there Frabby, It gives me idea... Dmon/Navbox test--Dmon (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2019 (EST)
I think I found a proper solution. You can take a look at my notes site Neuling#Drop Down. What is your opinion about it and how we can make a good use of it? Neulinng
Ah yes that is pretty much the effect I was trying to get but due to being on my phone editing wikicode is a real chore.--Dmon (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2019 (EST)
It looks nice, but tables of any sort always have two problems: They may not work properly in all browsers (and be a nightmare on smartphones); and - this is my concern about the product list in particular - they make very long articles yet longer, by essentially creating a database-style article. If we begin to include individual novels and Epubs in the master product list, it's going to be a very very long (and ever growing) article to begin with. Making it into a sortable database might run into problems sooner or later. But I'm a technical noob, so maybe someone with actual knowledge may have something enlightening to say on the matter. Frabby (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (EST)
I agree that tables are problematic and should only really be used under certain circumstances. As it is I think the product list is quite good considering just how much we have crammed in there. Making the lists sortable is a great idea and easy to implement with minimum effort but after having a tinker with the code adding dropdown (turns out the proper term us collapsible) tables and making it work in a way I am happy with is going to be difficult. As for adding in the Novels and Epubs, I would like them included but I think it will stretch the utility of the current format to the limit, specifically looking at around 2010 - 2012 area where BT seems to have a huge number of releases.--Dmon (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Mercenary units in Mercenary's HandbookEdit

Hi Dmon,

I was reviewing the 3025 Mercenaries Handbook and found some units I'm not seeing in the wiki. Do we have any page with all mercenary logos to quickly look on them? Examples are: - 17th Recon Battalion (it is not Camacho's Caballeros, logo is at least different) - 12th Striker Regiment - 3rd Recon Company

And the rest of the unit's logos there are from existing mercenary units.

I can create the articles, no problem, but the gallery could be interesting.--Pserratv (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2019 (EST)

I am not entierly sure if we do have a gallery, Cache is probably the best person to ask. I had a feeling that they might be sub-units from one of the SLDF units that turned mercenary after the exodus and it turns out that 12th Striker might be 21st Striker Regiment.--Dmon (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Done--Pserratv (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Yeah deffo ELH units. 3rd Recon is listed on p74, and 17th is on p75 with the nickname "Screaming Eagles", that matches up quite well with the logo.--Dmon (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Victor Milan famously mistook the ELH's 12th Recon Regiment for a separate, individual merc unit when he created Camacho's Caballeros from them. :) So you're not the first to overlook the connection.
As for galleries, not sure if we want or need a gallery of merc unit insignia. To quote our Policy:Images, "Sarna is not an image repository". Frabby (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2019 (EST)
And that is why I love this wiki, I learn new stuff all the time!--Dmon (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (EST)
All closed them... I didn't want to create a new gallery, I was trying to quickly find the logos in a single place :)--Pserratv (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2019 (EST)
I'm a bit late to the conversation, but we do have unit logo galleries, which were created because while Sarna isn't an image repository, we do use unit logos, and finding logos that had been uploaded but not added to articles was proving an impossible task. It's a sub-gallery of the faction logos gallery, and is broken down along faction service lines. You can get to it by clicking on the "Galleries" link on the Background tab at the left of the wiki, and then navigating through the Faction Logos Gallery to the Unit Logos Gallery and it's sub-galleries. While I'd agree Sarna shouldn't be an image repository, there's a difference between being an image repository and having an organisational system for images that are actually integral to one of our biggest classes of articles that allows you to actually find and use those images - it brings order and usability to chaos. (I may be faintly biased.) BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2019 (EST)
THanks, I0've added that to my list of favourite entries--Pserratv (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2019 (EST)

AwardEdit

Hi Dmon,

My editing time got massively curtailed by a big reorganisation at work that left me with little or not time and privacy to edit, so I've been conspicuous by my absence for the last few months. I do try and keep up with the recent edits though, and one of the things I've observed is that you've been a constant presence here, not only churning through work, but helping, advising and encouraging other editors. That's an excellent thing to be doing, and I think you should have another Random Act of Appreciation Award for it:   BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Thank you BM, I had a similar situation but in reverse. Changed my job role and suddenly found myself with huge amounts of dead time so the wiki seemed like a way to use said dead time for something productive.--Dmon (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Advanced Technology YearEdit

It may seem like a stupid question but what is an "Advanced Technology Year"? Is it different in universe from year available?--Dmon (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2019 (EST)

The idea is to track what year technologies move from Experimental Rules to Advanced Rules to Tournament Legal rules. Obviously I need to re-write that for clarity. --Mbear(talk) 08:39, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Change of Unit NumberingEdit

Hello Dmon, can you please explain why you change the Unit name from the normal format like Second Guards to 2nd. And what it's the reason to add the rank insigna to every available entry? Is that the new standard for the unit articles?

With best regards neuling

Wasn't me who did it, A guy called Ariule came in about this time last year, did all the Lyran commands and then vanished. I started removing the edits a few months ago because it was an easier task to remove them than expand them to the rest of the wiki (and the code for both is quite long considering how little it does). In short, this conversation is exactly what I have been talking about when I have said to you that innovation is only really good if we get a group of people doing the same thing because if not we end up with unfinished projects that ultimately makes the wiki look inconsistent.
NOTE I am currently upgrading the officer sections to an easy to understand table, but it does not include the rank insignia or the sup script.

--Dmon (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2019 (EST)

If you need help with the unit's table, I might help going through for example mercenary units. Or we could divide the Category:Military Commands among some of us and go for it.--Pserratv (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2019 (EST)
I would really appreciate that Pserratv. Most of the officer sections are ok and it is just a tidy up but some of them are full of what I call "wikisms" where consecutive authors and sources have resulted in something that is correct but makes no sense in terms of reader flow. I edited one that said "Between 3025 and 3050 Colonel xxxx commanded the unit, he was still in command in 3067, and also 3085"--Dmon (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2019 (EST)
I've seen some of them... I'll start with the Mercenaries, and once completed we see what I can do. Usually my way on going through this massive changes is getting to the top category and then drill it down by groups (that is what I did for example on Bloodnames, doing them Clan by Clan).--Pserratv (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2019 (EST)

Damn PS really hammering them out! I usually only get a few done at a time before I end up reading related articles!--Dmon (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2019 (EST)

I've completed mercenaries, non-mech mercenaries and root (from root I've created & reordered a bit). My next one will be Word of Blake units, I think you are with clan units now. We can align on this. In my page User:Pserratv I have the list of commands and how I'm proceeding with them.--Pserratv (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2019 (EST)

Alternive way for active unitsEdit

Hello Dmon, I think I have found a reasonable way to show the units which are active during different times. I will create an example at my personal page. My idea is to write a small text about the every major time period and list below the active units. In another step we can explain what happen to the other units. Neuling#Notes#Alternative Way

Had a look Neuling and in all honesty the problem is exactly the same as it has always been. I just do not see the need for active status tables or lists beyond what we already do in the brigade pages where we note in parenthesis when a unit was destroyed/disbanded etc. Yes what you propose does offer an increase the utility of the Brigade pages but it would also make them a lot longer and need more maintenence to keep them upto date. It is just my opinion, I can't speak for other users but I do not think the increased utility is enough to justify an overhaul of a system that whilst not perfect, is simple, easy to follow and already in place.
There are parts of the wiki that need a lot of work but the Brigade articles are actually mostly ok. I left a note on your talk page a few weeks ago actually suggesting a project that I know needs a huge amount of attention and I hoped might even scratch your itch to define the lifespans of combat commands.--Dmon (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2019 (EST)
Hello Dmon, thank you for awnser. I have only one question about the brigade articles. Can we remove the notes which are currently behind most units within the list. Then we have a simple list and the details are in the specific unit articles. Neuling
Just to be clear do you mean the notes section of the article or the information that is in parenthesis on the actual list of units? (I have just woken up so sorry if it seems a stupid question.)--Dmon (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2019 (EST)

Locust articleEdit

Hello Dmon, first thank you that you give me advice about the Locust article. I think the content was lost because ny internet connection was problematic for a few seconds and the last part of the text was not saved. I corrected the failure and restored the missing content. I hope that explained it in same way. neuling

Cheers for correcting that, I saw it and thought it was a bit odd you doing something like that.--Dmon (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2019 (EST)

Simple unit listEdit

Hello Dmon, can yout take a look at my reference site and tell me your opinion about the simple unit list. My opinion is to have a simple list in form of a table without any other information. The decision for this kind of list is to make the list better readable for other users. The normal form is confusing in my eyes. The different backgrounds are better for recognition. The notes can be placed in the notes section of in the corresponding unit articles. I would further suggest not to divide about inactive and active brigades because some formations were destroyed/disbanded and some time laters reformed. I hope that my explanations are good enough. neuling

Looks quite good, offers a genuine improvement for users who like yourself find the current way hard to follow and the code is not that complicated that it will put off other people updating the section. Stick it over on the Project Military Commands talk page and see what everybody else thinks.--Dmon (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2019 (EST)

Possible solutionEdit

Hello Dmon, I think that I find a way to improve the current SLDF unit entries without a huge rework. My inspiration was the layout of several SLDF army articles. The composition divides the content into a section with units which are part of the army and below how the strength varied over the time. I changed the article of the LXIX Corps (Star League) as an example. What is your opinion about it? And by the way it can be possible a solution to show the brigade sizes in a simple way during different time frames. With best regards Neuling

I honestly do not think it is needed. As far as I can tell, other than yourself there is zero interest in doing anything that shows varied force strength at Brigade or higher. You use the word solution but there is no real problem.
What do you actually use brigade and higher level data for?--Dmon (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2019 (EST)
Hello Dmon, I take a closer look at the versions history of the [Army] and searched how has written the part about the compositions history. Dark Jaguar added the information for 2772 and I thought it is a good solution. You ask me why I invest so much energy about that topic. The answer is simple: For me the huge losses from the epic conflict can be shown in a simple way. For example the mighty SLDF was after Liberations of the Terran Hegenomy only a shadow of its former strength. With an overview (only in numbers) I understand it better with this layout, which brigade was rebuilt, disbanded or newly created. My goal is in the future to add missing information to the SLDF formations. I try to find a good solution before I start with the project. In the past cooperation was not my strength, but time passed I'm now a person with more experience. Before I make now large changes to hole sections of articles I ask if my work is accepted or what is the point we can agree to begin with. neuling
The unit articles are not the place to talk in any depth about the devastation caused by the various wars. That kind of information is for the dedicated history articles about said war. Why? Because that is where people who want to know about the widerscale picture will look. The brigade for house and Corps/Army articles for SLDF are just there to "touch upon" such things, if you look at most of the higher level command articles they tend to be quite light on history, because most of them are not combat commands as such, elements of said units are the combat commands.
The ONLY way I can ever see myself accepting this particular set of information is a list of units lost incorporated into an article about the relevant conflict. The rest is taken care of in the individual unit articles that should in an ideal world have a date of formation, every conflict the unit ever engages in and the date and situation that lead to their destruction/disbandment. Ever noticed that Regiment articles have things like experience ratings etc but Brigade articles do not?
What Dark Jaguar added to the 1st army article is actually somethng I removed because I do not see the value of it at all when the same information was presented directly above in a manner that allows wikilinks to other articles.
If all of this is part of a research project then there is no need for it to be worked into the wider wiki, this is exactly the purpose of user sub-pages. I am not just imposing this upon you, my Project House resulted in Category:Noble Houses and Category:Titles and Positions yet if you look at the planet articles the title articles are not linked, and if you type in House Kurita it still redirects to the Draconis Combine article because after 3 years the project is not polished enough to link such an important article. My project mostly dealt with reorganising information already available on the wiki, yours is the same but you are trying to do it inside an existing project. So keep it seperate until you KNOW it is complete enough to make a difference to the wiki rather than just creating inconsistant articles.--Dmon (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2019 (EST)
I can find a way for me to gather the information in a way without changing any content of the wiki. I have a question. Can I go over different articles first to remove my tables and second to put the notes behind the units in sections like notes or something comparable go get a coherent layout for many brigades and corps articles? neuling

Yeah if you don't mind restoring things to current standard I would appreciate it. Not entierly sure what you mean about the notes though?--Dmon (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Issues with auto category "Primitive Technology"Edit

Hi Dmon, sorry bother you. i'm not sure if your able help with this issue. I added a category Manufacturing Centers to Sarna. I wanted to remove a company listed as a Primitive Technology maker from the category, since it's not suppose to be individual companies showing up. This case, Osaka Heavy Metrics, thus i made category so the companies can be catelog there. Problem is something in the manufacturing profile for Osaka is generating a Primitive Technology category. Is there way fix this? -- Wrangler (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2019 (EDT)

Got it! In the text of the article the "Primitive Technology" wikilink is actually a link to the category rather than an article. So all that was needed to be done was slipping in a Colon in between the first set of double brackets and the word category to turn it into a normal wikilink.--Dmon (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2019 (EDT)
Return to the user page of "Dmon".