Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki talk:Project Factions"

Latest revision as of 07:10, 22 January 2024

This article is within the scope of the Project Factions, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of Factions. 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.

Talk Archive 2008 - 2020

Current[edit]

Mercenary Review and Bonding Commission a Faction?[edit]

I've been thinking about NGOs in the BattleTech universe and how to cover them in articles, specifically what InfoBox to use. (InfoBoxFaction seems a good fit.) Which made me think wether the MRBC should be considered a faction? It's an edge case, but I think it should. Opinions? Frabby (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2022 (EST)

It feels a little weird to classify a limited purpose inter-governmental agency as a faction. It makes sense for general purpose organizations (say the UN in real life, or the 2nd Star League in Battletech), but doesn't seem to fit for limited purpose organizations (like say the International Whaling Commission in real life, or the MRBC here). --HF22 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2022 (EST)

This is kinda something I have been working on for a few months in the background, I find the term "faction" to be something I am increasingly unhappy with in a similar manner to "minor" from a few years ago. I have already split a lot of the "factions" and Organisations into sub-categories a few months ago and at some point in the near future the Faction InfoBox is getting an overhaul. I am undecided on exactly what that overhaul entails though. Right now the options are:

Split off different types of faction and organisation with specific infoboxes.
Build a faction box with lots of different sections that can essentially be custom built into anything.
Build a very bare bones minimalist faction box and let the article text carry the weight.

As with all things of this nature, feedback is not only appreciated but desired.--Dmon (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2022 (EST)

This probably doesn't belong on this particular talk page, but fwiw I feel we need to consolidate the Infoboxes and have fewer of them, not more. Probably your #3 proposal, though I'm certainly also agreeable to #2 to a degree.

As for what comprises a faction, phew. Nobody would deny that ComStar and the Word of Blake are factions. The New Avalon Catholic Church at least uses the InfoBoxFactions template, is categorized as a "Religious Organisation" which is a subcategory of "Organisations" which is a subcategory of... Factions. I actually like the generic nature of the word Faction. Any somewhat unified, cohesive power - state, NGO, organized religion - is a faction, imho. This whole train of thoughts started when I stumbled across the redlink for Doctors Under Fire (in Legacy (Anthology)); another such NGO would be the BranthKeepers. Looking them up, their article also has the InfoBoxFactions. Looks like we're already doing it. Frabby (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (EST)

I think this could work if we just swapped the terminology around - Make "Organizations" the top level category, with "Factions" a second level subcategory, at the same level as the current organization subcategories (i.e companies, criminal organizations etc). HF22 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2022 (EST)

The more Infoboxes there are, the more difficult it is for editors to get it right. Simple is good. Simple with good documentation/instruction is even better.--Cache (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (EST)

I am leaning towards a mixture of option 1 & 3. The bulk of factions and organisations should get a very basic InfoBox: Organisations with maybe 5-6 sections:

Image
Type NACC = Religious Organisation, Yakuza = Criminal Organisation, MRBC = Trade Association, Doctors Under Fire = Humanitarian Organization?.. Any kind of NGO you can think of. Also government departments willl get this box, MIIO = intelligence agency, Civilian Guidance Corps = Law enforcement agency, League General Accounting Office = government agency/deparment?
Founded
Dissolved
Affiliation/parent organisation
Headquarters?
Area of operation? = so Vagabond Schools would be Outback
Leader? NACC = Battlepope?

And then I want to spin off Nation States into its own infobox that is fairly close to the current Faction box.. So planets, capital, military, intelligence etc.

Then there are a couple that already have a box, like corporations due to me wanting to eventually split off factories into a "division" of the corporation. Noble Houses due to family tree format, and sports team.. Mostly because we kinda already had one and CungrVanck asked for a better one. Only other infobox that might be worth considering is a Military organisation one as a tool to try and help tame the fairly wild format issues the top level armed forces pages have seen over the years. Again feedback is not only appreciated but desired. --Dmon (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2022 (EST)

This approach makes the most sense to me Dmon - Gets my vote. --HF22 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (EST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WikiProject Factions}}
-I've come up with a standardized main layout for all faction articles, but I think that we need a consensus before I put it on the main project page due to possible required variations per article. ''Please note that this does not mean that the title names have to be the ones in the layout!'' Here it is:
+*[[/Archive|Talk Archive 2008 - 2020]]
-'''Basic Info''' (in template box like on [[Marian Hegemony]] page.)
+==Current==
+===Mercenary Review and Bonding Commission a Faction?===
+I've been thinking about NGOs in the BattleTech universe and how to cover them in articles, specifically what InfoBox to use. (InfoBoxFaction seems a good fit.) Which made me think wether the MRBC should be considered a faction? It's an edge case, but I think it should. Opinions? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:30, 11 January 2022 (EST)
+: It feels a little weird to classify a limited purpose inter-governmental agency as a faction. It makes sense for general purpose organizations (say the UN in real life, or the 2nd Star League in Battletech), but doesn't seem to fit for limited purpose organizations (like say the International Whaling Commission in real life, or the MRBC here). --[[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 08:00, 11 January 2022 (EST)
+:: This is kinda something I have been working on for a few months in the background, I find the term "faction" to be something I am increasingly unhappy with in a similar manner to "minor" from a few years ago. I have already split a lot of the "factions" and Organisations into sub-categories a few months ago and at some point in the near future the Faction InfoBox is getting an overhaul. I am undecided on exactly what that overhaul entails though. Right now the options are:
+# Split off different types of faction and organisation with specific infoboxes.
+# Build a faction box with lots of different sections that can essentially be custom built into anything.
+# Build a very bare bones minimalist faction box and let the article text carry the weight.
-'''Founding'''
+::As with all things of this nature, feedback is not only appreciated but desired.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:41, 11 January 2022 (EST)
-'''History''' (can be further subdivided into subheadings for various periods in history, e.g. "Clan Invasion Period" or "FedCom Civil War Period")
+:::This probably doesn't belong on this particular talk page, but fwiw I feel we need to consolidate the Infoboxes and have fewer of them, not more. Probably your #3 proposal, though I'm certainly also agreeable to #2 to a degree.
+:::As for what comprises a faction, phew. Nobody would deny that ComStar and the Word of Blake are factions. The [[New Avalon Catholic Church]] at least uses the InfoBoxFactions template, is categorized as a "Religious Organisation" which is a subcategory of "Organisations" which is a subcategory of... Factions. I actually like the generic nature of the word Faction. Any somewhat unified, cohesive power - state, NGO, organized religion - is a faction, imho. This whole train of thoughts started when I stumbled across the redlink for [[Doctors Under Fire]] (in [[Legacy (Anthology)]]); another such NGO would be the [[BranthKeepers]]. Looking them up, their article also has the InfoBoxFactions. Looks like we're already doing it. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (EST)
-'''Dissolution''' (if applicable)
+::: I think this could work if we just swapped the terminology around - Make "Organizations" the top level category, with "Factions" a second level subcategory, at the same level as the current organization subcategories (i.e companies, criminal organizations etc). [[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 16:19, 11 January 2022 (EST)
-'''Military''' (with a subsection for ''ranks'' of the military)
+::::The more Infoboxes there are, the more difficult it is for editors to get it right. Simple is good. Simple with good documentation/instruction is even better.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (EST)
-'''Foreign Relations''' (divided into sections ''not subheadings'' for each power)
+I am leaning towards a mixture of option 1 & 3. The bulk of factions and organisations should get a very basic InfoBox: Organisations with maybe 5-6 sections:
+* Image
+* Type [[New Avalon Catholic Church|NACC]] = Religious Organisation, [[Yakuza]] = Criminal Organisation, [[MRBC]] = Trade Association, [[Doctors Under Fire]] = Humanitarian Organization?.. Any kind of NGO you can think of. Also government departments willl get this box, [[MIIO]] = intelligence agency, [[Civilian Guidance Corps]] = Law enforcement agency, [[League General Accounting Office]] = government agency/deparment?
+* Founded
+* Dissolved
+* Affiliation/parent organisation
+* Headquarters?
+* Area of operation? = so [[Vagabond Schools]] would be [[Outback]]
+* Leader? NACC = Battlepope?
-'''References'''
+And then I want to spin off Nation States into its own infobox that is fairly close to the current Faction box.. So planets, capital, military, intelligence etc.
-Please comment, as this is far from perfect!
+Then there are a couple that already have a box, like corporations due to me wanting to eventually split off factories into a "division" of the corporation. Noble Houses due to family tree format, and sports team.. Mostly because we kinda already had one and CungrVanck asked for a better one. Only other infobox that might be worth considering is a Military organisation one as a tool to try and help tame the fairly wild format issues the top level armed forces pages have seen over the years. Again feedback is not only appreciated but desired. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 20:18, 11 January 2022 (EST)
---[[User:Workerbee|Workerbee]] 18:41, 8 June 2008 (CDT)
+: This approach makes the most sense to me Dmon - Gets my vote. --[[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (EST)
-:Thanks for taking the initiative on this! I think "founding" can be incorporated into "history," as can "dissolution." The military ranks should really be in the appropriate page (e.g. AFFS for the FS). I still dislike "foreign relations," as that changes. This should be covered in "history" as it is too complex to provide 'at a glance.' Perhaps a couple of sentences in the intro can suffice? We also need to have a section for "government," and possibly one on "religion." I think that both [[Federated Suns]] and [[Lyran Alliance]] are good examples of a good faction article (though neither are perfect). --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:32, 8 June 2008 (CDT)
-Thanks for the input! How about this layout?
-'''Basic Info'''
-'''Introduction''' (with geographical location and short history overview, etc.)
-'''History''' (again with subheadings for various time periods; foreign relations added into this section)
-'''Military''' (no ranks, but possibly a small section on basic structure as well as size and composition)
-'''Political and Social Structure''' I feel that a section for "religion" would be hard to complete for most articles (especially religion for Periphery nations), so the "Political and Social Structure" section would encompass all of the political, religious, and social aspects known about each nation in various subsections.
-'''Rulers''' (where applicable and/or known)
-'''References'''
-Let me know what you think! --[[User:Workerbee|Workerbee]] 21:33, 8 June 2008 (CDT)
-::It works for me. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:13, 9 June 2008 (CDT)
-== Military unit articles ==
-Should military unit articles be created with the number is numerical format, or spelled out? For example, 20th Avalon Hussars or Twentieth Avalon Hussars? I am a fan of the former, as that is the way it usually is in the official books. Anybody else with a preference before we start creating them? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:20, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
-:I'm with you. Grammatically-speaking, I believe it should be spelled out, but in this case it is more familiar in numbered format. I think re-directs will be required, however, as they will often be spelled out in articles, especially when opening a sentence. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:42, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
-== Fanmade Factions/units? ==
-Would it be an idea to make a catagory for fanmade factions/units? {{unsigned|Onisuzume|on 4 November 2008}}
-:Sure! I don't think we have any right now because there are no articles to populate them. Following the standard that has already been created, I propose "FactionsCustom" and "UnitsCustom". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 16:39, 4 November 2008 (PST)
-== Clan Articles / Cluster Numbers ==
-So I've seen most of the Clan Articles seem to list a number of active clusters. The problem is, they don't seem to indicate a year "as of", nor is there a clear citation for that info. I use [[Clan Jade Falcon]] as an example. (This problem may exist for other factions as well...) Anyone have any insight/thoughts on this? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 01:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-== Clan Wolf, Clan Ghost Bear Dominion, Clan Sea Fox/Diamond SharK & Lyran Commonwealth/Alliance==
-So, how do we deal with factions that changed names? Clan Ghost Bear->Ghost Bear Dominion->Rasalhague Dominion, Clan Sea Fox->Clan Diamond Shark->Clan Sea Fox, Lyran Commonwealth->Lyran Alliance->Lyran Commonwealth? Having two articles seems too much like a bother. I would prefer to use the name most recent and have the other names link to it.
-Second, Clan Wolf. Should this article both cover original Clan Wolf and Vlad's Wolves, or just original Clan Wolf or original and Wolf-in-Exile?
---[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 08:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
-::Okay, here my take on this.  You have factions that change somewhat, with partial name change to radical change.  I think the ones that fall under "radical" or most changed from original. Should warrant its own article page, they should be linked with the old one. These articles are getting lengthy, having separate ones for changes of status do. Look at House Steiner; the Lyran Commonwealth goes to FedCom, then to Lyran Alliance and as of 3084ish, back to Commonwealth. Its persona as the Alliance only lasted about 15-20 years, FedCom lasted even less so, but retained its name as Lyran Commonwealth as a sub-state.  In that case it shouldn't go through a article change name, it should remain Lyran Commonwealth. Lyran Alliance name should have sub-section in the article itself states what was going on in its history, era related data, etc. However, they are still same people.  Clan Sea Fox is bit different. The foxes changed their name in late 30th century. Events of the Jihad and its being kicked out of the Clan Space changed them radically. Yes their still merchants, but Clan's structure was completely changed. They have few worlds, most their population lives on radically altered exWarships, they have no military (formal ones like everyone else does) they wander Inner Sphere (possibly Periphery) in fleets of JumpShips looking for profit.  They're very differient, in my humble opinion warrant their own article name.  I think also is how much information is available on the subject.  Take the old Clan Wolf's Omega Galaxy.  They were originally, Provisional Garrison Galaxy (PGC), with unique smaller clusters attached to them. I've yet find what happened other than they got wiped out by Refusal war. I'm still looking. Khan [[Vlad Ward]] created "new" Omega, used as a meat-grinder to take out his political foes. Which is gone and now part of completely different Clan, with same galaxy name. I separated article only when it became another clan's force.  As for Clan Wolf, its generally held that Vlad's Clan Wolf took over for old Clan Wolf.  Only small percentage of old Clan Wolf became Clan Wolf In Exile.  Vlad's Clan Wolf took up all old Wolves terroritory, in Inner Sphere and Clan space. No need to make separate one, Exiles are effectively its own Clan, with its own history.  Bottom line I'm trying to make is this.  I feel you need take it from case to case basis. I think rule thumb should be, if there is enough information that suggests that subject of article (Clan Wolf's Omega Galaxy as example) suggest the their related. They should keep info together.  If subject is so different from source, like Omega became different faction's property, Like Hell's Horses. Its now a different unit.  Similarly, Clan Wolf & Clan Wolf In Exile, Clan WiE has led a completely differient history and partipated in differient events, that it is effectively its own faction. While Clan Wolf under Vlad Ward, was "main body" of the Clan, differient rulership, same clan, but meaner and daresay evilier.  We have other examples of this happening else where. Sorry if this sound confusing or complicated. However, it is. Would like see things kept to canon as possible, without making mess of things. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 11:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
-:::For the Ghost Bear/FRR merger, I'd be in favor of creating a Rasalhague Dominion article to cover events from 3067(?) to present. Then on the Clan Ghost Bear and FRR pages I'd end the '''History''' section by saying something like "In 3067 Clan Ghost Bear merged with the Free Rasalhague Republic to form a new nation called the [[Rasalhague Dominion]]." I would also recommend we not add any new (post-merger) history to the CGB or FRR pages.
-:::For Clan Sea Fox and Clan Diamond Shark I'd put the Sea fox history up until the renaming of the clan. Then say "In 2900 Clan Sea Fox took the unusual step of renaming itself [[Clan Diamond Shark]] and operated with that totem until 3070. After the [[Jihad]] however, the Diamond Sharks returned to their previous totem to show that their relocation to the Inner Sphere was a rebirth of their previous traditions." Then pick up with the post-Jihad information for the Sea Foxes.
-:::Dates that I used in these examples are purely arbitrary. Hopefully I haven't confused the issue too much.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
-::::Well, I am letting someone else handle the Sea Fox/Diamond Shark and Ghost Bear/Rasalhague Dominion pages then. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 16:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Search

Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki talk:Project Factions"

Sarna News

BattleTech Community Ads

Latest revision as of 07:10, 22 January 2024

Current[edit]

Mercenary Review and Bonding Commission a Faction?[edit]

BattleTechWiki

Search

Editing BTW

Background

Current Game Systems

Admin Pages

Tools