Sarna News: BattleTechGear.com

User talk:BobTheZombie/Project Video Games

Where to put in articles[edit]

Hi Bob, I saw your edit on the Commando... and I disagree. Strongly. Sarna isn't covering any particular version of anything to begin with; when you look at the stats given in the infobox you'll see that these aren't tabletop stats, they are fluff stats (though these are of course derived from tabletop rules). I think you're mixing up two things here - the canonical existence and configuration of the Commando, and how it is represented in various rulesets including tabletop and computer games. This is not a distinction Sarna should make. Mind you, listing variants, even apocryphal ones such as the 'Blazing Inferno' and 'Death's Knell' variants from The Crescent Hawks' Inception and MWO, respectively, is okay and even positively desired. I also think the "See also" section is okay. But the text at the article header should be removed. It doesn't belong there and implies a segregation between tabletop and computer games that we don't actually have nor want on Sarna. My opinion, anyways. ;) Frabby (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

I put that there to tell people who were looking for the apocryphal video game versions where to look so they could easily find them. Without that line, it is hard for people to know to look down there at the bottom of the page. It is simply meant as a navigational aid, and not to make differentiation between the canonical and apocryphal. I've added the line to the top of many weapon pages (after getting someone else's approval), and if this should be changed, then please tell me what it should be changed to and I'll gladly change them. I just wanted to make it easier for people to find the pages they are looking for. Perhaps would it be better if I just removed the words canonical and apocryphal in that line? It still gets the point across of where to look while not dividing canon and apocryphal directly. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2014 (PDT)
For the record, we don't have any policy (that I'm aware of) regulating this question on Sarna and I'm in no position to 'decide' anything here or to tell you what to do. So this is really an open-ended discussion. Perhaps we should move it to a more suitable place where other users might chime in - suggestions?
I guess I don't see the problem you're trying to fix here, while at the same time I don't like the fix itself. I'd expect a given user who's interested in 'Mech designs from, say, MechCommander 2 to look up the MechCommander 2 article first, and easily find the list in that article. If a user calls up the Commando article looking for this info and can't be bothered to read the article (or, more likely, CTRL-F search it) then I'm not sure if we can help him.
And then there's my general article format nitpicking. The line you put to the top to highlight something relatively insignificant that's dealt with in one of the last article sections is somehow self-defeating. If this is important, move it up; if it isn't, don't highlight it at the very top. Hm. I somehow can't find the right words for why this is bugging me so much. It simply feels wrong to have there.
A compromise might be using an appropriately named section header which would show up in the TOC. But I can't think of a suitable wording right now. Again, I'm open for suggestions. Frabby (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (PDT)
I have responded at User talk:BobTheZombie/Project Video Games. We can more publically discuss it there. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2014 (PDT)
Perhaps moving them to the prexisting "apocryphal variants" section would help solve the problem. They'd be easy to find and it wouldn't mess with the current layouts, plus it would flow better. As for what we should do with the weapon pages, I'm not sure. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2014 (PDT)
I've pretty much spoken my mind and don't know what else to say. As a suggestion that might work equally well for 'Mechs and equipment (esp. weapons), perhaps a section called "Representation in games" could be added. I like this title a lot. "Representation" is the key word here, because the issue at hand is how the fluff "reality" that Sarna seeks to cover is represented across various rulesets, online and offline. Frabby (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2014 (PDT)
I believe that the heading is not the biggest issue, rather the line at the top of the page. Should it be removed altogether, or modified to remove the words "canonical" and "apocryphal" in that line? I'll remove the top line from the 'Mech articles and simply move the info to the Apocryphal Variants section of the page. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2014 (PDT)
I support the notion that video game variants should go down with the rest of the regulat variants so it does not disrupt the flow of the article.--Dmon (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (PST)

MechAssault Series[edit]

What about the Xbox games? I don't see MechAssault or its sequels listed in the Official Game Systems sidebar. -RichLongess

You are right sir, I think we need to get that looked at. First though I think we should possibly push forward the idea of a widescale project covering all the video games and polish up the articles to a more acceptible standard and then push for them to get a higher priority on the side bar.--Dmon (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (PST)
Once again, I'll relay the message to Nic. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2014 (PST)

Project Video Games[edit]

BattleTechWiki:Project Video Games is a brilliant idea Bob. I am not sure if we can just go ahead move this over to create an official project but I am sure the admins can help us if we poke them. The other projects have traditionally gotten a lot of support around here. Take a look at the current list here BattleTechWiki:Projects.--Dmon (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2014 (PST)

The video games are really what brought me into this wonderful universe, so I thought they needed much more attention than what they were given up to this point. We can make it an official one if we want, I just badly need more consecutive time to be able to work on this and really get the MCG game finished up. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2014 (PST)

Where to put in articles part 2 - Game Data[edit]

I brought up this very question way back in August 2009 when I was a lot more active on the wiki (Category talk:Video Games) as the Video Games section was a mess of about 50 articles similar in vein to your recent Equipment article but much less organised. If you look there is even an article containing the equipment data already (MechCommander Resource) that I literally dumped there unverified from one of the many previously mentioned articles. So I will cut to the chase now and say that I believe that the Video Games should be paired down to two articles, one for the regular product article (I have tried to roughly model it on the format the novels use) and a second Resource article that covers the more data orientated information like equipment stats, game guides, cheat codes or any other information that is fairly unique to the Video Game format and will have zero relation to the wider BT universe.

As I write this I have the niggling feeling in the back of my head that I am comming across as a little condescending, if that is the case I apologise but I also am sat here remembering what a mess the video game section was and I shudder at the thought of each game having on average four or five pages that contain nothing but tables of numbers.

Cheers for reading.--Dmon (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2014 (PST)

No need to apologize, I understand. The way I look at it, a page containing the level of detail for ALL units, weapons, characters, etc. would be so massive it would drive people away from trying to sift through it. If you split it up they are still large, but are laid out well enough so that anyone can benefit from them. The unverified data on those tables on the "resource" page is exactly why I started working on this: because people need a dependable source for this stuff. Even other sites that have these large lists still have mess-ups that I can easily spot. I agree we need a "Product Article", but I think we need the specifics, and to organize them in a spread out and easily recognizable format.
P.S. Sorry for the late response; I've been strangely inactive as of recent weeks... -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2014 (PST)