BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive2

Faction Categories[edit]

FIVE-one asked a question that I've been kicking around for a while, so I finally decided to ask it. When categorizing 'Mechs by faction, do we want to give them all of the categories it would fall under per Combat Operations, or do we want to categorize it by the producer? While I can see why ComOps is the point of origin for this, I don't think we should use it to categorize 'Mech articles. It should be classified by the producer/creator. For instance, the Eagle is produced in the FWL, but sold to the CC. Since it is usable by the CC, it is listed under CC in ComOps, but it's not a Capellan 'Mech. Anybody else have an opinion? --Scaletail 21:40, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Well, I think some Clan 'Mechs were listed in other Clans because many 'Mech designs are widespread throughout the Clans due to many Trials of Possession and battle salvage. Otherwise, when a foreign is present in a "foreign" Clan, it does not automatically mean the 'Mech is produced in this Clan. In my example (the Kodiak, a totem 'Mech), the design is only produced by Clan Ghost Bear. --FIVE-one 03:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)
Since I wrote the original commentary as I was getting ready for bed, allow me to clarify. There seems to be two different ways we could categorize 'Mechs:
  1. By all factions that have access to them (as is essentially done with the "General" categories). This means that even if a given faction does not build a design, then it may still be listed because it trades for it (or whatever) in significant enough quantities. The advantage of this is that is can be done using the Force Faction Tables listed in Combat Operations (or the web whenever the new one gets done). The downside is that 'Mechs again end up categorized all over the place, especially with 3025 'Mechs that now have all kinds of exclusive variants, which means they will end up with a dozen or more categories.
  2. By producing faction. This would (in my mind) essentially necessitate a bastardization of the info in ComOps with some 'Mechs being "General" (available to all factions- Clan or IS) and others "belonging" to one faction.
This is an issue that I have basically tabled because I believe the members of this project were waiting to finish all of the 'Mech articles before we decided what path to take, but I think we are sufficiently close to completion that it is something we can discuss. I prefer the second way, myself. It may (may!) be slightly more problematic in certain instances, but I think it is the more appropriate way to deal with this here. --Scaletail 15:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)
This essentially tackles what I intended to do with a section about "proliferation" in my above suggestion to improve the 'Mech templates. For a roleplayer like me, any 'Mech could show up anywhere if it can be explained by a feasible backstory. Some unusual cases are even canon: A particular Black Thorns warrior is a fugitive from a Capellan Warrior House who brought his Raven 'Mech, and vice versa a WH Hiritsu warrior rides one of three Tomahawks in the Capellan Confederation in the novel Binding Force where the history of the 'Mech is even explained in some detail. Any 'Mech design could turn up as salvage, anywhere. It comes down to the fact that no table or categoy could ever do the proliferation justice, regardless of whether they are categorized by producer, designer, or whatever. It will always be a grey area and should be noted as "proliferation" in each individual 'Mech entry. Frabby 15:23, 14 December 2007 (CST)
I see the problem with listing a 'Mech within a certain faction (solely because it served in that faction's military) as one of over-saturation. I can acknowledge that /will/ become a problem, if the standard is any single mention of a 'Mech type within a faction merits its inclusion as /available/ to that faction as a whole. However, like the faction lists of ComOps and the ones placed in the newer tomes, there is value in a User being able to see what unit types a faction can muster.
I'd suggest a compromise somewhere in between: if the only mention of a unit type ('Mech, ASF, whatever) is that of a Hero one (i.e., the unit itself becomes a character because of its uniqueness), then it is not 'fielded' by that faction. Instead, units are only fielded by a faction if the canon suggests they are included in military formations and are not assumed to be special because of their uniqueness. Ex: Sergeant Milhouse of the 25th Lyran Whatevers pilots a family 'Mech (of the PIB-27 Puss-In-Boots variety) that he brought with him when he defected from the Kuritans. However, the canon mentions the same battalion fields that 'Mech type because of a large cache found back in 2927 and they've been keeping the formation suitably supplied. In the first case by itself, the Lyrans don't field the PIB-27, so the article would't merit be categorized with the Lyrans. However, in the case of the second, the article would. In other words, if the only mention is of 'Mechs being fielded because of singular, unique reasons, they don't warrant being categorized as that faction's. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:05, 14 December 2007 (CST)
Frabby, I don't know what you intend to do with "proliferation," nor what you expect anybody else to do. Perhaps if you could give an example, or tell me where this information could be found it would help. I don't think this will be an issue if we choose to base our decision on a canon source. ComOps has a list of what factions field significant quantities of what units, so we can use that as the guide and nothing else if we would like. I agree that every faction fields at least one of almost every 'Mech in production. For example, there are Dragons all over place. I suspect that the FedSuns field a somewhat significant number of them, but it is still thought of as a Combine BattleMech, so BTW should reflect that. Similarly, any unit that is not listed under the "General" list in ComOps should be categorized by the producing faction(s) only. --Scaletail 19:19, 15 December 2007 (CST)

Having read this discussion a couple of different times, I have come up with another solution, as I dislike the current situation. I understand that people want to know generally what factions field what units in significant quantities, and it's something that I agree should be included, though I still think a numbered system is unrealistic. I also believe that trying to use categories to provide this information is simply not up to the task. The compromise would be to put this information in the body of the article. In addition to the design history and stats in the "Description" section, we can also include info about what factions field the unit (based upon the tables in ComOps and more updated info). This then allows us to condense the categories and only put 'Mechs in one faction category. --Scaletail 18:32, 29 July 2008 (CDT)

I agree with Scaletail mostly. The categories should be supported with textual evidence, or it would be even better if the mechs used by the factions would be articles, which would allow us to remove the faction categories completely. This would really be an improvement because each editor has different views on when a mech should be listed under a category. --Neufeld 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Humm... How About approching it form another direction... Each Variant having a "Produced By" section and a "Used By" Section. would it be possible to have toggles? --Cameron 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Age of Destruction Era 'Mechs[edit]

I would like to create some Clan exclusives 'Mechs, that I use to fight with in MechWarrior : Age of Destruction. However I don't have any photo from any TRO about those, seen there is no TRO speaking about those beasts, only 'Mech dossier which are given with their 'Mechs. Those contains some impressive images I might add if you allow me to do so, with a link to the original dossier .PDF on Wizkids Official Site. I already have three entries I can create : Shrike (like Melvina Hazen's one), Gyrfalcon and Eyrie plus the Jade Hawk. I can do so with other Clan exclusives like the Sun Cobra, Wulfen and Warwolf (Clan Wolf), Karhu (Clan Ghost Bear/Rasalhague Dominion), Cave Lion (Clan Nova Cat/Spirit Cats; Ocelot is already done). (I'm not sure but I think the Ghost can be added as a Clan Nova Cat one.) --FIVE-one 14:17, 5 January 2008 (CST)

We haven't yet decided what we want to do with with the MW:DA/AoD 'Mechs, but I think most of them can be included using the same format we have now. TPTB have hinted that a new TRO may be on the way soon(ish), so I think we will eventually have the info to fill in whatever gaps exist. I'd say go for it, and if you run into any significant problems, ask for specific help. --Scaletail 15:23, 5 January 2008 (CST)
Cool, the only question I would have is how to handle the references from the dossiers. --MEC 17:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)
While I don't play AoD or own anything from it, I have seen a lot of the stuff WK put up on their website. I would recommend using the title of the card ("Jupiter Technical Readout card", for example) and providing a link to the .pdf on the website if its available. I see that the alphanumerical designation of the card has been used, but that's personally of no use to me, though more info cannot hurt. I'm not sure how much sense that makes, but hopefully I'm not way out in left field. --Scaletail 18:19, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I propose that DA/AoD variants of 'Mechs are placed into their own section. Agree/disagree? --Scaletail 18:18, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

I would agree if it was clear the design only existed in DA/AoD era only. As I am putting in MWDA record sheet book's listing in myself, I've found that example DA Koshi is a non-OmniMech, but it has no fluff other than data cards/dossiers. The DA Koshi is currently listed with it OmniMech parent. Is possible to list DA Koshi as Koshi (2nd), so not be confused with the original? By having (2nd) instead of Koshi 2, it would be less confusing and avoid worrying if it has a pre or post Jihad introduction date. Other 'Mechs with similar non-Omni variants include the DA Black Hawk which is likely new design since Old Nova is out production as of the 3050 Upgrade.
Like the video game variants below, I was really referring to variants of existing 'Mechs that just don't have CBT stats. On the specific subjects of the Black Hawk and Koshi, do you have any sources that state the variants are not modifications to the OmniMechs? I can't imagine why a 'Mech that is the same tonnage with the same name would be an entirely different 'Mech. The new variants could simply be modifications of existing Black Hawks. --Scaletail 08:50, 15 March 2009 (PDT)

Video game entries[edit]

This has been put off, but, since the issue has come up, I believe it is time to address what to do with video-game exclusive 'Mechs and variants. I personally believe that any variants that do not have corresponding stats in CBT should be given their own section and denoted as video game-only variants. 'Mech articles on video game-exclusive designs should be clearly and prominently labeled as such. I give the floor to everybody else. --Scaletail 18:54, 28 January 2008 (CST)

What exactly do you mean by Video Game only, like 'Mechs from Mektek that were modded into MW4, like the Gesu, Deimos, or the Thanatos XMT? --Quicksilver Kalasa 22:34, 18 August 2008 (CDT)

Variants of 'Mechs or entirely new 'Mechs that do not have official CBT stats, yet are clearly part of BattleTech. In a sense, this will be based on whatever is decided in the canonicity discussion that is wrapping up. For an example of how I have done this, see Shootist. --Scaletail 07:49, 19 August 2008 (CDT)

Related Design/Chasis[edit]

I feel something in the 'Mech descriptions is missing from the wiki entries. 'Mech designs are frequently described to be related (either by chasis, component, or configuration) to classic BattleMechs. However, some derivative design information is missing, especially from the entries for the parent designs (but sometime on both the parent and derivative entry). For example:

Marauder - Rakshasa (TRO 3055, p. 72), Dragon Fire (TRO 3058, p. 128), Maelstrom (TRO 3058, p. 130), Nightsky (TRO:3058, p144)
Vindicator - Snake (TRO 3055, p. 38)

In cases with iconic BattleMechs and their derivative designs, can we list all of the designs which are explicitly described as related (in the fluff) to a parent design? In this regard, I am only suggesting a subsection giving all related designs, distinct from variants. These entries would not go into detail about capabilities. People would only see a link and a short sentence describing the relationship, and could follow the trail on their own to find out more. Maybe even include a family tree for the design. What do you think?--S.gage 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would recommend either following the existing format of listing them at the end of the "Variants" section or noting it in the body of the text. I'm not too sure about the family tree, though, since it's not like that would go very far. --Scaletail 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Question : Nightsky? Perhaps you meant Nightstar? :) The Nightsky was like a second-generation Hachetman. Nightstar was a 95-ton cross between a Marauder II and a Turkina. ClanWolverine101

BV 1.0[edit]

Should we still have BV 1.0 in infoboxes? --Neufeld 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for the time being. I've thought about this too (it'll be rather easy to turn off), but I'm of the mind that until a master BV list is issued or once all of the core books are out, then there are still people who can't be expected to be up on the 'latest' system. Its a bit more complicated than the two-month moratorium. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Unlike Revanche, I don't think it will ever go away. We're trying to collect every minutiae from BattleTech, so why not this, too? --Scaletail 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Deployment & users[edit]

Info about deployment and users seems to be missing from most mech pages. I suggest that we add a policy about adding such a section to mech pages. The Catagory:Faction X tags seems to cause more questions than answers. --Neufeld 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm all for adding those ==sections== to the QuckStart page, but I believe this bears some further discussion. (Posting this on the Main page's chatterweb section.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a Project BattleMechs guideline that we only include important MechWarriors (i.e. main characters) in the 'Mech articles, so, in many cases, having none is complete. The 'Mech articles on BTW are not meant to be, nor should they ever be, barely-reworded technical readouts. I don't know why "deployment" was left out of the original template, but I don't know a compelling reason to include it, either; "because it's there" is not satisfactory to me.
The categories for 'Mechs have been problematic. There has been discussion about the faction categories, but I don't believe consensus was ever reached. --Scaletail 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
For me the reason is all the questions about why is mech X and mech Y listed under factions A and B from ClanWolverine101. So we shoudl either add a deployment section or remove the faction categories. --Neufeld 07:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding TRULY notable pilots : Most of the "notable pilots" from the TROs are, frankly, nobodies. I've made it a point to put major character notable pilots on mech articles, and also to add "Battlemech note" sections in major character bios where appropriate. (Not every major character was known for being a mech jock.) Never is this an issue with the TROs. ClanWolverine101
Also : Yeah, notes on deployment would be cool. Many mechs have unusual deployments; look at the Spider/Venom, which was primarily built at an FWL factory but primarily used by DCMS mechs. I've challenged some of the faction-portal categories - sometimes I've removed them, other times, people point out that one of the TRO Upgrades specifically states the distribution to a certain faction that one might not expect. (Take the Dragon Fire, which by the book was produced at a Lyran factory, but was apparently sold mostly to the DCMS, and was later exclusive to WoB.) I may start adding this. ClanWolverine101
I use Combat Operations for the faction categories, that way there is no guesswork. I agree that there are certain instances, such as the ones Wolverine listed, where the deployment is notable; however, most of the deployment description is in regards to one or two specific units that have some of the 'Mechs and a description of a battle where the 'Mech was used. I don't think most of those are important for the 'Mech article, though it may be worthwhile to include in the article for the command. --Scaletail 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposal : The Faction portal category tags should have reference citations attached. Sound better? ClanWolverine101 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you can. I had honestly never given it thought before, so I tested out referencing a category, and it just looks like a footnote with no text attached to it. It would be impossible to tell what is cited. I like the idea, but I don't think the technology supports it. --Scaletail 00:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As it looks as if the discussion has wound down, I would say consensus was not reached. I'd suggest that interested parties demonstrate, through a handful of 'Mechs, what the benefits are to adding additional sections and then re-engage the discussion.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, here's a demonstration: Hornet. Deployment section added, and user category without textual evidence removed. --Neufeld 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say that there are some 'Mechs, such as the Venom and Hornet, that have notable deployments in that the Venom is odd because it is produced in one state and used in another, while the Hornet's is key because it went through a sort of live-fire proving. I think the deployment section in most TROs is more like the Snow Fox, which restates that the 'Mech is a second-line unit and says the Ice Hellion's Zeta Galaxy has a lot of them. It's not really important to the 'Mech and restates information from earlier in the entry. Obviously, there are 'Mechs for which they way they are deployed is notable, but I don't think that's the case for the majority. I see no problem adding this info into the "Description" section for articles where it is appropriate, but I don't think it should be mandated for all of them. --Scaletail 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you supporting inclusion of significant deployemts (as you detailed above) in the Descriptions section, or just the 'mentioned' usage? In other words, do you allow for a Deployments section, when there is significant cause? (Seeking clarification.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
We also have to discuss if we should allow Category:UserX type tags to be used without supporting text. --Neufeld 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The info on the hornet was impressive, IMHO, and it served the purpose I've been pushing. I want to try a similar approach myself to a couple of other mechs that have unusual deployments, and I'll check back here to see if people like them. ClanWolverine101 17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying that I don't think a "Deployment" section is necessary, but that it is important in the development of certain 'Mechs. The Hornet's story, for instance, is wrapped up in the FedSuns' acceptance of the design and agreement to greater production runs. I don't see why that can't go in the "Description" section. My concern is that a dedicated "Deployment" section leads to the implication that any article without one is incomplete, so here's what I say: include the information using the existing template, where appropriate, for any and every article that it is germane to. I'll even make a suggestion for an article that would be improved by the addition, No-Dachi. That's a case where the way it was deployed led to its acceptance within the DCMS and widespread adoption by that faction. I just don't think the deployment information warrants inclusion for every single 'Mech.
Neufeld, if you scroll up, you will find an existing discussion on faction categories. Please add your comments there on that subject. --Scaletail 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, continuing discussion there. --Neufeld 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, as an impartial observer and admin towards this discussion, I've seen Neufeld's suggested example and ClanWolverine101's support for it, but also Scaletail's suggestion that discussion of 'Mech useage remain in the "Description" sections. As there has been no return to consensus seeking following Scaletail's remarks, it appears consensus is to keep 'Mech articles as they are presently.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Apocryphal Mechs[edit]

Question : Would a Apocryphal Mech go in the same category as the other mechs, albeit with the Apocryphal tags? I'm thinking about adding the Ragnarok mech from the MechWarrior (1992 Video Game) SNES game. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds right. I think it might be a good idea to only put it in the "BattleMechs" category, since the other, specialized categories are generally more geared towards CBT. --Scaletail 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh - no problem. As I feel the subcategories are over-used anyway. Can I get a link to the template? ClanWolverine101 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Help:CreateMechArticle This one? --Scaletail 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Deployment and Users - Part II[edit]

The previous convo had grown too long and unwieldy in my case. Better to start off anew. I am formally proposing we put up information fields covering the Deployment & Users for every Battlemech. Obviously, this is a large project, and in the case of some of the clans, we probably don't have enough material to work with at this time. Nevertheless, I feel it deserves consideration. I am NOT proposing we copy anything verbatim from the TROs; merely that we use it as a resource as we have always done. In my mind, one of the most important elements of any mech is "Who actually uses it in significant numbers?" as opposed to "Who may have salvaged a couple, refitted to their own variant, inevitably being added to the faction portal system?" These are not simple questions.
So - who is with me on this one? ClanWolverine101 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I will restate my position from above. In many cases this information is important, but not all. If an editor feels it is, add the information in the "Description" section. I do not support a section being added to every 'Mech article that calls for "deployment" information. --Scaletail 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Scaletail on this one. In my opinion the notable warrior information and faction deployment information should be a part of the Description section. I think adding an extra section is overkill for most of the 'Mechs.--Mbear 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think ClanWolverine101 has a point. Early on when I joined the BTW team I suggested a revamp of the 'Mech articles, to include data on manufacturing centers and proliferation. I realize this is a task of daunting magnitude, but I'd still like to see that kind of info on the 'Mech pages. Personally, I feel it's far more valuable than BV. And most articles need a rewrite anyways, much descriptive text is both uninformative and awkward. Frabby 20:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Frabby, if any of the information you have described is available in a canon source and is not in the 'Mech articles already, then I encourage you to add it. I'm unclear what your position is with relation to CW's proposal. --Scaletail 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I am prepared to concede (for the moment) the part about a "Deployment" section. I will fight to the death in a circle of equals anyone who fights the "notable pilot" section, even if it doesn't apply to most mechs. ClanWolverine101 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask what may be a noob question, IF there is a cannon source that details a Mech's deployment/manufacture could that be used as a basis for "Faction Mech" and by extention, any Mech without such a clear cannon source specifing faction be considered "General"? My reason is I do have the original MechWarrior book from the 80's, and within it is a 3025 list of Mechs with a random assignment roll table. There are faction ajustments for that table. Furthermore there are other more modern tables that clearly show some Mechs of each weight class being more availible to each seperate faction of both Clan and IS forces. I am simply trying to see if such information can be presented in a way that is acceptible and applicible in fashion without cut-and-paste plagerism issues, though such a project would be beyond my ability to commit to given the vast amount of typing!Deeppockets 04:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is that the random assignment tables are not reliable sources, and are only seen as a quick and dirty method of generating forces. TRO fluff text is probably the most important source for determining which factions use a mech. --Neufeld 13:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The canon source that I usually use is Combat Operations. CO is a bit out-of-date now, but is still useful for most units. --Scaletail 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I contributed some to that list (the first version was a massive undertaking)... and IIRC anything appeared on a Houses Availability table from 4 - 10 for any period from any canon book when into the Combat Operations Table for that list... last i heard it is a Living Document (IOW constantly being updated) published on the web by Peter Lacassie the same person that did the original combat operations table, and the PTB use that as the reference for whither or not a unit is common in any house... It may have been replaced by a more robust version that the demonstrator team (are they still FanPro Commandos?) uses (used?) for official events such as the Martial Olympiad, and something tells me that the same person is still updating it.--Cameron 14:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Faction Categories redux[edit]

The faction categories are a mess and need some guidance. Various ideas have been thrown about for years, but none have stuck. Since it's been almost two years since I proposed this idea regarding the faction categories, I'm going to re-propose it:

any 'Mech that is not listed under the "General" list (be it Clan General or Inner Sphere General) in Combat Operations (or its successor, should one ever be finished) should be categorized by the original producing faction(s) only, unless a canon source states otherwise.

By way of example, the Fenris would be categorized as Clan General and the Locust as Inner Sphere General. Raptor would be categorized as a Combine 'Mech, Warlord as a FedSuns design. Obviously, there will be some that don't fit this mold well, but this should probably be applicable to 90% of 'Mech articles. --Scaletail 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. I have seen a number of mech/vehicle articles that fall under both "IS General" and under one or more factions. I believe allowing this reflects that its possible for a unit to qualify for "General" status, but for it also to be worth noting that its particularly common with one or more factions. I suppose you could argue that this shouldn't be such an issue with 3025 era mechs : In the days of pitifully few functioning factories, most mechs did become "IS General" simply from salvaging each other. For example, Liao seemed to have had a decent number of "Atlas" mechs despite never seeming to have produced it. But in the "current" era where we've seen over a hundred new mechs over the past few years, most built by only a single faction, this has become more relevant. Some, like the Grand Titan, were distributed so widely to be considered "IS General". Many others were not, and if the Capellan Confederation has a couple of "Gunslingers", they probably salvaged them from Davion forces they beat.
Make sense? ClanWolverine101 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's counter-intuitive. Either a 'Mech is generally available to all factions, or it's particular to a subset. "General", I think, implies that the 'Mech is fielded in roughly equal numbers by most factions that fall under that heading, and, therefore, is particularly identified with none.
Part of the goal of my suggestion is to tie the categories, at least in part, to a particular, canon source. This allows for less discrepancy, which has been a constant problem with no resolution. In this case, yes, both the Grand Titan and Atlas would be considered "General". --Scaletail 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to thing that the use of category tags should be limited to that canon sourcing. Mentioning exceptions, such as the occasional influx of Ravens in AFFS forces whenever they kick the crap out of the CapCon, should stay in the text of the article. Citizen Erased 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you about the AFFS Ravens - that's the point I was making.
""General", I think, implies that the 'Mech is fielded in roughly equal numbers by most factions..." exactly. Do you really want to imply that the Grand Titan is not much more common with the FWL than in the DC? Or that the Zeus is as common in the Capellan Confederation as it is in the Lyran Commonwealth? I would suggest not. ClanWolverine101 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So are we just all making the same point in different ways? :-p Citizen Erased 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we broadly agree on all but the most minute of points. I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae (but here I go anyways); maybe the Grand Titan is part of my estimated 10% that is an exception to the rule (thought the Zeus is not listed in General, so it's not an exception).
I would also point out my carefully nuanced language: "most factions". Just because a design is classified as "General" does not mean that every such faction fields significant quantities; just that many do. The Atlas is actually a good example, as it has been produced by no fewer than three IS factions over its history.
What I'm really trying to get at here, is that this would be a guideline, not a set-in-stone rule. We can debate the relative factionalization of a handful of 'Mechs, but that shouldn't derail what I think this is, overall, a good compromise that is rooted in a canon source. --Scaletail 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Scaletail - I'm not sure I understand what compromise you are proposing?
I added portal links for "Wolf's Dragoons Vehicles" on a number of vehicles that were originally exclusive to the WD, and were always most common there. You ripped out my tags, using the rationale that they were already in the "IS General" category. I guess this means that by your definition, those vehicles are as common in McCarron's Armored Cavalry as they are in WD? Certainly, the vehicles were eventually made available to other factions for purchase, but that's hardly justification for classifying it as "IS General", and its certainly not justification for dropping the WD tags, given the lineage.
Again - Look at the Awesome. "IS General" mech, yes? Has not been built outside the FWL since at least the Star League.
So what exactly are you proposing? At one point, I argued for a "Deployment" section for every mech article. There were objections to that. (I believe you were one?) Now you're telling me that I can't added faction tags if its already listed under "IS General". See where I'm coming from? ClanWolverine101 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I find the faction categories annoying, and would prefer to remove them, since having the usage in the text instead of a "binary" category prevents much needless debate. Also, the category bars of the mech pages are also too cluttered. --Neufeld 06:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Earlier, I proposed dropping the "role" portals (sniper, brawler, etc.), for the simple reason that most of them were arbitrary, and with so many variants and alternate configurations, it was silly to classify all versions of a mech as suitable to any one roll. My proposal was shot down by the powers that be. As I don't use BVs too much, I also would be in favor of dropping those tags as well. (No doubt others would object.) So while I totally understand you feeling those tags have gotten too long, the faction portals are really the only ones I have much interest in. ClanWolverine101 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Two things:
  • Neufeld sparked a possible compromise idea with me: maybe the best way to address factions is to have (if we don't already) a master list article ala Combat Operations or the forthcoming MUL to be the site's authority, rather than categories. The Wikipedian in me appreciates categories, but the list (especially if hosted on the BattleMech portal page) would serve the same purpose when properly wiki-linked and seems to me to be a possible compromise.
  • CW, I'm confident you didn't mean the phrase "was shot down by the powers that be" to come across a pejorative, but to be clear to others: the Admins on this site have consistently sought to come across like any other Editor, but empowered by Nic to perform certain administrative functions in his absence. Just because a majority of viewpoints may be in opposition to another Editor's opinion, it doesn't mean the Admins are performing as the traditional Powers That Be. We go to great pains to reach consensus with our fellow Editors on all matters, but also take it upon ourselves to be conversant in existing policy. If an Editor (be it an Admin or otherwise) presents an argument against your own in a discussion, address that argument. I know for a fact each of the Admins has been swayed by a proper and correct counter argument. If we are not challenged, then you cede to the consensus policy, and not to an Admin's will. I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if any Admin here has ever used "Because I'm the Admin" as a reason to settle anything outside of site protection. In other words, we're all Editors here and some of us have added responsibility. usually behind the scenes. We have yet had to operate as arbiters, like on Wikipedia. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I applaud efforts by the Admins and Editors to find consensus... when such efforts are legitimately made. If you check most of my posts on various talk pages, you'll find I almost always seek to find a consensus on an issue, to the point where I will suggest we do something, and another editor will go ahead and enact it before I can do so. (Lesson : "Be Bold" I guess.)
My complaint is this : If a number of articles were made under a certain criteria (i.e. A mech or vehicle under more than one faction category, as well as IS/Clan General), and there's been no policy discussion establishing that this is not ideal (with consensus following), then people who make new edits under that criteria shouldn't have their work zapped arbitrarily by an editor, admin or otherwise. At the very least, hit up the "Discussion" page of an article and say "Hey - I think this should just be 'IS General', and here's why..." That I can always respect, even if I disagree.
For the record, my comment regarding "the powers that be" had little to do with the Admins. I proposed an action, consensus did not follow it, so it didn't go any further than that. I'm totally fine with that. Later, someone else expressed frustration with an issue that my proposal was intended to correct (in this case, some of the category-portal tags have gotten crazy).
Most of my edits to established pages are additions. Occasionally, I do edit/revise obvious typos or incomplete pieces of information. If somebody's actually doing something a certain way in multiple articles, I talk with them, either on the article discussion page or their Talk page.
In other words - can't we all just get along? :P ClanWolverine101 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Let's nuke BV and faction categories. I was going to argue for BV categories after this discussion was resolved, anyways; I was just beaten to the punch. I think they're unwieldy and untenable with the format for 'Mech articles. What good is knowing that one variant is within a 500 point range? I don't think categories are the right way to convey this information.
As for faction categories, nobody can agree on how to use them. I've tried and tried over the years to reach consensus on a way for them to make sense, any way; I'm not really particular at this point. Unfortunately, they've devolved into a hodgepodge of nonsense because every editor who wants to can put their own stamp on what they mean, meaning that they've come to mean absolutely nothing. At this point, everybody thinks they should fulfill a different purpose, which means we'll never come to agreement on them. --Scaletail 01:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad we can actually agree on something. As I've said before, my ideal solution to the faction/portal issue would be a "Deployment" section under every relevant article. There's a reason why they used these in the TROs. But I understand that I am in the minority, so I've attempted to work with the faction portals. ClanWolverine101 03:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that having a "Deployment" heading in articles would be fine, so long as it isn't just a regurgitation from the page of the TRO. The usefulness of the faction tags, in my mind, was to have a page they linked to that listed the 'Mechs common to a given faction - something that could be done with what Revanche said about having a Master Unit List page. Citizen Erased 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. And I see no reason not to go ahead with Rev's idea as well. ClanWolverine101 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I still see no reason for a "Deployment" section for every 'Mech article. The information can be provided just as well under the "Description" section, where appropriate. Besides, adding such a section would have no impact on what articles were in what categories.
I can get behind removing faction categories and replacing them with a list of what 'Mechs are available to what factions, except that I worry that that would become bogged down in exactly the same way the categories have been. Some people would argue only for certain factions, some would argue that every unit is available to every faction (if only in limited quantities), while others would be somewhere in between. If we can agree on how to create this list, then I think we can move forward. --Scaletail 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
My answer to that: use the MUL (when released) as the guidance. In essence, recreate the MUL and utilize it as a link farm here.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

TRO3039 vs TRO3050 Variant order[edit]

BTW policy seems to be main variant of 'Mech's first TRO appearance is the prime variant, trumping sourcebook appearances, in practice this is good but there are a few anomalies with regards early sourcebooks (specifcally House Liao (The Capellan Confederation) and Wolf's Dragoons (sourcebook)) and TRO3050, where because TRO3050 was the first TRO to feature these 'Mechs so the upgraded 3050 versions are the prime rather than the original 3025 era versions there were originally introduced/manufactured as. With the release TRO3039 we've finally received level 1/3025 era TRO stats and fluff for these sourcebook 'Mechs, so I'm raising the question that IMO we should switch so their original models are the prime and the 3050 upgrades switched to variants.Cyc 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. For me... no. I like the status quo. When I think of an Imp, I think of the Imp from TRO 3050. Its like that with most of those other mechs as well. Just my 2 cents. ClanWolverine101 06:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ClanWolverine101. The "main" model for each page should be the most commonly associated one - which is, I'd assume for the most part, the first variant to hit print in a TRO from our perspective, not the first production model in-universe. Citizen Erased 18:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BV Categories[edit]

As I stated a couple of discussion threads up, I don't think the BV categories are useful and should be deleted. There are multiple reasons; there are two different Battle Values, the overwhelming majority of 'Mech articles contain more than one variant, and (frankly) the Wiki format does not lend itself to being able to associate a 'Mech with a particular number and sort it in any meaningful way. BTW is not, and cannot be, a database or a spreadsheet. Perhaps the "Files" section could host one, but using categories is not a good way to handle this. --Scaletail 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Neufeld 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. You've echoed my thoughts exactly. ClanWolverine101 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Is there any reason why we can't post canon variants that may have been unique? I've seen this done on several mechs, but wanted to make sure it was considered okay. ClanWolverine101 19:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had a discussion about the difference between variants and unique configurations here, trying to decide how to treat the CN9-YLW: Talk:Centurion. Though I'll admit that the debate seems to lack a conclusion. Technically, each unique variant is a variant in its own right. But given the prolific authors we have, treating each customized ride as a varian will totally clutter the pages in no time; it doesn't feel right. As of yet, I am myself undecided on what the criteria are for a variant to be noteworthy. I guess it should be something that was either produced by the manufacturer, or a frequent and uniform field refit - but not just any customized variant. Frabby 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is that if it has an official record sheet, it's worthy of mention. I like how this was handled on Jinggau and Dire Wolf (Daishi). --Scaletail 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Scaletail on this. --Neufeld 07:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Since i've listed some of the "custom variants, I've noted them in the 'Mech articles' as a sub-section of Variants. Mentioning the pilot, if warrent and give its basic description of its origin. Then content what makes it custom, including its technology. Yen-Lo-Wang, is unique in comparison to other custom designs. Unlike most, it been featured in Battletech stories, since beginning Battletech, it still active in Dark age with a major character. I agree, sometime once the XTRO thing done, we may have mess to clean. According to Herb, only one of each design is going get the XTRO treatment. Jinggau has two unique variants one a prototype and another Rush Ion's personal ride he used during second WoB invasion. If we get more unique variants, i would list them more detail if the pilot/character has their own article. In TRO:3039, Banshee pilot of that era had customized Banshee, but no record sheet produced. So no listing. -- Wrangler 15:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah. This is all pretty good. I ask because the "Turning Points" books all seem to have variants represented as custom, and I was thinking of sticking in the ones that haven't been addressed elsewhere.
As for Yen-Lo-Wang, I've stated it before : The 'mech should be described on the Centurion page, noting that it has been refitted multiple times. (We can certainly use the "Custom Variant" section noted above.) A separate article should be used to describe the greater history of the mech. ClanWolverine101 18:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody disagree with making a record sheet a requirement for description of a unique variant? --Scaletail 14:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this approach is helpful, given that TPTB still seem crank out new record sheets on a monthly basis. Following up on what I wrote above, I feel we should use Yen-Lo-Wang as an example how to treat uniques: If they're notable, they deserve their own article. The main model article would then briefly mention the unique variant and link to its own article. An own record sheed is probably a strong indication for being notable in this sense, but I wouldn't make it a requirement. On the other hand, I am loathe to clutter the pages with pointless listings of unique variants - even if they have a record sheet published. (Is Samsonov's Atlas variant from HTP:Galtor noteworthy? I doubt it. It certainly doesn't warrant its own article.) Frabby 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dropping the BV Portals[edit]

Scaletail knocked it around, and I'm running with with. I'm suggesting the total elimination of the BV Category Portals from the 'Mech articles. I have a number of reasons for this :

  • Most mechs have a wide variety of BV ratings due to so many variants. You can't really divvy these up based on BV.
  • While I acknowledge that people certainly USE BV, I don't think they break it up by categories like this. Maybe someone will go "Okay, I have 1900 points left - what's the best mech under that restriction?" Maybe they'll look at a list, or use a program that will sort all mechs and variants by BV. But I am dubious that this setup would be helpful.
  • Aesthetically, its unpleasant. Yes, I like the faction portals, but I'm willing to discuss the possibility they may not be what's best. I feel the same way here.

Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 07:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one has opposed removing them, and people has supported it, so I guess that it's down to "Be bold". --Neufeld 10:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
So, I decided to take care of the problem. Now we just need a mod to delete the leftover pages. --Neufeld 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Famous Pilots[edit]

This discussion about Notable pilots can be found on the Notable Pilots discussion page. Note that the discussion is still ongoing.--Mbear 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Variant format[edit]

I am proposing a tweak to the variant format because the way they are currently arrayed is sometimes confusing. Under the "Variants" section, there should be sub-sections for each era that a specific variant dates from. Currently, variants for 'Mechs such as Warhammer are confusing because variants from later eras are alphanumerically before earlier variants, leading to a description of the Stealth Armor Warhammer before other Succession Wars era variants.

I've modified one of my custom 'Mech articles, Crusher, as an example of what this would look like. Prior to this, the -2B variant referred to the -2L as its antecedent, but it was listed before that variant. Now, it is organized in a way that makes more sense. --Scaletail 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that alphanumerical sorting may not be optimal. Eras is a step in the right direction (order of appearance), but I'd say year of introduction is what we should really aim for. But I also suggest we don't implement any changes here until the final, official version of the MUL is released. It will then contain both all variants and their respective introduction dates. Frabby 15:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree for one reason and one reason only : In many cases, we simply don't KNOW which variant came out first. That's all. ClanWolverine101 15:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Frabby's point is that, with the MUL, we will. I was looking for a solution that could be implemented now, but I am agreeable to that. --Scaletail 15:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good in principle, but there has to be a cut-off, because we don't truly know the Age of War stats for 'Mechs like the original Wasp, yet according to MUL that's what we'll have to change the article too. Cyc 22:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It has the stats that are in published material like TRO3039, unless TPTB says differently. Don't waste time speculating about future retcons, we deal with them when they appear. --Neufeld 09:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Trimming this article[edit]

Question : Who has the authority to trim this article? Only the Admins, or may Editors do so as well? Understand : I have no intention whatsoever of removing ANY of the active topics that may be relevant to current consensus discussions. I'm simply thinking if we removed those items that are clearly inactive and not an open issue, we'd trim this page by quite a bit.
And yes - I realize that THIS item has made the page longer. The irony is not lost on me. ClanWolverine101 03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree it should be archived. We have no policy on the matter, on the wiki or in this project. I say it falls under "if it needs scratching..." Let me know if you would like assistance in doing so. ;-) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should achieve things instead by year, subject. I don't know if Alphabetical order will work. I'm suggesting not by year only because same problems with subjects keep coming up like the notable pilots. -- Wrangler 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Rev - Yeah... I can't seem to find the how-to on archiving. Can you give me some instruction? ClanWolverine101 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the Famous Pilots discussions to their own page off of this one. You can find the links in the relevant section or at the top of the page.--Mbear 16:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)