Template talk:InfoBoxBattleMech

New row[edit]

I added a introduction row to the infox, for introduction dates.--Doneve 08:53, 27 December 2011 (PST)

Speed[edit]

For those who do more of the rules and units based stuff... does the "speed" parameter refer to walking speed or max speed? Depending on which it is, could someone please update the template advice accordingly for numpties like me, please? BrokenMnemonic (talk)

It refers to the max speed. But we talk to Mbear then he can update the infobox quickly.--Doneve (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
The Year Reference field needs to be added to the template too, and to the help page for the template... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2013 (PDT)
Speed row updated to say:
  • The speed parameter refers to the 'Mech's maximum unassisted running speed (no MASC, TSM, etc.)

--Mbear(talk) 03:49, 4 February 2014 (PST)

Introduction Year vs. Production Year[edit]

Can someone explain to me what the difference between these two things are and which one the MUL date is? -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2014 (PST)

This something Doneve came up with for their Production stuff. Basiclly, there prototype and testing which is the Introduction, then the production year which when it was mass produced. -- Wrangler (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (PST)
That makes some sense, but which one is the MUL date then? -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2014 (PST)
My presumption would be the year it entered production, but I don't know for sure.
Let me know what you want here and I'll make changes to the infobox.--Mbear(talk) 03:49, 4 February 2014 (PST)
I would say the MUL date is Production, but it says Date Introduced on each mul page. I dunno. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2014 (PST)
I think what the two fields are meant to capture is those 'Mech designs which had a prototype build or multiple prototype builds and then general production runs - the sort of thing that was published in the XTROs and TRO: Prototypes. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2014 (PST)
How about someone ask over on the official boards? (I would but I'm slammed today.)--Mbear(talk) 09:06, 4 February 2014 (PST)
There's a big problem here in that the MUL (and largely also Sarna BTW) use one particular variant of every given 'Mech to showcase in the infobox - even if that 'Mech was not the first incarnation of the chassis/'Mech type in question. As a result the introduction year in the infobox can be off by a couple of years (happened to our Cataphract entry) or even centuries (Starslayer). In my opinion, we need to change the infobox structure to cover the basic design but not any one particular variant. If you're going for a detailed presentation, you would probably have to put the first version (in in-universe chronology) here, not the best-known. So, WSP-1 instead of WSP-1A. Frabby (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2014 (PST)
There should only be one introduction year, that it. I've found multiple year intro stuff is messing up the Infobox in the first place. Frankly, I found it makes it look messy with multiple years listed, which are virtually the same. Any differences can be mentioned in the Description. Keep it Simple. As for what should remain, Introduction is all that should be use, thats when the thing is mass produced or when it was first made (if its a prototype, but didn't get produced.). I would also rather see the if the one-and-only link (if that happens) on the infobox itself go to the Year article, rather to a confusing production listing. It not going help a read if they think their going see an article about the year verses a complicated listing for manufacturing. Thats my private optinion. -- Wrangler (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2014 (PST)
MUL is the one-and-only canon official listing for introduction years, sometimes its wrong. I've disputed a few, but the unfortunately, MUL team over there says is law (right or wrong.) -- Wrangler (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2014 (PST)
Truthfully, I would be in support of a single year, yet we would have to decide which one would be it. Plus, I don't want to squander all the work done to add the other date to the infoboxes. I dunno. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2014 (PST)