User talk:Cease to Hope

All Purpose Award[edit]

I appreciate the numerous edits you've made to learn the template system and then upgrade those 30+ 'Mech articles with the missing fields. For this, I award you the Editors' All Purpose Award. All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon (I'd put it in an awards board for you, but since you directed your user page to here, I don't want to mess up your intent.) Again, thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:01, 4 September 2017 (EDT)



why did you redirect the IndustrialMech infobox to the BattleMech infobox? I'm not sure if I agree though not totally opposed either. BattleMechs and IndustrialMechs are treated as distinct unit types by the construction rules, and the infoboxes, while similar, aren't identical (c.f. BAR). And if we're really lumping things together, shouldn't it then be the InfoBoxMech? Frabby (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Reducing the number of templates (and standardizing the parameter names) makes it easier to add new features to them. Redirecting IndMech meant I didn't have to remake all of the automatic categorization, for example.
As for the indmech-specific parameters, no articles actually used BAR. It would be easy to add to InfoBoxBattleMech if it's important to you. I did add support for other industrialmech-specific fields, like Use, Equipment, and Equipment Rating.
I don't especially care what the template is named. As long as you fix the double-redirects, you can rename it to whatever you'd like. Cease to Hope (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
Ok, fair enough. I hadn't realized that the BAR field wasn't used. And you're right in that it makes no sense to keep separate infoboxes if they aren't used any differently.
About renaming the InfoBoxBattleMech, while it may not be the most important thing under the sun, the concern remains that it is a misleading misnomer. I'll probably move the infobox template to the new name at some point (with a redirect in place of course). No worries. Frabby (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
Is there way we can fix this soon? I'm rather upset infobox is messed up. I don't like seeing Medium Industrial mechs listed by category as BattleMech. I rather be manually entering category info is this is a problem that isn't being addressed. Wrangler (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (EDT) --
Not clear on what the problem is. Can you link an illustrative article? Cease to Hope (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
I think I see the problem: It would seem the Template:InfoBoxBattleMech automatically sorts any article wherein it is included into the Category:BattleMechs (wrong for InsistrialMechs) and also the appropriate weight class categories for BattleMechs. These are not applicable to InfustrialMechs but the template does it nevertheless. Frabby (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
Here sample article that's IndustrialMech, Scavenger SalvageMech. Wrangler (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

The IM question[edit]

Okay. I added a switch to keep IMs out of the main BM category. That's the easy part.

The less easy part is weight classes and tech bases. We don't have an entirely separate category framework for IMs by weight class, by specific tonnage, and tech base. We could, but we don't. There's a few solutions to this:

  1. Leave things as-is. They're not really diluting these categories, and emphasizing the difference between an IM and BM is only going to obscure meaning in many cases (e.g. SecurityMechs).
  2. Remove all IMs from Category:80 ton IndustrialMechs et al., Category:Assault IndustrialMechs et al., and et al. This is the most technically correct option, but it leaves a lot of these IM articles orphaned and poorly categorized.
  3. Make Category:80 ton IndustrialMechs et al. and Category:Assault IndustrialMechs et al., which aren't children of category:BattleMechs. This is the most technically accurate but it's going to make a bunch of tiny categories that are likely to never be referenced.
  4. Change Category:80 ton BattleMechs et al. (and the similar frameworks for weight class and tech base) to Category:80 ton 'Mechs, none of which are children of Category:BattleMechs (but are maybe children of a new supercat Category:'Mechs?)

Personally, I favor #4, and I'm going to be bold and do that next time I have a bunch of time to block out to work on this stuff, barring any objections. Cease to Hope (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2017 (EST)

Munin LAM[edit]

Hi again,

Saw your deletion template on the Munin LAM article. And yes, it's poorly written and basically needs a rewrite. But the subject matter is a BattleTechnology design and thus falls squarely into our Policy:Notability. As such, I've removed your deletion tag again. But thanks for reminding me of this trainwreck article. I'll make it my next project here to whip it into shape. ;) Frabby (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2017 (EDT)