Talk:Main Page

Rules for editing the front page[edit]

  • Please discuss here if you have other ideas for the front page, or play on the Main Page (Test) if you want to show your ideas. Nicjansma 02:05, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Comments regarding the Main Page/Wiki-in-General[edit]

Add "Infantry Platoon" to Unit Categories[edit]

since the infantry Platoon has been a designable unit for a while it would be a good idea to be able to reach them from off the main page--Cameron (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2014 (PDT)

I always though a link to Infantry units would be a good idea instead of having to follow multiple links(Dark Jaguar (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2016 (PST))
I kind of agree but I think we need to address an issue with unit types and fluff before we move it onto the front page. Heavy Jump Infantry (Royal Gurkha) for example should really be Heavy Jump Infantry with a link to the Royal Gurkha command as a notable example ofthe type. where as most of the articles are extremely heavily based upon their TRO:3085 entries.--Dmon (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2016 (PST)
Yes the entries need some work, but that could be said for a lot of other unit types. I agree there is some duplication and it's 3085 heavy, but those are some of the most detailed description available. Personally I don't think entries requiring a little editing should be a negative to placing an overall Infantry Category link on the main page with all the other unit types. (Dark Jaguar (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2016 (PST))

Add "Category" to the sidebar[edit]

I was searching for a list of categories, and I simply don't know where to look. Using the search engine here is useless - every individual page with a labeled category pops up. I was wondering if you could place a link to a list of categories in the side bar under "Background". I know there are category lists on the main page for various units, planets, etc., but I think a list of categories to navigate from would be helpful. This would enable viewers to also sort by any category when searching for information. Also while writing, I am getting tired of categorizing treaties as "events"; there has to be something more appropriate.--S.gage 14:46 EDT 5 June 2009.

Categories: Check out the "Special Pages" section in the toolbar on the left side (third item from the bottom). Among a lot of other interesting stuff, you can get a "Categories" page there listing all existing categories on this wiki.
Creating categories: Just like normal articles. If unsure, just link an article to the (nonexistent) Category and a red category link will appear. Follow that red link to create the category page (insert some content) and voila, Category created. Frabby 06:34, 6 June 2009 (PDT)
Even quicker way of getting to Categories than that. Check out the sidebar at the very top, in the section under Classic BattleTech Wiki. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:44, 6 June 2009 (PDT)
Sorry, I was really dumb. I asked for this link under background, but if I had looked up just a little bit, I would have seen the link, just waiting to be clicked. Thanks, guys! My bad.--S.gage 23:12 EDT 7 June 2009.
Not a problem. If there is a way to make the site easier to use, we want it hear it. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2009 (PDT)

"Deep Periphery" under "Factions"[edit]

  • Currently, the profile for deep periphery realms is very low. Though the deep periphery is (arguably) less important than other regions of space, the "deep periphery" is home to many unknowns and plot hooks. major powers within the "deep periphery" are larger and more influential than some Periphery and Inner Sphere powers, including the St. Ives Compact and the (post-Clan Invasion) Free Rasalhague Republic. Before (temporary and inadequate) changes made yesterday, navigation to the Deep Periphery from the main page required navigating through The Periphery, then finding the link at the bottom of the page below the section entitled "See Also". There is some debate currently on "The Periphery" page as to whether or not to incorporate major "deep periphery" powers on "the periphery" page. I incorporated them for the interim, but this is really a temporary measure. The best solution would be to leave the pages separate, and place a link on the main page to the Deep Periphery under "factions". Such a move would allow for higher profile and ease of navigation, while allowing these two pages to remain separate.--S.gage 12:12 6 May 2009 (EDT)
I think we should hold off on any action on the main page until a decision is made on Periphery. If it stays as is, I don't think it will be necessary, as you have put links to all the DP factions on Periphery. --Scaletail 18:13, 6 May 2009 (PDT)
Exactly why I waited on any revisions here. Oh, I am sorry if I have been a little impatient in editing or authoring.--S.gage 00:16 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Posting canon files[edit]

  • Here's a request that should breed discussion: can we post official files? It would seem that the official software programs, HeavyMetal would make creating a database of official and fan-based 'Mechs, ASFs, ProtoMechs, Battle Armor, DropShips, JumpShips, WarShips and combat/support vehicles really easy and the semi-official nature of Sarna, now in wiki-form, seems to make the idea obvious. At the very least, I'd like to have a special section for fan-created entries, broken into similar categories I've listed here. An official database would go well with the Background section and a fan database might fit either there or in the Official Game Systems --> Board Game subsection. Revanche 11:04, 17 September 2006 (CDT)
    • I was thinking about this yesterday as well -- I wonder if we can either 1) Convince Rick that a HeavyMetal wikitext export would be cool or 2) Convert other (html? xml?) output from one of the programs and import it. Nicjansma 14:52, 17 September 2006 (CDT)
      • 1) Well, I think Rick's response would be along the lines that it would have limited function (for how many BT wikis will there be?). But, on the other hand, Rick sometimes surprises me and feels something is either easier than I expected or worth the challenge. In other words, it wouldn't hurt to ask. 2) I spent the day driving from Reno to Monterey and giving the wiki project some thought. As I was thinking about the help files I have to bone up for creating equipment templates, I started thinking longer-term, with what an entry for a 'mech might be. That's a discussion for another time, I guess, but it boils down to the idea that there is a multitude of information that can be included in an of those types of entries without having to copy/paste info directly provided in the TROs. IOW, even if we did port that info in via a conversion of html (I'd think that there must be something along those lines provided by some wiki programmer), there's plenty more that can be added from non-TRO sources. That is, even after that stuff was ported in, we'd like to add in various stats, histories and models that would fit best into an established template. If we converted existing files into wiki-language, could that data be shoehorned into a template? Revanche 00:04, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
        • Definately a topic for further consideration. Honestly, I do not know enough about the template system to use it adequately. I'll try to learn more soon. Nicjansma 01:05, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
      • HTML converters

Cooperation with Wikipedia[edit]

  • Wikipedia has a Battletech section too and we are both using GFDL licence. I would be happy if we could increase cooperation, to avoid writing the same articles and share other ideas (like category trees and such). I started a thread at Wikipedia.--Piotrus 19:18, 9 November 2006 (CST)
  • Greetings! I would be very happy to work with those individuals contributing over at Wikipedia. I will spend some time this week and examine what you are working on over there. Nicjansma 02:20, 13 November 2006 (CST)
  • I'm all for working with the BTers at Wikipedia, also. We do have two primary audiences, however, that are different. While BTers may read (and they definitely contribute) articles on BT there, the intended audience at Wikipedia is those seeking to be informed on a subject they may not know much about. BTW's audience is a bit different, in that BTW is intended to be a resource for players. With that said, Wikipedia has been a great source to help us get BTW off the ground. I have seen some great writers who have deftly worked around copyright issues by writing original material detailing the history of the BT universe, etc. But, also, some of the stubs I've imported from Wikipedia, I think, have been equally useful, because they help 'start' articles over here, demanding to be filled in and corrected by the more, dare I say it, anal BT historians. I've been amazed and appreciative of how thorough the BT section at Wikipedia has become and welcome any collaboration. We don't have the writing staff (at all) here at BTW yet to be that influential at Wikipedia, but if the Wikipedians can help us out here, I think it has the potential to build our community and start seeing some crossdecking. --Revanche (admin) 09:50, 13 November 2006 (CST)
  • I have created the template at Wikipedia. If an article on BTWiki has the same name as on Wikipedia, slapping this template (){{BattleTechWiki}} on a Wikipedia article and it will be linked to BTWiki; this template should be used in the External Links section (and is not a reference). If you like it, I'd expect BTWiki can copy it (hopefuly the syntax will need no change), so the linkage is both sided. PS. You may also want to create an article at about BTWiki at Wikipedia, if you think it's notable.--Piotrus 18:23, 18 November 2006 (CST)
    • Okay, I'll follow the path and set up the appropriate pages over here. As for the BTW article at Wikipedia: I'll leave that for Nic. I'm not sure if BWT deserves an encyclopedic reference just yet. Thanks for the suggestion of teamwork, Piotrus. Oh, and congrats on your latest featured article (Katyn). --Revanche (admin) 23:38, 18 November 2006 (CST)
      • Let's wait a bit to get established before we write an article about BTW on Wikipedia. Nicjansma 20:55, 21 November 2006 (CST)
      • I've created {{Wikipedia}} to facilitate our linking between the sites. Nicjansma 21:41, 21 November 2006 (CST)
        • Thanks for catching this, Nic. I had forgotten. I'll put it on the appropriate Help page. --Revanche (admin) 00:20, 22 November 2006 (CST)

Edit request[edit]

Could someone please update the exoskeletons line under the units section to get rid of the spelling error?

Fixed. Thanks, Mystery Requestor. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (PDT)

User Count[edit]

Could we get more convenient links to our User Counts? ClanWolverine101 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried this one? (Can also access some other neat stuff here.) What I'd really like is to have a tool such as this one to use here. {{sigh}}--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


hello, im new in here and english is not my mothertongue... im searching at the main page the unit category protomechs. i always have to go over the search function. wich is disturbing cause exoscelletions have their own link and there is nothing behind the link...

thanks heinzbond... ps i cannot find the link to create a new account...— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by name (talkcontribs) .

Images of[edit]

Figuring that Images should be categorized seperately from the category that what they depict is in, i started to edit the file page for files i uploaded and categorize them under Category:Images of "main category" so images of BattleMechs would be under Category:Images of BattleMechs. Have not yet created the categories themselves so they mostly redlinked. Leaving aside the Question of Whither or not we need more categories or subcategories, Should this be Category:BattleMech Images, Category:Images of BattleMechs, Category:BattleMechs, Images of or some other style? the Reason i ask is that currently the red linked categories are all grouped under "images of" and someone looking for the category for a unit type could go looking for the letter containing the unit rather than "I" for "images"--Cameron 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the already existing category uses the "BattleMech Images" Style.--Cameron 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The "New Look" of the left navbar[edit]

Maybe its just me, but... I don't like it? They text-links are on the smallish side, and it just looks like something is off. Can we change this back? ClanWolverine101 14:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I may have missed the whole thing. Is it still bothering you, for I don't see anything different. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Same here, I don't see any change? Frabby 12:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Aha, now I do! At work, we have IE7 and the sidebar IS below the mainpage. Still on the left side, but below the rest of the page's content. Its just like it used to be on my mobile browser.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Additions to the "Other Items of Note" List[edit]


These would be the top level categories for their type, Heavy Weapons would fall under the Weapons Category, Medium & Light Infantry Portable Weapons would be under the Infantry Weapons Category, and Medium Battle Armor Weapons would be under the BA Weapons Category.--Cameron 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Limited space. Either need to remove something or have someone create a portal for all weapons and list only that on the main page (my preferred option).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Current Weapons category geared rightly to the BattleMech, Combat Vehicle, AeroSpace Fighter, Conventional Fighter, Support Vehicle, and DropShip Level. The Canon Trackes them seperate from Capitol Weapons, Infantry Weapons, and BattleArmor Weapons. all of the Current Weapons Articles be moved to a new Weapons sub category specificly for BattleMech and Combat Vehicle Weapons, with the INF, BA, CV, CAPITOL being subcategories of Weapons.--Cameron 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is Linking to category for infantry platoons. remember, the infantry platoon is the unit that BT focouses on for infantry--Cameron 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of that. It treats weapons differently than everything else. While it seems someone could easily recognize that the weapons follow their intended platform, it doesn't fit within our precedence where you look for the category and then drill down to the specific article. I'd be willing to bend if consensus supported you, but leave it to you to build that consensus.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
What i ask follows the way that every thing else is treated - look at the existing unit categories on the main page demonstrates this, BattleMechs listed seperate from Utility Mechs and ProtoMechs, Conventional Fighters listed seperate from AeroSpace Fighters and Support Vehicles, WarShips listed seperate from Space Stations, Support Vehicles Seperate From Combat Vehicles and Conventional Fighters.--Cameron 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I still don't agree, as weapons are not mobile platforms (such as BattleMechs, ASFs, or DropShips). Neither are they factions, so therefore they would naturally fall under "Other Items of Note". As stated before, though, if you can generate consensus, I'd be willing to make the change.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The point that I was making is that Utility Mechs and BattleMechs are Very Similar, Combat Vehicles and Support Vehicles are very similar, and that, as with the Weapons, the only thing seperating them are Matters of Scale, and the Game Rules... Capitol Weapons, Vehicle Weapons, Battle Armor Weapons, and Infantry Weapons are treated differently by the rules, and have seperate tables in Tech Manual. In Fact, the only way that any of the three things are treated the same is that the BV of a BA weapon is the same as the BV as a Vehicle Weapon. Weapons Are "Other Items of Note", i was not disputing that, what I was disputing is whither or not linking to the Category for the Vehicular/Battle Weapons alone was sufficient.--Cameron 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that is more clear. (One point of note: we tend to categorize less by rules than by in-character attributes.) We do have some horizontal real estate to play with. We can get rid of the 'Canon' designation and replace it with simple names, as long as it only takes up the one line. So, I'm thinking it could read:
  • Weapons: Capital/Vehicle/Battle Armor/Infantry/Custom. Would that work?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2 lines... 1 line for the canon, 1 line for the custom, custom weapons could exist at all scales.


--Cameron 12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by this proposal. Don't the infantry weapons/battle armor weapons already get pulled into the Weapons category off the front page?--Mbear 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No they don't. Weird.--Mbear 16:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
PerkinsC, we'll go with one line. No need to take up another line for custom weapons, when they don't warrant the same amount of categorization as canon. If you want details, contact me on my talk page. Please populate the redlinks soonest.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Capital_Weapons and Category:Infantry_Weapons already exist, please add underscore or rename existing categories, will create the Category:Battle Armor Weapons or Category:BattleArmorWeapons depending on what happens. right now i am flipping "edge".--Cameron 20:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Battle Armor Weapons will be fine.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Periphery Commands[edit]

I would like to put the motion forward that we include a link to "Category:Periphery Commands" under the units sub-section of the main page. I think at the moment this category is a little under nurished but with the moratorium period on both Historical: Reunification War and Field Report: Periphery ending in a few days there is a wealth of new information to be put into the articles so possibly having the section in plain view might encourage people to help out --Dmon 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I would rather just put the "military commands" category on the main page. There's a number of sub-categories now and I don't think it's a good idea to list them all. --Scaletail 23:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess I could live with that. But I think the "Military commands" category could do with a little cleaning up and organizing.--Dmon 00:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. --Scaletail 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I will see if I can spare a bit of time in the next couple of days to tidy it up a bit then. --Dmon 05:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Any more thoughts or progress on seeing this done? --Dmon 23:49, 22 December 2011 (PST)

Done. I greatly prefer linking to the parent category than to the eleven sub-categories. --Scaletail 05:21, 23 December 2011 (PST)
Thank you, I agree I think it is practical. I did a fair amount of tidying up in September but I am now thinking I could do a little more towards stream lining it a bit more anyway whilst I am off over Christmas. --Dmon 14:33, 23 December 2011 (PST)


Seems to became rampant in the last few days? Panzerknacker 05:52, 30 June 2012 (PDT)