Editing Template talk:External News

==Example==
Nic, the entry for today was really just an example, meant to help sell the idea to you. I figure you really should be the voice for this section. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 20:28, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

==Minor news==
Although awareness may be low, we have a "Minor News" newsreel. It isn't used often and isn't even on the front page except as a link to the actual content.

I suggest we put both newsreels on the front page with the "Main" news reserved for big/important stuff regarding BattleTech and BTW at large, and the "Minor" news used for the frequent (and rather repetitive) administrative news, especially moratorium clearances. As it stands, I feel the administrative news tend to swamp down the "real" news. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 12:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:I can go either way on this. Admin changes aren't really "NEWS!!!" as is intended on such valuable real estate. Other the other hand, the real news would consist of what? New ribbons, founder's awards? Today's mention of the CBT forums is definitely important enough for the front. However, the front page should appear to be 'alive'...right?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

::I agree with you on that - that's why I implemented the change. I think the modified setup is a good compromise: Important news stay on top longer and aren't swamped down by minor news which in turn generate more lively traffic. As usual, if you think I was too bold then I won't be angry if it gets reverted. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm fine with the new method, as it keeps informative admin messages (especially newest moratorium expirations) where users (editors/writers) can see them for a reasonable amount of time. But, just so you know, I'll be culling it down so that the left and right sections match in length.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

==CBT Forums==
The CBT Forums are back online, but everyone needs to reregister. Also the format of the boards have been significantly changed from their previous form.[[User:Tekteam26|Tekteam26]] 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

==New Products discussion==
Right now, in Minor News, we indicate when something comes out of moratorium. Minor News is the right place for that. But I'm getting the feeling the Latest Newsbursts have the real potential for getting stale. The posts are often extremely relevant to the site at that moment (spambots, annual awards), but they stay up there longer than Minor News posts. Frabby, however, has made it a great spot to point out relevant BT community newsflashes as well (lawsuit, forum's return, etc.). 

I'd like to propose we also announce CGL's new releases (both PDF and hardcopy). My reasoning is that it'll push out more of the stale stuff, make Latest Newsbursts more timely (and a reason to visit the Main Page), and (hopefully) direct traffic to CGL for purchases. I ''don't'' think we should mention the moratorium within Latest Newsbursts, as that's not the point of the posts there.

Comments?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:56, 26 July 2017 (EDT)

:I'm in two minds on this. I like the idea of avoiding keeping things on the front page so long that they go stale, but at the same time, I'm conscious that looking back through the [[List of BattleTech products]] page, some years have seen relatively few releases. I think it'd be good to acknowledge the new releases, but I'm wary of agreeing that doing so would keep the page that much fresher... [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:44, 3 August 2017 (EDT)
:ETA - I also notice that a couple of products are missing from the page that I think have just come out - the new BattleTech Manual and TRO: Succession Wars? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:46, 3 August 2017 (EDT)

::I'm undecided on the matter. I'm not sure if new products warrant a newsburst on Sarna. It would have to be in the "Minor News" section in any case. Through the moratorium tags we do keep tabs on new products anyways, so announcing them and then two months later announcing that they're out of moratorium is sort of doubling work for little if any extra news.
::As for news becoming "stale", I'm also on the fence here. I do understand the sentiment but at the same time, if we don't segregate the chaff from the wheat then important news will be flushed away quickly by what is now covered under Minor News. Personally, I prefer a quality over quantity approach here. We don't have to dish out news items if we don't have anything informative to say just for the heck of it. My 2c anyways. :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:41, 3 August 2017 (EDT)

:::BM, if you're referring to [[List_of_BattleTech_products#2017|this page]], I'll update it today, as best I can. As for the comments regarding the news items by both Frabby and yourself, I acknowledge that releases come in spurts, but it would increase the news items that cross the page, meaning more 'freshness'. Even if CGL releases ''nada'' for 5 months (for example), the newsbursts won't be only dependent upon releases; they'll just have slightly more news material. 
:::Frabby, I see 'Minor News' as being more administrative and for Editors, rather than being informative (at all) for Readers. Newsbursts are community news, such as you provided about the extended downtime of CGL's site, whereas moratoriums "release the hounds" (i.e., Editors). The newsburst would serve to send business to CGL/benefit the community awareness. I know I don't visit CGL nearly as often as I do Sarna, so it could inform me of when CGL needs my money. (I'm aware my "adopt an article" would better fit under Minor News, by that definition.)
::: How about this compromise: the announcement of flagship (rulebooks, box sets) and top tier products (sourcebooks, TROs), assuming they are also intended to be released as dead tree products? So, no announcements on ''Touring the Stars'' or other electronic-only products, but when ''Third Succession Wars'' is released electronically, it gets announced?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:20, 3 August 2017 (EDT)
::::That sounds overall reasonable. I'm not against what you're suggesting. Rather, I'm very vary of maintenance-intensive long-term projects that get abandoned before long because nobody can be bothered to do the work. If we're starting to add "flagship" products to the news then we need to keep it up. Look no further than CGL to see what a terrible impression those social media channel corpses make when you're trying to be present on too many channels, and simply abandon them one after another at some point.
::::While we're at it, would it then not be a good idea to rename "Minor News" to "Sarna Community Bulletin"? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:54, 3 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::"Sarna Community Bulletin": I like it. I'll make the change. I'm also going to pare down the names of the lower two boxes a bit. As for the 'flagship', I'll wait to see what Broken thinks. Thanks Frabby. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:34, 3 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::: My first question is: What counts as a "flagship" item? I did a little checking (because I love sample data) and this is what's been released between 2010 and 2016, using the terminology on the List of BattleTech products page:
::::::* 2010 - 1 TRO, 2 Sourcebooks, 3 Record Sheets
::::::* 2011 - 1 Box set, 1 Rulebook, 5 Sourcebooks, 3 TROs, 2 Record Sheets, 2 Map Supplements
::::::* 2012 - 6 Sourcebooks, 2 Scenario Packs, 1 TRO, 1 Record Sheet, 1 Map Supplement, 2 Game Aids
::::::* 2013 - 1 Rulebook, 3 Sourcebooks, 1 TRO, 1 Record Sheet, 3 Game Aids
::::::* 2014 - 1 Rulebook, 1 Sourcebook, 2 Game Aids
::::::* 2015 - 1 Sourcebook, 1 TRO, 2 Record Sheets, 6 Game Aids
::::::* 2016 - 2 Rulebooks (although IO and CO are listed as Sourcebooks atm), 3 Sourcebooks, 2 "Record Sheets (Alpha Strike Cards)
:::::: Which of these merit being reported as flagship products? The full list gives us a range of 4-13 announcements a year, although the Game Aids for 2014-15 were the lance packs, which I think came out in two big lumps, raising the question of how many should be reported simultaneously or in a single announcement? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:42, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
::::::: I was defining "flagship" as rulebooks (like last month's ''BattleMech Manual''), sourcebooks (really, anything that we define as a sourcebook, such as ''Second Succession War''), and TROs (that are full-on TROs intended for hardcopy like ''TRO: Succession Wars'', not PDF-onlys, like the XTROs).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:56, 5 August 2017 (EDT)