Editing Category talk:Inner Sphere Commands

=="Empty" Command Articles==
I started to re-name a the whole lot of the [[:Category:Word of Blake Commands|Word of Blake Commands]], when I realized that the first five had absolutely no information within them, not even a reference for which Editors can seek to fill in the article. I'm one that believes redlinks are good, in that they indicate a need to an editor whom might just have the urge to scratch that itch. I also believe bluelinks that lead to empty articles are not good, in that they hide the fact that an article needs ''some'' information. Plus, my concern is if someone comes heres to research an article on their favorite command (say the [[25th Word of Blake Division]]), they may come to the erroneous conclusion that the wiki is full of empty articles (and then not come back). (I say this from my experience with the [http://www.btencyclopedia.com/ ComStar Historical Archives], which seem to be filled with named, buy empty, articles.) 
So, I'm requesting comment to reach consensus: do we want to up the article count, and do we want to establish a policy that requires all articles to have content (or risk deletion)? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

:I have myself created articles with ''little'' content before, often on minor subjects where only a single source of information is available anyways. That, I (obviously) have no problem with. Another thing I have occasionally done is creating "placeholder" articles to remind me of something I wanted to do.
:But on the issue at hand, i.e. creating totally empty articles on barely noteworthy subjects ''with no intention to add meaningful content soon'', I am of the opinion that this is bad for the Wiki for the same reasons Revanche has given above. There is even an additional issue I have with the way Military Commands are handled right now: At what organisational level do you think they warrant their own article? I came across this problem when I found that individual regiments of [[McCarron's Armored Cavalry]] have individual articles with no reference back to the main article. Should regiments not be covered within an article about their parent unit? I feel that regiment size should not in itself be a reason to divide up units into sub-articles - there are many multi-regiment units out there that should have a single article. Goes for MAC as much as for Wolf's Dragoons, the Lyran Guards or the Red Lancers imho. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

::I also work in another fan-wiki, where we had a similar problem with redirects. My suggestion is to delete these articles that are barely more than the template itself (especially if no source mentioned). A red link encourages to work. --[[User:Detlef|Detlef]] 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Personally I am pro bluelinking for two reasons. Firstly because it is easier for a relative newcomer to add a little info to a "placeholder" than create a whole new article and secondly because some units are so minor they will never have a redlink and thus almost never get noticed. In fact I think I am responsible for almost all such articles in the military commands section, but at least they are there on House (insert choice) Military Commands page for people to see, what I think we need instead is to find a way to get some more of the folk from http://www.ClassicBattleTech.com/forums/ to come over and develop an "itch". --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 17:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

::::'''Empty Command Articles:''' Until I got a new job, I was steadily creating new command articles, but like Frabby, I tried to put a minimal amount of information in each article - generally composition and commanders (my intention was to come back and fill out each of the articles as time permits). This way, there was at least some information in each article I created. Empty articles are of no value. I suggest deleting them.
::::'''Level Of Organization Warranting Own Article:''' I think notability and information available should be the key here. For instance, I can't see both Regiments of the Dioscuri having their own article - it's just too obscure a unit. However, I can see the Black Widow Company having it's own article. With reference to Multi-regiment Commands like the MAC, Lyran Guards or the Avalon Hussars, there's enough out there for the umbrella organization to have its own article, as well as the individual units. -- [[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


::::Dmon, I gotta respond to the point about ease of starting an article. Wikis are still relatively 'new' to most people, which is why I figure most of the 'subject matter experts' don't come over here (some do). We constantly see people start articles, however, without using templates, and I try to encourage that and guide the new Editor into using templates. I recognized that we needed consistentcy in articles and ease in getting new people started, which is why I spent so much time developing the 'how to' template pages. Instead of one over-arching 'how to start an article' page with links to templates, each article type has its own individualized 'how to' page, allowing a new Editor to start anywhere and successfully create an article of substance. Seriously, if there is any way to make it even easier, please let me know. I'll bend over backwards to ease the process.

::::I could have spent that time (after only creating the templates) instead filling in blank articles, but I remember how turned off (''please'' don't take this the wrong way) I was by other BT encyclopedias where someone created empty articles with the intention of filling them in later...the creators of those sites reveled in the development of the framework but not the grunt work; I saw on the contents page articles of interest, but 8 out of 10 times, the articles were empty. If you're coming here to read something on an item of interest, how can you not feel disappointed when there is nothing in that article? However, knowing before you click on a link that there is nothing there allows you to move on OR create something. You and I both know the thrill there is when we save that new article for the first time; I'd think we'd be best serving people by allowing them to read something with substance when they come across something we are offering them and also giving others the opportunity to fill a need when they see it. A redlink warns off people from expecting an article that doesn't really exist and also pulls in those that see the redlink and want to be the one to make it blue.

::::I can respect your drive to pull in those folks from CBT; I'm always striving to do that too, but I also don't want them to be turned away by disappointment. I have several 'big ideas' on how to get people in here, but I don't want our initial large push to fail. Some people do not have the ability to get over their first impression mindset, and negative opinions tend to continue to generate mis-information. One way i /do/ pull in people elsewhere is when I see a request for information. i quickly scan BTW and then post the relevant links, usually without providing any additional comment in my post. Kinda breed the concept of there being already one reliable source. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::I think there is a reasonable argument on both sides here. I can absolutely agree with Dmon that it is easier for novice editors to insert information if the broader framework is already in place. I am of the opinion, however, that placeholder articles do more harm than good. I have notably discouraged other editors from doing this in the past. No editor should take this as an insult to the work he or she has done. This debate hinges on the question "What is an article?" Is an article anything? Or does it have to establish what the subject is and provide some information on it. I would argue that saying "The ''Warhammer'' is a BattleMech" and leaving it at that is not an article, because virtually everybody using this wiki knows that already and its likely evident from the context if they do not.
:::::The bit of context that I would is to ask you to look at it from the perspective of somebody looking for information. If you type something into the search box, it takes you to that article. If there is no article, it searches within existing articles. Is it better for that person to find a placeholder article with no actual info, or to search BTW and possibly come up with one or more articles with relevant information? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Since the point of consensus seeking usually involves compromise, and since I think we've framed both perspectives...what is the compromise?
::::::I'm thinking that each article would be well-suited with a bit of information from at least one official source, which Dmon can clearly provide from his research. So, that would help others locate -at a minimum- a [[Policy:Verifiability|verifiable]] source. Now, since Dmon is really good at finding the big units (''i.e''. regiments) that don't get a lot of press, I'd think that as long as one fact could be provided with that source, then it gives something another Editor can possibly work on. For example, if ''[[Luthien (scenario pack)|Luthien]]'' only explains that the regiment has 2 veteran battalions and 1 green, then if he added that, there is no doubt the article provides value to the reader. Afterall, we're not trying to prove notability here: as long as the unit has been mentioned, then it can be written about with what little the official sources provide? How do you all feel about that? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::: Okay Revanche, my understanding of what you just wrote: any Military Command article created must cite a (generally Canon) source, regardless of amount of content. If that's what you meant, I'm happy with it. -- [[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 00:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::: That and at least one fact, if the source provides it (such as: "stationed on Luthien" or "comprised of 2 veteran battalions and 1 green"). Summed up: if its been mentioned, then the context at least would provide some information. Nitpick: Official, not canon, as BTW [[Policy:Canon|doesn't determine canonicity]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I am happy that all the articles I have created are not going to be deleted.. but I feel that I should take this as a lesson and make more effort to fill in the articles to at least a reasonable standard. (I feel my full articles would either ramble or be inadequate so I need to address this problem in the future). --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Don't feel that every article you start has to be a complete work (or even good). This whole wiki is a collaboration (just like this discussion was a process in compromise). We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and we hope each other's efforts support each other. I can write a mean article, but it takes a lot out of me, so I don't do it very often. I feel I'm a better editor than writer. Then there are people like Wrangler, where his works need help on the grammar; but he's a good researcher & prolific writer. I'll edit behind his work, and since he doesn't mind having someone following his trail, it works well for the project. Your niche is regiments...and relationship trees (an area that I value but can't get my head wrapped around). Just give us something to work with (a source and facts), and the end result will be better than what we can do individually. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sorry for piping in late! I didn't see the conversation.  I am doing what I can to fill in these empty Word of Blake commands from what is now acceptable information to put into them.  I've begun this already though i'm not zooming throught it. As for other commands, I'll do what I can from what i have at hand.  -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

==Command level Sub-Category's==
I admit that this is a problem of my own creation to a degree but I believe has further application. As I research more and more DCMS units I am finding lots of units of Battalion level and some of even Company Level. Once I create articles for all the units I believe Category:Draconis Combine Commands is going to be very full and probably quite confusing. Would it be prudent to re-arrange the split the category into command level category's? That way most of the Larger units would be easy quick to find from the main page and the smeeler units could be mostly accessed through links in articles. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

e.g. 
*Category:Draconis Combine Regimental Commands
*Category:Draconis Combine Battalion Commands
*Category:Draconis Combine Company Commands


::I personannlly think there should just be a single page for these small commands, with no individual listings. Unless they did something that single them out from the rest.  I suggest make page that just lists them instead of new sub-categories. The page for small commands would list within the Draconis Combine Commands. Regiments are only ones whom are followed by most of CBT fandom. Soon, they'll be reduced to battalion size formation with Jihad is done.  With exception of Sorenson's Sabres. These smaller commands should be kept on single page, for easy reference. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)