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)
- 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 -
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
- 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)
- Ha, no offence intended; as an old-timer I try to be a nice guy around here (seen way too many people fruit out about the littlest things and this is a collaborative endeavour after all), so sorry if it came across that way. Merely throwing out what I thought was helpful advice, I don't mind if you consider it irrelevant. I'm happy with the Blood Ravens project at the moment, I wrote most of the bloody thing so I'm just leaving it to others to tweak as I figure I can't see my own grammar foibles. If you're happy we can take it to Inquisitor S. Cheers.--Mob 02:54, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
I should be about in the wee hours, I'll make sure to have a once over of it then. It's fine, lol, I'm young and brash.
Taros Campaign
Yo, man -- hope all is well. I'm fixing to redo the Taros Campaign here over the next week or two (will use your battle-pages as templates). I understand that you have more experience in these parts than I, so I thought I'd ask: do you know of anybody that would be strongly interested in the Taros Campaign to collaborate? If not, no big deal. all the best, --augustmanifesto 18:50, 11 August 2011 (CEST)
Extra-Lexicanum Affairs
Hey dude, hope you're well. Sorry to eat up your space with a non-lexicanum issue, but I was thinking about starting an [Iron Champions] Space Marine Army. Wondering if you play/collect and I could bounce some thoughts off your head. Idea is to fluff out the Chapter and use as a side project to my Imperial Fists (www.himonterra.blogspot.com) --augustmanifesto 03:55, 30 August 2011 (CEST)
- Cool, thanks for the compliment. Do you run any armies at the moment? --augustmanifesto 17:09, 2 September 2011 (CEST)
See in the Forum, if you want to discuss. Cheerio. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 15:56, 9 September 2011 (CEST)
Ghosts
Yeah man thats the stuff!!! And thanks for sorting out the omnibus section of the series page, I kinda hit a brick wall there, not sure why.--Ytokes 02:38, 5 November 2011 (CET)
Template Fix
Dont suppose you know how to fix the other SM templates? I've spent alot of time doing up 200-odd SM pages and the template thing is pissing me off Thelemur 23:41, 4 January 2012 (CET)
- Cool - I tried to fix the templates, but I really dont know how these things work _ I'll leave it for someone more knowlegable than me!
- Just looked at the French templates, THEY ARE AWESOME compared to ours. We need to make a forum topic about this.--Ytokes 08:31, 5 January 2012 (CET)
- Done. http://forum.lexicanum.com/showthread.php?tid=516 --Mob 09:18, 5 January 2012 (CET)
- Wow, the new nemplates are much sexier - well done fellows. Thelemur 20:55, 7 January 2012 (CET)
- Done. http://forum.lexicanum.com/showthread.php?tid=516 --Mob 09:18, 5 January 2012 (CET)
- Just looked at the French templates, THEY ARE AWESOME compared to ours. We need to make a forum topic about this.--Ytokes 08:31, 5 January 2012 (CET)
Happy New Year!
Just passing along a belated personal note. Read the above template fix stuff, real cool -- hopefully ill get some time from lifelife stuff soon to contribute a bit more to that sort of thing! --augustmanifesto 18:35, 14 January 2012 (CET)
GG/Tanith
Having a seperate Tanith list would mean we could have the "Tanith First and Only" section of the List of Gaunt's Ghosts Characters as a re direct to that page - thus making 2 smaller, easier to navigate pages - was that your idea, if so I like it! The Lemur 05:04, 8 March 2012 (CET)
- I'd suggest moving the descriptions of characters who don't have their own pages from the List of Gaunt's Ghosts Characters page straight onto the Known Members of the Tanith First and Only page. That way we can remove the whole Tanith section from the Gaunts list. It would mean fixing all the re-directs, but I'm quite happy to do that. Would have to wait til tmr though as im sleepy just now :), gimme a shout about what you think is best. And Happy New Year from me too :pThe Lemur 05:40, 8 March 2012 (CET)
Battle template
Hey; I've got the template working at Template:BattleTest
It accepts either 1 or two forces (try it with only combatant1 for example), and all are optional. The only thing it would miss is if for some reason there was a force2 but not force1, in which case it would miss both out. It could still do with a bit of formatting tweaking (for the central dividers and perhaps to make the upper boxes not 50/50 like the lower ones are: perhaps not bold by default either), but I hope it's alright as a mockup. --IXS=][= 01:15, 17 March 2012 (CET)
- Mate, that's way better than what I could've done, thanks so much. I've been fiddling about with that template for ages (hit the limit of my code knowledge), so I really appreciate you taking a look at it and getting into workable shape.--Mob 02:11, 17 March 2012 (CET)
- No worries - I learnt a lot putting it together and the whole thing was your design! It's got to be moved to a proper name before we can actually use it in articles and you might want to clear it with the admins first too (I'm not really sure about that) but thanks for the challenge and glad I could help. --IXS=][= 02:29, 17 March 2012 (CET)
Magnus/Images
I dont have an issue with your changes on the Magnus page per se, but removing pics from the lead because it doesnt look nice when you collapse the portal box seems like rather odd logic tbh. As you know there are hundereds of pages with pics at the top of the page, are you planning to move them all? I could quite easily use the opposite logic and say that if you DONT collapse the contents box then the page has an awful looking space at the top. Perhaps raising the topic on the forum may be an idea so we can get other users oppinions on the prefered layout. The Lemur 05:12, 18 March 2012 (CET)
- Well, the main reason is the one I stated first, which I think is reasonable; that's why I uploaded the image in the first place, and I was simply informing you of what I was going to do in an attempt to avoid causing offence; people seem touchy and hyper-critical/demanding lately. I get the impression I have caused what I was hoping to avoid. Oh well.
- The second point, about the visual, is one I'm not fussed about to be honest, I just brought it up to be comprehensive, as it's always in the back of my mind when using a pic in the lead; I was hoping to find a better one to put in later, or return the Magnus-as-daemon primarch pic there if I couldn't. Someone complained to me once that they browsed the site with the contents boxes collapsed and the pages looked bad, so I always try and avoid images in the lead if possible. Many times it isn't. I mean, sometimes I think pics in the lead look good, other times not. It depends on the size of the lead, if there's a contents box, how the portal boxes effect the layout etc. And ha, no, changing all the pages is not something I have planned, thanks. Merely doing what I do; simply trying to create content I'm interested in seeing on the lex, keeping to the rules, in the same way I have been for coming up on five years. I was merely explaining myself, not attempting to promote an agenda. But sure, forum it if you want. Like always, I'll go with whatever is decided. Sorry if you feel pestered by my opinions on the 1KSons articles, but I've been concentrating on upgrading them a fair bit over the last wee while and so Im afraid I have opinions on them!--Mob 05:32, 18 March 2012 (CET)
Firstly - you caused no offence at all - I very much appreciate you being polite enough to contact me rather than just revert stuff - I should probably have shown the same respect before editing a page you had just worked on! (thats why I reverted it back). As to page layout in general - I suppose we are always going to be at the mercy of what screen-type users have - what looks great on my screen may look shitty on someone elses. I only really brought the topic up because I've found that it's easier to engage in a bit of healthy debate on the talk pages or forum. So sorry if I came across as antagonistic or anything, wasnt really my intention - I just like the cut n thrust of healthy debate. On an unrelated note - Im loving the work you are doing on the "battle" pages :) The Lemur 05:50, 18 March 2012 (CET)
Kill Team Project
Hi, since it is frequently the case that a small group of users end up working on various pages/projects together - I thought it might be an idea to have a page where we can discuss our various ideas together in one place, rather than over lots of different talk pages. I set up a page here for us to do that. I dont know if this idea will take off, or if anyone will be interested, but I thought it was worth trying - let me know what you think. The Lemur 03:41, 20 March 2012 (CET)
- Great idea; definitely come in useful.--Mob 05:37, 20 March 2012 (CET)
Hidden Ones
Mob, can you have a look at your article on the Hidden Ones? I have posted discussion there.--Sanguinarius 16:32, 31 August 2012 (CEST)
- Sorry I was so late in replying, chucked a reply up on the talk page based on what I recall. Cheers!--Mob 14:25, 12 September 2012 (CEST)
