User talk:PerkinsC


Welcome to BattleTechWiki and thanks for helping with the Catapult article. It'd be great if you stuck around to help! Please feel free to introduce yourself at the new user log. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at Project BattleMechs. --Scaletail 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST)

Awards Section[edit]

Awards board[edit]

Hey, PerkinsC: I saw you hadn't given yourself the Edit nor TIS ribbons, so I added them to your main page for you. Please place them where ever you find they fit best. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Weapons and equipment lists[edit]

Mr. Perkins, the changes you just made to the Weapons and Equipment Lists page look great. The tables are a lot easier to follow now. When you have a chance, put this in your awards board: All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon.--Mbear 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Infantry Weapons by Faction[edit],57592.msg0.html#new --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Combat Vehicle Renaming[edit]

Generally unless there are multiple items with the same name, no need to add (Combat Vehicle) style disambigs to items. Categories do the job you seem to be going for with the renames. Cyc 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Infantry Weapon category naming[edit]

Hi PerkinsC, I have question for you. Why do you have all your new categorys of weapons listed in a single name? Like MissileWeapons & HeavyWeapons? Why no spacings? -- Wrangler 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No Idea, i think I started doing that when I built the InfoBoxInfantryWeapon, and its more inertia than anything else now... Should they be seperated by Spaces or underscores, or does it just automaticly treat spaces as underscores and just do not worry about it...? Edit as best fits, and I will continue in that pattern henceforth.--Cameron 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I will edit the existing category references in the files, but I do not have the rights to move the existing categories. Could someone with the rights please edit existing categories that I made without spaces? --Cameron 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
When you move/rename a article such as change it from HeavyWeapons to Heavy Weapons. The wiki code makes a redirect in the old name. Thus anything still uses the old name is re-directed to renamed/moved article. -- Wrangler 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Infantry Weapon Sub-Categories[edit]

Related Matter, how do I do Sub-Categories... I.E. Ballistic Weapons have Slug-Throwers, Recoilless Weapons, Gauss Weapons. Thats very straight forward... however, the thing that is tripping me up is that I would like to do a Support Machine Gun type Weapon under Category: Infantry Weapon / Support Weapon / Ballistic Weapon / Slug-Throwers / Burst-Fire while a Sub-Machine Gun Type weapon would fall under Category: Infantry Weapon / Long Arms / Ballistic Weapon / Slug-Throwers / Burst-Fire. --Cameron 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

note to Self, /ed Categories, while possible, simply are NOT useful... they are ugly. Now going with Weapon Type (Weapon Class) so, an Infantry Portable Machine Gun, Light (Support Weapon) would fall under Category:Ballistic Weapons Category:Ballistic Weapons (Support Weapons), Category:Ballistic Weapons (Medium Weapons), Category:Burst-Fire Weapons, Category:Burst-Fire Weapons (Support Weapons), Category:Burst-Fire Weapons (Medium Weapons), Category:Machine Guns (Medium Weapons), Category:Machine Guns (Support Weapons), Category:Slug-Throwers Category:Slug-Throwers (Support Weapons), Category:Slug-Throwers (Medium Weapons)... humm, do wish that the tree would have worked, that is, if you were in the category infantry Weapons you woudl see the category for only the immediate sub categories instead of the long item... and so you woudl see the Support Class Ballistic Slugthrowers seperated from the Long Arm Class Ballistic Slug Throwers, seperated from the BattleArmor Mounted Ballistic Slug throwers, etc... but thats not the way it works... doing it this way is a bit less elegant, but more practicable under the way things work... I really must be nutz.. gonna go apologize to my fiancee now... good thing i didnt actually start editing or i woudl have been under for a lot longer today...--Cameron 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Factory Product Link /[edit]

Just curious why your adding / via pipe to many of the product links on the factory pages, not included in TRO or Objective Raids, curious what purpose it serves. Cyc 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Eventuallly plan to have each branded weapon to have the BT reproduced from the Main Page, RPG stats that match the fluff, such like the 20 mm Bulldog MG being somewhere near the AP 7*7d6 Stats for the Bear Hunter. Also plan to have the Fluff that this is based on linking to the books that it came from. This will also extend to the types of Armor... The Engine Types will be little more than stubs and maybe listings of what Facilities produce the Engine and what pieces of equipment Carry it. Perhapse if categories get involved then the ever popular search for "what units Carry BAPs" etc would be easily accomplished. Amitious, No? The Weapons that are linked to Manufacturers or Design Firms (some of the designs that are produced under liscence may not have a Manufacturer so that might not be fleashed out...) Am planning on having them link back to their manufacturer in addition to having that linked in the infoBox... look at the General Motors/Whirlwind AC 5 page to see what i am thinking of ... the next ones that I have good fluff for are the Crusher SH Cannnon AC/20 (10 shots of 150 mm pper each 20 damage burst) on the Hetzer (TR3026), the Sarlon AC/2 on the Warrior H-7 (10 Shots of 30 mm per 2 Damage burst) (TR3026) and the Pontiac AC/20 on the VTR-9B Victor (Sword and the Dagger) and the YenLoWang (3028) (100 shots of possibly 30 mm per 2 damage burst) (Warrior Trilogy). There are many others but thats way down the road... PPCs, lasers and most other weapons do not have the Fluff that Machine Guns and AutoCannon have... i guess since AC/s and MGs are current Era Technology.--Cameron 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Hy I used my references and other informations form Objective Raids, it was a PDF, can you help me,I dont know how is the discrepanse Is it a formating failur or.... all the things I write on this day are from the Objective Raids--Doneve 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Doneve, September 30

Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--Cameron 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Advance & Experimental technology levels[edit]

Hi Cameron, I have question. Are you going to create or expand any articles regarding new "level" system for BattleMechs, Weaponry, & etc.? I just recently added Serpha Ranna from JTP: Sian. The configuration includes Advancce and Experimental technology. I left links for such future articles. I was wondering since you been plowing along with such related articles that you were going to be writing up something along those lines. Like basic intro or explination of Advance and Experimental Technology weaponry. Like Large Variable-Speed Laser is consider an Experimental Tech weapon while Thunderbolt 20 launcher is consider a Advance Technology weapons using those rules. -- Wrangler 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Definately Planning on it... the Rules Level System would be a thing to expand on... --Cameron 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--Cameron 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Armor Article Request[edit]

Hi Cameron. I recently added some variants missing in some of the Aerospace fighter articles. One of the variants for the Corsair has Heavy Ferro-Aluminum. We don't have listing for that type of armor. Its recent "new" armor type used exclusively for Aerospace fighters. Do you think you can add one? -- Wrangler 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Light Ferro-Fibrous, Ferro-Fibrous, Heavy Ferro-Fibrous have their Equivelents in Ferro-Aluminum, Shouldnt be too much of an effort for me to build those Pages--Cameron 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Also, Do you know if there way write up something for the BAR ratings of Armor? We have alot of non-standard armor equipt Industrial 'Mechs, Support vehicles and etc out there which is using this system. I kinda get confused on how math works so don't feel tempted to write it up. Do you want try this too? If you can't I'll try to. -- Wrangler 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The Support Vehicle Armors are fairly basic... if you go with the rules, Tech Levels A-F, and Barrier Ratings 2 (20% of the effectiveness of Standard Armor) through 10 (100% as effective as standard Armor). The Canon only goes so far as to give the Mass per point for each tech levels barrier Rating. Tech Levels D, E & F have the Masses being a matched percentage of the Bar 10 for that tech level, Tech Levels A, B, & C are more complex with no clear progression in the Tech level as you pass through the Bar Ratings... I am unsure how i should handle this... listing the known ammo brands at each tech and bar rating will go a long time towards this... along with referencing known and suspected materiels--Cameron 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

Good morning, Cameron. The question has been raised as to the source material of the relationship between the Gunslinger and the Highlander. If you would, please link a ref to that statement on the Highlander article (and then remove the verify and citation need tags). Thanks, man. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a question of the structure of both machines. I am not sure if the fluff has ever stated the relationship. but it is definitely implied by the similarity of artwork and main guns. --Cameron 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Equipment Request[edit]

Hi Cameron. Hope things are well with you. Since your bit keener on equipment sort of things. Is possible for you to do small equipment article for Fission Reactors. Their found in the TacOps book. If your not able to write it up, i'll try do it myself. Thanks! -- Wrangler 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Man-Portable Weapons Question[edit]

Hello Perkins, Do you have any plans to solidify the Man-Portable weaponry? I noticed you re-doing alot your old categories. I was hoping to link some articles that need some connecting. Namely Man-Portable or Battle Armor scale Plasma Rifles. -- Wrangler 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

red link the articles with the name from the book , when i get the time to do things from home i will be working on it... I create the Articles with the Infantry and BattleArmor Scale Weapons in the two part per tech base info box I kludged. Well, trying it out again... --Cameron 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Infantry Platoon Creation Rules[edit]

Have started working on Formula Worksheet for Infantry Platoon Creation Rules Based on last published version in Combat Operations. Cribbed from BV worksheet and editing as i go. Follow-on would be creating the Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet.--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Glad someone finds the worksheet useful.--Mbear 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Now, if i could get it working... could be tonite, but probably will be tomarrow, after get home after work--Cameron 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet[edit]

Suggestion: try the Game Rules type div tag from MASC to get the cauthionary note to stand out.--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh?--Mbear 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The 100 listed for Armor points and Internal Structure points, and the 14 listed for Heat Points, are placeholders. They don't contribute anything to the formula and should be replaced with the information from the TRO.
--Cameron 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah. The light dawns.--Mbear 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Grin--Cameron 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Images[edit]

Hy Cameron, the infantry images came from Technical Readout: 3085, Technical Readout: 3085 Supplemental have a lot of new images, but (TRO3085Supplemental) falls under the moratorium.--Doneve 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... good to know that there is a reason to buy the new books.--Cameron 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Hey, what do you think would when we cooperate by the personal equipment, or what doyou think about it. I have to many items the sources and pictures. Neuling 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche
Zusammenarbeiten klingt gut, sollten Infanteriewaffen das gleiche Niveau der Abdeckung haben, dem BattleMech und Träger Waffen (Schlachtfeld-Waffen) tun anbrachten. Wie Sie denken, dass wir BattleArmor Waffen behandeln sollten… Unterschiedlicher Artikel für BA & Infanterie-bewegliche Waffen (einfach und frei) oder der gleiche Artikel mit den unterschiedlichen Abschnitten (erschwert aber frei), der gleiche Artikel mit gemischtem Notfall (einfach aber Verwirrung, BA betrachtend IST, BA-Clan, Inf IST & Inf-Clan.--Cameron 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Working together sounds good, infantry weapons should have the same level of coverage that BattleMech and Vehicle Mounted Weapons (BattleField Weapons) do. How do you think that we should handle BattleArmor Weapons... Seperate Article For BA & Infantry Portable Weapons (easy and clear), or same Article with Seperate Sections (Complicated but clear), Same Article with blended Stats (simple but confusing, considering BA IS, BA clan, Inf IS & Inf clan.


vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche Ja Template:InfoBoxWeapon ist, damit aller BattleTech Spiel-Notfall für Infanterie-Waffen passt, einschließlich Technologie & modernisiert; Verwendbarkeit. Ich plane, zu redigieren Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon damit aller BT Notfall Kopie/Paste vom BattleTech Blatt mit den RPG-spezifischen Feldern ist, die hinzugefügt werden.

Yes, The Template:InfoBoxWeapon is updated so that all of the BattleTech Game Stats for Infantry Weapons will fit, including Technology & Availability. I plan to edit the Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon so that all of the BT Stats will be copy/paste from the BattleTech Sheet with the RPG Specific Fields being Added.--Cameron 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hy Cameron, i jump in, i want to add the InfoBoxWeapon template to User:Neulings new created Weapon articles, i hope there not be sub-stubed by the admins, the wiki standard of Neuling's pages is very hmm, i hope to bring the pages up to flow, and i hope we meet sarnas Manual of Style. Greetings--Doneve 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much--Cameron 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Page formating[edit]

Hy Cameron, i think you have a formating failur on your Infantry Weapons List page, i can not show all table rows in the article.--Doneve 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

not sure what you mean, there are supposed to be some blanks in the table--Cameron 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New Support Weapon Article[edit]

Hi Cameron. This Gauss Cannon (Grand Mauler) was posted recently. Can you check this out? You've been doing the infantry support weapon stuff, i don't have Lostech handy to check it out. -- Wrangler 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks about right for that source, moving to /RPG3e (from MW3e, LosTech, CBT Companion or Combat Equipment, or the House Handbooks) pasting cleanup tag and infobox from Help:CreateInfantryRPGWeaponArticle. Creating page with BT Stats info box.

Enhanced ER PPC[edit]

Perkins - Respectfully - I do not feel it was necessary to essentially delete my work and copy it to a new article setup as a "sub-article" for the ER PPC page. At the very least, we could have shared a discussion on the merits of presenting the information in this manner. Also respectfully - It is my humble opinion that the technical/game information should take precedent over the "production" information as far as the infoboxes go. If there has been a consensus to support otherwise, I will certainly bow to it. As it stands, the current infobox you put up there is simply a collection of incomplete information and unnecessary "red links". May I ask if we could reach some reasonable accord on this? ClanWolverine101 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the technical/game information taking precedence, that is why the discussion section for the enhanced model was moved to a new page for the enhanced model with the new stats. the alternative would be Clan, Clan Prototype, and IS stats for each section--Cameron 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait - so every version would get its own page??? ClanWolverine101 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Re every version Getting its own Page the Clan and innersphere versions are traditionally handled on the same page (i disagree with this, but -shrug- its been done since Technical Readout 3050) but the prototype is a different, earlier weapon and could conveievably have a prototype IS and Clan Model. I found out with the Infantry Weapons that 4 Different models on the same page was cumbersome, at best. And an eyesore at worst.--Cameron 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Cameron - Please look at the cleanup I have performed on the Enhanced ER PPC page. I have pulled the irrelevant production data, which is cumbersome and unneeded. Rarity ratings are not completely irrelevant, but they were simply introduced only in recent works and may be completely abandoned a couple of years from now. I have also dropped the category redlinks because they do not exist, nor is it suggested they will someday be made. Please - if you are going to completely change how we present material on the wiki, please start a discussion about it first. Thank you. ClanWolverine101 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I actually put some of the data in the info box rather than the "Hey Rube, Did you perhapse miss this part" (rapier size of sledge hammer) of copying the help text (too much collateral damage, and the target didn't even notice the problem). if I do anything on it in future, it will be moving the original misplaced text section to discussion then pasting the help text to the discussion section.--Cameron 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Production and Availability Informaiton[edit]

The Production and Availability information are technical / game information and is available in most of the new source books, but i am not sure for that particular weapon.--Cameron 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cameron - This is what I am saying : The TECHNICAL game information should come first. The production info should come second and should be cleanly presented. I would respectfully have preferred discussion on this matter before every weapons page on the site was changed. It will take forever to clean them up. ClanWolverine101 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The information definately does Not belong in == Technical Specifications == in the text of the article, it belongs in the info box because it is Technical Game Information and not in-universe information. I have been going behind the people doing == Technical Specifications == in the main article space and pasting the Technical Details section of the Help:CreateWeaponArticle in hopes that they would clean up their own mess. Availability, Introduction, Loss, and Recovery Dates are Technical Game Information. As is the Type of the Weapon, etc.--Cameron 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Cameron - Respectfully - I differentiate between "Technical Specifications" and "Production information". Would you at least agree that "Technical Specifications" should be listed first? ClanWolverine101 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Respectfully" is something you say when it is anything but...just say what you say because i either interpet it as you want me to (any thing but), or contrarwise as a softener that i do not read it as - ROFL. --Cameron 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I say it because I do value your contributions to the wiki; I simply wish we could openly discuss these Infobox changes before they are widely implemented. ClanWolverine101 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The info box controls where that information is placed, move it up, move it down, do what you want, but you need to edit the InfoBox template and then it will move it on all pages simultaneously regardless of the order of the text prompts... i think (may wait until the next edit). As to where it should be, the availability information has always been towards the top of the info box, all that has changed with Total Warfare/Tech Manual/Tactical Operations/Strategic Operations/A Time of War is that the Tech Base and Availability has expanded into Tech Base, Technology Level, Introduction date, Availability dates, Extinction Dates and Reintroduction Dates. With the Choose One in the Help File, it is quite literally telling the Editor to make a Choice... if some one would, it would be a simple X/X/B instead of what it looks like with someone pasting the information out into a seperate section in the text. Much Better than unavailable/unavailable/common or a thousand times better than what it looks like now.--Cameron 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Creature Infobox[edit]

Hy Cameron, when you have time, please take a look on this Template:InfoBoxCreature, fix somethings if you want, and give me a little feedback. Greetings--Doneve 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, have advice?[edit]

I'm kindof new to this wiki, but have been into BattleTech for awhile. I am only a teen.
What do you think of what I've written?

Shockers Mercenary Command
Shockers CH1
Shockers CH2

Userbars for Project: Infantry Weapons[edit]

Hey, I'm negotiating with HikageMaru about making various userbars. I saw your request here and thought I'd need a bit more guidance. Can you provide pics you could see being used on it. Also, we'll be making two, if he accepts the commission. Do you want the Lead & Member ones to be identical, or how? --Rev (talk|contribs) 01:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)