Talk:Atlas (BattleMech)

This article is within the scope of the BattleMechs WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleMechs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Xoid, you asked for Peer review on this 'Mech. I couldn't agree with you that it was fluffy, or maybe I just don't think 'fluffy' is bad, in moderation. In fact, I think by attributing the POV perspective as having come from Kerensky, you've moved it into the NPOV realm. I'm hesitant to take it off Peer Review status, because I get the feeling you don't agree, but...I think it passes. And good point about the issue of 'your article.' I'll re-write that explanation to make it less owner's role-oriented, and allow people to bring articles to Project members' attention, so we can do what you & I just did. --Revanche (admin) 11:21, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Unless it's inaccurate, fluff isn't necessarily a bad thing. While from my experience the Atlas is a damn good assault 'Mech, I wasn't sure if I was going over the top. Understandably, this was 'minor', but that's where most NPOV concerns come from. Even something as subtle as the placement of a comma has been enough to trigger edit wars elsewhere *cough*Wikipedia*cough* (god forbid it ever comes to that), so I felt it prudent to get a second opinion. --Xoid 12:13, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Well, we could always start an edit war, you get the practice (you french fry-swilling, frog-smelling clone of a nerfherder). But, your point is well understood; that's why I'm working primarily on (now) the policy pages, adapting the policy articles and some committee structures for adoption here. Yeah, gotta love that Lamest Ever page; I happened to come across it again last night, with the concerns of anglo-saxon POVs and issues with the definition of 'canon. These people breath the same air that you taint with that frog-smell of your's. ;-) --Revanche (admin) 13:37, 21 November 2006 (CST)
French?! Thems are fightin' words. Custard pies at ten paces, sir. --Xoid 02:06, 22 November 2006 (CST)
My heart started racing, until I remembered the context and who was responding. I thought I had something that had pissed someone off! win. --Revanche (admin) 10:18, 22 November 2006 (CST)
I don't like the French, personally, but I've got a good sense of humour (more of a 'twisted' sense of humour, TBH, but I digress). However, the custard pies are an inside joke. (No, I can't tell you, if I did it wouldn't be an inside joke, would it? :-P) --Xoid 11:36, 22 November 2006 (CST)
Yeah, my 'dislike' for the French started well before it became popular; I got stood up by a French girl. Now their whole country will pay! [insert evil laugh here] [mumbling] Teach 'em to leave me at that ice cream shop by myself for an hour...--Revanche (admin) 13:09, 22 November 2006 (CST)

Change to Armor in infobox[edit]

To those who notice, I have added the tonnage of this mechs armor to the infobox. To anyone who wants to know why, there is more info on the Project BattleMechs discussion page. Provided I get no negative Responses, I may be changing more to look like this.
Mop no more 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

DC Warlords circa 3025[edit]

I don't know if this is noteworthy or not, but here goes : As of 3025, of the five Draconis Combine Warlords, three were piloting the Atlas. (Samsonov, Cherenkoff, Sorenson) This seemed interesting to me, but you could argue none of those three are, by themselves, worthy of mention here under Notable Pilots. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 15:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Atlas III[edit]

The Atlas II has its own article on here; this Atlas article has an update needed tag for TRO:3145 FedSuns, presumably because of the Atlas III in that sourcebook (there's no Atlas in there), but as the Atlas II has its own article, should the Atlas III? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (PDT)

I think the Atlas III must become his own article, there is enough fluff for the 'Mech.--Doneve (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
Does this mean the Hollander II and Hollander III should have their own articles as well?
There's a reason I normally stick to editing planet articles Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
I favor the idea that the Hollander II and III become there own articles, the 'Mechs are no variants only stand alone designs.--Doneve (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
There is no consistent answer to the question when a modification/change/redesign constitutes a different 'Mech that warrants its own article. Even a different tonnage is no clear-cut case (see Flea). There is just no apparent pattern.
Treated as variants of the same 'Mech although they're arguably different designs: Flea 20 and 15 ton models; Javelin & Fire Javelin; Hermes II, Mirage & Hermes III; Banshee & Banshee-S; Zeus & Zeus-S; Charger & Challenger; Raven and Raven-2X; Clanbuster-upgrades, "-C" upgrades (Clantech refits)
Treated as different designs although they're arguably just variants or evolutions: Dragon & Grand Dragon; Hermes & Hermes II; Cataphract & Caesar; Charger & Hatamoto-Chi; Daboku & Mauler (& Linesman); Phoenix Hawk & Phoenix Hawk L; IIC redesigns
These are just a few samples off the top of my head. There are many more. So you'll have to rely on gut feeling. If a 'Mech has a different tonnage, is consistently and prominently called by another name or looks very different then it may deserve its own article. For what it's worth, in the case of the Atlas III and the Hollanders I feel a separate article is called for. Frabby (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
Thanks Frabby for clarify this.--Doneve (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
You consider this a clarification? Wow. Thanks. Wink.gif Frabby (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
Why not? You give use enough examples and i think the same for various designs! Do you think the policy must become a update about this.--Doneve (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
The Hollander III doesn't seem to be a different 'Mech any more than the Enforcer III and Jagermech III are, but those have their own articles. There definitely should be a policy on it. GOLFisNOTaSPORT (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
Definitely, much like the ad-hoc first TRO appearance becomes the default/prime version in the article, having a codified policy is something we need to move towards.18:14, 14 August 2013 (PDT)
Maybe I'll just deal with one of the other update needed tags for now... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2013 (PDT)