Editing Talk:Kallon Industries

Fanon content
BTW editors are discouraged from adding unofficial fan-made information to articles that contain canonical or apocryphal information otherwise. Fan-created material may not be included within the body of any non-Fanon articles, but may be linked to in the ==See Also (Fandom)== section (please feel free to add this to any articles, if it is not already present). We also ask that fan-created articles not be included in any categories that do not have a derivative of the word "fan" or "custom" in the category name.

A huge amount of material is being added by this user from MadCapellan's Objective Raids: 3067, an (awesome) fan-work, but still a fanwork.
:I agree with the sentiment of this statement but have you found the data to be wrong? Talk to the editor rather than make a general statement to everybody, most folk around here will gladly take constructive critercism. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

:65.190.30.41, I agree with Dmon (regarding the truthfulness of the added materials). Doneve was told the difference between an official source and a meta-source, which is a source compiling information from official sources (just as BTW does also). As such, he does not reference MadCapellan's work any longer. But, just like every other edit made with a reference, facts can be kept if not proven wrong (or, at least without a great deal of doubt regarding its veracity). In other words, there is nothing wrong with putting true statements into an article. (See also: [[Objective_Raids:_3067#Notes|OR:3067 Notes]])--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree with Revanche. MadCapellan's Objective Raid: 3067 if it is only  support material for me, i searce in the TRO's and other material, for the correctnes, what was added in MadCapellan's book.I see no proplems with my addings, I added some references and update some references there other editors not added on the articles. Greetings [[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 12:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Three points to be made from me on this topic:
:::1) OR:3067 is a fan-made compliation of information drawn from canonical sources. This means that OR:3067 is not itself a canonical product, but in the light of BTW's aim to include "anything to do with BattleTech", it ''is'' a notable piece of work that deserves its own article - appropriately marked as a Fan Creation, of course.
:::2) The content of OR:3067 is not canon on grounds of being published in OR:3067; it can only be canon on grounds of being published in a canonical source which OR:3067 isn't. OR:3067, like most (all) meta-sources, aims to compile only canonical data but this is still an important distinction. Most importantly, it means OR:3067 itself can never be used for a citation or to prove an item's canonicity on BTW, only whatever sources it drew its (canonical) information from.
:::3) The Fanon Content part of our [[Policy:Canon]] cited above is meant to cover original Fanon fiction, which is yet another different issue. To keep OR:3067 as an example, the in-character introduction claiming it to be a ComStar document within the universe is Fanon in the sense of completely Fan-made fiction; it adds something that wasn't there before (as opposed to compiling information that was previously published in various canonical publications).
:::Hope this makes sense and clears this up. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

::::That seems spelled out very well. My only suggestion would be to use the same source that MadCap does in OR:3067, rather than treating it as a source itself. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 03:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::The issue with that is that he doesn't provide his sources, as its understood he's pulled from across the spectrum of canon/official sources.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::Well, actually, that's a problem with OR:3067. If there's a piece of info in there, then it should exist in a canon product. At least somebody can have some confidence that it's there to be found. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I adding at this time the canon references from both sources to the article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

== Foundation date ==

The first line of the article's main text says Kallon was founded on Tikonov in 2808, citing the old House Liao sourcebook in support.  This is manifestly incorrect, considering that numerous Kallon-designed 'Mechs entered service centuries before this time.
* ''Wolverine'' TRO entry, p.290, ''TRO3039'': "... Kallon Industries' ''Wolverine'' has been produced in prodigious numbers.  The design was introduced in 2575 as the newly created Star League Defence Force prepared for the now-inevitable conflict with the Periphery realms."
* ''Rifleman'' TRO entry, p.293, ibid: "... chronic overheating problems plagued the RFL-1N ''Rifleman'' following its debut in 2505.  The RFL-2N corrected some of the issue, but the engineers at Kallon Industries thought they could do better.  In 2770 Kallon unveiled the heavier RFL-3N ''Rifleman''."
* ''Crusader'' TRO entry, p.294, ibid: "Introduced in the late twenty-sixth century, the CRD-3R ''Crusader'' became the workhorse of the SLDF's line regiments as they battled Periphery troops during the Reunification War.  With manufacturing plants across the Inner Sphere, Kallon Industries manufactured the 'Mech in vast numbers during the two centuries of the First Star League."
I don't have an exact date for KI's foundation, but the service-entry of some of its most famous and numerous products (the ''Rifleman'' in particular) would indicate it was some time late in the twenty-fifth century or early in the twenty-sixth century. {{unsigned|218.101.86.180|on 12 November 2011}}
:Unfortunately this is a problem with early BattleTech dates, especially with dates of introduction for BattleMechs. I agree with you that it makes no sense, but I was unable to find a revised date in the new ''House Liao'', ''House Marik'', or ''Masters & Minions''. For now, the date will have to stand because it's the only one we have. If a newer, canon product has a different date of founding for Kallon, then a revision is in order. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
:Kallon is technically a subsidiary of Earthwerks, but it basically went off on its own after the fall of the Star League, according to ''Handbook: House Davion''. I think, then, the founding date of 2808 would refer to Kallon's ''de facto'' independence from Earthwerks, but this is not explicitly stated. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 13:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)