Difference between revisions of "User talk:Mbear"

(→‎Battle of Twycross: new section)
Line 87: Line 87:
  
 
Mbear - You helped make this possible: [[Battle of Twycross]]. Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 08:51, 1 May 2013 (PDT)
 
Mbear - You helped make this possible: [[Battle of Twycross]]. Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 08:51, 1 May 2013 (PDT)
 +
 +
== Question: Unit Infoboxes ==
 +
 +
Mbear - Did you make the current versions of these? I'm specifically looking at '''infoBoxMercUnit''' and '''infoBoxStateUnit'''. I was wondering how hard it would be to create a new box combining the fields of both. The purpose of doing so: in the case of house units, it would help designate what commands have their own jumpships/dropships, as well as the non-Mech assets. I don't necessarily think we should make the new box the standard, but I feel it would help for RCTs. Can you help? Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] ([[User talk:ClanWolverine101|talk]]) 08:35, 16 May 2013 (PDT)

Revision as of 11:35, 16 May 2013

Something you want to say? Just let me know!

Archived

Cruise Missile 120

'nuff said. Consider yourself flogged and thoroughly publicly humiliated. :) Good Conduct Award, 1st ribbon

On a more serious note, I am somewhat disappointed with myself over the "apocryphal" tags on the Objective Raids, Luthien, and 1st Ed. Periphery sourcebooks. I did notice them being added and knew it was wrong, but then it somehow dropped off my radar. Fixed now. Frabby (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2013 (PST)

It may be because you and I had a conversation over how the wording in the apocryphal template doesn't match the intent you had for it, after I argued that the wording on the apocryphal content template matched what Herb had said about the three books. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2013 (PST)
Bing! That was it! Thanks for the reminder, I'll add it to my to-do list. Frabby (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (PST)
No problem. I am publicly humiliated. I guess that'll teach me to try to use logic and real world systems to try to fill in the gaps in a weapon system's history. ;) --Mbear(talk) 04:37, 7 January 2013 (PST)
Oh, and while I'm at it, what a way to start the week. Having someone tell you your work is complete crap is a great way to suck the wind out of your sails.--Mbear(talk) 05:12, 7 January 2013 (PST)
Don't let it eat at you - Paul may have told you off, but when a bollocking's done, it's done. Mistakes are bound to happen here; there are only, what, half a dozen of us regularly editing? And from what I've seen, we're all running around with our collective hair on fire trying to get information uploaded, rather than busily checking each other's homework. You do good work - don't let this get to you, ok? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (PST)
I'm also sure Mbear wasn't offended. (Then again, I wasn't at the receiving end of all that... constructive criticism. Mbear certainly showed exemplary handling of the situation.) Just for the sake of clarity, I think Paul wasn't condescending at all - he just pointed out mistakes in a very matter-of-fact way and even said he likes and still uses Sarna. I regard the whole issue as something of a tongue-in-cheek PR show for Sarna. See the bright side: Sarna got off much better than in previous threads complaining about article quality. We're definitely improving. :) Although I certainly felt the sting myself of having failed to correct/remove the apocryphal tags on those three sourcebook articles. The overall lesson here is that quality is waaay more important than quantity if Sarna wants to be taken seriously - not something we didn't already know, of course. Frabby (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (PST)
It wasn't too bad until some other folks started to jump in and rip me a new one. That was irritating. But when all's said and done I screwed up and then fixed it. So it's done now.--Mbear(talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (PST)

Planet InfoBox

Mbear, as the resident expert on infobox construction, is there any way to amend the Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard template so that if the image is already less than 225 pixels in width, it isn't increased automatically to a width of 225 pixels? Some of the info boxes (like Denbar) are suffering from image bloat because the long, think planetary flags are being scaled up dramatically... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2013 (PST)

I don't know off the top of my head. Let me look into it.--Mbear(talk) 04:17, 10 January 2013 (PST)
Updated the InfoboxPlanetStandard to include a new paramater: imagewidth. If you have an image less than 225px, you can enter the width in pixels on this line to show image w/o scaling. Leaving line blank will assume width of 225px.--Mbear(talk) 04:30, 10 January 2013 (PST)
That's great, I'll go back and revise the entries with issues now. Thank you kindly - please accept this Assistance Appreciated award as thanks: Assistance Appreciated Award, 3rd ribbon BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2013 (PST)

Rewritten: 4th Skye Rangers

For your approval, I give you the 4th Skye Rangers. You've understandably questioned my use of the "Update Needed" tags in the past. I'm hoping this will show you how I intend to use them. (Not that I intend to rewrite all those articles - just saying I want to write more than a footnote. :P ) ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2013 (PST)

Looks good! My question about your use of Update Needed was motivated by their use for things like TRO:3058 on pages like the 4th Skye Rangers. A couple of those TROs mentioned the unit in one sentence. It just struck me as odd that you'd put that update needed tag in place instead of just making the update. But from what I see here, it makes a lot of sense.--Mbear(talk) 03:08, 22 January 2013 (PST)
Its a contextual thing. Most of the Update Needed tags I put up are done when I'm doing something else. I can either stop what I'm doing and spend 20 minutes putting up a sentence, or I can put on the Update Needed tag. I connect the two in my 4SR article because I want you to know that I do go back and make the changes, it sometimes just take me awhile. :) By the way, do people on the CBT forums complain about the update needed tags? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2013 (PST)
I haven't heard any complaints on the forums. And if I did I'd just invite them to come on over and lend a hand!--Mbear(talk) 12:07, 22 January 2013 (PST)
Okay, just checking. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2013 (PST)

Viborg

(Psst... You've got your dates mixed up on Viborg. You're looking at a 2581 map, but the Commonwealth/Republic war was in the 2770s, end of the Star League era.)
As an aside, are you working through Historical: Reunification War chapter by chapter, or are you whacking away at the Updates Needed tags? I worked through the chapters on UNION HOLD and the Magistracy campaign whose name escapes me last year, and I was debating tackling the Rim Worlds campaign as one of my big projects for this year, but I don't want to step on your toes if you're already working on it. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2013 (PST)

cough Ahem. I knew that. I was just testing you to see if you were paying attention. Congratulations! You passed the test. ;)
I'm just looking at update needed tags. I'm not going to dive into any of the big things, so feel free to take on the Rim Worlds campaign.--Mbear(talk) 10:55, 22 January 2013 (PST)

Harira/Hahira

Saw you deleted Harira, with a note that it was a misspelling for Hahira. Where did that notion come from? Because I'm working on a BC story set partly on Harira, where it is spelled thusly. Frabby (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2013 (PST)

You'd have to ask BrokenMnemonic. He put it up for deletion originally. I just hit the delete button.
(diff) 03:29, March 21, 2012 . . BrokenMnemonic (Talk | contribs | block) (5,132 bytes) (Added deletion request template - entry is a duplicate, based on the mis-spelling of Hahira as Harira)
Sorry!--Mbear(talk) 04:04, 7 February 2013 (PST)

Hello

Hello Mbear. I know you are easing back for a sit, but if you were ever interested in something different, would you ever feel like writing/expanding some of your somewhat-namesake Clan characters? The Ghost Bears, of course. I'm on a track that will not be in the IS Clans for a while. Khans Like Bjorn Jorgensson and Aletha Kabrinski could really use some work. Only if you felt like a change. They will be sitting for a while if you wanted to. It definitely would not be working an obscure red link, for certain. And everyone loves Ghost Bears for some reason. Win win, when you think about it. Wink.gif

Also, and I hope you don't mind my saying this, Paul almost got me when I asked the Writers if it was safe to assume Royce Chapman was an Elemental. Just enough to remind me of what I had read silently and did not comment on before, and reminding me that assumptions are not safe. I have an eye toward making sure everything I've done is in-line now, and I'm not afraid to edit, we all know that. I don't want to tread into their territory and I'm pretty aware of that line now and it was mostly because of that thread. We're documenting and commenting in the manner of non-biased articles whenever possible. And yes I agree that the infuriating thing for me to read was the third, fourth fifth users in mentality that exhibited in Paul's wake. I'm sure he was displeased by that as well, I would be, and you would too if you were in Paul's position, I imagine. I think he wanted to help and took it for granted that he would have the floor in that setting. Sorry to bring up old stuff, but just wanted you to know that that was something that helped at least me to take a good look at what I am writing. His addressing me about Royce did not feel like happenstance, so I think he just wants to help Sarna in the direction we're supposed to have relative to that of TPTB. Just an observation. I was most thankful that I was not flayed publicly, while I was reminded that you took that for us. Thank you for that at least. --Rebs (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2013 (PST)

Combat Vehicle Infobox

Hy Mbear, please can you add a heat sinks row to the combat vehicle infobox, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2013 (PST)

Done!--Mbear(talk) 12:46, 26 February 2013 (PST)

ProtoMech Infobox

Hy, can you add a comsys and T&T row to the infobox, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2013 (PST)

done.--Mbear(talk) 05:54, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

Design Quirks

Hy Mbear, is it ok when i add a design quirks section to the variants you added from XTRO: Boondoggles?--Doneve (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Sure. I don't know that we need a section though. maybe just a sentence.--Mbear(talk) 05:48, 15 March 2013 (PDT)
I want to create a Design Quirks page, and i need your support, i know you favor a sentence, but i want to list all quirks in a article, can you help me a little bit, to do this, there is a interesting discussion from FedCom Girl to Herb on the BT forum, and i want to bring this idea to sarna.--Doneve (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2013 (PDT)
Well, one place to start might be the Force Specific Rules page, since that's basically what we're talking about. (Force Specific Rules strike me as Design Quirks for units.) There's a general introduction about the Force Specific Rules, and then a section that lists the effects of the various FSRs. Sounds a lot like the Design Quirks page you're looking to create.--Mbear(talk) 07:00, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I forgot to give you this link Design Quirks.--Doneve (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't understand how that link relates to the proposed Design Quirks page.--Mbear(talk) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
You understand me fals, i want to liste the various quirks i can found in cannon sources where ther used on which types and so on, like Technical Readout: Prototypes, XTRO: Boondoggles etc., i start a talk with FedComGirl and Habeas as next, and want to bring this up to sarna what FedComGirl datamined, with a ok from her and his permission to use this on sarna in next time, is the Rules Level or Force Specific Rules article better to add the quirks link, please take a look on Technical Readout: Prototypes, p. 5.--Doneve (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't have any problem with this. Go for it. My suggestion for using the Force Specific Rules article as your model is still valid. Just put the info underneath each Quirk.--Mbear(talk) 17:03, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't put all quirks in the Force Specific Rules page, i add a description and rule thinks from Strategic Operations but with a link to the Quirks page.--Doneve (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that you should use the Force Specific Rules page as a model for the Design Quirks page. So at the top you have the general design quirks info, and below you have each individual design quirk.--Mbear(talk) 17:15, 1 April 2013 (PDT)
Ah ok, this is clear, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2013 (PDT)

Take a view

Hy Mbear. Can you take a look on the Design Quirks page, i built up at this time the main body of the page, but any support or critism is welcome, to change some parts.--Doneve (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2013 (PDT)

CGL forum

Mbear, iam a little bit dissapointed about the CGL forum, i add a question, no response comes or some stupid answers, iam cince 2011 on it but not under my sarna name, i don't know why so many BV (2.0) differences are in the sources, as example take a look on the Lumberjack iam updated today, i know there is some errata, but not to the changed bv in so many sources, Technical Readout: 3075, Record Sheets: 3075 Unabridged vs. Record Sheets: 3075 Unabridged - Age of War, now i have a feeling why Bad Syntax stopped his work on so many projects look on this Older posts on the bottom, but the best way you read id from the start topic. You are longer on the forum as I, but I become a critical point of view to the forum.--Doneve (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2013 (PDT)

Herb can come across a bit snarky. In defense of TPTB, there are things in BT that are unknown even to them. And some of these things they don't even want to know. Take BV for example, Herb confirmed that the system is broken and is giving even the CGL experts bad headaches - in many cases they will simply be unable to answer questions about BV even if they wanted to. On the other end of the spectrum is FASAnomics and production details where it is stated CGL policy to deliberately give out as little hard info as possible because the existing canon information is a bitch to keep track of already. Somewhere in the middle are cases which are considered too inconsequential to bother about errata'ing them when inconsistencies pop up; I had that happen with a BattleCorps story.
Can you point me to a specific thread on the forum? Frabby (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2013 (PDT)
Doneve, I certainly relate to your frustration. I don't know what to say. For the BV stuff, please just use the latest sources: If TPTB aren't worried about getting it right why should we?--Mbear(talk) 04:10, 15 April 2013 (PDT)

Question extension

Hey, Mbear: do you recall the name of the extension we're using to quiz new registrants? I don't think its ConfirmEdit, but I don't see any other descriptions that would match. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:55, 20 April 2013 (PDT)

Sorry, but I don't remember. (And if I did, I'd tell you in teh forums rather than out here where a damn dirty spammer could find out.)--Mbear(talk) 03:30, 22 April 2013 (PDT)
Point. I'll reach out to Nic. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:43, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

Battle of Twycross

Mbear - You helped make this possible: Battle of Twycross. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2013 (PDT)

Question: Unit Infoboxes

Mbear - Did you make the current versions of these? I'm specifically looking at infoBoxMercUnit and infoBoxStateUnit. I was wondering how hard it would be to create a new box combining the fields of both. The purpose of doing so: in the case of house units, it would help designate what commands have their own jumpships/dropships, as well as the non-Mech assets. I don't necessarily think we should make the new box the standard, but I feel it would help for RCTs. Can you help? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2013 (PDT)