Sarna News: Bad 'Mechs - Icestorm

Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki talk:Project Factions"

m
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{WikiProject Factions}}
 
{{WikiProject Factions}}
*[[/Archive|Talk Archive]]
+
*[[/Archive|Talk Archive 2008 - 2020]]
  
==FWL Successor States==
+
==Current==
A discussion at [[Talk:Regulan Fiefs#Recommendation]] was started last year, but no consensus was reached on the subject of how many articles to have for Free Worlds League member states that also became nations following the dissolution of the FWL. The issue is the following: a few of these provinces became nations and changed their names to reflect their growth, so does BTW have one article for each province/nation or one article for the province and one for the nation. Each nation clearly has a continuity with the province, including territorial boundaries and ruling family. Right now, I'm leaning towards having one article, but I am not yet decisive in my opinion.
+
===Mercenary Review and Bonding Commission a Faction?===
 +
I've been thinking about NGOs in the BattleTech universe and how to cover them in articles, specifically what InfoBox to use. (InfoBoxFaction seems a good fit.) Which made me think wether the MRBC should be considered a faction? It's an edge case, but I think it should. Opinions? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 07:30, 11 January 2022 (EST)
 +
: It feels a little weird to classify a limited purpose inter-governmental agency as a faction. It makes sense for general purpose organizations (say the UN in real life, or the 2nd Star League in Battletech), but doesn't seem to fit for limited purpose organizations (like say the International Whaling Commission in real life, or the MRBC here). --[[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 08:00, 11 January 2022 (EST)
 +
:: This is kinda something I have been working on for a few months in the background, I find the term "faction" to be something I am increasingly unhappy with in a similar manner to "minor" from a few years ago. I have already split a lot of the "factions" and Organisations into sub-categories a few months ago and at some point in the near future the Faction InfoBox is getting an overhaul. I am undecided on exactly what that overhaul entails though. Right now the options are:
 +
# Split off different types of faction and organisation with specific infoboxes.
 +
# Build a faction box with lots of different sections that can essentially be custom built into anything.
 +
# Build a very bare bones minimalist faction box and let the article text carry the weight.
  
I think combining the articles together make the most sense because of the continuity; in essence, the successor states are the provinces that existed before the FWL balkanized, which are themselves (at least for three of them) the nations that joined to form the FWL. For clarity, the names in question are:
+
::As with all things of this nature, feedback is not only appreciated but desired.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:41, 11 January 2022 (EST)
*Republic of Marik -> Marik Commonwealth -> Marik-Stewart Commonwealth
 
*Federation of Oriente -> Duchy of Oriente -> Oriente Protectorate
 
*Regulan Principality -> Principality of Regulus -> Regulan Fiefs
 
*Duchy of Tamarind -> Duchy of Tamarind-Abbey
 
Another issue is that of nations that retained their names from their time as provinces. Here I am referring to the Duchy of Andurien and the Rim Commonality. They both kept their provincial names when they became independent nations. If there must be a separate article for each province and one for each nation, then these two would also need two articles, would they not?
 
  
Again, I can see difficulties and complexities arising because of this, so I am curious about other folks' thoughts on the subject. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
+
:::This probably doesn't belong on this particular talk page, but fwiw I feel we need to consolidate the Infoboxes and have fewer of them, not more. Probably your #3 proposal, though I'm certainly also agreeable to #2 to a degree.
 +
:::As for what comprises a faction, phew. Nobody would deny that ComStar and the Word of Blake are factions. The [[New Avalon Catholic Church]] at least uses the InfoBoxFactions template, is categorized as a "Religious Organisation" which is a subcategory of "Organisations" which is a subcategory of... Factions. I actually like the generic nature of the word Faction. Any somewhat unified, cohesive power - state, NGO, organized religion - is a faction, imho. This whole train of thoughts started when I stumbled across the redlink for [[Doctors Under Fire]] (in [[Legacy (Anthology)]]); another such NGO would be the [[BranthKeepers]]. Looking them up, their article also has the InfoBoxFactions. Looks like we're already doing it. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (EST)
  
:Hello.  I agree in principle to keep the individual FWL-faction nations/provincial histories in single Article.  About the problem of what your going to call these articles? I would lean to keep most recent name for these nations as the article's main name, have redirect for older names, such as the Regulan Fiefs would be the current name of that nation until its renamed in canon and use the Principality names as redirect.  That nation's earlier history would be broken sub-section by nation's name and major events during its existence. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
+
::: I think this could work if we just swapped the terminology around - Make "Organizations" the top level category, with "Factions" a second level subcategory, at the same level as the current organization subcategories (i.e companies, criminal organizations etc). [[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 16:19, 11 January 2022 (EST)
::I think the discussion about what to name the articles, if that is the consensus, would be for a subsequent discussion. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 
:::I agree fully, the same name should be used (with redirects). I've wondered about this for quite some time with regions all around the Inner Sphere (Tamar Pact, Sarna Supremacy, UHC, etc...)--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 
::::Sarna Supremacy UHC did not have enough write up as regional provience to have their own write up. UHC and Supremacy shoud have their own write up as more info for them than their own individual article. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 03:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 
:::::It sounds like there is a consensus, then. I will update the project guidelines accordingly. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 
  
==per era faction ownership of known worlds==
+
::::The more Infoboxes there are, the more difficult it is for editors to get it right. Simple is good. Simple with good documentation/instruction is even better.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (EST)
  
ok that was a long title... Hey guys, I'm working from a list of about 2954 identified worlds in the Inner Sphere, Periphery and Clan Homeworlds. I'm trying to identify what faction owns the systems/planets based on available maps and literature. Do you guys think we could work together? I'm currently working with about 19 unique years in the CBT timeline (20 including MWDA). Let me know if you're interested. Thanks!
+
I am leaning towards a mixture of option 1 & 3. The bulk of factions and organisations should get a very basic InfoBox: Organisations with maybe 5-6 sections:
-[[User:Volt|Volt]] 03:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
+
* Image
:Volt, I'm definitely willing to help. The planetary articles were the first to populate the BTW when Nic created it and they currently make up about 16% of all articles. If I understand you right, you wish to use canon maps to establish who owned what when. Is that correct?
+
* Type [[New Avalon Catholic Church|NACC]] = Religious Organisation, [[Yakuza]] = Criminal Organisation, [[MRBC]] = Trade Association, [[Doctors Under Fire]] = Humanitarian Organization?.. Any kind of NGO you can think of. Also government departments willl get this box, [[MIIO]] = intelligence agency, [[Civilian Guidance Corps]] = Law enforcement agency, [[League General Accounting Office]] = government agency/deparment?
:The value I see in this project, other than bringing accuracy to those articles, is to establish an [[Gurrnazovo#Owner_History|Owner's History]] format that isn't predicated on eras, but on times of actual change-overs. The maps will go a long way (not all the way) towards correcting that generalization. How do you wish to proceed?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
+
* Founded
 +
* Dissolved
 +
* Affiliation/parent organisation
 +
* Headquarters?
 +
* Area of operation? = so [[Vagabond Schools]] would be [[Outback]]
 +
* Leader? NACC = Battlepope?
  
::Hi Rev, so sorry for the super-late reply, I had not noticed I didn't tag the page to update me. Well, as of this time I have 3,004 identified systems from the various Canon maps, and I've identified for the most part which faction owned what system at a "major" year [2571, 2596, 2750, 2786, 2822, 2830, 2864, 2866, 3025, 3028, 3030, 3039, 3040, 3050, 3052, 3057, 3058, 3063, 3067, 3075, 3079, 3085, 3130] Eventually I plan to include the house founding years and 2821 (from Operation Klondike) but are minor goals at this time. Fact checking would be my priority, then I'll go on to checking Bad_Syntax's coordinates one at a time.
+
And then I want to spin off Nation States into its own infobox that is fairly close to the current Faction box.. So planets, capital, military, intelligence etc.
::The catch is some maps do not show all these systems so there are some that were interpolated based on who owned them before and after that particular year [ex. System A belonged to LC in the 2596 and 2786/2822 maps, so I assumed it was also LC in 2750.
 
::A lot of my problems came from absence of data (fluff or map) such as 2750 and the IS in 3085 (hoping for that to change IF a 3085 map is released in the upcoming Field Report:3085).
 
::I will need help in verifying if the faction assignments I put in match canon in this order a) Oystein says so in the CBT forums b) unequivocally stated in canon fluff and then c) shown on map. I am considering map as the last source of canon instead of first because I understand fluff trumps art and official statement trumps fluff.
 
::I have an excel file with all my faction data available if you would like to give it a go. Thanks --[[User:Volt|Volt]] 14:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 
  
==Duchy of Tamarind==
+
Then there are a couple that already have a box, like corporations due to me wanting to eventually split off factories into a "division" of the corporation. Noble Houses due to family tree format, and sports team.. Mostly because we kinda already had one and CungrVanck asked for a better one. Only other infobox that might be worth considering is a Military organisation one as a tool to try and help tame the fairly wild format issues the top level armed forces pages have seen over the years. Again feedback is not only appreciated but desired. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 20:18, 11 January 2022 (EST)
So! I was going to produce a [[Duchy of Tamarind]] article, but it seems decisions have been made on that front. I do not disagree philosophically. However, the [[Duchy of Tamarind-Abbey]] article is currently focused on Dark Age era material, something of which I have no access to. (And frankly little interest in.) Should I keep it one article, and create two different sections, one for pre-Jihad, Jihad and post-Jihad stuff, and the second the current Dark Age material? Thanks. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
+
: This approach makes the most sense to me Dmon - Gets my vote. --[[User:HF22|HF22]] ([[User talk:HF22|talk]]) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (EST)
:If I understand it right, a decision was to prevent unnecessary forking, which you'll support. Got it. So, in that case, yes, create a chronogically first section for the pre-DA period. Any references to the previous era would need to be made in the DA side, but not necessarily by you (for your stated reasons). Thanks for asking, CW, and I hope that helps.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:: It does. Once I'm done with that, I will set up the appropriate redirect. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 16:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
 
== Please have a look... ==
 
 
 
Does this work? [[Duchy of Tamarind-Abbey]] [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 03:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 
 
 
==Editing Help==
 
If there are any pages that need a particularly high amount of grammatical help, just notify me, otherwise, I'll just freely edit. Thanks. EDIT- forgot to sign, sorry... [[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 22:48, 29 June 2013 (PDT)
 
 
 
== "History of" ==
 
 
 
Is there any guidance on "History of (Faction)" articles that exist separately from the main Faction article? I ask because there seems to be inconsistency and I'm not sure what the preference is. For example, the "History" section of [[Clan Ghost Bear]] has received many more updates and is now much more comprehensive than the [[History of Clan Ghost Bear]] article. [[User:Tosta Dojen|Tosta Dojen]] ([[User talk:Tosta Dojen|talk]]) 11:19, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
 

Latest revision as of 07:10, 22 January 2024

Mech.gif This article is within the scope of the Project Factions, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of Factions. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Mech.gif


Current[edit]

Mercenary Review and Bonding Commission a Faction?[edit]

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

It feels a little weird to classify a limited purpose inter-governmental agency as a faction. It makes sense for general purpose organizations (say the UN in real life, or the 2nd Star League in Battletech), but doesn't seem to fit for limited purpose organizations (like say the International Whaling Commission in real life, or the MRBC here). --HF22 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2022 (EST)
This is kinda something I have been working on for a few months in the background, I find the term "faction" to be something I am increasingly unhappy with in a similar manner to "minor" from a few years ago. I have already split a lot of the "factions" and Organisations into sub-categories a few months ago and at some point in the near future the Faction InfoBox is getting an overhaul. I am undecided on exactly what that overhaul entails though. Right now the options are:
  1. Split off different types of faction and organisation with specific infoboxes.
  2. Build a faction box with lots of different sections that can essentially be custom built into anything.
  3. Build a very bare bones minimalist faction box and let the article text carry the weight.
As with all things of this nature, feedback is not only appreciated but desired.--Dmon (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2022 (EST)
This probably doesn't belong on this particular talk page, but fwiw I feel we need to consolidate the Infoboxes and have fewer of them, not more. Probably your #3 proposal, though I'm certainly also agreeable to #2 to a degree.
As for what comprises a faction, phew. Nobody would deny that ComStar and the Word of Blake are factions. The New Avalon Catholic Church at least uses the InfoBoxFactions template, is categorized as a "Religious Organisation" which is a subcategory of "Organisations" which is a subcategory of... Factions. I actually like the generic nature of the word Faction. Any somewhat unified, cohesive power - state, NGO, organized religion - is a faction, imho. This whole train of thoughts started when I stumbled across the redlink for Doctors Under Fire (in Legacy (Anthology)); another such NGO would be the BranthKeepers. Looking them up, their article also has the InfoBoxFactions. Looks like we're already doing it. Frabby (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (EST)
I think this could work if we just swapped the terminology around - Make "Organizations" the top level category, with "Factions" a second level subcategory, at the same level as the current organization subcategories (i.e companies, criminal organizations etc). HF22 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2022 (EST)
The more Infoboxes there are, the more difficult it is for editors to get it right. Simple is good. Simple with good documentation/instruction is even better.--Cache (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (EST)

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

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

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

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