User talk:Mob

Re: Layout

Thanks, man -- appreciate it. I still have to rework a bit here and there, mostly just the recruitment and home world section. But the bulk of work has been done and the current layout I think works well so I'm glad you agree!

I think the layout would work well for a standard template, but perhaps "organization" would be a good edition for some Chapters, especially non-codex Chapters.

I've thought we needed a standard layout for Space Marine Chapters for some time. maybe we can actually scrap one together? --augustmanifesto 04:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There certainly should be a standard layout (there kind of is, it's just lacking and not fully applied) and the style you developed for the Fists article is one I find very comprehensive and well constructed. It's ideal for Loyalist Legions, and only needs tweaking for Traitor Legions and all Chapters IMHO. What I would suggest are little mods for non loyalist legion pages based on ideas I already tried out in a few articles -

• Traitors - instead of 'relics' use 'artifacts'
• Chapters - instead of Great Crusade and Heresy stuff it could be Founding and Recent Years
• Chapters - instead of 'Recent Engagements' have 'Chapter Timeline'

and obv just having Characters as one list - although adding a sub-section for Renegade Characters if appropiate.

The other sections should work out fine, although they might be a little small, but that's ok. If there's no info on them they may be better just not included rather than left empty, I dunno. Anyway, that's all I've got. Cheers.--Mob 18:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions.

I.However, Chapter Timeline may or may not work as such because often times events in background material are undated.

For the Imperial Fists, "recent engagements" was a way to solve the following problem: post-heresy history seems to involve two categories, (1) history dealing with the immediate aftermath of the Heresy and (2) more recent history that deals with a sets of events, dynamics, and story arcs essentially unrelated to any specific heresy events. these two types of history seemed too different to be in the same category. For the Imperial Fists, I called the former "Heresy Heresy Aftermath" under the "History" section and the latter "Recent Engagements." I decided on "Recent Engagements" because nearly all of the Imperial Fists more recent history is in the form of single battles or campaigns, none of which really warrant their own section. Thus, a list of engagements by bullet point did the trick.

That said, you are right to want a way to deal with history in a broader way that "engagements." How about Notable Recent Events? That way, you wont necessarily need dates? just a thought.

Yeah, for Chapters it basically just depends on what we know. I tried out a timeline in a few articles not too long ago - see Fire Hawks for an example - and it seems ok. I think it may be a case of using them when there is dated info only.--Mob 18:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

II.As for your issue with the Thousand Sons, I incorporated "combat doctrine" concerns into the Imperial Fists article in "combat disposition and record" under the "great crusade" section of "history" and then referred to a few changes in their combat doctrine which occurred post-heresy in the "reorganization" subsection under "Horus Heresy Aftermath." As for the thousand sons, I see something similar being viable: you can certainly include their combat doctrine under "combat disposition and record." In fact, you may want to change the name of the subsection to "combat doctrine and record" or "Combat Disposition and Doctrine." (edit: or just add a "combat doctrine" sub-section under the sub-section "Combat disposition and record" --augustmanifesto 21:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC) )The real reason for the wording "combat disposition" and not "combat doctrine" with the Imperial Fists article was I wanted to include political information in that section as well, i.e. Dorn's not wanting dominion over worlds. I'm sensing this problem doesn't arise with the Thousand Sons.

Where their substantial Changes with their combat doctrine pre v. post-heresy? If so, and I get the idea you think so and want to handle these changes along with broader changes pre v. post heresy, you could include a "Transformations" sections or somesuch in their Horus Heresy Aftermath section that deals with these issues. In fact, that may be an effective way of dealing with the effects of Chaos on the character, organization, etc. of Chaos Legions generally. the term "transformations" is pretty bad, but I'm using it here to convey the function of this section, call it what you'd like "Effects of Chaos" "Changes of Chaos" "Corrupted THousands SOns," etc

Hope that helps.

lets keep working on this.--augustmanifesto 04:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It helps a great deal as it happens, these ideas pretty much solve my problem completely. I'll work on applying them to the article and see how it reads. Thanks!--Mob 18:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, on this issue of introduction changes in organization, character, etc. post-heresy as a result of Chaos, the following strikes me: Loyalist Legions "Heresy Aftermath" sections will be dominated by their attempts to keep the Imperium together and adjust to the Codex Astartes; "Heresy Aftermath" section for Chaos Legions will be dominated by the changes experienced as a result of Chaos, retreating to the eye of terror, etc. To me, at least, this clarifies the purpose of the "Horus Heresy Aftermath" section under "History" and how it would be categorically different for Loyalists v. Traitors. Just thinking out loud! --augustmanifesto 21:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind, moved the discussion to Talk:Chapter --Huraganus 00:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Not in the slightest :)--Mob 23:12, 26 March 2011 (CET)

more on layout

Hey, so I'm making moves to formalize a standard template system on my user page. So far I have drafts on First Founding Chapters and Later Founding Loyalist Chapters. For the most part, these outlines are taken from our previous discussions and the talk:chapter sections linked to above. However, I gave each its own presentation in outline form and started to draft some language on how to use the templates. your thoughts are extremely welcome, as are any references you may have for other Chapter articles to look at for inspirations, examples. Cool. --augustmanifesto 01:24, 25 June 2011 (CEST)

I'm not ignoring this, I just don't have my thinking cap on tonight, but I can already say that it looks great. Fists and Sons are obviously the examples for their fellows, but for a Chapter example I think a trawl through the Badab ones may be on the cards. They're all a bit off from each other due to having lots of contrbutors in a short time and my own - unwise in retrospect - trying out of slightly different format styles on many of them while trying to hit one I liked. Thanks again for being so proactive on this issue, mate.--Mob 03:16, 25 June 2011 (CEST)

Great, thanks. Take your time. I think retouching those chapters would be a good place to start applying the standard format once we get something we're happy with, especially given the attention they've recently received. For now, I'll be updating my user page with my attempts to think through some of the issues -- hopefully inching towards something that can be codified -- and applying the ideas to the Imperial Fists article which I've also copied to my user page to use as a test subject. Thought I'd keep you in the loop. --augustmanifesto 05:27, 25 June 2011 (CEST)

Plagiarism tool

Go to this page], enter one text , then ***, then the second text. Then click "web search". The resulting page will give you an overview in % at the end of the page. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 18:18, 25 March 2011 (CET)

Battle of the Fang

Very nice work :) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 18:03, 29 March 2011 (CEST)

Thanks!--Mob 02:09, 30 March 2011 (CEST)

Farrrq that is nice work--Ytokes 06:08, 8 April 2011 (CEST)

RE: Cover artists.

I removed the Cover artist part because i assumed that you had just copied the summary from the Legends image page. And also is it actually Hardy Fowler? Oh wait i just checked, it is. ill revert it sorry, and Yes we should definietly continue it as a standard!--Ytokes 05:03, 13 April 2011 (CEST)

Blood Ravens Workbench

Just got to say that your latest edit where you added DOW ascension material on Rahes Paradise was not clear in its sourcing. Page 306 was clear, but page 3467-9 is a bit muddled. I had a look at the pages 346,7,9 and could not find any references to what was discussed in your edit. Thanks just trying to help!--Ytokes 01:03, 27 June 2011 (CEST)

That's weird, it still says that for you? That was a mis-type I noticed and changed to p.467-9 like, minutes later. I can see it in the article at the moment. Thanks for checking the sources.--Mob 01:30, 27 June 2011 (CEST)

It seems right now, maybe the mistake was on my end and i was looking at a old edit. Anyway, sources are good now!--Ytokes 03:41, 27 June 2011 (CEST)

Sweet. I'll work on doing the Rhamah thing the now, that's the last bit I can think of, and then we can group-crit the article for a bit? It's good working with top contributors on this stuff.--Mob 03:45, 27 June 2011 (CEST)

Yeah as far as I know, thats everything, albeit I am out of touch with the BR. Also when you say group-crit do you mean group-criticise?--Ytokes 14:51, 27 June 2011 (CEST)

Yeah, seeing as there's three of us been looking at it, just thought that if anyone has any ideas on how to improve it further now would be a good time, before we propose updating the main article with our revisions.--Mob 16:44, 27 June 2011 (CEST)

Sounds good to me. Might have a big read soon (next 6 hours) then.--Ytokes 06:33, 28 June 2011 (CEST)

Blood ravens looking good now. Should get Commissar G and Inq S and maybe to have a look and we might be done.--Ytokes 09:39, 30 June 2011 (CEST)

Warning

It wasn't as such a warning, his handle is still fluff and as such could be considered objectionable to the more Inquisitorial Admins. Anyway the how to/welcome is all fair, it's better to dump that there considering he's started contributing as not only is the info good it’s our welcome! Lol

Lord Parvus.

I hear what you're saying. However, speaking from experience, I consider it best to actually wait and see how people contribute before hitting them with the 'how to source' and 'no fanfluff' things, ie if they don't get the sourcing right first time or actually post fanfluff. As well as avoiding scaring people off and coming across like dicks, it's more polite. But each to their own.--Mob 01:38, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

Well as you know, it's a steep learning curve, the “welcome|how to” is courtesy it’s considerate and polite behaviour. The fan fluff comment I’ve removed as I take your point it’s only a handle really. Although the inference you made I did find a little offensive, I guess, each to their own. .

In addition, are the long sentences resolved on “the workbench?”

Lord Parvus. Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 2:32 (CEST)