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)

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]