Current

Please add new entries to the bottom of this page (in order to ensure I actually see them).

Taurian Concordat Update

IT IS DONE!! All rulers, regents, assorted persons and events of significance to the Taurian Concordat (prior to 3060) have been named, paged and referenced! WHEW that took longer that I thought it would but real life jumped up in the way. If you or one of the other admins could give this long labor of faction love a once (or heck twice!) over to make sure it meets this Wiki's standards I would be most grateful.Deeppockets 23:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is cool. Isn't it, well, fun to grab one article and beat all the loose change out of it and then count that change? It really feels like a family tree and if you keep following the links, its amazing where the links will take you. Congratulations! Made me think we need to develop 'campaign' ribbons, for mastering a subject. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I'll take what ever comes my way; laurel wreaths or flame spams! But instead of a new award how about Substantial Addition Award or Good Article Award?Deeppockets 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My humble thanks kind sir.Deeppockets 22:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IS Atlas content integration

Hy Rev, hmm i think the question make some problemes with the policy and other thinks, but i hope you can help me and you like the idea. I want to contact Chris Wheeler, how we can move some planetary description content from [[1]] by her permission, and embeded that in sarna.net, with cannonical references, i know there is a lak of some source infos on IS Atlas and it is a meta-source, i want to make the meta-source content to a cannonical. It is a crazy idea by myself, what you are thinking about this, and i hope the ball rolls.--Doneve 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Doneve, my advice would be to contact Frabby. Not only is he a German-speaker (which will help in translating your idea), but he is well-known on CBT.com for his missing planets project. In other words, I think he would be your best bet to kick this off. Hope that helps. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Frabby, nice to see you back in your spare time.--Doneve 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to be back.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good to have you back Rev! To the topic at hand, we can't copy planet descriptions over from the IS Atlas because the Atlas content is plainly stolen (copied/plagiarized) from the old Housebooks and MechWarrior RPG; nothing there (as far as I can tell) is original content. We'd be running into all sorts of copyright problems here. I do like the idea of more descriptive planet/system information, but we have to write the texts ourselves. Frabby 08:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur. To be honest, I was rather tired when reading the initial post, and knew I would not be able to understand it at the time. Having gone over there, I agree that the information is composed (almost) entirely of original material.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cities

Hy Rev, i forgot to thank's for your support to my created cities etc. articls, i work on next day again on this project, and i think i become some User talks, but i don't like the issue of the others (the articles are not usefull or must integrate on the planet pages), i follow the Unfinished Book Project and pick up any subject, i became a little completely unreasonable view of the i don't like this and that, when user's don't like this, become a member to the UBP and change this, this is my answer to this sadly discussion.--Doneve 14:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide an example link to one of these discussions? I'm not understanding the problem, I'm afraid.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyed from New Avalon talk page

“

Create the temp. articles for the city's later.--Doneve 11:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Doneve - Respectfully, most (all?) of those cities are probably not worthy of their own article. You could certainly argue that Avalon City is notable, but it world still probably be best to write brief descriptions of locations on a planet within the article. Just a thought? ClanWolverine101 06:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

CW101, BTW strives to record every fact gather-able on any subject within BattleTech. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't get into issues of notability and we do favor redlinks, in the hopes a writer will come along to make it blue. While I have absolutely no issues with your recommendation to provide write-ups on these cities within the New Avalon article, I'm also equally fine with redlinks that point to a non-existent article that has the potential to provide more detail than allowable here. (Caveat: I'm not a proponent of empty placeholder articles. For example, someone creating an article over a minor New Avalon city that only indicated a reference to the source material; I'd much prefer a simple statement at the least.)--Revanche 14:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Revanche, for your answer to ClanWolverine 101-Doneve 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with CW on this one. I think the information that is being spread out amongst the various articles belongs on this page. In this case it's a matter of context. Reading about Ith by itself doesn't give me very much information, so I have to read the "Geography" section of New Avalon in order to understand the meanings of the various things that article refers to. --Scaletail 23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

”

Doneve, there is just no consensus on this yet. It has been discussed, but some feel everything with its own article will encourage others to expand upon it, while others feel stub articles detract from the site. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for the awards. I agree with your comments about redirects. It's frustrating to try to go to a page and have it go to a search page instead, especially when what you typed is just a space or a letter away from an existing redirect to the page you wanted to get to! GOLFisNOTaSPORT 22:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Community Service Award

...granted for taking the helm in the Fanon Purge and the Non-Canon Submission Council. I am especially glad that you're doing this since I don't have the time to look after these important processes myself though I do try to provide input now and then. Frabby 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Frabby. It is appreciated.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Notification

Template:FanonNotice

User Essays category

So, I notice an issue with the use of a category page for the essays. It eliminates the step of the user manually going to the category page and adding their link. It also lists all essays as being user:GreatAuthor/Essayname, a fairly ugly convention. I have added a suggested markup to the category page. -- LRichardson 18:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Scroll Box

Holla Rev, i like your scroll box experiment, and want to support this good idea to make long page sections shorter, i give you, in fully respect your , i am very glad to see you back, and bumb up the wiki.--Doneve 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I know you follow my movements and adopt some of my methods. You're like my clone! It's great.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutly, at first the scroll box works, i think on the planet pages, how i picked up your Unfinished Book Project, on the Tharkad, New Avalon pages etc., and want to expand it (seriously i provide a talk on the targed pages), greetings.--Doneve 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

At second i want to integrade your scroll box, to overhelmed pages, and bring some pages to a better view.--Doneve 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually Ebakunin who brought this in. We need him back here.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

HawkWolf.gif

I filled all the data i could, i will try to find the artist.Mekorig 22:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. The source and legal statement are most important. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Spammer

Hi Rev, i happen to spot User:Umipa creating a spam article Here wikis informed‎. I request this thing be removed/banned please, thank you. -- Wrangler 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, Wrangler. I've been waiting for him to post something all day, but it was you who caught it. Handling it now.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We got another live one in User:Notempover and his online IDs. --Dirk Bastion 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Zapp! :-) Frabby 08:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged! --Dirk Bastion 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again & Note

Hi Rev, thanks for the Vandal award. I sorry i didn't respond to you sooner, but my activity off-line been keeping me from contributing as much as I used to. I'll try do my best keep up helping out. Did you or anyone else find those weird ads that were I guess, temporarily in Republic of the Sphere article else where? I do periodicly see them in other websites, but i didn't know it was a browser filter thing or something else. - Wrangler 22:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I'm traveling myself at the moment and haven't had much Sarna time either.

No, haven't heard anything else. I think it may be a toolbar (or other app) you have installed on your browser, that highlights advert words.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I saw another example of "invisible ad links" on User:Mbear's user page. The spambot used a code that made the link effectively invisible in the text when displaying it. I have removed the code, but you can see it here. Perhaps that's similar to what Wrangler saw in the ROTS article. Frabby 06:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I had considered that also, but found no such code. Additionally, the article he reported these on, The Republic of the Sphere, had a minimal of IP edits and, IIRC, no otherwise non-regular edits. Each of those added solid edits (with only one exception). In Wrangler's words: "Words that are effected "special" "administration" "the planet". I tried edit remove them, but they don't appear (from what i can tell) in the normal coding a editor usually can see." That suggests to me some sort of search engine optimization-related linking that he inadvertently allowed to alter his browser. Unfortunately, I haven't experienced such a change to my browser, so am not really sure what to suggest for removal.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Switching to Firefox?

--Scaletail 11:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

::sigh:: I'm so comfortable with Firefox, that using IE at work makes me itch.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Greate Takayoshi Fuchida

Hy Revanche, i give you your , all purpose award, great expansion by the ...Kearny ...Fuchida, bio pages, very clean i like it.--Doneve 04:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Doneve.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Realm categories for star systems

Not sure if this is a good idea. It is a static description of a dynamic process - that way lies madness. Too many planets change hands frequently, some are co-owned or independent. What do you do with Chaos March worlds that previously were part of the Tikonov Republic and ended up with the ROTS? Ultimately, almost any planet belonged to almost every faction at some point in time. So the categorization isn't very informative, imho. Frabby 03:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree, man. I don't think it is static, when presented thusly: "This category lists all articles for planets that have been within the boundaries of the Draconis Combine." While there is a lot of changing hands around borders (and of former Hegemony worlds), its not like the old 'Mechs debate about production versus faction use; if a planet was in Marik hands twice and Steiner hands twice, it'll be in the appropriate category only once.

One aspect of Wikipedia I really enjoy is being able to dial down into categories, as they get more and more specific. On that project, Category: Battles opens up child categories for a varied amount of information: By country, By era, By type (aerial, naval, sieges, tanks) and even Battles and conflicts without fatalities and Nonviolent revolutions! Here, someone can -with a few clicks- determine every planet ever controlled by the Magistracy or the Combine, not just what they now control. I realized we didn't have a means of answering my question: which worlds have been controlled by the Combine? And a list was far from accurate (or trustworthy) way of answering that.

I'm absolutely willing to stop for the time being, to discuss, however. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

By all means, continue. I was just wondering because I honestly don't think it is very informative to know all systems that were part of, say, the Draconis Combine once (includes the entire FRR and a good share of the Steiner and Davion realms). Without a given year as context, it's just a mess of data.

Which reminds me of an idea I had: In an ideal world, BTW wouldn't list system ownership in the way we do it now; it should be a section labelled "Political affiliation/Ownership" that lists the date of first colonisation and every date when political affiliation/ownership changed since then. And how it changed, of course. But that's for some distant time in the future when I have way too much time on my hands and no other BTW projects... :) Frabby 17:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on ownership. Who owned it in what era is a holdover of Nic's ISCS download and it's archaic. I agree, the planets need a much-needed scrubbing and effort to establish informative parameters between the various pages. I'd be glad to help with that. Maybe one day...--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hy Rev, how we handel the Clan Planets.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Doneve (talk • contribs) .

Doneve, check out Category: Clan Wolf Planets and copy the wording there for other Clan holdings. (You can also see the other six Clan categories, if you click on the 'C' quicklink under Category:Planets.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks.--Doneve 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechforce Magazines

Rev - What's the current policy for the material in the Mechforce magazines? I just dug up some from '96. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 17:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Jump in, hy CW101, i think the magazines falls under apocryphal content, but talk to Frabby, he is the expert in this thinks.--Doneve 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, MechForce material is apocryphal. Given that there's a multitude of MechForce magazines around (2 for MFNA, 3 for MFG + 2 for MGF spin-offs...), which magazine do you have? Oh, and as for what to do with them: I suggest an overview article with a (brief!) content rundown for each individual issue. See BattleTechnology or Wunderwelten articles. Frabby 19:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, they were for Mech Quarterly. The first two I have are Volume 2, Issues 13 and 14 from AWOL Productions. The third is Volume 1, Issue 1 of MechForce North America Quartely from when FASA took over the fanclub for AWOL.

I actually was only half-interested in writing issue articles. I am more interested in the content, and how to add apocryphal content to already existing articles without making a mess of them. For example, one published scenario has two lances of Grave Walkers defeating a Clan Wolf Star in a post-Tukayyid Trial of Possession for some bondsmen on Carse. Stuff like that. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 23:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The formal way to include apocryphal material in an otherwise article would be like it was done in these articles: Jimmy Lee, Menlo Drews, Cassie DeBurke, Crescent Hawks, Cameron's Legion. Be sure to include a canonicity section and clearly marking what part of the article is based on apocryphal sources, as opposed to canonical sources.

In cases where only a very small portion of the otherwise large article (a single tidbit of information) is apocryphal, I have omitted the "Apocryphal Content" tag in the past and merely inserted the information, clearly marked as apocryphal of course. Examples: Shandra Noruff-Cameron, Hansen's Roughriders#History ("The 3030s" section).

Regarding your "half-interestedness" in writing articles about the sources - pretty pleeeaaase? :-) Since it is impossible to get the 'Mech and Mech Quarterly magazines here I can't do it myself, and I know next to nothing about the MFNA either which is quite a hindrance in writing that article. (I never was a MFNA or MFG member, but at least I found enough stuff on the MFG to write an article for them.) Frabby 10:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Frabby - Thanks! Your guidance on making changes to the already existing articles is most helpful. As for the magazines themselves... well, I will chew that over. ClanWolverine101 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict Infobox

OMG! Rev is making a conflict infobox! I can do SOOO much with that! Have a in advance. :D:D:D ClanWolverine101 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That made me laugh. Thanks. Right now, I just taught myself how to 'hide' an unused section, in this case a third opposing force (ala Blakists in JTP:L). Let me know if there is anything else that you'd expect to see in a conflict infobox.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's me Neuling, I have put alot of time in the various conflicts and will have your thougths about the topic. It is usefull to split the various battles of for example the clan invasion or the 4th succession war into induvidual conflict pages or not. I think by some events the informations are to small to create a good text aound it. Neuling 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"I think by some events the informations are to small to create a good text aound it." That's your answer, right there. If you feel you cannot write an article that merits your standards because too little information is available, then by all means summarize the battle (ex: routine patrol engages small enemy force) in the article on the larger conflict (ex: Battle of Luthien (Jihad)). Individual battles with enough information to warrant an article /should/ have articles, if the initial writer can build it. Otherwise, they should be left on the larger article. Does that help?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think MOST battles do not merit their own article. Most battles get (maybe!) a paragraph in a book like the NAIS 4th Succession War books, or the Clan Invasion sourcebooks like Invading Clans. I like what Frabby did on the Hesperus II article, with little subsections for each battle, most of which little material was published on. Contrast all this with the GDL's battle on Glengarry in 3056. Published works : One scenario pack, one turning point campaign book, two NOVELS, and over a dozen minor mentions in various books. THAT is the foundation for a great article. ClanWolverine101 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree, CW. I think Frabby does great work, creating highly informative articles and I don't think the site suffers because people don't create articles on the small stuff. It's just that it is very hard to define what is too small, if there is interest in writing about a certain subject. And that is what I was trying to convey to Neuling: if he is not comfortable creating an article on a certain battle because it either lacks importance or source material or he feels it is better served by including it in a larger perspective, then he absolutely should do so. Great articles can only be built when provided with adequate information.

Likewise, if someone feels they can datamine something to an extreme and create more than a sub-stub, then they should absolutely do that, as well. It may not be a great article, but it may be a start-class article for something that will become great, when more information becomes available. Or, maybe, it serves another purpose: it simply answers someone's question about something very specific: "when did it occur", or "who was involved". They don't all have to be great, they don't all have to be articles, but they must all be informative. I'll be the first to label an article a sub-stub if it provides absolutely no in-universe information about a subject other than its name and/or date, even if it provides references, and then delete it myself 7 days later. But I also understand some writers enjoy and are skilled at creating large, informative articles while others prefer acting as archivists of the minor details, knowing that a larger picture can also become clear through that method. I don't prefer one angle over the other. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories by Clan Worlds

Hi Rev, i'm not sure if its good idea to category individual Clan controlled worlds. Clan worlds specially in Clan space, changes hands alot or are partially owned. Only because previous sourcebooks did we know the percentages of the planets. This seems to be changing due to new policies of CGL to simplify things. Won't it be simipler to classify Clan occupided worlds by listing them Category: Clan Planets instead? There are good chunk of Inner Sphere/Periphery worlds that now owned by the Clans, some those Clans are hybrid nations like Rasalhague Dominon and Raven Alliance. Isn't this going add alot more categories of worlds? Example the Raslhague will have least three, Draconis Combine, Free Raslhague Republic, and Clan Ghost Bear. Clan worlds change alot more often. -- Wrangler 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My intent, with the categories, is to allow a researcher to quickly determine where a state (Clan, IS or Periphery) has had claim, past or present. We won't be removing planets from a category, since BTW covers all eras, but add a planet to a category when it does change hands.

In other words, I can ask: "What planets did the Lyran Alliance control? Oooh, Unukalhai? When did they loose it? Oh, okay, the year 3xxx!"

Of course, we can't answer that last question yet, but that's because we haven't started the Grand Cleanup of the planets yet. Once Doneve and I are done categorizing them, I'll open up a discussion on what the perfect planet template would look like and then we'll use the categories we've developed to make that project manageable.

As for your specific concern on Clan worlds, you may be right, but to simplify the overall planet categorization, we're dividing them into states only right now. It might be wiser (when we're done with this phase), to separate them into Homeworlds and IS Holdings, instead. We'll see. Thanks for the suggestion.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was nosing around in the planetary regions and categories area after reading one of the planet entries that came up as a result of the random page function (I was getting tired of writing entries for Star League Corps) and I noticed that you don't have a category for independent planets. There are some dotted around at various eras within the BattleTech timeline, particularly after the dissolution of the Free Worlds League; while the majority are either Periphery planets or Chaos March planets and are already covered, I wasn't sure what your plans were regarding the former FWL. I did notice on the Planets Project page that the intention is to have information available for all of the various eras of the BattleTech timeline; with the recent Age of War material coming out from CGL and maps going back to the founding of the various major realms in the handbooks, there are a lot of planets in the Inner Sphere that were independent for various lengths of time. BrokenMnemonic 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BrokenMnemonic. I think that is a good category name. Doneve and I had decided not to include 'independents' because they didn't fit our definition of multi-planet states, but by putting them in that category, the category answers the question "Which planets were once states unto themselves?" and they don't just disappear in the Planets category. I'll get with Doneve to go back and start including those. Thanks.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help :) Independent planets is also a good way to track a lot of state fragments, like those worlds the Lyran Commonwealth didn't annex from the Rim Worlds Republic and the Taurian Concordat settled planets that are still around but not in either the Concordat or the Protectorate at the end of the Dark Age. Depending on the status of the original Gray Death Legion novels, it would also technically include Verthandi just prior to the 4th Succession War. How far back will you be rolling the years with the planets? CGL included maps going back to the founding of the various states in the Handbooks, at which point there were a lot of smaller states flying around, some overlapping with the Age of War. There also appears to have been a fair number of planets settled during the Star League era, which means a lot of planets that wouldn't exist in early entries suddenly appearing later on. Will you be tracking dead planets, too? I was reading Handbook: Major Periphery States and it's frightening just how many planets in the Outworlds Alliance simply vanished after the fall of the Star League. BrokenMnemonic 20:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll be a bit dis-appointed in the near term. Right now, Doneve and I are doing no research in our categorization. We're categorizing solely on the Owner History sections of each planet article. We're trying to establish a baseline, so groups of planets can be hit up and improved in appropriate groups, rather than just hitting the 'C's or the 'G's.

However, it's my intention, once we kick off a team project to do so, to really clean up and make these planet articles more informative. Owner history will no longer detail eras and who controlled them at that specific year, but each turnover and the year it occurred. Once we do that, then planets will see additional categories, where appropriate. For example, right now Verthandi will not be included in the independent category (by myself), as it never shows the period of independence in the Owner History section as it now exists. Same thing goes for dead planets. Once we start organizing and modernizing the planet articles, the categories will be more accurate.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it this means that by default, worlds which swapped between realms during the various succession wars will all show the same date based on the maps, unless there's a text somewhere that indicates a specific year within which the world changed hands? It sounds like you've got an elegant workaround for the problem of planets that were allegedly swapping hands a lot, like those in the former Terran Hegemony, but which always ended up with the same nations in the end of Succession War realm maps. BrokenMnemonic 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It'll be a daunting task, both in the complexity of the information, as well as the numbers of planets to be covered. It won't be a project counted only in months. I was thinking, it might also be beneficial to change the map graphics each planets has to not show realm colors, but just the surrounding stars (also 2 jumps out). That way they won't be pigeon-holed to a specific year.

And I'm not sure it's 'elegant'. Some may feel the use of categories as static groups unrelated to 'current' status are not very informative. But, it should work for organizing the big planet cleanup.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't envy you getting to grips with that task! I don't know how the map colours are determined currently, but I find them a little hard to navigate, partly due to poor eyesight. I don't know how many worlds change hands more than once or twice, but I'm guessing that one of the problems you've got is that colouring the worlds is informative for worlds that never/very very infrequently change hands, which would primarily be those worlds in the heartlands of the major Inner Sphere realms, but very limiting for those that change hands. To be honest, I normally work out where worlds are by searching a PDF map of the Inner Sphere, or if I'm sure a world is within a particular realm but I can't work out exactly where, I go to the Handbooks. With so many worlds in the game it's markers like realm/state boundaries or nearby major capitals/worlds that help me work out where a world is, rather than it's local neighbours.

I do think your solution is elegant, but I'm thinking in terms of database queries - categorising worlds using realms they've been members of, and adding dates to show when they changed loyalties makes for very searchable datasets - it makes it possible for people to run queries for worlds in a particular realm, limited by boundary dates, and get comprehensive lists. Whether the wiki can actually do that at the moment, I don't know enough to comment, but I do like the idea of being able to do that in the future. BrokenMnemonic 08:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not certain searches can be done that way (I don't think wikis are that dynamic), but I'm only 90% certain. However, as you've indicated, the overall query can be somewhat simplified by the initial category and the reader can specifically see when a planet changed hands by opening the article. Ideally, the state article's history section would also detail those changes chronologically; that can be built by the properly-cited information within each planet article, without the writer having to go to the original source material.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Real World References

I hope this is the correct way to ask this question... I've been working through the Star League Defence Force Corps, creating basic entries for those Corps that are currently lacking them, and I came across XLIV Corps, which includes the 1st Infantry Division (The Big Red One). Given FASA's love for cultural, historical and pop references, it seemed to me that this is probably a reference or homage to the US 1st Infantry Division, although perhaps not a deliberate continuation of the real world unit as it's not the 1st Royal Infantry Division or something similar. I had a look at the unit entry, and there's no note to that effect in the notes section, which made me wonder if such things are outside the scope of the wiki. I had a look in the policy are but couldn't see anything that related directly to this; I was wondering if you could tell me where the wiki stands on such things? I had a look for other examples that occured to me, and I noticed that the Team Banzai entry notes the reference to Buckaroo Banzai, but the entry on Blanc's Coyotes (vice Wylie's Coyotes) doesn't contain a similar reference. BrokenMnemonic 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew this had come up before, but had not found a policy regarding it. However, I did a search for "not wikipedia" and found these two discussions: Talk:Horse & Talk:Striga. Basically, it boils down to the idea that we do not know, within the in-character context of the BT universe, why something was named this or why somebody would do that unless it is officially mentioned. We all know the character Aleksandr Kerensky was named after his historical predecessor, but it would be inappropriate to introduce that as fact, unless it had been so stated (either in the fiction or by an official statement indicating he was so named by his parents for that exact reason). However, I see in the Sarna article on the man, someone wrote a Trivia section (which I'm now re-naming as Notes) where it was proposed. As long as that doesn't become a debated 'discussion' more appropropriately placed on the Talk page, I don't see why you couldn't mention it as a possible origin of the fiction unit's name, in a similar Notes section. Does that help?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. You've been great at helping me out and giving advice since I started poking around here; would it be ok for me to award you one of the appreciation medals, like this one?

BrokenMnemonic 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It sure would, and thanks! But I'm not altruistic when I help: the easier I make it on you, the more likely you'll stick around and make BTW that much greater. Thanks for sticking around and making BTW that much greater! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Magna (Fusion Engines)

Hy Rev, a question about my created Magna (Fusion Engines) page, is it better to integrate the Light Fusion and XL Fusion Engines or create a separate article like this Magna (Fusion Engines XL).--Doneve 11:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Without being involved in that project at all, I'd say integrate. They are all fusion engines; the focus is on the brand, not the type. But that's just my opinion.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Taurian Concordat/Calderon Protectorate

1) Would it be possible to have a planetary category added for the Calderon Protectorate?

2) Oh, and what's the current situation regarding adding planetary possession details for dates before 2750 and after 3060? I've been doing some reading on the Taurian Concordat for my own interest, and if it would be useful, I'd happily add details for planets going forward to the most recent dates in Handbook: Major Periphery States and back to the Age of War if it's going to be useful.

3) Is there a rule on citing references for planet ownership, or is it something that isn't generally done because of the number of overlapping references for certain eras? BrokenMnemonic 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbered, to aid in my response:

1) I have no problem with Category: Calderon Protectorate Planets being created, if there are planets listed in the Owner History that would be added to it. Right now, Doneve and I are largely categorizing the planets as they are now listed. So, if no planets list the Calderon Protectorate presently, you have two options: add it to the owner history yourself, before he and I get to those particular planets or add the Calderon Protectorate or add the category tags to those planets that were/are members.

2)Yes, yes, yes. Add details. Right now, the planetary articles are, in my opinion, providing unnecessary and incorrect information (jump distances to 'neighbor' systems), as well as outdates and incorrectly presented data (owner history). While there's a Planet project established, it's never really taken off and the articles themselves exist roughly in the same form when the wiki was established. Nic built a bot to create those articles before citation requirements existed (because the wiki was not yet 'open') and they were the most organized articles on this wiki for years. However, the community has never gotten together to discuss if the articles are valuable or properly built. Update, update, feel free to update! If/when Project Planets does get re-organized, that additional information you add will, at the minimum, help highlight the areas that need to be improved.

3)Cite, cite, cite. One of the most important policies, but least enforced, is proper citations. If you're doing the research and you cite its source, you've increased the trust a reader will have in that information. In your case, since you're focusing on maps, provide (in order) the source title, the pages and the name of the map. Thanks, BM!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Spiffy, I'm on the case! I'll concentrate on Periphery worlds though, because... well, that's what I'm interested in at the moment. I may go a little citation happy, though! BrokenMnemonic 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I may regret saying this later, but I don't see how too many refs can hurt (I may advice, tho).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've worked my way through all of the worlds that are or have been Taurian Concordat or Magistracy of Canopus worlds as well as the New Colony Region/Fronc Reaches region, but I've only based the detail on the published maps I can find - there are going to be rafts of extra citations for a lot of planets when people start adding in dates from text. For planets that seem to vanish during the Succession Wars, I've added the citations for the last map they were on and the first maps after, to highlight the difference, and I've used the Davion, Liao and Marik handbooks to include as many worlds as possible from their succession wars-era maps. Why they didn't do SW maps for the Periphery States, I don't know... and what's really frustrating is that I can see bits of the map when pages are loading that are then covered by information boxes, so there's more information in there, if only I could get at it.

Anyway, having done two of the long-term Periphery nations, I've found that the older maps are a little dodgy- the ones from the first edition Periphery sourcebook and Objective Raids have a number of discrepancies that I think Catalyst are now phasing out. The original map of the Marian Hegemony matches the text description, in that it has 8 worlds... but none of those are Alphard. Maybe the capital was hidden? And places like Addhara are missing from the Magistracy. I can see us filing a lot of questions with CGL.

Do you have copies of both Handbook: Major Periphery States and Handbook: House Davion? In my copies, there's a world called Coopertown on the 2750 map for the Magistracy that then vanishes, and a world with the same name in the periphery appears on the 2822 and 2864 House Davion maps. I'm wondering if it's a case of one of the co-ordinates got reversed, and if it's something that's been fixed in other editions.

Depending on how much free time I end up with this week, I'm going to either try and tackle adding more citations to the Outworlds Alliance (there aren't that many, until House Kurita gets a handbook) or the Rim Worlds Republic, which could be a pretty big task given how many RWR worlds vanish over the centuries... BrokenMnemonic 20:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That is...fascinating about the boxes. I wonder if Adobe Illustrator or the open source Inkspace might reveal more.

As for Coopertown, the House Davion maps show a Cooperland (vice Coopetown). I suspect they are two different worlds.

Which one would be more fun for you? OA or RWR?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added in all the Age of War/Star League era Taurian Concordat worlds, and updated to the end of 3067 based on the sourcebook maps I've got here. I've started adding in all the Age of War/Star League era Outworlds Alliance worlds, and I've just hit a knotty problem. There's a world in the Outworlds Alliance named Jordan Weis - or at least, that's how it's spelt in Handbook: Major Periphery States p. 147/150. In the Periphery (sourcebook) p. 156, Objective Raids, p. 46, The Periphery, 2nd Edition, p. 110 and the Inner Sphere (sourcebook) p. 98, it's Jordan Wais. That's not the knotty part of the problem, though - the knotty part of the problem is that here on the Wiki, we have neither Jordan Weis nor Jordain Wais, but instead two seperate worlds, Jordan and Wais, each with different co-ordinates. I'm guessing that's something to do with the Inner Sphere Atlas, but I'm not sure what to do about it. BrokenMnemonic 12:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's hilarious. In all my years, I've never found that. That's rather cool.

Okay, first off: There are numerous mistakes. I remember one of the first problems detected by editors here was that some of the planets had coordinates where the Y coordinate was copied from the X, which appears to be the case with Wais. This was a result of the database transfer to build the wiki, before it opened.

Second, Frabby determined back in 2009 (on the talk pages for both Jordan and Wais), that the planet depicted should have been called Quiberas. Now, he references two maps (I presume to be actual printed maps, rather than book maps) to get this. We have no article (yet) on Quiberas, and on the only article that mentions it, Neuling chose not to provide any citations, so we have no direct way of learning more about that planet.

However, I could confirm your research (thanks a lot for the page numbers) and there is no doubt that Jordan Wais was intended to be a planet and that most recently, (presumably) Øystein Tvedten changed the name to Jordan Weis. Could you please ask over on the CBT forums if the new spelling was intentional or accidental? Once we have that, we can merge the Jordan and Wais pages into the proper name (with a redirect from the mis-spelled name). As for the coordinates, I'll try and make an informed judgment as to what it should be, I'll probably default to the atlas-provided one of 500.95, 178.88. Thanks, BM.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the question when I've finished adding in the remainder of the Star League-era Cerberus and Ramora provinces - just in case there are any more doozies like that one floating around out there. I have a planet named Quiberas on all of my maps though, going back to the Periphery (sourcebook). Would it be easier to rename & redirect the bogus entry to a new page called Quiberas, or would it be better to create Quiberas, copy the co-ordinates across and delete the original?

I still find it scary just how many OA worlds got lost after the Star League collapsed. BrokenMnemonic 13:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing it too. I'm suspecting you'll find a few more planets that don't yet have pages. The atlas doesn't have an entry for Quiberas, but I've reached out to a fan that has been working on his own coordinates tracker, based on the maps Øystein is credited with creating. I'll follow the Quiberas path, while you get the proper name for JW figured out (and keep an eye on any more like that). --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

From the man himself: CBT Ask The Writers it's probably an unconscious typo. I've been printing out maps from Handbook: House Davion and Handbook: House Liao because I'm that big a maps geek, and I noticed that it's now spelt Jordan Weis in HB:HD as well - so it's presumably the new standard spelling, replacing the older one. I'd suggest we use Jordan Weis and set up a redirect for Jordan Wais.

I also discovered that HB:HL has a map going back to 2366, which is positively delicious as it shows a number of independent periphery worlds/worlds that were independent, and highlights that the Capellans had conquered half a dozen Taurian Worlds by 2571 that I'd always assumed had been Capellan from the word go. From the HB:HD maps I've got more dates for worlds in the TC and Outworlds Alliance too, because HB:HD includes maps as at the end of the 1st and 2nd Succession Wars, which is quietly fascinating because it shows the decline in Periphery populations seems to have really bit during the 3rd SW era.

I sense another evening of planet updates looming before me while I geek out quietly! BrokenMnemonic 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's most excellent news, BM; a lot faster response than I expected. I disagree, however, that the planet should be spelled with an 'A' vice the 'E'. By Øystein's own statement, it's probably a typo, and so it may change back in the next iteration of an OA map. I'll submit an errata for each of those books. We'll see what response we get, but for the meantime, I suggest going with the 'A' spelling.

That's great about the newer historical maps. It's uncovering a new context to a faction's history!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed: you didn't mean to imply you found the error in Handbook: House Liao too, right?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I was thinking that given the current attitude from CGL regarding precedent from newer books rather than older ones, they'd stick with Weis, but you're probably right. When HB:HK comes out, it may well show the same region and could give us another data point for comparison.

I did notice another issue though; the TC Far Looker colonies were outed to the government by 3040, but I'm fuzzy on the exact founding dates. The HB:HD map for 3030 doesn't show any of the new colonies, and keeps the TC within it's 3025 boundaries. The Handbook: House Liao map for 3030 shows all the Far Looker colonies close to the Confederation in place - so the two maps don't agree with each other, despite having the same date on them. Arg.

I also noticed there's a new Periphery world between the Concordat, Randis and where the Tortuga Dominions on the maps from HB:HD for the end of 1st and 2nd SW eras - a system named "Cooperland" - but it's only on those two maps. They shouldn't do things like that, because now I want to know what the story of Cooperland is!

The 2366, 2571 and 2750 maps for the CC are fascinating. They show that the CC extended out into the Periphery in quite a big way, absorbing 3 independent systems and conquering several from the TC by 2571, then colonizing a number of worlds in the region (although Herotitus looks to have always been independent) only for their border to retreat back again during the wars, with a number of worlds vanishing. Interestingly, the New Colony Region borders only go about as far "north" as the edge of where the CC extended furthest "south" during the Star League-era - almost as if the NCR efforts were avoiding attempting to annex the remains of any old SL-era Capellan worlds in the region.

I do love this stuff ;)

- whoops, you're right, I didn't mean to imply an error in HB:HL as well - that was just unfortunate phrasing on my part. BrokenMnemonic 14:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you want to handle the disparity between the Far Looker colony maps?

Don't worry about the implication regarding HB:HL; I started to search there first and then realized, "Why would the OA be represnted in this title?" I re-read what you wrote and could see why I thought that on a quick read, but wanted to make sure my second read-through was not the one in error.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've dug out my copy of the Periphery, 2nd Edition and on p12-13 it states that the Far Lookers didn't start embezzling money and settling new colonies until after the death of Edward Calderon in 3034, with 7 worlds settled by 3035, and 16 new worlds between 3035 and 3037 (which is either the aggregate total, or an indication that many of them were multiple-planet systems, based on the maps). So, either the colonies shown on the HB:HL map on p. 49 is wrong, or they were earlier era worlds that had never become prominent enough to be mentioned before. They are shown as being outside the TC, which is a little odd. I suspect a question on the CBT forum may be in order again. I'm going to be popular! BrokenMnemonic 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't fear the notoriety; join the club! I suspect some of us (Frabby, Wrangler, myself) are automatically pegged as BTW editors when we ask our questions.) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have heard it said that notoriety is better than obscurity any day... BrokenMnemonic 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I get a page number for HB:HD? Thanks.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

HB:HD p. 48, 54 spell it "Weis" - Interestingly, the map on p. 60 spells it "Wais" as do 72, 76, 78, 82. So, HB:HD isn't internally consistent either. BrokenMnemonic 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I can confirm via the PDF all of the above, except p. 60, which spells it incorrectly. They may have caught that one before it went to print. I'll make a note of the differences between PDF & DTF on the errata submission. Thanks, BM.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I just checked my .pdf version of HB:HD and compared it to my DTF, and it's wrong in my DTF copy as well - I just couldn't read it clearly. Believe it or not, my new glasses arrive a week on Weds... BrokenMnemonic 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. I'll amend the errata submission. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Award

Hy Rev, have this award for your great planets article essay, very very good ;).--Doneve 01:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Doneve, but I must respectfully decline. That award is intended to recognize someone taking a vastly incomplete article which they did not create and 'saving' it by putting in the time & effort to make it valuable (think sub-stub or very weak stub). Secondly, all I did was write a position paper (or opinion piece) to try and sway people to my way of thinking, in regards to planet articles. Additionally, it's not yet complete. Again, I appreciate the recognition, but I'm more looking forward to BrokenMnemonic and your assistance (and hopefully many more) in doing the Project: Planet overhaul. Again, thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for response.--Doneve 15:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Variable template needed - response

You're welcome. And I have news, I think I've got what you want. Have a look at User_talk:Mbear/PlanetPageTest. By adding the PlanetOverhaul|phase=(0,1,2,3,4,5) template to the page, you should see different categories appear at the bottom of the page. I can rewrite the content of the message and category to be whatever you like. This is just a demo.--Mbear 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Two changes made. Categories and bold text in banner.--Mbear 16:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Marisa Tomei Award

Awarded for services to surreal humour in honour of Marisa Tomei. BrokenMnemonic 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It was great! She pinned it on me herself! I was surprised how much she looked like BrokenMnemonic under those harsh lights, though." --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rim Worlds Republic

I've done some work cataloguing Rim Worlds Republic systems offline, with a view to getting all of the RWR systems on here. I've hit what could be a problem, so I thought I'd check about it first.

What I've been trying to do is pin down which worlds have vanished, and which worlds later reappear. There are a handful of systems within the Magistracy that drop off the map after the Star League era, only to reappear later on, so it seemed sensible to check whether any RWR worlds were doing that as well.

On the 3130 map, there are a number of "new" systems dotted around, so I took the map of the RWR in 2750 from P25 in Handbook: Major Periphery States, captured some images from it, then captured images from the Map of the Inner Sphere 3130, and overlaid them onto each other. using groups of planets that are on both maps and whose positions haven't altered, I adjusted the size of the maps until these known data points matched up, and compared the two to each other. That leads to a lot of planets matching, but with different names.

Using the maps in Handbook: House Steiner and Handbook: Major Periphery States, I matched the positions of 23 Lyran worlds, 5 RWR worlds taken by the Commonwealth, and 2 Free Worlds League worlds. With those overlaid on top of each other, Circinus lines up on both maps, and four pairs of planets are directly overlaid on top of each other: Andiron/Helbrent, Iolas/Deidre's Den, Himmels/Balthazar III, Green Stone/Clayborne II.

I did the same thing with the Map of the Inner Sphere 3130 and the HB:MPS maps, and having adjusted the map until 29 assorted inner sphere planets match up along with 11 bandit kingdom worlds, it looks to me as if the RWR world of Erin became Von Strang's World - and as a distinct contrast, whereas I thought Taran's World might become Ferris, the two are in noticeably different positions.

I repeated the exercise using the Rim Territories area the 3130 map, lining up 40+ Lyran Commonwealth worlds, and it seems to indicate that every one of the Rim Territories world is a former RWR world, in the following combinations: Port Vail/The Rack, Dijonne/Pain, Lushun/Jibbet, Lywick/Ferreusvirgo, Austerlitz/Scauld, Oporto/Veil, Edirne/Brank, Anatolia/Pillory, Seven Lands/Garotte.

My concern is that if I simply set up redirects or indicate in the descriptions for the later era worlds that each was the "former RWR world of XxXxX", I'm making a assertion with a direct citation to be able to back it up. I could create all of the former RWR worlds as seperate entries and indicate that they might be the associated modern era world, but that means throwing in a number of new systems with very bare entries. Should I upload my composite pictures as evidence? They're something of a mess, because they aren't cropped to the same size and with names in different positions and vanished Star League-era worlds on there, they look a tad cluttered. BrokenMnemonic 12:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I've uploaded a copy of one of the maps which you can see here: File:The_Barrens_3130_and_the_Rim_Worlds_Republic_2750.png and the discussion page for the map gives some explanation on what I was doing and points of reference. BrokenMnemonic 13:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you we shouldn't immediately assume the worlds are the one and same, despite appearing to match location-wise. Your work with the Taurian Concordat probably showed you how multiple worlds could be in the same location (map-wise), but not ncessarily same system. Or there's the possibility that the two worlds do exist in the same system, but are not the same planet.

Here's what I suggest: take a large portion of what you wrote above and use it to ask Oystein in Ask the Writers, but close with specific questions (maybe bulleted):

did Erin become Von Strang's World
did Lushin become Jibbet

Odds are good you'll get a Standard Answer, which in that case we create an article based upon the more modern name and a redirect from the older one, and in the notes section for each article, we indicate why we believe A became B, but the possibility exists that they are simply two worlds in the same system or two systems located rather close on the maps.

BTW, I also responded with a review of Coopertown and Copperland above.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should add a link to the overlapped map image when you make your pitch on CBT.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll put together a message at work I can post. It takes me a certain amount of effort to face up to asking the writers questions over on the forum...

In the meantime, I'll add some RWR worlds tonight to get the ball rolling...

That reminds me, I'll add Coopertown & Copperland entries when I've done the RWR systems. I wonder what was going on at Copperland? BrokenMnemonic 19:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Cooperland, Cooperland! Sorry, my bad!--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Random question, although it's sort of related to the Rim Worlds Republic (and not Marisa Tomei, sadly); is there a category for those planets marked as being a part of "The Barrens" on the Inner Sphere 3130 map? I'm not sure if it's a nation or a region - I'd say a region, akin to the Chaos March, based on the map, but that'd just be speculation on my part. BrokenMnemonic 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware, but then again, that name doesn't ring a bell with me. I suggest you do a 'search', not a 'go' with that name, and when you get the results, go down to the 'Advanced search' box and remove the check marks from all but the Category namespace. That'll return all categories with 'barrens' in it.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Having done a search, the only things that show up are the world records I've created/altered, and an entry on the Factions page which has both the Rim Territories and The Barrens as red links. BrokenMnemonic 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Best judgement, then. If you feel "The Barrens" have enough planets to warrant a category, go ahead. I created one for the Chaos March because it was both so very famous and -at the time- we weren't doing an Independent Planets cat, so I wanted to make sure some planets didn't fall off our scope.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... looking at the 3130 map, there are a lot of planets suddenly out in the Periphery that weren't before, and a lot of planets appear to be Periphery independents. The Barrens doesn't seem to be a new nation like the Rim Territories, but unlike the worlds outside the Combine or in the area around the former Circinus Federation the worlds in the Barrens have been grouped together into a named region. The Barrens sweeps up the former Elysian Fields, Oberon Confederation and about half the Greater Valkyrate, so it's only a few planets short of the Marian Hegemony or 3130-era Taurian Concordat. I'm tempted to give it a category to group the worlds together until more -or anything, for that matter- is published about the region. I can always add it to the list of things to do after all these RWR worlds... BrokenMnemonic 11:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, mate.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick update - I've asked about those systems that seem to be reappearing under new names over on the CBT forum this morning. The Ask The Writers section seems to be a bit barren of responses at the moment - I did wonder if this means the writing team are all focussed on GenCon at the moment. BrokenMnemonic 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd believe so; recovering, anyway. Give it a week and then bump it.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done the ownership records with citations and categories for all of the worlds that were in the Rim Worlds Republic, with the exception of those with possible dual identities mentioned above, based on the maps in HB:MPS and HB:HS. I'll need to dig into a couple of other books to finish those that joined the Oberon Confederation/Greater Valkyrate/Elysian Fields but which aren't in those two books. I've noted in the entries for The Rack/Pain that they're potentially older RWR worlds re-mapped, but I've not added any of the new planets from 3130 that make up the Rim Territories - I thought it was easier to wait a while to see if there was an answer over on the CBT forums rather than go through the hassle of merging different entries together. I've also done the Magistracy and Concordat within the limits of the maps I can find (although Historical: Reunification War will need adding and citing) and I've added in all of the Outworlds Alliance worlds that were new in 2750 and put in all the citations from the various Periphery book maps. That leaves the smallfry, plus updates from HB:HD for those OA worlds that are visible to show when they vanished from maps. I'm a little surprised that there's no periphery realm analagous to the RWR along the Draconis Combine border; did they ever establish a reason in canon for that? BrokenMnemonic 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but I had never considered that before. Huh....that is interesting. Maybe that realm was overly aggressive in assuming colonies external to the IS? I'll keep that in mind when I read early Draconian history again.

I just today discovered the map of the Hanseatic League in FR: Periphery. That's my realm over at Succession Wars, so I'm looking forward to the moratorium expiring.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing about the "Draconis Rift" in some of the books - I did wonder if it was simply a case of the area past the edge of the combine being very sparsely populated with habitable planets. The combine isn't shy about incorporating other states by force, so it could also be that they simply conquered everyone who tried to settle out there - even if it resulted in the worlds being abandoned afterwards. I notice that the 3130 era DC has had half a dozen former Combine worlds become Periphery independents. Maybe Handbook: House Kurita will show us some movement at the edge of Combine space? I remember somebody talking about hwo there wasn't an organised periphery nation out where the Mica Majority is past FedSuns space, and the general answer was "well, the FedSuns were actually doing most of the colonising there..."

FR: Periphery is on my shopping list for when my bonus comes through at the end of the month, along with Historical: Reunification Wars, Jihad Hot Spots: Terra and a couple of other bits... why isn't it September already? I'll be interested to see what Bad Syntax's maps look like for the deep periphery of the former RWR region and nearby neighbours - I'd like to see how close the Hanseatic League and the Chainelaine Isles actually were to mapped RWR space. BrokenMnemonic 07:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a search for 'rift' through my PDFs. I'll let you know the results. And just an aggressive stance from a major faction towards neighboring colonies would be a huge reason to not even try to expand in that direction, if you were organizing a colonial effort.

Bad_Syntax provided me with his most current database(s), though I don't know if he incorporated the Hanseatic League and the Chainelaine Isles yet. Here's the links:

You could plug these into his program (do you want the link to that?) and check it out yourself.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What for a programm was used to do this?--Doneve 13:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember the links I gave you about 2 weeks ago to download it from Bad-Syntax' blog? That one.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Woot! [2] Now all I've got to do is add the detail on all of those worlds onto the wiki and link hte 2750 and 3130 era ones together. Is it wrong I'm actually looking forward to this? BrokenMnemonic 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ETA: Do you think the planet entries should use the 2750 names (with the 3130 names on redirect) or the 3130 names (with the 2750 names on redirect)? BrokenMnemonic 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all (as a serious answer). The sense of completion in 'correcting' the data is our collective high here.

As to naming? Old timer's story: I've advocated writing on Sarna primarily from the perspective as researchers from a far distant period in time (say, the 36th century). We're working with the materials we have on hand, and we're always finding more (as long as we have material we haven't used and as it comes getting pumped out by TPTB). While the most common names would appear to be those from the 31st century, in less than two Real World years, we'll be firmly in the 32nd century. With the future researcher's perspective and the knowledge that in a short bit, those will be those worlds' proper names, I say go with the later ones. Note: I'd recommend linking that thread to every mention of the worlds' "old" names.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good, that was my gut instinct as well, so it's very reassuring to know that I'm thinking along the right lines. One question this did throw up for me though is that the CGL forums apparently get archived and wiped periodically, but their Ask the Writer/Ask the Lead Developer areas are where answers and clarifications of canon information are stored. Is there a mechanism here for preserving the text of their response, or is it enough to indicate that the response has been given, what the response was, and a link that could perhaps be used with something like the wayback machine in the future? BrokenMnemonic 06:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the wayback machine will be too helpful, for if I recall it only goes two levels deep and the threads are on the 3rd level. Right now (even just yeterday), when I come across a URL that points to an archived thread, I change the URL to put the changed part (forumarchive) in. However, Frabby deals with it by quoting the answer in the reference line, which I think is great. Won't work very well with long answers or responses like the one you got yesterday ("Correct, yes."), but I'd day the intent can be restated in the reference line, when a direct quote won't work (in order to give the 'official response' note some validity when the forum post is lost). I should write this down in the policy on the matter.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling

Hy Revanche, please can you move the misspelld Category talk:Greater Valkryate Planets, to his right place, thanks.--Doneve 23:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Category:Greater Valkyrate Planets already existed, so it was a matter of re-categorizing Lackhove and then deleting the mis-spelled category.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response.--Doneve 23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, man. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumbnail Maps

I had a think about maps for thumbnails after doing the coloured maps for the Marian Hegemony and the Taurian Concordat recently. One of the issues with the thumbnail pics for individual planets is being able to pick out the target planet easily while still having enough area covered by the map to also give a general location for the planet. I had a play around with making some maps which while still large aren't completely coloured; I coloured in neighbouring realms, but left the host realm uncoloured, and coloured in the planet specifically targetted. I then tried viewing the map at resolutions down to 25% of full size, and had no trouble working out where the planet was generally, and could blow the maps back up to full resolution to see mroe about neighbouring systems. Rather than clutter the wiki, I've uploaded some to imageshack: [3] [4] [5] Can you take a look, and give me an opinion on their potential suitability for planet articles? BrokenMnemonic 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are really excellent. I uploaded and installed on for Joyz. Take a look. Its clear where it resides even without clicking on it.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice maps, but i personally favorite Nics Image example, i know a lot of the Maps are created by incorrect X and Y coordinates, i would to bring up new planet maps with correct coordinates and corrected coordinates in the nearby planet section in the next next future, can anyone talk to me what is the best method, i experiment at this time with the POV-Ray 3.x [6], programm.--Doneve 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on graphics programming, because there is a lot more that I don't know. Question for you: why do you prefer the original images?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question ;), it's a personal like of self created maps, and i would create new planet images with jump points, with every jump to jump point distance etc.--Doneve 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be best for me to hold off creating any more of these maps for a while to let any final decision be discussed? BrokenMnemonic 07:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it would probably be best. The problem I see, and I haven't confirmed this with Nic, is that his creating new maps with the correct coordinates may require writing over the existing articles, as his bot re-writes the articles to include new images. That would explain why it hasn't been done before. I prefer the canon maps: they help me understand where a world is and I feel jumps are a lot less valued than general knowledge of a planet's location. Give me a bit, and I'll spark that discussion on the overhaul talk page.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet Categories: Star League

Something occurred to me last night while I was added Rim Worlds Republic worlds to the database here. I think we need a category to use for planets that were taken by the Star League during the Reunification war and then later during the Hegemony campaign. In the case of the Reunification War, it's easy for some worlds; the Federated Suns simply annexed 18 assorted Taurian Concordat worlds, so those worlds can just be categorised as Federated Suns Planets. Where it's trickier is where you have planets that were occupied by Star League forces but not annexed, during the period between them being conquered and the state as a whole joining the Star League. There's then a second period during the Amaris Civil War where the SLDF was taking Rim Worlds Republic worlds; reading HB:Steiner, p. 34, it talks about the Lyran Commonwealth then annexing RWR worlds after the SLDF began the Terran Hegemony portion of the campaign until Aleksandr Kerensky sent them a message saying that the RWR was still a Star League protectorate despite it's shattered state. I think we need something like a "Star League Protectorate Planets" category to cover these. BrokenMnemonic 07:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My first feeling is that I should hold off on weighing in on this. My purpose in categorizing all the planets was so that all planets fell within at least one category, enabling us to be sure that every world would be dealt with. Overlapping by another category was fine, because that increased the chance another pair of eyes would see that planet and address it from a different perspective. Categorization allows me to direct one overhaul team, "You guys do the Taurian worlds, starting on phase 1." On the other hand, if there's not a large enough group of team members to determine consensus, then there does need to be some leadership.

Okay...here's my take on it, BrokenMnemonic: a protectorate implies the ownership remains with the state from which it is claimed. In your examples above, the Suns took ownership away from the Taurians in some cases, so the change in ownership is clear. Your second example indicates the Star League administered several worlds, but did not say, "These are our worlds now; bugger off." In that case, for this project, there is no reason why we need to create another category, since those worlds already fall under a faction category and in-character legally, remain within their faction, despite having a Star League governor and his forces on the planet.

Similarly, this makes me think, too, that the Chaos March and The Barrens are unnecessary categories for the purposes of the project, for they fall under the Independent category at the same time. We don't want to get sidetracked from organizing for the overhaul (ar at least that is my intent). Trust me, there are many ways to categorize these planets, including lines amongst a civil war, regions, provinces, marches, borders, planets invaded in this war, planets invaded in that war. Proper categorization is best determined after we complete the project (or at least in one of the phases). It's my aim to stick only to the broader definition of ownership for the purposes of the overhaul. (Now, this isn't to say you can't fill a non-overhaul need, but I'd ask you don't make it too difficult for us to track progress by largely increasing the number of categories we have to include in our initial efforts.) Hope that helps. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll drop the idea. I've not added a Barrens category to anything yet either, so I'll leave that alone too. BrokenMnemonic 11:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but thanks.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No dramas. There's enough here to keep me busy for a lifetime as is! It just means I'll hold off doing ownership history changes from Historical: Reunification War and work through one of the other 200 or so books instead...BrokenMnemonic 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but then what?!--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are at least a half-dozen mercenary units from the Succession Wars era I want to expand the basic articles for, as I did with units like the Crater Cobras and the Always Faithful... BrokenMnemonic 14:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I was so kidding. Two hundred+ books with maps in them? Come on! What comes next isn't even a blip yet!--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I do like to plan ahead, and I'd hate for you to think I was a slacker... BrokenMnemonic 14:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping you'd try and solve the whole Fasanomics and planet over-population issues...--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, FASAnomics has at least been solved; I think it was ColBosch who said "FASAnomics... By Cthulu, For Cthulu." There are planetary over-population issues, though? Is this the old debate about how did so many people emigrate so far? BrokenMnemonic 16:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I summarize it as "how come invading armies are so small when planetary populations are so large." I, personally, dismiss it away with a handwave. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sathen's Snipers

Hy Rev, i removed the cn tag, and added a ref. note, greetings.--Doneve 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow...great turnaround, Doneve. Good job.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Independent/Capellan Worlds

I've hit a bit of a weird categorisation issue when working through the worlds that ended up in the Capellan Confederation, or one of the states that ultimately formed the Confederation in 2367. If I'm reading P15 of Handbook: House Liao correctly, there were a number of states in play at the time, including the Duchy of Liao, Capellan Commonality, Sarna Supremacy, Sian Commonwealth and so on. These states were a part of a loose "grouping" for want of a better word, called the Capellan Zone, although confusingly there also seems to have been a Capellan Co-Prosperity Sphere (p. 14) but that didn't include all of the states. When the Capellan Confederation was being formed up in 2366/2367, Franco Liao had originally been speaking for the "Independent Worlds of the Capellan Zone" (p. 15). Looking at the map on P17, it looks like these worlds were the ones in the periphery-edge region of what became the Confederation, and those worlds sandiwched between the Ducy of Liao, the Sarna Supremacy, and the Free Worlds League.

My conundrum is this; how should these worlds be categorised in 2366? They don't seem to suit the Independent Planet category, because that's for worlds that weren't a part of a nation or state, and these worlds were a part of the Capellan Zone rather than being completely independent. On the other hand, it seems a bit odd to describe them as "Independent Worlds of the Capellan Zone", and creating a "Capellan Zone" category would include all of the other worlds in the various states like the Sarna Supremacy as well.

What do you think is the best way to categorise these worlds? BrokenMnemonic 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My gut instinct is to just lump 'em in with the other Independents, so that they are a member of a category. In fact, I'd say, for the time being, let's do exactly that. However, you're thinking the long-term, and I see the problem you suggest. Ok, shot in the dark here: what about creating that 'Independent Worlds of the Capellan Zone' category, maybe shortened to 'Independent Capellan Zone Planets', but instead of the simple boilerplate description in the category ("This category lists all articles for planets that have been, past or present, within..."), expand it to explain what is meant by 'independent' in this case.

I really don't mean to postpone the conversation that must take place, but I feel ill-equipped right now, so far removed from it (compared to you). I think this /is/ a discussion that we'll explore for the individual regions we choose to complete as a group focused on that region. Does any of that help?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel a bit guilty for bringing it up, because having poked around in the various House Books, I think the House Liao handbook is probably the worst for the multiple overlapping regimes. Some of the states change names several times in the 2100-2400 period, and CGL simply haven't documented the region well for every nation. I think it's maybe more complete for the Capellan Confederation progenitor states, but reading through the book there are throwaway references to all sorts of microstates that've never been mapped. Given that this is only really a problem for pre-2571 states, it seems like a big problem for relatively little gain, and something that can probably be ignored in the short term.

I think where it's going to be a problem for all of the states is that we're going to end up with Independent Planet being a default for a huge number of worlds based on the original founding date maps in each of the Handbooks, but only for that period in time. If working on 2571 dates onwards is the priority, then independent planets are a tiny minority.

I think what I'll do is concentrate on getting the other worlds cited and categorised over the next couple of days, and work up that Independent Capellan Zone planets explanation in slower time, and go with your suggestion. And I'll not look too closely at the other states, just in case my head explodes... BrokenMnemonic 08:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You've identified on your own what Frabby suggested would be a problem with categorizing planets by state: do you constantly indicate only what state the planet falls in now ('now' defined as the latest date in canon, and is that post-Jihad or Dark Age for us?) or fill up a planet with increasingly meaningless categories. You're right...a large majority of Inner Sphere planets were independent for some sliver of time. We'll need to work on that, and probably before we finish the first overhaul mission (i.e. region).--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

From my POV, I like knowing which states the nations that a world has been a part of historically; I think a big part of the problem is that we've only really got consistent maps back to 2571. Or at least, we have when HB:HK appears, although oddly there are 2750 maps for the periphery states, but not for the Inner Sphere states. It's when I try and go back further that the problems appear; the maps for the founding years of each of the Houses are great from a nostalgia point of view, but a number of them have descriptions that mention other states but don't show them. As they're all from different years, and as Age of War indicated there were a lot of states around, I'd expect to see a lot of detail on them... but it isn't there. And the snippets of information they give as teasers are as frustrating as they are interesting; HB:HL talks about the Capellan Holdfast, Capellan Republic, Capellan Hegemony and Capellan Commonality, but at best lists three or less planets as members of each other than the Commonality, which is the state for which we have a map. Is it worth creating articles here for the Capellan Republic given that maybe three worlds can be identified as having definitely belonged to it, and it's only really mentioned in one book? I think I'd be more confident in labelling planets up pre-2571 if maps like the founding map for the Federated Suns showed any of these mini-states that were evidently around at the time. I know from Age of War that there were states like the United Hindu Collective still knocking around in the 24th century, but the Capellan map doesn't show any of them - so we've been given an incomplete data set to work from. BrokenMnemonic 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I've just done some checking, and from what I can tell, with the exception of the Terran Alliance being shown on the map on P.16 of Handbook: House Marik, the maps are... inconsistent. The House Marik map shows the Stewart Confederation, which wasn't one of the founding states of the Free Worlds League at the year the map is dated, but which was instead absorbed forcibly 22 years later, according to p. 17 of the same book. Handbook: House Davion shows worlds on the map on p. 18 that are listed as being a part of the Muskegon coalition of seven worlds on p.19, but doesn't show a border for that coalition - and it talks about worlds joining the Chesterton Trade Federation, as well as showing worlds that on the 2366 map on p. 17 of Handbook: House Liao were a part of the Sian Commonality and the St. Ives Mercantile League, and yet doesn't show any boundaries for any of those states itself. That means that the founding maps pretty much only tell us which worlds were in states that formed the beginning of the big houses - I suspect showing the Terran Alliance on the Free Worlds League map was a graphical indulgence - and as far as the other worlds go, that they were significant enough to be on the map and were therefore inhabited, but nothing else.

That information does have value, but it presents a categorisation problem. As examples, by consulting the founding maps for the Capellan Confederation and the Federated Suns, I can determine that Bethel and Amiga were either settled or became worlds worthy of being noted sometime between 2317 and 2366, because they appear on one map and not the other. Quite how that's categorised, I don't know. Putting an entry in each system's ownership history is one way of doing it, but that doesn't let me as a user see what worlds were around in a particular year or era - although uploading the maps would be a shortcut method for doing that. We could perhaps declare categories for each of the map years - so have a category "2271" that could be applied to worlds that weren't in the Free Worlds League or Stewart Confederation but were evidently on a map in 2271, and have the category description explain that, but it seems a bit... off, somehow. We'd probably end up with five such numeric categories, one for each house, unless CGL produce an atlas to the 23rd and 24th centuries, or something similar.

It's frustrating that this is a potential issue simply because CGL produced barebones maps rather than giving us something chewy to look over. BrokenMnemonic 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot to chew on, but -and this is only a basic thought- we might want to remove categorization from the issue. Each of those smaller, time-limited states do deserve an article; why can't we list what worlds existed in those articles, with dates they joined & departed listed in parenthesis next to them:

The Capellan Holdfast was a proto-Capellan state that existed from 2317 until 2463. Systems within this coalition included:

Ardoz (
Goubellat (2317-2423)
Jerangle (-2452)
Ridderkerk
Thimphu

We can also provide a map gallery in the state article. The states themselves could be categorized as proto-states, such as "Proto-Capellan States". As long as the state no longer exists, then it deserves a full list of systems that belonged to it (just as the categories do now, but with more granularity, due to the dates of belonging).--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea for those proto-states where we have some idea which worlds were involved, and I'd happily sit down and write some articles based on the information I've got in the various House handbooks and sourcebooks for them. (In fact, I might just do that...) I think the bigger problem is all those worlds (I think at least 150+ so far) for which they're on a map, but we have no idea from the published information whether they were members of a proto-state or independent... BrokenMnemonic 11:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. [thinking...and it hurts] The thing is: we shouldn't decide they are one or the other, either. Tell you what...let's table that for now. It may very well come up in the next few weeks, as you & I start our first test 'mission'. I'm gonna send Doneve off to tag each planet with the Phase banner, while you & I first build the three test articles and then start on a small region mission. Maybe with experience, we'll get an idea.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I've set up a category and referenced description for the Independent Planets of the Capellan Zone, but I may well write the description when I get up tomorrow morning, as I'm not sure it's exactly legible or well edited at the moment! BrokenMnemonic 21:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it. You hit the rack; I expect to see you back here at the break of daen.--Rev^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's been light outside for an hour or so, but is this early enough to count as the break of daen? BrokenMnemonic 06:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hah! I was all set to rip on you for your spelling of 'dawn' when I saw I originated it. D'oh!

So, did I capture your intent in the editing?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that looks good, yes! I couldn't resist playing with your spelling of dawn.

I've been trying to reconcile some of these other Capellan proto-states and between hte two Capellan-specific housebooks/handbooks... it's enough to do my head in, it really is. The books mix and match terms (Chesterton Trade League/Chesterton Trade Worlds, Tikonov Union/Tikonov Grand Union), some states are mentioned only in passing or as references to having been incorporated into other states (Nanking Collective), some areas are amazingly poorly defined (Chisholm Protectorate/Province/Commonality)... it took me longer than I care to think of to work out that the reason I couldn't even see Chisholm on the Handbook: House Liao maps is because it was renamed Elgin in the 29th century, but CGL have used the Elgin name all the way back to 2366 on the maps. Then there's trying to work out when the Tikonov Union became the Grand Union, or when the Chisholm Protectorate became the Chisholm Province and when the Chisholm Province became a part of the Tikonov Grand Union before being absorbed by the Terran Hegemony... it's a complete, unmitigated mess. It also doesn't help that the map on p, 17 has the map legend Capellan Confederation foundation [2366] but the Timeline: Capellan Zone on P. 13 indicates that the Capellan Confederation wasn't founded until July 2367. It took me about half an hour to work out that the Capellan Holdfast was just one planet, and that the Capellan Republic and the Capellan Co-Prosperity Sphere were two overlapping entities. Yeesh. I'm starting to think it's all one big Mask conspiracy to drive me insane. All I wanted to do was create more accurate owner histories of planets, with citations.... BrokenMnemonic 14:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad it's you and not me.

I know you're hitting the rack soon, so instead of advice, let me say this, to think about while you sleep: "Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan, Capellan...Capellan."--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On a tangential note, what about words that aren't in the Word of Blake Protectorate, but which have WOB mercenary units deployed to them according to p. 110 of the Blake Documents? Should the planets stay listed as under command of the host nationstate, or should they be categorised as Word of Blake planets at that point? BrokenMnemonic 17:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely remain with home faction. There has to be a tipping point between occupying and ownership. I may not be able to define it, but "I know it when I see it". And merc presence (only) doesn't typify it for me.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfinished Book Project

Rev - Hey, how do I join this? BattleTechWiki talk:Project Unfinished Book ClanWolverine101 12:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, CW: it'd be great to have you onboard. I'm going to redesign it very soon so that it looks more like BattleTechWiki:Project Planets, make it can be easier to understand, use & manage. Let me get the Planet overhaul up & running and then I'll spare UBP some time and we'll get it going again, ok? I'll add your name in the mean time. Thanks!--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Terra

Hy Rev, when i look on the Terra page there must become a total overhaul, we must seperate it to Luna, Mars, Venus articles, i think this makes sense.--Doneve 22:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It will actually be moved to the Sol page, and each of those planets will be redirected to the appropriate section of that article. We're actually moving from planetary articles to system articles. Don't stress; we'll have it figured out before we take on Terra.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know no stress dude ;), we stard on 'A'^^.--23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Actually, we don't. That's why you and I are categorizing all the planets, so we can do them by regions.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the odds on us starting to work on the Sol articles just as Historical: Liberation of Terra appears and throws everything up in the air again? BrokenMnemonic 06:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Its my opinion that these names refer to the systems, not the planets. If we wanted to get technical, Earth would be called "Terra III" and Mars would be called "Terra IV". This seems to be how other systems that have multiple colonies, like Quentin, seem to be used. ClanWolverine101 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I credit Frabby with getting me there. In the absence of a reference that clearly indicates a planet and system have different names (ex: Terra and Sol), we should assume a system where there are additional known planets, has planets named after the star, ~~as you described~~.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I was also thinking that the system should be called "Terra". In the Battletech universe, the term "Sol" seems to have come into vogue only with the Jihad publications. ClanWolverine101 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean now! I don't necessarily agree with you that that was the intended name of the system (but I'm open to references). --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done

Hy Revanche, i finished the 'M' section, i thinke we are done at the moment with categorization, next phase can stard it :).--Doneve 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

[evil grin] Excellent!--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehehehehehe me to.--Doneve 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is possibly a silly question, but rather than Doneve having to add a Phase 0 template tag to every planet out there manually, would it be possible for someone on the techy side to simply add that template banner automatically to any entry with the Category: Planets tag via some sort of script? BrokenMnemonic 15:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Resp.

Thank you for writing! I've got some months to go, but my spirits are high, and the second cycle was much less strenuous than the first. I hope all is well with you, and I hope to have more time online as I get closer to recovery--S.gage 01:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see you back here, S.gage, when ever you're feeling well enough to take part. Keep us updated.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation Pages

Good morning! Could I trouble you to create a couple of disambiguation pages for me, please? One's needed to distinguish between Alexandria, the Lyran Commonwealth planet, and Alexandria (CC), the Capellan Confederation planet. Another's needed to distinguish between Achilles, the DropShip, and Achilles (CC), the Capellan Confederation planet. Many thanks! BrokenMnemonic 08:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done & done. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! BrokenMnemonic 12:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages make sense when there's a largish number (at least three) of articles linked to a keyword. In cases where only two subjects share a name, I've usually only used the Template:Otheruses. See Devastator, for example. Frabby 12:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is more a personal preference than an expected procedure. For example, at w:Help:Disambiguation, they recognize disambiguation attempts can occur in three different styles, but establish that they're needed when there is "a single term [that] can be associated with more than one topic". I think that the OtherUses template can still be used on all pages that are further identified by article title. However, if you wish to make it a BTW policy and 'correct' the extant usages, I'd have no problem with that.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Reunification War

Good morning! I finally got around to buying Historical: Reunification War on the weekend, and I sat down to poke through it on Sunday when I finished uploading lost Capellan worlds. I know that this sourcebook is under a moratorium until October based on it's physical publishing date, and I wanted to check if that means I should hold off uploading any map segments until October as well. I know there are still loads of maps from the Handbooks still to upload (I'm working on House Davion ones at the moment, around writing a brief) but there are some nice maps of the Inner Sphere and the Periphery realms after the war within the book, and we don't have any maps on here already from that particular year. BrokenMnemonic 10:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry to duck in here Rev, but since I can answer) Anything that's in Historical: Reunification War can't be uploaded until the moratorium expires. Map segment, map, table, 'Mech, anything at all.

Now if the same map happens to be in another source that's not in moratorium, you can use the map from the other source.--Mbear 11:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the (quicker) assist, Mbear. I came here to say the same thing, BM. Sorry. --Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no dramas at all. There are plenty of maps for me to finish carving up, colouring and uploading yet! Don't be surprised if you see a raft of maps appearing the day the moratorium expires, though... BrokenMnemonic 11:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Server locks up from file dump shock?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Marian Hegemony

Rev, I just noticed that the changes that were made to the organisation of Marian Hegemony forces last night and reverted because of a lack of citations have thrown up some negative criticism of sarna over on the CBT forum. I've posted giving my point of view, but becuase I've quoted you and I'm not an admin, I realise that could be considered rude or presumptious on my part - if you'd rather I deleted my post, can you let me know? I hope I've not caused any offence. BrokenMnemonic 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Thumbnails

Rev, I think I found the answer.--Mbear 12:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mbear.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about your signature

Rev,

When you sign posts, your username comes up followed by a ^{(talk|Contribs)} link. How'd you do that?--Mbear 12:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's rather easy: in my preferences, on the User profile tab, you can use wiki code in the Signature field. Here's my sample code, pasted right into that field: [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup>--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox updates

More infobox goodness--Mbear^(talk) 18:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmmm...infoboxes. (I gots nothing.) Thanks!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Age of War Proto-States

In my quest to try and make planet categories as accurate and far-reaching as possible, I asked Øystein over in the Ask The Writers forum about the worlds of the Muskegon Empire. Given that descriptions of the Muskegon realm are consistent (7 worlds, first world being Muskegon, next 2 being named, remainder not specified) and the fact that the map for the 2317 founding of the Federated Suns seems to support the text of the Muskegon realm being next to the FedSuns, involved in the negotiations and eventually deciding to join in 2318 as being a particular group of worlds, I thought I had a decent chance of Øystein saying "yeah, you got those worlds right." That was going to be a springboard for asking about the worlds of the Marlette Association next, as they joined the FedSuns later and are mentioned in conflicts with the Chesterton worlds/Tikonov Union. From there I hoped I could ask about getting first the discrepancies between the Chesterton Trade Federation, Chesterton Trade League, Chesterton Trade Worlds, Chesterton Worlds, Chesterton Province of the Tikonov Union/Tikonov Grand Union and Chesterton Commonality nailed down, and then hopefully broaching the subject of the Nanking Collective, Chisholm Protectorate, Chisholm Province and Chisholm Commonality with a view to getting the various member worlds identified and maybe making some funky maps showing the expansion of the Terran Hegemony and the state of the Capellan Zone between the period where the Terran Alliance drew back to 22 LY from Terra and the formation of the Capellan Confederation in 2367. Sadly, Øystein's response is here and indicates that the entire situation is probably a bag of nails that is unlikely to be sorted any time soon. The phrase "drat" seems applicable. Woe is me. BrokenMnemonic 12:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The important thing is that you asked, instead of just concluding that it should be "this way" because it "makes sense" to you that it "should be". Sometimes, we don't get the clear answers we want, but I do feel they missed out on an opportunity to have you assist CGL in figuring it out. However, maybe you could do exactly that and submit it in a point paper. If Øystein was able to take the time to review and proof it, it could become blessed. Completely up to you, and of course, left to the whims of choices of words in their response: "Yes, that seems probable" would be ambigious, "It's up to you" is not. As someone who thinks the pre-'Mech days of CBT have plenty of stories to tell, I'd think it would be an interesting puzzle to solve.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Atrocities

Could you take a look at this? A third opinion would be helpful to tell if I'm being overly worried or not. --Moonsword 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Search

User talk:Revanche

Sarna News

BattleTech Community Ads

Contents

Archives