Editing Policy Talk:Canon

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision		Your text
Line 63:		Line 63:
	:I don't think we should accept meta-sources as sources, because it would make BTW a "only" meta-meta source so to speak, and dilute/devaluate the BTW content. Do as wikis do: Research your content and quote correct sources. Meta-sources can be useful to check if you overlooked something, but they are just as biased and prone to errors as BTW and using them as a source would only aggravate that problem. And what's the gain? There is nothing a meta-source author found that we cannot find as well, and quote for reference. In fact, well-researched articles with references is ''the'' great strength of the wiki approach. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)		:I don't think we should accept meta-sources as sources, because it would make BTW a "only" meta-meta source so to speak, and dilute/devaluate the BTW content. Do as wikis do: Research your content and quote correct sources. Meta-sources can be useful to check if you overlooked something, but they are just as biased and prone to errors as BTW and using them as a source would only aggravate that problem. And what's the gain? There is nothing a meta-source author found that we cannot find as well, and quote for reference. In fact, well-researched articles with references is ''the'' great strength of the wiki approach. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
−	::Absolutely agree with you that original sources are preferred over meta-sources. I really don't have a good, solid argument to support the use of meta-sources, other than they have already consolidated the official material into a format easily digestable and incorporateble. We need to have a policy that addresses peoples concerns (such as noted here) when someone does use a meta-source: my answer is 1) it is not encouraged, but not dis-allowed, 2) it may not be cited as a reference itself, and 3) it needs to be accepted by the BTW community as a trustworthy meta-source.	+	::Absolutely agree with you that original sources are preferred over meta-sources. I really don't have a good, solid argument to support the use of meta-sources, other than they have already consolidated the official material into a format easily digestable and incorporateble. Wwe need to have a policy that addresses peoples concerns (such as noted here) when someone does use a meta-source: my answer is 1) it is not encouraged, but not allowed, 2) may not be cited as a reference itself, and 3) needs to be accepted by the community as a trustworthy meta-source.
	::Otherwise, if we do not allow the use of meta-sources, and we suspect they are being used, what is our policy? Do we delete and admonish? Do we push the Editor to imemdiately follow up with official sources or face deletion? In fact, I see insertion of facts that originate from a trustworthy meta-source to be even more valuable than facts that are otherwise uncited. The end goal: yes, every fact is cited is preferred. But, barring that, a meta-source at least is a step in the right direction. Similar example: if I see a fact in Article A, here on BTW, that is uncited that I don't have any doubts about, I feel free to use that fact to build Article B (also uncited). As BTW is a meta-source, it is a similar analogy.		::Otherwise, if we do not allow the use of meta-sources, and we suspect they are being used, what is our policy? Do we delete and admonish? Do we push the Editor to imemdiately follow up with official sources or face deletion? In fact, I see insertion of facts that originate from a trustworthy meta-source to be even more valuable than facts that are otherwise uncited. The end goal: yes, every fact is cited is preferred. But, barring that, a meta-source at least is a step in the right direction. Similar example: if I see a fact in Article A, here on BTW, that is uncited that I don't have any doubts about, I feel free to use that fact to build Article B (also uncited). As BTW is a meta-source, it is a similar analogy.

Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in!

*[[Policy Talk:Canon/Archive 1|Archive 1 (July 2008-February 2009)]] ==Total rewrite== After working on this for a very long time, here is my total rewrite of the Policy. It is the result of the discussions we had on this talk page (and others) and, of course, in no small part of my personal vision on how this issue should be adressed. I honestly do think that while the wording was changed significantly, the meaning is essentially the same and that I have adequately managed to cast our agreements into words. I have also elected to be bold and just implemented the change without re-starting the discussion (sorry Revanche and Scaletail), but I felt I should let the result speak for itself. If it turns out that there is no consensus to support my work, feel free to revert it. The missing templates can (and will) be created and added to the articles in question in a week's time or so, provided that the policy is accepted. Feel free to discuss. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC) :Wow, Frabby, that's fantastic. I think it encapsulates all our prior discussions. It's been worth the wait :-). My only nitpick is that I think stating that 'BTW does not seek to define canon' is a bit confusing. I know what you mean, but I think it would be helpful if it is explicitly stated that we are adhering to CGL's own, internal canon policy. While ''we'' are not determining canon, it is also not left totally up to the judgment of the reader. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC) ::But it is, Scaletail. We are differentiating between fanon and official products. Whether an article (or a portion of it) is canon is left up solely to the reader. ::Some past things (rules, characters, arcs, etc.) are considered apocryphal, others are now absorbed and the definition gets even further muddled by gold stars on the CBT forums. By backing away from ever attempting to 'answer' what is canon, we keep the harsh feelings muted/sated. Canon as defined by TPTB, is addressed in the article [[Canon]], rather than BTW's [[Policy:Canon]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) :Agree, Frabby: well done. I think its simpler, cleaner and easier to understand. I'm still not thrilled with the various colors used for the tags, but understand better now the intent and the irritant factor is low for me. I made a few minor copy-edit changes that don't change the character of the policy. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC) ===Moved the old discussion to the bottom of this Talk Page=== ...because that discussion is essentially obsolete with the new page. Not sure if it could/should be moved into an archive page, and I don't know how to do that anyways. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) :Archived this for you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC) ===Default to "Canon" or "official"?=== Revanche marked his last edit to the page as a minor one, and mostly he cleaned up the wording. However, there is one bit that is not as minor as it might appear at first: In the second part of the policy, he changed the text from "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''canonical''' issues by default" to read "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''official''' issues by default". While I can see where he's coming from, especially considering that the policy is not to decide on what is what, he has actually put his finger on the weak spot of the entire policy: Namely that it should not strictly use ''any'' tags in the first place; applying the tags does some sorting already, even though it follows the official guidelines. See, if the articles would cover "official" sources by default then the "Apocrypha" tag would be superfluous, as all apocryphal material is always official. Only fan-made stuff is not. It is really the (clearly) canonical stuff that needs to additional tag. Therefore, for lack of a better wording I suggest reverting "official" to "canonical". Please discuss. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) :You've hit on my problems withe the tags, right there. I feel that -due to the nature of the universe being told from many different in-character perspectives- almost everything is apocryphal and where one thing is stated to be true from one perspective (say Capellan), another perspective may indicate its lack of truth (say FedSuns). The genecaste is a good example of this. Even TPTB claim whatever you want in your game works, they just provide the backbone from which to work. To me, official is anything that is or has been licensed, even though it may no longer be valid. For example, some of the BattleDroid 'Mechs no longer exist or in the manner in which they were produced. They are official, but -due to their current nature- would enjoy one of the 'Apocrypha' tags. :I saw the inclusion of any tags other than fanon as possibly allowing for further digression as to what is canon or not (indeed, we've already had one 'contributor' claim his fanon is just as valid here as any of the official stuff and therefore not needing a fanon tag). Instead, I prefer to leave it un-judged, other than 'official' or 'fanon'. Those lines are quite clear for the vast majority of us. :I compromised when it came to the tags, because...why fight something like this? But calling something canon is going to confuse our mission statement in regards to that, and I say that because I am confused as to what is canon when we try and determine it. That's why I changed it from 'canon' to 'official' because I truly thought this is what you meant and that 'canon' had slipped in. Otherwise, the title of that section ("Unofficial material must be segregated from official material") seems to argue differently than what is stated in the paragraph itself. If its not clear to me...--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) ::We could go by different way stating this. Old Canon? Obsolete Canon? BattleDroids 'mechs for instance are being introduced into canon material by way of Age of War era material. Battledroids themselves came out before BT Universe was finalized. Personally, since Battledroids was earliest game, hasn't been reflected in canon materials until recently. Like the unseens of old, they too are not seen. Thus these re-imaging now introduced. If you trying classify this I'd say go with pre-Battletech if its relating directly with Battledroids material. As for other things, such a Genecaste, listing them as [[Canon Rumor]] arguable best way to go. Its canon, but its not solided information.Its too bad we can't having rating on how reliable information is printed now. Example of the Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents: All 50 Divisions of the Word of Blake are listed. With gleems on what their doing from perspective of intelligence report. Which means is not rock solid, but darn close. Maybe we should have rating system 0-9 on reliability of source material on somethings? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :::No, with all respect due to you, but no. We, the Editors of BTW, should never be the ones to determine what is canon and what is not. Everyone has an opinion, and you'd have such a scale being railed against on each and every place it was used to rate an article. That very idea would cause people to say, "BattleTechWiki says that Event Alpha or Weapon Tech Beta is Canon Level High. They don't know what they're talking about." We don't want to be a source of opinionated articles, but ones that are well-researched and fact-based. [[Policy:Verifiability|Verifiability]] is on the verge of being a policy and neutrality is one of our [[BattleTechWiki:Five pillars| Five Pillars]]. Using an opinion-based rating system would detract from the verifiability we strive for and the neutrality we demand. Sorry, but I cannot back such a method. (Too strong? {{Emoticon| ;) }}) :::As for utilizing differing degrees of canoncity...simplicity is the key. Anytime we have to explain to each of ourselves (major contributors) what we think is canon and by what age or degree, we're removing the simplicity of the policy for the average or less-active editors. :::I think, Wrangler, the very concept we're discussing here may be forking, as an example of what Frabby is bringing up for discussion. He and I are simply debating the use of the words 'official' and 'canon' in the Canon policy, rather than the need to expand the policy as a whole. (Take a look at the archived discussion to see how detailed and lost we got in the initial discussion, before it was cemented it in my February policy and then simplified with Frabby's November one.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC) ::::I think you both misunderstood me, in different ways. :) ::::Wrangler, you fell into the trap that I tried to adress within the Canon article. Some canon only exists in the form of [[Canon Rumor]]s. But even these are canon, being rumors witin the universe. Credibility is never an issue. Instead, the question is whether or not a given real-world product can be said to officially contribute its content to the shared BT universe. Technically, there is only canon and non-canon, but the apocryphal articles stand out as special because they are neither clearly canon nor non-canon. As for BattleDroids stuff such as the Ostroc mk II, I'd consider it apocryphal (and I have been meaning to write its article for some time). ::::Revanche, what I tried to say within the policy was that an article needs no tag (i.e. default) if there is nothing to suggest that its subject is anything but canon. Conversely, the tags are needed (exception to the rule) where that is not the case - apocrypha and non-canon/fanon. I think it needs to be pointed out in the respective articles that these have issues with canonicity, which I adressed through the tags. So in this sense, the tags don't actually decide something, but point out where there might be an issue (which is not applicable to most sources and subjects). Phew. Words fail me, I hope I brought my point across and perhaps somebody else can find the right words to put into the policy. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :::::Ouch, hope i recover from that mental trap. So are you guys going come up with tags to point out...hmmm articles that may that are canon, but may not be straight truth? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) ::::::Wrangler, check out where the policy addresses the "Canonicity" section of articles to answer this question of your's. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :::::Frabby, I have no problem with the tags, and have included a new one of my own (to solve a problem where fan stories and articles were being lumped into the wrong categories when the fanon tag was used). To be honest, I'm not 100% onboard with the need of the tags, since the inclusion of the "Canonicity" section could address this, but I'm not heartbroken about it, either. :::::So, with that cleared up, can you take another stab at the original question you posed, about the use of 'canon' vice 'official' in the policy paragraph? Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :I would say that the policy needs to be "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''canonical''' issues by default", using the "Apocrypha" tag to denote Official Materiel that is Not Part of the Canon. IMO, the use of Official and Canon as synonyms is contraindicated.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) ::The original issue with declaring articles as "canonical" by default is that this essentially violates the "do not seek to decide" aspect. When the policy was reworked, this particular point remained somewhat unresolved. Now that you bring it up again, I think the way to go will be to revert to "canonical" here and tweak the "do not seek to decide" aspect for clarity. Will be back on that later, as this policy likely needs a rewrite if/when the [[Policy talk:Fanon|Fanon Purge]] project goes ahead. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 07:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) ==Pics from video games== I know that the video games aren't considered canon, but what about using them as a source of pictures for the articles? Obviously, this would only apply to pictures that don't contradict anything (including the existing picture, if any), but it seems like some detailed, full-color shots might help some of the articles. --[[User:Artanis|Artanis]] 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) :Can you give examples of where/in which articles you would want to insert pictures from computer games? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC) ::Mostly the ones where the existing pics are really not that great right now, especially the front-on wireframe-ish ones like the [[Uller]] and [[Summoner_(Thor)|Thor]]. Also, pretty much anything in the [[MechCommander_(Video_Game)|MechCommander]] intro video would be worth at least considering. --[[User:Artanis|Artanis]] 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC) ::I don't think there's any problem with this, so long as the game the image is taken from is linked in the pictures description in the article. This tells readers that the image is from a video game, so it shouldn't be too confusing as far as canon versus non-canon is concerned. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC) ::: I was quite fond of the MechCommander graphics myself. The only question is that those illustrations generally only apply to the Primary configurations in the case of omnimechs. You can refit the mech however you wanted and it would still look the same. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC) == Fanon tag color == A new point of discussion: the fanon tags, to me, give off the appearance of a warning by using the color red, rather than the vibe of a notice or announcement. I've had to re-add the tag to the [[Suomi Warders]] stories. Though [[User:Seth|Seth]] didn't indicate why he took them off, in the act of creating a fanon warning tag for his user page, I reflected that we reserve the color red for the higher levels of warning for a reason. The use of the color on fanon tags may give off the feeling we're warning the reader (and the author) that there is something wrong with 'this page.'<br> I'd like to suggest we utilize a different color. Maybe white or Sarna gold? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived discussion of the included proposal. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |- ! style="background-color: #FFFFE0; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | == Meta-sources == [[User:Dmon|Dmon]] and myself (and now, [[User:Doneve|Doneve]]) are presently in a [[Talk:Kallon Industries|discussion]] with an IP who -quoting the [[Policy:Canon#Fanon_content|Canon policy's fanon content section]]- complains about Doneve's use of ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'' as a source. I jumped in with support for Dmon's argument regarding the facts being true, but only had the 2nd of the Notes in OR:3067's article to support BTW 'policy' regarding using non-official sources. I propose adding the following statement to the Canon policy's Articles about non-canonical products section, under the banner (with a 'see also' comment in the Fanon content section): {{Quote|BattleTechWiki acknowledges the existence of some sources of information that are not official but, like BTW, do the necessary research and compiling to present official and canon facts regarding the BattleTech universe. These sources are known as 'meta-sources'. Only a select few have been reviewed and determined by consensus to be accepted as sources for BTW articles. They may not be used as references within the articles, because they are not official; instead, the original, official sources are required to be cited. These currently accepted meta-sources are: ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'', the [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas] and Classic BattleTech's cartographer [[Øystein Tvedten]]'s [http://home.ifi.uio.no/~oysteint/ISMP.html Star League Defense Forces Mapping Agency] (as well as the other released maps of his found in the article about him). As stated in the tag, details regarding the accepted use as a meta-source can be found on each of the relevant pages.}} Comments requested. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) :I don't think we should accept meta-sources as sources, because it would make BTW a "only" meta-meta source so to speak, and dilute/devaluate the BTW content. Do as wikis do: Research your content and quote correct sources. Meta-sources can be useful to check if you overlooked something, but they are just as biased and prone to errors as BTW and using them as a source would only aggravate that problem. And what's the gain? There is nothing a meta-source author found that we cannot find as well, and quote for reference. In fact, well-researched articles with references is ''the'' great strength of the wiki approach. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) ::Absolutely agree with you that original sources are preferred over meta-sources. I really don't have a good, solid argument to support the use of meta-sources, other than they have already consolidated the official material into a format easily digestable and incorporateble. Wwe need to have a policy that addresses peoples concerns (such as noted here) when someone does use a meta-source: my answer is 1) it is not encouraged, but not allowed, 2) may not be cited as a reference itself, and 3) needs to be accepted by the community as a trustworthy meta-source. ::Otherwise, if we do not allow the use of meta-sources, and we suspect they are being used, what is our policy? Do we delete and admonish? Do we push the Editor to imemdiately follow up with official sources or face deletion? In fact, I see insertion of facts that originate from a trustworthy meta-source to be even more valuable than facts that are otherwise uncited. The end goal: yes, every fact is cited is preferred. But, barring that, a meta-source at least is a step in the right direction. Similar example: if I see a fact in Article A, here on BTW, that is uncited that I don't have any doubts about, I feel free to use that fact to build Article B (also uncited). As BTW is a meta-source, it is a similar analogy. ::I'm not looking to create a separate policy regarding meta-sources, but for the reason detailed above, I think we should have a supporting position for ''certain'' meta-sources, since if the facts are true, they should not be deleted. Otherwise, the logic extends equally to all uncited facts on the project. I think in a black-n-white perspective, your position is much stronger, but there are shades to be considered if we out-right state meta-sources are not acceptable. (My head is a bit muddy; am I being clear?) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC) :::If I understand you right, you're suggesting a preferential treatment of certain meta-sources. I am opposed to this idea, because the choice which meta-sources to treat preferentially is in itself a totally subjective process. All meta-sources should be treated as equally suspect no matter how trustworthy with one notable exception - BTW itself. :::If meta-sources are being used, I suggest treating this just as if no references were given. If doubtful information is given, insert a <reference needed> tag. Meta-sources cannot serve as reference, so the author would need to dig up whatever primary source the meta-source took its info from. :::What I am concerned about in this context is that editors might be tempted to sloppy research if they can hide behind a meta-source. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC) ::::I disagree, Revanche. OR:3067 is not a compilation of information culled from other sources in the same way that BTW is supposed to be. There are certain assumptions that are made, especially with regard to the production of components. My specific example: Because of my work here, I had done the legwork to find out that the ''Sagittare's'' weapons were produced under license on the same world, a factoid that was dropped in HB:HD. Unaware of this (or perhaps having done it before that book was produced), MadCap listed the production for those weapons at their original site. I informed him and he changed it. ::::I greatly respect what he and the community have done with that project. In many ways, it mirrors what we do here. Nonetheless, OR:3067 is not a canon or licensed source and should not be granted any status other than "fan-made". If it exists in OR:3067, it should exist in a canon source. Knowing that should help an editor narrow done the original source of the information, not replace it. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) :::::Understood. Its clear that the majority don't feel meta-sources should be authorized by BTW. I won't try to pigeonhole a compromise. However, I do ask for your policy suggestions on what the answer should be when a) its clear someone is only using a meta-source, and/or b) when someone challenges the inclusion of material that clearly comes from a meta-source. They are two different things. I'm just opposed to deleting anything added by another Editor which I feel is probably right, but is uncited and most likely originating from a meta-source. Likewise, how will/would you answer [[65.190.30.41]]'s [[Talk:Kallon Industries|concerns]]? (Frabby, you addressed his mis-assumptions, but not his concerns about the use of the information from a meta-source.) Appreciate the guidance. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) ::::::I 100% agree with Frabby that citing a fan-made "book", even one as well-done as MadCap's, should be akin to not citing a source. Like any other unsourced information that seems accurate, it should be tagged as needing a citation. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) ::::::: Wake up, a little less congested, lot more rested, clearer mind. <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> is what it needs. I guess I got hung up on wanting to retain statements I knew to be true, and wanted to resist any urge for people to revert wholesale additions to BTW because from a semi-trusted source. But, if the complaining person doesn't like a particular statement, they can tag it as needing a citation and then delete it after a certain amount of time has past. It is not my responsibility to ensure it gets deleted (or protected) if someone else tags it, which I think was a chore I felt myself being painted into.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC) :::One question which should be raised in this discussion. As all canon BattleTech sources cite authors and contributors, why not consider meta-sources written by the same authors. For instance, Chris Wheeler is cited in several books as a fact checker (at the very least). If Catalyst Games trusts BattleTech Universe canon with him, he should be a reliable source, no? Should we not consider [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas], his website, as being very reliable? :::I should think citation of such meta-sources would be akin to our current policy towards electronic posts on official websites ([http://www.classicbattletech.com Classic BattleTech], [http://www.catalystgames.com Catalyst Games], etc.) and author/contributor posts on message boards, both of which I have seen cited in the past. :::If you agree, I would propose that all meta-sources written directly by authors and fact checkers for BattleTech be considered as legitimate source material.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC) ::::Strongly disagree. Only that is Canon which was published as Canon in a canonical source. People like Chris "Chinless" Wheeler, "Oystein" Tvedten and Mike "Cray" Miller (and many others) are very productive in their off-time. The catch is that in their off-time, they're not in any official capacity and anything they privately produce that isn't sanctioned or solicited by Herb is just Fanon. This, I feel, is a very important point that cannot be stressed enough: Only sources (as in publications) are canonical; writers (as persons) are not. ::::Meta-sources are totally unofficial. As long as they're merely faithfully reproducing canonical information, they are not original source and therefore not required as a reference in the first place; conversely, where meta-sources are the only source, they are non-canonical. For example, the IS Atlas cannot provide the canonical XY-coordinates for most periphery systems simply because those coordinates were never published in canon. Yet the IS Atlas provides coordinates. Don't make the mistake to assume they're canonical. ::::Finally, no, meta-sources are ''not'' reliable. In most cases (Sarna BTW, OR:3067, IS Atlas, etc.) these sources were produced by dedicated fans. But that doesn't rule out errors, like the dead-wrong plancements of many systems on Sarna.net (take [[Götterdämmerung (system)|Götterdämmerung]] as an example). An oversight or misspelling in a canonical source can become canon, such as the misspelled name of [[New Hati]]. But an error in a meta-source remains just plainly wrong. ::::In my opinion, dedicated work on this wiki (like on any meta-source) means you go and find the original canonical quote/reference for whatever data is in question. Don't hide behind a meta-source of unverified veracity. Check the (right) sources and use these as a reference. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC) :::::Those are all great points, Frabby. I couldn't agree more. I would like to point out that things authors post on the message board are cited because they are clarifications or errata. If there are places where this is not the case, bring it up in a discussion. The CBT website is published by CGL, so it can be considered a canon source, except where they state otherwise.--[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC) ===Consensus Wrap-up=== Reviewing this discussion that ended in early February, it appears consensus has led to the following points: #Meta-sources, defined as those projects, whether they be done by fans or CBT official producers acting in an unofficial capacity, are not to be recognized as canon/official. #As such, meta-sources are not to be referenced on BTW as source material and any facts attributed to these sources may have that citation replaced with a '''<nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>''' tag. #It is also noted that where CBT forums reference errata or clarifications by the official staff, these are considered to be acceptable citations for BTW references, as long as they occur in a clearly official capacity, such as in the Catalyst Game Labs Interaction boards. ====Consensus Support/Non-Support==== Please state either your '''support''' or '''non-support''' for this consensus wrap-up, per the listed "Consensus Wrap-up" points: *'''Support''': I withdraw my motion to add an official acceptance of certain (or any) meta-sources, as not being in the best interests of BTW's reputation as a reliable meta-source in its own right. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) *'''Support''': Nothing to add to Revanche's excellent wrap-up. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC) *'''Support''' Seems reasonable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) '''Consensus Summary''': Proposal (''per consensus'') passes. Closed on 26 March 2010 |- | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived discussion of the included proposal. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |} == Old Game Rules == How are we going to treat out-dated rulebooks? Do we consider them as canon? I often see sources such as Maximum Tech and Master Rules refered to. Should these references be replaced with the TW/TM/TO/SO when possible? Should old rules be present on the site at all? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) :It really depends upon the context. If a rule has changed, an an article is referencing the rule, then I'd image it should point to the current book. But, if it hasn't changed, then it can reference ''all'' the books, so that any reader can use what they have on-hand. Simple answer: old citations should not be blindly updated with new ones. Do you have an example in question?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ::Since some players whom aren't update, they may be using the older names for rules. Such as Level 3 for instance. Some players maybe still USING older Battletech Master Rules Revised and Maximum Tech, that should be treated as they are. Level 3's replacement rules, Advanced and Experimental Tech are treated differiently since they split up Level 3's rules up and add new ones. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, Wrangler correctly guessed that caught my attention, talk about Level 3 rules. There's also the issue of potential confusion caused by references to old rules. Maybe old rule stuff should be marked in some way? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ::::I'd be open to ideas as to how. But, rules aren't so much our focus as universe is. We try and shy away from discussion of the actual rules and get into the character of the universe. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 18:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC) :::::In that case, should all rules be separated out from fluff? Something like this: [[Dual Cockpit]]? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::I kinda like it. I think it needs to be a less bold color (maybe the Sarna gold?). But, I'm also of the belief we have to answer the question: is it necessary? Between you, me and every other Editor here on BTW (keep it quiet {{Emoticon| ;) }}), I'd like us to approach BTW as in-character Sarna (Sarna University?) researchers from far in BT's future, looking back on these events leading up to the 32nd century, uncovering historical data. Therefore, things like yor break-out (from character) ''would'' be appropriate. However, if we're simply 21st century Real World fans, then that kind of break-out is not necessary (it can be argued).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC) :::::::My own choice would be a reddish hue. Just wasn't motivated to try to find the perfect color. Something that makes it more fade into background rather than stand out would be preferable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Take a look at my edit. I'd be interested in seeing your color concept.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 19:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC) <div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"> ''Associated Rules'' This is an out-of-universe game rule. '''OLD:''' This is a game rule that is no longer valid in the current ruleset. </div> ::::::::: Looks better than gray, but I still favor red for some reason. Maybe it's because yellow is the Davionista color? See red example box above. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::I understand your (possible) dislike for the color because of nationalistic styles, but I'm working solely from the perspective of what fits the established site colors. I was actually thinking of even making it a darker yellow/gold (#FC0) (see your above example), but think the original example (#FFFFE0) is a better fit (less glaring). I just want to find something that stands out from the 'character' of the article, but doesn't distract the reader as uncharacteristic of the site. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::I know you like red, Neufeld, but please don't use it. Anyone who's red/green colorblind (like my Dad) will have a hard time reading the content. :::::::::::If you absolutely must use red, please use the [http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/contrast-analyser.html Contrast Analyzer] to be sure your content can be seen. :::::::::::Rev if you're getting stuck on the color to use, you may want to check out the [http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/color-blend/ Color Blender] tool that Eric Meyer put on his site. It's saved me a lot of time. (It shows that #FFF1B9 and #FFECA2 might be good colors for the note background color. Then use standard #FFCC00 for border color.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::I like the lighter yellow much better. The gold one is too bold. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::..."you may want to check out the [http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/color-blend/ Color Blender] tool..." Oooh, shiny. Thanks. I'm liking #FFE670; its a blend of the soft yellow in the left background and the bold gold of the site. Anyone else? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) :::::::::I'm extremely busy right now and don't really have time to contribute right now, but I have to chime in here: Personally, I disagree with Revanche's notion of keeping BTW in-universe (how would you justify OOC articles like [[Jordan Weisman]] or [[List of BattleTech products]]?). That aside, I wonder if we could create a Game Rules template for what you're going. It would provide a prominent frame outside of the normal article text, possibly save a lot of typing, and help by giving a pre-made format for noting down rules. Variables should be ''Source|Brief rules description''. I'll revisit this when I have more time, give me a week. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::LOL. Yeah, you're my primary opponent to that concept (in-character researchers), but we'll address that in a different setting. However, it sounds like you're in agreement with the idea of breaking out rules in the above style, but have a 'quick-start' idea for soing so. I'm interested in your idea.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) :::::I'd like to offer up [[Gauss rifle]] as an example of the way I handled this. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::The reason I'm not partial to all italics is that the game rules material doesn't segregate itself well enough from the overall article, especially when it is likely there are other aspects of an article that may also use italics. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) To recap a little. I think we have agreed that rules should be put into into a box, and that part is mostly down to decide upon a color. However, what should we do about the old vs new rules? That still needs to be discussed. A page that really shows the problem is [[Cockpit Command Console]]. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) :How about with bulleted items, per the original source? Example: <div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"> *'''''BattleTech Compendium''''', p. 47: Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier. *'''''Maximum Tech''''', p 49: Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers. *'''''BattleTech Master Rules''''', p. 42: Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier. *'''''Total Warfare''''', p. 247: Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier. *'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''', p. 149: provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War). </div> :As always, Editors only add then information they have direct access to and care to support with source. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC) ::Well, I'm not too hot on that format. While a bulleted list might be the way to go, there's the problem that it doesn't clearly show which set of rules are the most current. Also the way the sources are listed seems contrary to the way we cite stuff on this site. Maybe more like this: <div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"> *''BattleTech Compendium'': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here) *''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here) *''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here) * Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here) *'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here) </div> ::(ref here) means a normal reference. Here I have split the box in two parts, old and new. Second, I have reserved bold for current rules. Third, since Total Warfare and Tech Manual are the current base rules, I have chosen not not state their name explicitly in the box, just in the reference. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC) :::I like your use of bolding to indicate current rules, with a space between active and inactive sources. Two questions: :::#Why not list the name of the current references at the beginning? A) it provides consistency between the methods (less confusing to Editors making the changes from 'active' to 'outdated') and B) if/when a source becomes outdated, it is simpler to move down and remove the bolding code (<nowiki>'''</nowiki>). :::#What about putting the active rules on top, so that is what is first seen by the reader (afterall, most important information should always come first)? :::My example (a change on your's): <div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"> Active Rules: *'''''Total Warfare''''': Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here) *'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br><br> Outdated Rules: *''BattleTech Compendium''': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here) *''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here) *''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here) </div> :::I'm liking this. I think we're making considerable progress. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes I agree on your changes. We still need to decide on headings. Level 2 for rules, and level 3 for Active Rules and Outdated Rules? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC) :::::I'd say Level 2, since it wouldn't be a subset of anything else (except maybe for ==Notes==). There's no need to go into Level 3, is there, if we use the box below the heading? (I.e., have both sets in the same box.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::Well, I'd say that the headings in the box needs a bit of highlight: <div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"> '''Active Rules''': *'''''Total Warfare''''': Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here) *'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br><br> '''Outdated Rules''': *''BattleTech Compendium''': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here) *''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here) *''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here) </div> ::::::like this. Also should the Rules heading be in or outside the box? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC) :::::::Sorry for the delay. I'm of two minds on that: one is that the heading should be inside the box for completeness' sake. On the other is that now the opening box code has to be placed before the section heading, which means anyone editing the code itself has to open the edit section before it. That seems minor to me, though, for once the box is in place (by an experienced Editor), its in place. :::::::How do you feel about it? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I think that it would look better inside the box, but it's not something that would bother me if it was outside. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Agree with Neufeld. I have to say you've made a terrific job here, and Rev's concerns seem minor. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 09:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC) ====New themes==== With the installation of House specific themes on Sarna.net, please update any Game Rules sections so they use this code: &lt;div class="gamerules"&gt; instead of the previous code shown below. &lt;div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"&gt; This will present Game Rules information in a Faction-specific color, rather than everyone getting Davion gold. Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC) == Game Data in articles == ''While related, this is a separate discussion from how rules are to be presented (above). Please continue in that discussion, as well.'' I'd like to discuss the 'character' of articles dealing with in-universe subjects ('Mechs, bios, etc.), when rules and gaming information are included. I wish I could remember the location of the discussion, but I thought one Editor responded well to another Editor's query about items in infoboxes by saying we tended to shy away from actual gaming data (armor amount, superstructure, etc.), but describing them as they might be discussed in a ''Jane's'' narrative (ex: "light on armor", "built with an extremely strong hull", etc.). Originally, this has been true, but done without a policy regarding this. Now, largely in part due to requests to me to include them, the infoboxes come out and explicitly state this data, which (IMO) robs both the in-universe encyclopedic character of the article and potential material to discuss in the narrative sections of the article. What I'm asking for here is a conversation as to how we want articles to be used: are they TRO-like discussions of the fictional subject, are they real world encyclopedic metasources for both in-universe and gaming data? Do we want to strip gaming data out of these articles? Do we want to be more inclusive of it? I'm going to weigh in following the first comments made by others, but please be aware of two points: 1) what we decide here does have far-reaching implications (it might be its own policy) and, 2) (more for Frabby) I'm not attempting to pursue my interest in making Editors 'in-character' Sarna researchers with this discussion. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Please comment: : I feel that using in-universe measurements like tonnage, speed and cost are OK and should be included. Border cases are things BV, SI points and such. I would prefer to include these also, but would not feel strongly about those. Consider for example [[Cheetah]]: Everything in first part of infobox is OK. In second part: Mass, Frame, Power Plant, Fuel weight, Armament, Comm system, Targeting system and heat sinks are all things someone in-universe could learn, and should be kept. Structural Integrity, Fuel points and BV are game stats that wouldn't be represented in the same way in-universe, and hence debatable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC) ::And the fine point that must be understood is that BV listings on here will probably be well-fought for, as we've had them on here almost since day 1 (of the first 'Mech article). From there, then, comes the argument, "If not [my favorite game stat], why BV?" And I don't see any easy way to segregate game stats in the same way as game rules (as in the above discussion) with out it being awkward.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC) ::Good comments, Neufeld. At this point, we're just having a discussion and I feel it lacks enough involvement. Should we pursue a policy about article 'character'? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC) ::: My personal position is this : Anything short of blatant copyright infringement is fair game. I believe that more is, in fact, good. In answer to Rev's questions above, I say the articles in question can include all those things. However, as I usually do, I will follow the concensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC) :::: Rev, you are probably thinking of CJ's comments at [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Change_format.3F]]. I have made the argument many times in various places as well. That said, I will argue until I'm blue in the fingers for keeping BV because it's one of the things here that I actually find ''useful''. When I'm running a game based on BV, I can make sure that every player has an official document that lists BV for every unit allowed, or I can just tell them "go to Sarna". :::: I think OOC information is where InfoBoxes excel precisely because they are separate from the body of the text. I'm pretty happy with the balance we have now, and would argue that any policy created should enshrine the status quo. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC) ===Style Box=== ''Copied from [[User talk:Mbear#Style_Box|Mbear's talk page]]'' Hy Mbear, is it usefull to add a style box, like the Game Rules in the Technology section, to the Military unit articles, it is a idea, any thought, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 19:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC) :At the moment I'd say no because AFAIK we haven't officially started adding the style box to the Game Rules articles. I'd prefer to finish one category (technology) completely and then start on the next thing. :I also don't know where you'd put the styled box on the Military Unit pages.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) ::Take a look on this [[21st Division (Word of Blake)‎]], only a example.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC) :::Oh. Well. That looks OK to me, but we should probably discuss it before you just start doing it. I'll copy this page to the [[Policy_Talk:Canon#Game_Data_in_articles]] section to see what happens.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC) == Citing BV == Whether an Editor is trying to complete an empty field for BV1 or BV2, there are plenty of vehicles (''et al'') that have yet to have those values canonized, via publishing in a master list or on the subject pages of a TRO. One Editor recently compiled BV based on the use of an non-official program (either SSW or MW) and cited it as such. The citation was reverted by another Editor, for that reason. That got me thinking: is BV only canon when actually published? My argument is no, it can be canon when properly determined via the canon rules for BV determination. I propose we accept as official any citation that uses the specific ruleset for that BV version (1 or 2). For example, *<nowiki><ref>''TechManual'', pp. 302-304, "Calculating 'Mech BV"</ref></nowiki> Now, this obviously means some errors creep in, if an Editor is unable to correctly calculate, but that is true of errors anywhere on the wiki. In that case, and especially because the calculation section is referenced (rather than a direct source), other Editors are free to change the BV to either what they determine the BV to be (great if 2 or more Editors arrive at the same number independently) or as the BV is released in a direct source. <br> Comments?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC) :Well, I considered starting up discussion on this subject myself. I just wanted to wait for the rules and year stuff to be done, so the discussion wouldn't distract from those. There's also the cost of units that's in the same boat as BV. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC) ::Well, as conversation seems to have paused at the other two (semi-related) discussions, I'd be interested in your POV on what I've proposed. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC) :::Considering things that can be calculated, I'm of the opinion that rules trumps values given that might contain printing errors. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC) ::::You and I agree in generalities, but I'm not sure I support this. In theory, I'd agree with you, but until it is either addressed with errata or acknowledged to be wrong, published BV would fall under our Canon policy. (However, if consensus leads to to an exception in this case, I'll follow).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 14:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC) :::::The point is [[W:Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]]. I can verify that the BV printed on page 103 of ''Combat Operations'' is the same as the one in the article. It is substantially more difficult to run the numbers myself to come up with the BV that you got. What if we get different numbers? Who is right? Obviously there is a correct answer, but what if somebody doesn't understand they are doing it wrong? This would also be considered ''original research'', meaning that I can't possibly verify the information you put in the article, because you did it yourself. :::::Yes, there are always printing errors. In general, when that occurs, it is well documented on the CBT forums and TPTB quickly approve errata for it. To argue that your math or the math of a fan-made program is better than that in official publications is disingenuous at best. As an example, I know for a fact that the BV spit out by The Drawing Board was occasionally wrong. Not always, but often enough that I didn't trust it. No, like every other piece of information in this wiki, BV and cost should have cited sources from official publications. That there is a formula that determines both of those pieces of information does not mean they should be treated differently. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::It will be hard to prove what the calculated BV is without the amounts of armor, number of heat sinks, and tons of ammo for the guns that is not mentioned in most of the articles. Or I should say that without this information it is rather difficult for an editor to make any checks on the calculations on somebodies work. While yes there are cannon rules for calculating BV and cost without the full amounts there can be no proof for the numbers given. Other then this objection, I do agree that calculated BV's can be used because the BV's of every object on a 'mech et. al. has been given in a source that is cannon. Hope I made myself understood. [[User:Underadarkhand|Underadarkhand]] 13:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::Calculations should ''never'' be based on what's provided in this wiki, a meta-source. No, any calculations, in lieu of printed BV, must be based ''solely'' on official sources, using the current formulas (if we even allow this route).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 22:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ::If the discussion of precedence between canon and rules' formulation continues, so be it. But, how do people feel about utilizing the rules in the absence of printed BV (when properly identified as having come from the rules)? I'm of the mind that the math could be presented on the discussion page, to allow for double-checking.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::Keep the canon policy intact; separate the information. Create a separate section for fan-calculated BVs that is clearly labeled as such. As per the existing canon policy, just make it clear what is official and what is not. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC) ::::Could we create a BV computation template to put on the discussion page? Base it on the TechManual formula for BV 2. Then we just enter the values in the template. Once that's computed, post the completed worksheet on the discussion page for people to double-check. I'm thinking the template would be a worksheet, kind of like we have for the "Quickly create a Canon Mech" articles.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) :::::I think it needs to be mentioned that BV is something derivative, i.e. not something that can be decided. Instead, it is calculated from other canonical data. As such, I don't think you could call BV itself "canonical". Most importantly, it doesn't require a source (imho) because it's just the application of a formula, not something TPTB can really decide or change at a whim. I would even suggest removing it from BTW entirely, but it seems others do use it a lot for sorting and comparing, and so BV seems to have some use here after all. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ::::::When I started forming the policies and templates here (all by my lonesome...where the ''h#11'' were you guys?!), I was just looking to get some consistency and value into the wiki; we didn't have anything approaching a core concept yet for the overall project. However, if I had known then that we'd be developing a kind of Jane's-type character here, I would have pushed more for in-universe only material, which would have negated the adding of BVs. It does appear readers enjoy the comparative and categorical benefits from using BVs, so... ::::::I would like to support the use of Editor-calculated BVs where direct BVs are unavailable. Mbear's idea of a template seems reasonable to me, because then it can easily be checked by others for validity. Before we even entertain the idea of nixing Editor-calculated BVs, I'd like to give Mbear the opportunity to provide us one for an example. (Also, when a BV can be overwritten by a canon source, then it would be, no holds barred. Even if the calculation indicates otherwise.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::I am agreeable to Mbear's solution, assuming it's feasible. As long as the info can be verified to be correct, so a link to the talk page section would be fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Mbear, are you up to crafting such an example template for a class of vehicle? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Yes. I'll start working on a Mech template tonight after work.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::This is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated, so I don't think I'll have the awesomely short turnaround time I had on some other projects. Please bear with me.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 11:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Defense part is (mostly) done. [[User:Mbear/BVWorksheet]] shows what I have so far. (Yes, the columns need to line up better and it's not wikified. Work in progress.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC) :Kind of sort of completed the template page. Please review [[User:Mbear/BVWorksheet]] to see what I have. Comments appreciated.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC) ::My first thought was, "Wow...this may be much more complicated than we have allowed for." However, Mbear's template seems rather all inclusive. Before we baptize this template idea, I think maybe we should all take it for a test run and compute the same 'Mech, see if we get the same answers. If the current Wardens of the site can't compute BV2 in a clear manner, even with Mbear's template, we may want to shelve the idea of anything other than officially-provided numbers. ::The template isn't to teach people how to compute BV2, but to show their computations leading to it, in order to check for errors. ::So, who is willing to try the template on their own talk pages (probably a subpage, like Mbear has done here)? I propose the [[Raven|Raven RVN-3L]] from ''[[Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade]]'' (chosen randomly). We need ''at least'' 2 others (I'm the third).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) :One other thing: As Nuefled pointed out on the [[User_talk:Mbear/BVWorksheet|discussion page]], this sheet doesn't include the [http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual TechManual Errata] yet. I just wanted to get a sample done so we could have something concrete to discuss.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC) ::The TechManual Errata has been integrated into the Worksheet.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) :And I'm willing to compute BV for a 'Mech, but I don't have the TRO3050 Upgrade available, only the TRO3050. Will that be good enough? (Especially since I'm at work and don't have the TRO with me.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Scaletail rightly pointed out that the page was big, and not exactly a template. It's more a worksheet. Maybe I should rename it?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) ::::Sorry for not engaging sooner; too tired to do more than rote stuff. ::::Well, until we 'finish' it and move it to a regular page, I think it's fine right now. ::::Did you want to choose another 'Mech? (I had intended 2 people other than yourself to check it, but...)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC) :::::Been there (too tired...) so no problem. :::::How about a mech from one of the TRO downloads on classicbattletech.com? That way we're all using the same reference. :::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=224#downloads TRO:3075 (Hammerhands)] :::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=161#downloads TRO:3055 Update (variety)] :::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=222#downloads TRO:3039 (Thorn, Vulcan)] :::::Just a thought.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) :As a quick aside if you do start adding data from SSW the program adds ammo costs onto designs rather than exclude them as per the rules. No affect on BV as far as I can tell but be careful as to what you guys include {{unsigned|86.7.73.27|on 9 May 2010}} ===Poll regarding BV=== Herb Beas put up a poll about Battle Value. Since this bears directly on the above discussion and voting closes on June 4th, I'd encourage everyone to [http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=66583.0 vote in the poll].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) ==MUL canon?== Speaking about citing BV, is the MUL canon or meta-source? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :It is canon.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::I agree. Every indication I've seen is that it is official. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::No it's not. It will be canon once it is officially released, but the beta-version that was circulated for fact-checking is inofficial and thus a meta-source at best. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ::::What is the MUL?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) :::::MUL = Master Unit List. A project by a team of volunteers to identify every combat unit in the BattleTech universe. A preview is available at the ClassicBattleTech.com site as the [http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/MasterUnitList_v1-66p_Names.pdf Master Unit Name List].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC) ::::::Thanks, is [[Peter LaCassie]] part of that bunch?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) :::::::AFAIK, Peter Lacasse is not. However, CBT forum member Xotl is part of the MUL team and his [http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53761.0 'Mech list/RAT project] is superior to and more recent than Lacasse's older work. In any case I think it's safe to say that the MUL team are aware of the Lacasse faction list. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC) == Rules Revisited == Hoping to jump start this discussion : How detailed can we be regarding the rules we present, specifically in the equipment articles? Can we designate certain rules "Level 3" vs. "Level 2"? That sort of thing. I think the differing views are out there, and its time to build a consensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC) :First off, the "Level 2"/"Level 3" designation was eliminated in ''Total Warfare''. There is tournament-legal and non-tournament-legal, and then there is experimental. To my knowledge, there is no prohibition against summarizing game data for weapons and equipment. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC) ::I feel that we should give both designations... Old Rules Level 1, 2, 3, and N/A (equipment that was intorduced after the cut-over...) as well as the current Standard/Tournament, Advanced, and Experimental rules Levels. i guess N/A would be the rules level under both rules level systems for [[Fanon]] and [[Apocryphal]] content as Rules Levels only apply rules published in [i]Canon[/i] Materiel. Mainly linking to the Rules Level Page bookmark that deals with the specific section would work. Any template dealing with weapons and equipment should have a spot for rules levels in the side table. Question is should we go so far as to have the templates provide the options and the editor that creates the page would deleat the 2 to 4 options that do not apply.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) ==From the Fluff Side of Cannon== I recently asked a question about Star Adder saKhan succession in the Classic BT forum. I received a much bigger answer than I thought I would. [http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,18158.0.html] I have already posted this on the talk page of [[Kensington Talasko]]. --[[User:Rebs|Rebs]] 08:09, 14 April 2012 (PDT) ==Kickstarter Canon Characters== {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following has been copied from [[:Talk:The_Wylde_Cards]]. |- ! style="background-color: #FFFFE0; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | The article gives only one source reference, [[Second Succession War (Sourcebook)]]. However, combing the document I found only one passing reference to the unit: They're listed as a merc unit in Kurita employ on a table on p. 94 that was raised in 2859 and destroyed by 2864. None of the other information in this article stems from that book, and given the anachronisms and total lack of sources, I'm assuming it's fan fiction and have edited it out. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:53, 15 May 2018 (EDT) :The Wylde Cards were one of the fan created mercenary unit's [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=57778.0] so it might have been the creator adding more info, but point stands that non-canon info either has to be marked as such or referenced elsewhere such as this talk page as other fans with units have done. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 17:04, 15 May 2018 (EDT) ::Editor has come back and given their reasons for the content. Personally I still hold the opinion that private messages from Ray or not, this should not be here unless it actually gets printed.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:40, 23 May 2018 (EDT) :::I've had email contat with the author, and I suggested the approach to him that was now taken. We have a precedent of sort with [[TekTeam]], which was an (now apocryphal) unit that appeared in BattleTechnology and the 'Mech magazine, but had additional (non-canon) fan-created info about them. Given that the fan information was from the same author who had created the apocryphal parts I reasoned even the non-canon is notable enough to warrant inclusion. In the case of this article here, the unit is actually canon and the same rationale applies imho. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:21, 23 May 2018 (EDT) ::::This discussion may be worth a review with the addition of the Kickstarter canon characters/pilot cards. Will "behind the curtain" information be considered apocryphal for all of them?--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 09:37, 26 October 2020 (EDT) :::::My opinion of the "behind the curtain" stuff remains unchanged from the above but given the scale of the Kickstarter I believe that how we handle it is important for the reputation of the wiki. Last year I had a clash with one of the backers from the HBS campaign. The HBS campaign had 162 characters, I can't remember where I read it but the CGL one has about 2,000. so issues are inevitable. :::::You may of already seen that I created [[List of Clan Invasion Kickstarter Characters]] in an effort to "direct" some backers in a direction that we can manage.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 10:19, 26 October 2020 (EDT) ::::::Revisiting this, I find that we do seem to have a working procedure/system in place between this article and the predecent of the TekTeam article: What's published in canon is canon (nothing in the case of TekTeam, bare stub information in the case of the Wylde Cards); what's been published in an official but non-canonical source is apocryphal (All BattleTechnology and MechForce Quarterly stuff about TekTeam), and anything coming from the original authors that wasn't officiall published is non-canon but arguably still worthwile to mention in the articles (like was done with the Author's Notes link in the TekTeam article). I'm willing to take the author's assertion at face value that Ray Arrastia declared the behind-the-scenes information on the Wylde Cards apocryphal instead of outright non-canon, but such should be the exception from the rule. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (EDT) :::::::I feel that anything not in print in a licensed source should be considered fanon and labeled as such. We have no ability to verify sources or whether it has gone through any approval or fact-checking, as labeling them apocryphal might suggest.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 10:27, 27 October 2020 (EDT) We have our first fairly large piece of [[Charles Edward Maxwell|"behind the curtain"]] from the Kickstarter. so what do we want to do about it?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 00:01, 1 November 2020 (EDT) ::[[:Policy:Canon]] In my opinion, everything on the card is canon. Everything else is not canon and should be marked as such, at the very least. Realistically it should be placed in the same location as the fan fiction that was removed from this wiki.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 01:00, 1 November 2020 (EDT) |- | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above has been copied from [[:Talk:The_Wylde_Cards]]. |} I feel like discussion of this issue was lost/forgotten beneath the massive number of daily edits that happened around the same time. I wanted to continue it here, in a more appropriate location, because I feel the definitions and policy are very clear but are not being adhered to. To revise and restate my stance: Information added to Canon Character articles that does not meet the definition of [[canon]] and should be labeled as ''[[Canon#Non-Canon|non-canon]]'' ([[:Policy:Canon#Articles_about_non-canonical_subjects|not-canon template]]), not as [[Canon#Apocrypha|apocryphal]]. Apocrypal sources "are invariably official BattleTech products and were produced under a valid license." The raw bios submitted by fans are under no oversight whatsoever and do not meet this definition in any way. By labeling them as apocryphal, I believe we are stating that they are official products produced under a license. With respect to Ray Arrastia and the above-mentioned behind the curtain discussion, I don't believe he follows the policies and definitions as layed out in this wiki. We should also add a new exception to [[:Policy:Fanon]] if we choose to modify the policy on fanon for this purpose. It should be narrow and specific so that we don't back-track too far on the fanon policy and allow regression of "the site's quality as a BattleTech resource".--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 17:16, 5 January 2021 (EST) :Interestingly enough the issue raised its head yesterday regarding a [[User talk:Charles Maxwell|user]] and his [[Charles Edward Maxwell|character]].--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 18:19, 5 January 2021 (EST) ===CGL Policy on Kickstarter characters=== '''Follow-up''': The following is CGL's canon policy regarding the KickStarter characters. [[User:GreekFire|GreekFire]] asked the question, as a way to clarify how all characters canonized through the Kickstarter campaigns are to be recognized: * [[:File:CGLKickstarterCanon.png|"Kickstarter Characters and Canon"]] While this does not dictate Sarna policy in any regard, this can be used as a response to questions or statements regarding how unpublished backgrounds of paid-canonical characters are considered by CGL.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 18:34, 5 July 2021 (EDT) :It reaffirms both CGL's stance on Canon and Sarna's policy. That said, I was under the impression that Sarna's policy is indeed informed by CGL in the sense that they decide over canon and we attempt to implement that for Sarna - the Sarna BattleTechWiki cannot have a definition of Canon that is different from the definition used by TPTB. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:51, 6 July 2021 (EDT) ::I would then contact the user that was entering his details and explaining him the answer from CGL, and what it implies (a Fanon tag I would say as apocryphal does not seem ok).--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:35, 6 July 2021 (EDT) :::I think the difference between Sarna and CGL canon lies solely with the word, "published". CGL does inform canon, but they do not dictate Sarna policy. CGL has information about canon that is not available to us that they act upon. Our information is based on what can be publicly verified{{m}}what is published. If there is a question, someone asks on the official forum and we consider written answers as published. In my opinion, for us, acting upon what cannot be publicly verified is speculation{{m}}fanon. The recent work mapping unpublished systems technically blurs that line, but only with CGL's promise that the information will be published (and steps were taken to provide verification). An email to a private individual that cannot be publicly verified should not meet our policy requirements. In the KS Character case, due diligence should be, and was, done to get "published" verification.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 07:39, 6 July 2021 (EDT) :: Cache stated it best when he described our autonomy; Ray Arrastia has confirmed that autonomy with respect to our moratorium policy. Again, my purpose in "immortalizing" the Line Developer's official response is solely for the purpose of giving people a concrete '''CGL''' policy to draw upon when responding to people saying '''CGL''' considers submissions as canon. Nothing else. The use of "dictate" was intentional and has different connotations than "informed by". :: The distinction between CGL and Sarna needs to be clear; otherwise, some people will choose to believe CGL dictates Sarna policy and that Sarna legally represents CGL. Neither is true.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ^{([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])} 07:53, 6 July 2021 (EDT) == BattleTech split from our own history == In the [[Royal Black Watch Regiment]] article, I came across the "Real History" section, and a lot of it seemed out of place for a Sarna article. # Virtually all statements in that section have citation needed tags, probably because most of the statements in that section probably come from that unit's wikipedia article (or some other place that isn't BattleTech canon). # The statement about the RBWR from 2003 may not be accurate in BattleTech, since BattleTech history diverges from our own at least in 1991 (if not before). # The formation date in the infobox may not necessarily be correct either. I was trying to find an official policy about injecting real world history that may not jive with BattleTech history, but I've come up blank. Can I recommend the following policy update, or something similar to address the disjunction of the real history and BattleTech history? "''Articles entirely covering real-world subjects, such as authors or companies, naturally stand outside of the canon of the fictional universe and are not affected by the Canon Policy.'' ''If a canon article is based on a real world subject, such as the [[Royal Black Watch Regiment]], [[82nd Royal Jump Infantry Division]], or [[Takeo_Kurita_(20th_c.)|Takeo Kurita]], it is best practice to assume that none of the subject's real world history happened the same way in BattleTech history, unless there is a canon BattleTech source that confirms that the real historical event actually happened the same way in the BT universe.''" The [[Canon]] article may need to be similarly updated? [[Special:Contributions/75.23.228.139|75.23.228.139]] 18:41, 20 October 2022 (EDT) :I think it was me who added the citation needed tags way back before I was an admin, but I have notr really revisited the article in any meaningful way in quite some time. Looking at the three articles you linked, I think the Takeo Kurita one handles the real world stuff quite well by making it extremely obvious what it is. I will raise this with the other Admins over the weekend.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 19:24, 20 October 2022 (EDT) ::This is a fascinating point - we don't actually have a canon ruling (afaik) regarding the "divergence point". Except if Herb said something with LD hat on back when this came to the limelight around the publication of TRO:1945. Technically, the divergence point would be between 1984 and 1986, i.e. when BattleTech got into publication and started to come together as a fictional future. I see now that I mentioned such a canonical ruling in the Takeo Kurita article but of course it's unsourced and I cannot find it. :( Anyways, there's also BT fiction going back to before 1984, in some cases way before. The descendants of Takeo Kurita being a prime example - he had a daughter but I don't think he had a son who would've kept the Kurita name going among his descendants, to end up the ruling line of the Draconis Combine. ::Having thought about this, I think we shouldn't amend the Canon article or policy. It goes without saying that real world history up until the publication of BattleTech is considered canon except where it conflicts with established canon. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:23, 21 October 2022 (EDT) :::Not sure I entirely agree with the stance that "real world history up until the publication of BattleTech considered canon except where it conflicts with established canon", since the real world isn't exactly a BattleTech licensed product and in many cases isn't anywhere close to related to BattleTech. :::I guess most of my objection to real world references in articles, especially those like the Royal Black Watch is that they aren't explicitly supported by any BattleTech source (canon or otherwise). I suppose I would have no objection to that part of the article if there were some BattleTech sources cited to support the "real world" stuff (which falls under the clause of "Therefore, as established in the BTW Policy:Notability, anything that has to do with BattleTech warrants inclusion, irrespective of whether or not it is canonical or even official."). I suppose if there were no canon sources to support the real world statements, a Not Canon tag would be appropriate to that section? :::To be clear, I do find the real world stuff interesting, like where the Black Watch name actually comes from, just not appropriate to BattleTech encyclopedia articles unless there is some BattleTech source that explicitly supports it. As an aside, I prefer how the 82nd Royal Jump Infantry Division references its real world equivalent (with a link to the real world wiki article), which clearly draws a line between real world stuff (aka 82nd Airborne stuff that is in the real world wiki) and BattleTech stuff (aka 82nd Royal Jump stuff that is in the sarna article), in the same way that the tags of Not Canon and the various flavors of Apocryphal let readers know that certain parts of an article aren't canon. ::shrugs:: [[Special:Contributions/75.23.228.139|75.23.228.139]] 04:24, 25 October 2022 (EDT) ::: Don't know if we need a strict rule, but I also like using links to real world wiki articles to deal with this issue, as it lets the connection be made without having to make judgements about how / where BattleTech history divergences from real pre-1984 history (which it does sometimes, like with the fictional medieval histories of the Mariks and Camerons, or just because Battletech authors aren't always great real world historians).--[[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 04:37, 25 October 2022 (EDT) FYI, replaced RBWR article real world section with link to RBWR real world wiki to make the connection to the real world unit without having to make judgments about where the real world unit ends and where the BattleTech unit begins.[[Special:Contributions/108.212.244.210|108.212.244.210]] 16:35, 26 October 2022 (EDT)

Summary:

Please note that all contributions to BattleTechWiki are considered to be released under the GNU FDL 1.2 (see BattleTechWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

The most common standard of payment is the _-Bill

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Advanced templates:

Editing: {{Merge}}   {{Moratorium}}   {{Otheruses| | | }}

Notices: {{NoEdit}}   {{Sign}}   {{Unsigned|name}}   {{Welcome}}

Administration: {{Essay}}   {{Policy}}   {{Procedure}}

Templates used on this page:

• Template:Em dash (edit)
• Template:Emoticon (edit)
• Template:M (edit)
• Template:Quote (edit)
• Template:Unsigned (edit)