BattleTechWiki:RequestForComment

The Request for Comment forum allows Editors to introduce an issue that may have sprung up either in a high-traffic area (ex: Project:BattleMech) or somewhere more obscure (ex:2418), but may require a third, fourth or even twenty-third opinion. This allows a community consensus to be formed through discussion and may affect more than just the article being discussed.

Useage: Under a dated section, introduce a new entry with an asterisk (*), right under the "Requests for Comments" section head (i.e., in reverse chronological order). Start it off with a link to the discussion page of the article in question, and a very brief summary of the issue being discussed. Remember to sign the entry (with four tildes: ~~~~). Please do not add an opinion to the summary here.


Acceptable Example:

Unacceptable Example:


Requests for Comments:[edit]

Add comments here (above the previous entry) 23 June 2017

I am doing a game and using as an intro... a ship from the SLDF golden era, that miss jumped through time and space. But the ship suffered a miss jump inside the atmosphere and they managed to get it into orbit. Birds growing out of bulkheads. One dropship unaffected, interesting it had a engineering and a mash unit. They ended up on said planet at about 2 AD. They hid the ship in the moon, and built a pyramid to conceal the Fortress Dropship and hid the personnel who survived, in a cryogenic hibernation suite. I was planning on having the character puzzle solve several different formulas, etc... to make sure, when someone did open it, they were from at least the proper time. Used Ferrocrete blocks for the pyramids. Problem is they used the instant or dry formula and lose materials. As such they have a mixed temporal or C-13 dating from both 28th century and 1st century AD. Doesn't matter what jumpship is, one had to strip it down to the no part on another and remake all the parts with birds on them before can fly...

Planning on doing a series of symbols: Delta, Square and Circle and 3 14 15 beside them.

Also planning on just displaying the Table of Elements for a second one. If they can figure out the clue, they can pass. Three Elements have melting points physically higher than boiling. Arsenic, Ruthenium and Francium Ruthenium is used to make the finest blade steels. Francium is an extremely short lived element. Like less than 30 days, almost never found in pure form always oxidized

Third test is astrogation location and current time.

Like the people there don't know where they are at and don't know what time... due to the deliberate miss jump. Why the man who did it might need to be looked for. (The third test will be a displayed on a piece of porcelain. It will be a blank Tech Request Form. Like someone needs to fill it out properly...

Looking for a possible 4th, any ideas?

Teufel (24.230.166.233 23:16, 23 June 2017 (EDT))

*=15 May 2017=*[edit]

  • I am a gamer, who by all extents is a bit weird. I noticed in the 3055 and the 3058 Technical Reports, that the Inner Sphere forces used triple space double heat sinks. At the time they were being shifted because FASA was bankrupt. Up until then the DHS was literally 2 spaces, I know because I have some manuals, that have the double heat sinks taking up 2 spots. So I had an idea. It started when I was asked to modify an Awesome for a friend. He wanted clan weapons, and it got me thinking. I increased the engine to 250. This gave me 10 free sinks. I added the clan weapons, and Clan Endo. But I had a problem with the heat. So I noticed them and well I had an odd idea. Would it be possible to invent a new piece of hardware. Clans did have single and double heat sinks. So I looked and stripped the covers off of three of them and split one in half. I took two Inner Sphere double heat sinks and tossed away the guts. This allowed me to install the clan weight systems into the skins of the Inner Sphere, But I knew that was not... knew it was odd, but couldn't use the split models I made except to form a new heat sink pattern for the computer. To fabricate the ones giving me a Radical Heat Sink that never failed. If split, it would always fail.

I created some rules for my own games. 1.) It has to use Inner Sphere Tech engines. 2.) Has to be specific in housed in a 250 rated engine or larger. 3.) Can't be mix-matched, all heat sinks need to be specific models. So the Awesome would have: 4 Clan ER PPCs, 20 triple heat sinks -20[60), Clan Endo, Micro pulse laser in the CT Extra room was found when I used compact gyros, Jump jets 3/5/3...


GAP [reboot - sort of] Gauss Anti Personnel - I did some calculations, basically it was asking my local math teacher to walk me through the fundamentals of gauss. She knew I played CBT and she explained the problem to me. She used n example I could understand. She used a basketball and a marble. Said the 'basketball' was the current Gauss round. The marble would be the round she'd prefer to fire. Every time you shrink the weight and get a small round, every 1/4 of a 1/4 of a 1/4 would increase speed. Enabling a small projectile to hit at higher speeds. A 1 kilogram projectile can be fired at .8 times the speed of light. Meant the round could fired at range of normal Gauss (full size) and do double damage to anything as small as an Elemental. Said they were having problems with it burning up and I knew a secret. I informed her how to coat the rounds with molybdenum She looked and talk to someone else. Wasn't a perfect fix but did make it last longer. I played a game with her and her friends, and she understood what I was trying to do. Right now the CBT is set up so the PBI weapons suck for range. Now this... I added 3 tons to the assembly, PPC capacitors to handle the increased power requirements. He had to power the thing from the capacitors not directly from... meaning you could have one man stop an entire division with sniper tactics. Snipers are wolves of the battlefield. They are a one man wrecking crew. This would enable me to have 1000 rounds of ammo per ton.

adrian.aakre@yahoo.com, 15 May 2017, 10:09 AM (CST)24.230.166.233 18:19, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

This reads like you are mixing an in-character and out-of-character voice, so forgive my confusion. Are you asking for feedback on your fan-made equipment? --Scaletail (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

22 February 2015[edit]

So, I'm back and working on Project Technology. I'm starting out by cleaning up the classification of existing articles so that I can go through them systematically. I have a couple of questions. Is there any way that I can in one action change the category tags for all of a given category all at once? I can rename a category by moving it without any difficulty but I need to go through and find all the articles that link to that category and edit them one by one or else I orphan the articles. This is what I have been doing. Also, is there any way that I can edit the new article templates? As I am clarifying some of the category names and reorganizing things a bit I would like to also be able to rename the categories in the new item templates so that obsolete categories don't get re-used and not found. -- LRichardson 16:50, 22 February 2015 (PST)

24 December 2014[edit]

The List of Miniatures still is drastically incomplete and a bit incorrect. Updating it will be a pretty big project. Looking for comments or suggestions, please: Talk:List_of_Miniatures -- Cache (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2014 (PST)

I cannot offer anything beyond full agreement. Miniatures of all kinds are woefully underrepresented on Sarna. Even though it's a big part of BattleTech, personally I never was into miniatures myself, therefore wasn't able to work in that particular field.
As for suggestions, I actually have a few suggestions if somebody cares to actually take care of minis here:
  • Each 'Mech, aerospace fighter, vehicle, spacegoing vessel or other article on Sarna should include a gallery depicting all minis that were ever sold (many units have several different model casts).
  • We need a list of miniatures, with images, of each and every cast ever produced, by whatever party, listing sculptor, year of first release, and article number.
  • While I'm dreaming, an essay-style article about the evolution of BT miniatures (including Battledroids and the famous 1st and 2nd Ed. paper standups), the various miniature producers, etc. would be great. With all the different scales, model kits, etc. that were ever produced. I know this is a huge field, and I can offer but a little help. Frabby (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2014 (PST)
That's one heck of an ambitious dream. I like it. I think completing the list of official miniatures would be first priority. Setting up the framework for adding images could be a part of that. -- Cache (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2014 (PST)

29 April 2011[edit]

  • Should we use the results of Official Formulas in InfoBox when Canon has dropped the ball?

Various Values have formulas that exist for their creation. Battle Value is the Most Common, but there are Also BattleTroops Stats created From BattleTech and/or MechWarrior, First Edition, BattleTech Stats Created from MechWarrior, Second Edition, BattleTech Stats Created from MechWarrior, Third Edition or Classic BattleTech Role-Playing Game, or BattleTech Stats Created from A Time of War or vice versa. With the first two versions of the RPG, the conversions were limited to the Damage Value of the Burst and the range being 1 point of damage = 5d6+3. With the 3rd, 3rd & 4th Edition of the RPG, it got a LOT more complicated. Splash/Blast Characteristic, Incendiary, Number of Role Playing Game Shots consumed in a BattleTech Burst, Values to use in Infantry Platoon Creation, etc. If the Sourcebook provided the Stat, then we must faithfully reproduce it, but in the case of Category:BattleArmor Weapons it is not this simple, the RPG Stats for many of these weapons have left off the Shots per burst, power consumed per shot, power consumed per burst, or many of the other values.--Cameron 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

26 April 2011[edit]

Fanon (again)...
It has been suggested (not by me this time) to remove fanon content from BTW. See discussion at User talk:Frabby#Fanon.

06 March 2011[edit]

Condensing all sources InfoBoxes into one
I have recently turned my attention to the real world side of BattleTech - stuff like writing articles for any and all BT products out there to fill in holes in our Products collection. As a first step, I'm going to turn the Template:InfoBoxProduct into the sole InfoBox template for any and all BT products. InfoBoxes BC, Novel, Book & Fiction are going to be deleted and merged into Products.
"If anyone here can show just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together, let him speak now - or forever hold his peace" :) Frabby 17:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you be making the fields in IFB Product conditional? I have no problem with it as long as that happens. --Scaletail 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly sure if I understand what you mean, sorry. Incidentially, please see my help request regarding the Template syntax on BTW's forum. Frabby 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
New InfoBoxProduct mostly done, but I've run into a coding issue or two - please help. See Template talk:InfoBoxProduct. Frabby 08:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

05 March 2011[edit]

  • New Tables: Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make some very nice looking tables for manufacturing and planet ownership (like this one New Oslo and this one Gorton, Kingsley, and Thorpe Enterprises). I don't in any way want to discourage that person. Can we talk about the grey background though? The black text is not so bad but the blue, red, and purple page links feel really hard on my eyes. I tried adjusting my monitor to make sure it wasn't just me. With maxed out brightness I can see that it isn't as bad but I'm only having this problem with the new tables. I just want to throw out the idea of using a white background for easy readability and maybe hear why grey was chosen. I'm hoping to start a positive discussion of color choices and readability and not just complaining about grey table backgrounds. Thx.--Orcmaul 05:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It was Neuling. The grey looks okay on my browser. ClanWolverine101 05:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Then my thanks to Neuling for the pursuit of excellent tables. Just whipped up a quick table to highlight the difference it makes. Have a look and discuss. If you wanted to preserve the grey look without the darkness may I suggest lightgrey or silver? --Orcmaul 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Black White Red Blue Purple
text text text text text
text text text text text
text text text text text
text text text text text
text text text text text
Hey, I can make the tables without the background, that is a solution, because the background is that of the actual browser. Talk to me and we will find a solution together. Neuling 06:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have two thoughts on how to proceed. --Orcmaul 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. Minimum change.
    • Drop the grey background.
    • The two pixel border is nice for giving the table some visual presence so keep that.
  2. Implement a new table class in common.css.
    • Have it set to add the 2 pixel border automatically.
    • maybe punch up the heading color to make it slightly more distinct.
      • For heading colors I could see a lightblue, a slightly darker grey than the current F2F2F2, or mimic the sarna skin heading color (looks like gold to me).
    • It could be called a sarnatable and would help provide a standard table class
      • does not interfere with anything that inherits wikitable settings
      • implements a good manual of style for the wiki without extra formating commands in each table
      • saves on typing and formatting for you and all other table creators
      • lets us revise all the tables with one code change to the css if the site appearance changes.

02 February 2011[edit]

  • Subpages: Some articles contain hefty amounts of tables, and I'm in two minds about it: On one hand, those tables contain good hard data; on the other hand, I prefer a nicely written summary as an article. I've been thinking about shoving such content into sub-pages. Comments on the general idea please: Do we want sub-pages or do we want to avoid them? (Discussion sparked by Talk:Dropships - Transportcapacity.) Frabby 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
More often than not, I tend to lean towards Wikipedia's policies when I'm uncertain what is best for this project. However, while I would prefer to avoid sub-pages as a rule, I could see the advantage in their existence as a way to keep well-written and large articles from being unnecessarily lengthened by tables. In that case, where a table would naturally be embedded, I would think a prominent link to a sub-page would probably be appropriate and effective. One point, though: the sub-page must also have a link back to the mother article.
Continuing thought: why not have these tables exist just as themselves and so labeled (ex: "Table of DropShip Transport Capacities"), with a "For more information, see Table of DropShip Transport Capacities" statement added where appropriate to the main article?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree - Tables without story/summary putting it into context means nothing. Also - The formats for some of the "tables" I've seen are probably not what we want to go with? Just my two cents. ClanWolverine101 03:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

10 August 2009[edit]


04 August 2009[edit]



25 July 2009[edit]


23 July 2009[edit]


19 January 2009[edit]


20 December 2007[edit]