Editing BattleTechWiki talk:Project Unfinished Book/JTP:New Avalon/Unwelcome Guests

==Starting==
Afternoon, CW. Just a few starting points:
* The intent of the Unfinished Book Project (UBP) is to document every fact of the assignment at least once on the wiki, multiple places where appropriate. The more degrees removed from the mentioned subjects on the assignment, the less granularity an article's added material must have. For example, James McFarland is not mentioned in "Unwelcome Guests" at all, but because he's the CO of the 10th, it stands to reason his page should make mention of the Battle of McCarel Farm. However, it won't need as much detail as the 10th's page will.
* Don't forget your citations. You'll pick up tricks to make their inclusion more efficient. Unless asked, I'll leave that up to you.
* Don't take my involvement as negative. While I'll be critical, my role as fact checker is intended that way. Likewise, when you play Fact Checker (and then Mission leader), you'll need to be similarly involved.
* Normally, a mission (in this case ''JTP: Luthien'') develops from front-to-back, meaning some articles that you'll be starting here ([[Avalon City]], for example) would normally already be somewhat developed by preceding material. If we (collectively) feel that we're missing too much by jumping ahead this time, we can re-engage and start with the first assignment. 
* You'll recognize [[BattleTechWiki:Project_Unfinished_Book/Data_Mining#Step_3|Step 3]] from its original version (as it appeared on your talk page). That should help get you started.
* Ask me questions, debate with me, etc. Don't feel like you're doing this in a vaccuum.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:31, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

== Questions! ==

Question 1 : Do we think Avalon County is worthy of its own article? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:12, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
:Hm this is a good question, at this time i say yes, following the [subject]. I think it can included when a [[Geography of New Avalon]] page is created, take a look on this example: [[Geography of Luthien]], we can set up a redirect etc., this is my point of view, but some critism is welcom.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:36, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
:Evolving answer: UBP doesn't judge notability...kinda stole the theme from the actual [[Unfinished Book Movement]]. If it's mentioned, it's notable. However, I conceded [[Basin Lake]] doesn't deserve its own article, hence the creation of the "Geography of [planet]" articles (with re-directs to that article for all entries).
:If I could find a similar subject name for an article about (ahem) 'less notable' man-made structures, designations, etc, I'd say let's build Avalon County into ''that'' article.
:So, what would be the equivalent of [[Geography of New Avalon]], but for constructs to include counties, parks, memorials, facilities, etc.?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:30, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
::I'll say this: There's a lot of material on New Avalon. From Avalon City to the 'mech factories to the NAIS to a bunch of other places. Does New Avalon merit an in-depth article on this geography? Certainly. Does every element require its own article? Not sure that's wise. I've always been of the mind that these "eternal stub" articles aren't in Sarna's best interests for aesthetic reasons. (Look at most SLDF unit entries that are only mentioned once in the SL sourcebook.) So that's my two cents. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 11:41, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
::Related - re: [[Harold McCarel]]. Does one farmer, mentioned once on one page of one book, merit his own article, considering he will likely never be mentioned again? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 11:44, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
:::Okay, I'm kicking around answers to this, so as bullets for discussion ''instead'' of cogent and well-thought out answers:
:::# Tenent focus of the UBP is that all subjects deserve [[Policy:Notability|recording]] on BTW.
:::# How a subject is recorded is (best) open for discussion and adaption.
:::# Do subjects warrant their own article, in all cases? I like creating new articles. I like knowing that when I click on a wlink, it will take me to an article that is about exactly that subject. I like the simplicity of knowing the simplist rule is that each subject deserves its own article and it is not complicated with rules where opinions are the deciding factor ("Is he notable ''enough''?"). '''However''', I also am very aware that it is not necessarily a majority opinion of the active BTW editors. I'm also aware that as the UBP expands, my opinion on that will be challenged repeatedly. Therefore, the adaption of my stance (per #2) needs to be made.
:::# My (so far) unfertilized idea is that an article is warranted ''anytime the subject is involved in an event'', or in the case of people is if they are ''actively involved in an event''. So...in the Battle of Luthien, the city of Obuchi-Galileo would not warrant an article, but Skytower City most certainly would. In the Battle of New Avalon, the commanding officer James McFarland would but not farmer Harold McCarel (since the battle was not something he influenced). But what about the sourbug? Does it rate an article? By this standard, no...it would need to fall on a larger article.
:::# I'm leading myself to yet another child article..."Historical People of New Avalon", anyone? But it would have to be better named, since it should ''not'' include (let's be up-front) real notable characters, but only those like Farmer McCarel that don't warrant their own articles.
:::# Last one: I'm seeing the direction of these child articles "Geography of...", "[Normal People] of...", "[Man-made]] Places on..." as focusing on those subjects that don't warrant their own articles. [[New Avalon]] would not be on this child article, because it ''does'' warrant its own page; so these pages should have running text describing these subjects as minor ones listed for BattleTech completeness. (ex: ''This article, "Geography of Luthien", focuses on geographical features of the planet that themselves have not been involved in any notable events.'') As a means of progressing this conversation, can we agree minor subjects regarding a planet deserve their own articles? (We can work on naming after we meet consensus between the three of us.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:26, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
:::::This is progress! Okay - new question : Why do we need "Geography of ... " articles as opposed to expanding an existing planetary article? It would be just peachy in my mind to have a sub-section of the [[New Avalon]] article titled 'Avalon City' and other relevant locations. Just a thought. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:45, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
::::::Because the planetary articles are transitioning (in a long, drawn-out process) into system articles, detailing everything known about a system. Each (known) star (not too many dual-star systems in BT), planet, moon, in a system etc will have a section detailing what is known about them. As some planets (New Avalon, Luthien are prime examples) have a wealth of information, these sections should provide basic facts about the planet, with links to more-notable articles (Imperial City, Avalon City, etc) and then links to articles for the less-notable features (such as geography). We don't want to overwhelm the reader trying to find, say, that bit of history they're seeking amidst facts on HPG precentors, changing population numbers, native lifeforms. As soon as the material becomes less-notable ''or'' overly extensive, break it away for further expansion. 
::::::So, short answer: the planetary/system articles will provide basic aspects of each major feature in that system with direct links about those features that cannot be expanded upon in a page section. So, for the New Avalon system article, it'll have a section on the star, the jumppoints, oribital & other system facilities, each planet and moon. In the New Avalon section of that system article, it will give basic facts (as seen in the canon atlases) and general or very-notable facts and then links to articles like "Geography of..." (if not a dedicated planetary page). Does that make sense?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 06:31, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
:::::::It does. Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:51, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

== James McFarland ==

[[James McFarland]] is up. For your consideration. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:51, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
:Excellent. I'll start reviewing; you can check my edits. Any comments I have I'll post here.
:Also, add it to your (Research Writer) table, on the assignment page. That tells the Fact Checker it's ready.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 09:01, 23 March 2012 (PDT)
::Very well done, of course. No surprise there. In fact, I kinda stole Doneve's copy edit assignment from him by tweaking the citations, because you had clearly met all the facts provided by the track.
::I enjoyed reading more about the character too. Note: you ''don't'' have to do full character reviews (though I know you enjoy it).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:07, 23 March 2012 (PDT)
::: Yeah, I do... worried about the others, though. Most of them are either one sentence (like we've discussed) or they're sourced from many books. (Avalon City may be the most popular city in Battletech, aside from maybe Unity City on Luthien.) [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 22:02, 23 March 2012 (PDT)
::::I like to think large articles (such as what Avalon City could/should become) come about as a group effort. I, myself, would be too overwhelmed to try and tackle such an expansive target. Starting with limited sources allows another editor to add what he knows from a second source and so-on. Of course, there's the odd duck, such as yourself, that can't say no to taking on the whole continuity. {{Emoticon| ;) }} --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 06:16, 24 March 2012 (PDT)

== Child articles ==

CW101 suggests that there are some characters ''so'' less-notable that, while they deserve mention on BTW, don't need their own articles. This is related to geographical features that themselves don't deserve their own articles. So, I'm looking for names for such child articles (that would be inserted in [[New Avalon]]'s article. So far we have "Geography of..." for geological features of a planet. So, what should we name:
*an article about less-notable people on/from that planet?
*parks, memorials, facilities that are also less-notable (i.e., not much more than their location is known & are not involved in any events)
--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:24, 23 March 2012 (PDT)

== Recommendation: Battle of New Avalon ==

The [[Battle of New Avalon]] article relevant to this project should be called [[Battle of New Avalon (Jihad)]] to distinguish it from the battles of the FedCom Civil War, and other conflicts. Just my two cents. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 15:57, 26 March 2012 (PDT)
:I absolutely agree with you that it should be distinguished from others. According to [[Policy:Article_Naming#Battles]], it should have the year after its name ([[Battle of New Avalon (3067)]]). But, since this is really a campaign (and one that spans many years), should we list is as [[Battle of New Avalon (Jihad)]] or [[Battle of New Avalon (3067-3074)]]? My vote is for the years, to match the single-year naming policy.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:48, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
:: I prefer the (Jihad) bit. But I get the policy. My issue is this: We have references to the "First Battle of New Avalon". Some consider that to be the 1st Davion against Katherine's loyalists at the start of the FedCom Civil War. Others would call it the 31st Division's attack at the start of the Jihad, with the Second Battle of New Avalon referring to the attacks by the 31st and 36th, and the Third Battle of New Avalon referring to the 44th, 31st and 36th attacking. You see my concern? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 12:13, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
:::I took my cue from the [[W:Battle of Britain|Battle of Britain]] (the event, not the article). That was arguably a campaign, as it stopped and started daily and wasn't one continously, uninterrupted barrage or air battle. For the ''JTP: Luthien'' mission, I broke out instances of battles within the (overall) [[Battle of Luthien]] campaign as very site specific events: [[Battle of the LAW City Ruins]], [[First Battle of the Takashi Memorial Spaceport]], [[Battle of Skytower City]], [[Second Battle of the Takashi Memorial Spaceport]].
:::But, re-reading what you're saying, you're discussing some battles that occur in separate campaigns alongside multiple battles that occur within the same campaign. Is there a way to take the multiple Jihad ones and apply a moniker that was more site-specific? Or (this is my ignorance talking, as I'm not yet as familiar with this ''JTP'' as I was with the last), is the scope of each battle too large, over too wide an area, to limit it to a specific location?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:19, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
::::I don't think every single clash is worthy of its own article. Usually, I'd do it at the planetary level. Look at what I did with the [[Battle of Mars]]. On that note, I'm not certain the [[Battle of McCarel Farm]] is, by itself, a viable subject. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:05, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
:::::I can respect that, though I disagree. However, that's a good reason we should endeavor to do these missions from front-to-back, so that all facts can be recorded in their relevant places, in the order they are received, so that the minor facts we uncover within "Unwelcome Guests" have a place to be 'put'. 
:::::But...I think you've identified an issue with the way we do UBP missions, for if the Fact Checker identifies which articles need to be addressed and the Research Writer disagrees as to which articles, then the two are approaching it from two different angles. For example, the broad links I proposed in the first grid are now not very effective in tracking each and every fact.
:::::One way I first approached this (when doing my own checking) was to write out each fact as a bullet item (for checklist tracking), but I didn't find it translated well for teamwork. What we could do is have the RW go first and do free form writing (decide yourself where the facts go) and then provide the links on the assignment page. The FC then reads the RW's edits and 'checks' off the facts as they are added to the wiki. 
:::::Do you have any ideas?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:54, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
::::::In terms of data-mining, I have no problem with your approach. It allows us to be thorough. 
::::::Try this example : Look at the old scenario books, like the Fourth Succession Wars Scenario Pack. The scenarios from those books usually involved a company or so on each side, engaging at so and such a location as part of a larger planetary battle. (2 Regiments vs. 1 Regiment, etc.) Now certainly, we can data-mine those scenarios for interesting info relevant to various articles. But does every single company on company skirmish deserve its own article? I would say no. And I feel the same way about most (not all) of the scenarios from the JTP Scenario pack. 
::::::As I said, I feel that battle articles should (usually) be based on a planetary level. The [[Battle of Twycross (Clan Invasion)]] is one example. (Though technically, there were 3 battles on Twycross during the Clan Invasion. Oh, well.) 
::::::I'm just telling you where I'm coming from with all this. As to your suggestion, I would like to try it on a trial-basis, preferably with a relatively contained subject. (The campaign on New Avalon is a little broad...) [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 19:18, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
:::::::CW, I'll try not to reiterate too much something you're already aware of, but I am absolutely fine for there being an article for each and every noun ever mentioned: I like the idea of the broadness yet specificity of the ''Encylopedia Galactica'' approach in such an approach, and I feel that ''if'' additional information is ever found/provided for a very minor article, it's much easier to add that new information to a dedicated article than withdraw it from a larger overarching article and start on a combined page. I also feel the ''JTPs'' are somewhat different than traditional scenario books because -while they allow the player to have the game as small as they like- the supporting materials lean towards whole units being involved. 
:::::::However, I recognize I'm most likely in the small minority with that viewpoint: there are good & strong arguments against my approach and there are articles written by contributors (such as yourself) showing people ''are'' willing to write good, multi-source articles on a regular basis. And I am absolutely fine with ''JTP'' battles being incorporated into a larger subject (the planetary-scale ''Battle of New Avalon'', etc.). So, I bend to consensus and acknowledge UBP will ''not'' dictate that individual articles are required. I'll leave it up to the individual teams as to what scope they want to take.
:::::::So, with that in mind, and since we both agree that we want to record each individual fact somewhere, we should work on the process of running UBP in a way that we can say, once we finish a mission (''JTP: New Avalon'' in this case), "all the data has been mined". I think, for the RW, the method is clear: read the fact and add it to the appropriate article. But as a second pair of eyes is needed to ensure everything has been done (and trust me, I missed some doozies in my first run thru ''JTP: Luthien''), how do we best employ the FC? (When we identify that method, then the copy editor will not be hard to manage.)
:::::::I'm thinking the bullet approach might be the best way and as the RW writes his articles/additions, the FC checks off the facts as they are added.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:59, 30 March 2012 (PDT)

== Sourbug ==

[[Sourbug]] is up. It *IS* a species. I have no problem merging it with another article later, if that's what we decide to do. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 16:39, 26 March 2012 (PDT)
:Agree, it is and it tastes ''awful''. {{Emoticon| :-O }}--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:44, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
::Its okay on pizza. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 10:36, 30 March 2012 (PDT)

== Terry McQuinn ==

[[Terry McQuinn]] is up. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:19, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
:I made the following changes, with the included explanations:
* Changed born and died to b. and d. respectively. There's no policy on this, but on the best-written WP articles seem to do it that way
* Moved the first cite out of the sentence. Since all of that info comes from the same source, there's no need to call out a specific portion of the sentence.
* Quotes around the source section (""Combatants: Thirty-first Division")
* I approve of the non-supported comments about lack of info on his early life. I've always been the one to list "just the facts", but I've also worked from the impression we're in-character historians and -in that case- it's perfectly reasonable we'd comment upon what we don't know.
* Changed 'again' to 'more', since the word (and context) appeared in the previous sentence.
Great article, especially with so little to work with. As you can see, just cosmetic changes. Your're writing skills are in no doubt.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:52, 15 April 2012 (PDT)

== 10th Lyran Guards ==

[[10th Lyran Guards]] are updated. This one was a bit of a cop-out, as I essentially used the same material from the [[James McFarland]] article. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 16:43, 6 April 2012 (PDT)
:You'll find this is common, especially as the scope of a JTP is so limited in characters. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:17, 15 April 2012 (PDT)

== 31st Division ==

Same deal for [[31st Division (Word of Blake)]] - used McQuinn's article as the basis, while incorporating aspects of the existing article. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 19:51, 7 April 2012 (PDT)

== Question : Nerf-herding equipment! ==

So - [[Prairie Schooner (tractor)]] and [[Prairie Schooner (module)]] - i can mention they were being used by Blakist units if you want, but otherwise, I'm not sure there's much to add here? Just asking. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 10:04, 9 April 2012 (PDT)
:It'd be an historical note of usage. Probably no more than one line, within the description?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:18, 15 April 2012 (PDT)
:: Gotcha - Suggestion: These two articles - tractor and module? - should be merged. Just my 2 cents. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 19:17, 19 April 2012 (PDT)

== Removal? ==

So - are we removing [[Harold McCarel]] and [[McCarel Farm]] from the to-do list? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:47, 20 April 2012 (PDT)
: Also: Revisiting the [[Avalon County]] question, as far as I can tell it is only mentioned once in one book, and we have no context for what its borders are. If you really want a one-line sentence that says : "Avalon County is a region of New Avalon that includes Avalon City, the NAIS, etc., etc." I can do that, but I'm not feeling it myself. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 16:52, 22 April 2012 (PDT)
::Quick answer, because I know you've been waiting, but I guess we need to transition from the idea that each proper noun is an article to each proper noun deserves a mention. In the case of Avalon County, the context is important and it should be mentioned (even red-linked) in the approproate article. 
::From that, we also need to make sure we include Avalon County (again as an example) in every article where it is appropriate, but not so much where it is not. For example, I'd say it would be appropriate for it to be mentioned (narrative and/or list) on the [[New Avalon]] page, but maybe it would ''not'' be appropriate to mention it on a 'Mech page. 
::It seems to me then that before the writing in an assignment begins, the proper nouns are identified and then further catagorized as to where they should fall: their own articles or mentions. Help?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 08:03, 26 April 2012 (PDT)
:::I totally agree, and I'm fine if we want a subsection of the [[New Avalon]] page to redirect to. I'm just saying that "Avalon County" is not mentioned in any other work, as far as I can tell. When I write up a Battle of McCarel Farm article, I will set it to accept redirects from Harold McCarel and McCarel Farm. Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 09:30, 26 April 2012 (PDT)
::::Sounds like a plan!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:43, 28 April 2012 (PDT)

== Battle of McCarel Farm ==

[[Battle of McCarel Farm]] is ready for review. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 21:20, 12 May 2012 (PDT)

== The Battle of New Avalon Article(s) ==

After talking with Neufeld about my Battle of McCarel Farm article, I'm taking this approach : The "First Battle of New Avalon" actually means "First Battle of New Avalon during the Jihad". Regarding the FCCW, basically, we're talking about five battles:
* First Battle of New Avalon (FCCW): 1st Davion Guards vs. three of Katherine's units
* Second Battle of New Avalon (FCCW) : Victor's task force finally takes Katherine down
* First Battle of New Avalon (Jihad) : 31st Division Attacks
* Second Battle of New Avalon (Jihad) : 31st and 36th Divisions Attack
* Third Battle of New Avalon (Jihad) : 44th Shadow Division leads the 31st and 36th Divisions in an attack
I have suggested that the latter three be consolidated on a single article called [[Battle of New Avalon (Jihad)]], and we should likely do the same for the FCCW. 
: Thoughts? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 11:09, 14 May 2012 (PDT)